No More Red Ink! New Amendment Wanted by 75% American Voters

[freedombecki]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

Even worse, 25% don't care if our budget is balanced.

WTF.....

Well, that seems to be a present society's attitude toward budgets. We may have gone wrong by making education too closely tied to the government for paychecks and not parents. If the government goes bankrupt on account of retiring baby boomers (of which I am one), Americans may be forced to take charge each of our own family's education and future instead of future nonexistent government funding. The printing presses may be running, but we better hope that shale oil in north Texas amounts to something so gas prices will plummet.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:



Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

Even worse, 25% don't care if our budget is balanced.

WTF.....

Thanks for your input, Mr. Nick. I'm not sure what the 75% stood for--likely voters or John Q. Public at large. Some people are dedicated to the cause of a strong central government and social spending. Others are dead opposed to any spending.

But with high gas prices, the American misery index may be a little high, and people are looking for someone to at least give them the dignity of the government paying its debts and getting back to the days when it was in the black and refunding taxes to those who overpaid them.

Go back and read johnwk's posts. His historic links are something we should all know about--where the government was at certain times and where the precepts of ethical spending took root for possibly a hundred years.

Even those who oppose the budget balancing idea have strong opinions in their posts, and all should be weighed before debate begins on the present balanced budget ideas--why each point will or will not work.

It is my prayer that we can find a way to restore pride in America and love for those whose elected task is to make America a worthwhile country to participate in and be heard and respected, even if opinions don't coincide with the outcome.

May the true majority rule, and may we do wise things that encourage this world to bring up the poor nations, which seems to be in our case, to excel and it just happens.

And our Federal (and state) government(s) consists of nothing more than a bunch of authoritarian tyrants.

We have a Tenth Amendment for a reason...

Problem is most people care more about Oprah than they do the Bill of Rights or Constitution in general - so we go down the tubes and lose everything many lost their lives for.

 

[Steelplate]

Yeah.... I'm for a balanced budget amendment. I'm sure most of us are.

The problem is... How do we get there. I don't want to see our poorest and weakest suffer, Conservatives don't want taxes to go up.

The idea of a balanced budget is a no-brainer. Everything in between is the problem.

 

[freedombecki]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

OK, here's the deal. Anytime that we have more than 250 military personel in active combat, the tax structure immediatly reverts back to that of WW2. By the time we were able to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, much of the deficit for this year would be paid.

And there would be no more unneccessary wars.

Yeah, my grandfather used to sit and sing "Gonna study war no more." in his senior years. He did WWI in France, returning home with a silver star, then was charged with making better bullets than the Nazis had at a foundry in WWII. Then he raised as much money as he could for the wounded in civic groups and money for a children's hospital.

Nobody likes war, especially those who have seen it face to face, having given up the joy of being a kid to don a helmet and a bullet belt.

Were you in a war, Old Rocks?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:



Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

Even worse, 25% don't care if our budget is balanced.

WTF.....

Well, that seems to be a present society's attitude toward budgets. We may have gone wrong by making education too closely tied to the government for paychecks and not parents. If the government goes bankrupt on account of retiring baby boomers (of which I am one), Americans may be forced to take charge each of our own family's education and future instead of future nonexistent government funding. The printing presses may be running, but we better hope that shale oil in north Texas amounts to something so gas prices will plummet.

Nothing wrong with strong community origins - in fact I'm a big supporter of community and the Tenth Amendment.

Problem is that Oprah Syndrome is destroying the United States and our basic principals of liberty and replacing those ideas with authoritarian views that are more based on a nanny state perspective.

 

[freedombecki]

Even worse, 25% don't care if our budget is balanced.

WTF.....

Thanks for your input, Mr. Nick. I'm not sure what the 75% stood for--likely voters or John Q. Public at large. Some people are dedicated to the cause of a strong central government and social spending. Others are dead opposed to any spending.

But with high gas prices, the American misery index may be a little high, and people are looking for someone to at least give them the dignity of the government paying its debts and getting back to the days when it was in the black and refunding taxes to those who overpaid them.

Go back and read johnwk's posts. His historic links are something we should all know about--where the government was at certain times and where the precepts of ethical spending took root for possibly a hundred years.

Even those who oppose the budget balancing idea have strong opinions in their posts, and all should be weighed before debate begins on the present balanced budget ideas--why each point will or will not work.

It is my prayer that we can find a way to restore pride in America and love for those whose elected task is to make America a worthwhile country to participate in and be heard and respected, even if opinions don't coincide with the outcome.

May the true majority rule, and may we do wise things that encourage this world to bring up the poor nations, which seems to be in our case, to excel and it just happens.

And our Federal (and state) government(s) consists of nothing more than a bunch of authoritarian tyrants.

We have a Tenth Amendment for a reason...

Problem is most people care more about Oprah than they do the Bill of Rights or Constitution in general - so we go down the tubes and lose everything many lost their lives for.

Well, people in their states elected their own from among themselves, and between trying to pay bills and fulfill parental obligations sometimes take their eye off the government ball.

In states where taxes are the lowest, people go to town hall meetings and put a little fire under their electees to the council for every little extra penny they try to add to the sales tax, etc. Not everyone has that kind of time, and even fewer want to torment leaders.

I saw one such meeting and thought the man was impolite. Then as years passed, I noticed people paid attention to those yapping about high taxes. Thanks to the man who made a huge fuss over every penny suggested to be taken out of every dollar, the taxes never made it past the we want it stage.

And you know what? The world didn't end, and I learned something about government: there is a time to be not so nice, and that's when luxuries are the goal of officials who are keeping up with the Jones's in the next state's similar city or county decision-makers.

That mean little ornery, impolite, no-nonsense man who pointed out his elderly mother couldn't afford a percentage of her groceries going into the public pocket prevented his community from raising taxes.

Then it got to be the state vogue to see which community could keep their taxes lowest. Most everybody moaned, but nobody died. The state strives for a balanced budgets, and the state congresscritter and senators vote no on all proposals to raise taxes for anything private benefactors could provide.

They proved you can balance a state's budget in Wyoming.

It started at the local level, and I was at three of the meetings that man stood there and chewed out perfectly innocent-looking council folks who sat there and listened to him.

Lucky me.

 

[uscitizen]

No More Red Ink! New Amendment Wanted by 75% American Voters


yep they want no more red ink but do not want any of the programs benefitting them cut.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Thanks for your input, Mr. Nick. I'm not sure what the 75% stood for--likely voters or John Q. Public at large. Some people are dedicated to the cause of a strong central government and social spending. Others are dead opposed to any spending.

But with high gas prices, the American misery index may be a little high, and people are looking for someone to at least give them the dignity of the government paying its debts and getting back to the days when it was in the black and refunding taxes to those who overpaid them.

Go back and read johnwk's posts. His historic links are something we should all know about--where the government was at certain times and where the precepts of ethical spending took root for possibly a hundred years.

Even those who oppose the budget balancing idea have strong opinions in their posts, and all should be weighed before debate begins on the present balanced budget ideas--why each point will or will not work.

It is my prayer that we can find a way to restore pride in America and love for those whose elected task is to make America a worthwhile country to participate in and be heard and respected, even if opinions don't coincide with the outcome.

May the true majority rule, and may we do wise things that encourage this world to bring up the poor nations, which seems to be in our case, to excel and it just happens.

And our Federal (and state) government(s) consists of nothing more than a bunch of authoritarian tyrants.

We have a Tenth Amendment for a reason...

Problem is most people care more about Oprah than they do the Bill of Rights or Constitution in general - so we go down the tubes and lose everything many lost their lives for.

Well, people in their states elected their own from among themselves, and between trying to pay bills and fulfill parental obligations sometimes take their eye off the government ball.

In states where taxes are the lowest, people go to town hall meetings and put a little fire under their electees to the council for every little extra penny they try to add to the sales tax, etc. Not everyone has that kind of time, and even fewer want to torment leaders.

I saw one such meeting and thought the man was impolite. Then as years passed, I noticed people paid attention to those yapping about high taxes. Thanks to the man who made a huge fuss over every penny suggested to be taken out of every dollar, the taxes never made it past the we want it stage.

And you know what? The world didn't end, and I learned something about government: there is a time to be not so nice, and that's when luxuries are the goal of officials who are keeping up with the Jones's in the next state's similar city or county decision-makers.

That mean little ornery, impolite, no-nonsense man who pointed out his elderly mother couldn't afford a percentage of her groceries going into the public pocket prevented his community from raising taxes.

Then it got to be the state vogue to see which community could keep their taxes lowest. Most everybody moaned, but nobody died. The state strives for a balanced budgets, and the state congresscritter and senators vote no on all proposals to raise taxes for anything private benefactors could provide.

They proved you can balance a state's budget in Wyoming.

It started at the local level, and I was at three of the meetings that man stood there and chewed out perfectly innocent-looking council folks who sat there and listened to him.

Lucky me.

Obviously you're from the "boonies." Here in Illinois these dickheads love gerrymandering.

We have no vote because they steal that from us via their gerrymandering.

For example - my district is now 25% white and 75% minority..... Before it was 60% white, 40% minority.

Basically those who want welfare will now control MY district..

Every minority town around here is a welfare shithole with astronomical crime rates compared to the majority white towns....

 

[Mr.Nick]

No More Red Ink! New Amendment Wanted by 75% American Voters


yep they want no more red ink but do not want any of the programs benefitting them cut.

I benefit from nothing - I never will either..

I'm not on any government program unlike you.

Fuck your government - I want nothing from them... Nothing. I'm 30 years old and I will never see a dime of SS so shut the fuck up.... You're stealing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Because they're only interested in balancing the budget when they're not allowed to write the checks.

Paygo is a Liberal Democrat farce.

Read this and be informed.

The 'Paygo' Coverup - WSJ.com

<gulp>

Thanks for the link and its explanation.

I just hope those in Congress who are trying to balance the budget can do so in accordance with the founders' principles of facing the fiscal music. Otherwise, there won't be any Village smithies to extol anymore.

Paygo was a trial balloon that, predictably, neither party in Congress showed much interest in. As for the WSJ, its business reporting is good, but you should never expect their editorials to do anything other than toe the conservative orthodoxy.

 

[jillian]

No More Red Ink! New Amendment Wanted by 75% American Voters


yep they want no more red ink but do not want any of the programs benefitting them cut.

I benefit from nothing - I never will either..

I'm not on any government program unlike you.

Fuck your government - I want nothing from them... Nothing. I'm 30 years old and I will never see a dime of SS so shut the fuck up.... You're stealing as far as I'm concerned.

how is it stealing to get back the money you deposited into social security? you know, assuming you're earn enough to pay taxes and aren't breaking the law.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No More Red Ink! New Amendment Wanted by 75% American Voters


yep they want no more red ink but do not want any of the programs benefitting them cut.

I benefit from nothing - I never will either..

I'm not on any government program unlike you.

Fuck your government - I want nothing from them... Nothing. I'm 30 years old and I will never see a dime of SS so shut the fuck up.... You're stealing as far as I'm concerned.

how is it stealing to get back the money you deposited into social security? you know, assuming you're earn enough to pay taxes and aren't breaking the law.

Because it's NOT THERE!

"Deposited."

You think SS is a bank? You can't be that stupid. There is no "lock box!"

The money has been SPENT!

That was always the plan from Stealer in Chief, FDR. That's why he set SS at 65. Most people didn't live past 65 in those days.

Well, things have changed, but one thing hasn't, THE MONY HAS BEEN SPENT.

The only way you get back your money is if the government PRINTS money, causing a meltdown in the value of our money for both you and your children, grandchildren, etc.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

Where my heart says that would be a great idea, my brain knows the cynicism and GREED of Washington.

They would just use such an amendment as a "get out of jail free" card to raise taxes.

"Hey people, it's not our fault, we had to raise taxes! The amendment 'forced' us to raise taxes."

Unless, raising taxes is barred in such an amendment, that is EXACTLY what they would do.

They would never cut a dime, they would just tax us up to our eyeballs.

Be very wary of such an amendment unless it is worded strongly enough to prevent those greedy, you know whats, from doing exactly that.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

For these many big spender Democrat reasons!

PAYGO | The Heritage Foundation

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

Because they're only interested in balancing the budget when they're not allowed to write the checks.

That made completely NO sense!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

"Huh?

Paygo is Nancy Pelosi's brainchild.

You're an idiot. PAYGO was originally passed when George Bush Sr. was president.

By 2000 we had a balanced budget. GW Bush and the GOP majority in Congress promptly let it expire,

because their budget busting tax cuts, spending, and Medicare part D couldn't fly under PAYGO rules.

The Republican scam is simple, and always the same:

Promise to cut taxes, promise to increase defense spending, and promise to balance the budget...

...then do the 2 easy ones and hope no one cares that they ignored number 3.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

I support a balanced budget Amendment as long as it doesn't contain loopholes for military spending.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

"Huh?

Paygo is Nancy Pelosi's brainchild.

You're an idiot. PAYGO was originally passed when George Bush Sr. was president.

By 2000 we had a balanced budget. GW Bush and the GOP majority in Congress promptly let it expire,

because their budget busting tax cuts, spending, and Medicare part D couldn't fly under PAYGO rules.

The Republican scam is simple, and always the same:

Promise to cut taxes, promise to increase defense spending, and promise to balance the budget...

...then do the 2 easy ones and hope no one cares that they ignored number 3.

The only time we had a "balanced" budget is when Bill Clinton took Social Security and Medicare out of the question.

In other words, he "cooked the books" to claim a balanced budget.

No, Bill Clinton didn't Balance the Budget
No, Bill Clinton Didn&#039;t Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The US Report - The US Report - How do Clinton

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Huh?

Paygo is Nancy Pelosi's brainchild.

You're an idiot. PAYGO was originally passed when George Bush Sr. was president.

By 2000 we had a balanced budget. GW Bush and the GOP majority in Congress promptly let it expire,

because their budget busting tax cuts, spending, and Medicare part D couldn't fly under PAYGO rules.

The Republican scam is simple, and always the same:

Promise to cut taxes, promise to increase defense spending, and promise to balance the budget...

...then do the 2 easy ones and hope no one cares that they ignored number 3.

The only time we had a "balanced" budget is when Bill Clinton took Social Security and Medicare out of the question.

In other words, he "cooked the books" to claim a balanced budget.

No, Bill Clinton didn't Balance the Budget
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The US Report - The US Report - How do Clinton

Here's the first line from your link:

Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened.

Your story starts out by confirming what I said. Thanks.

 

[johnwk]

In your opinion, johnwk, what would make a balanced budget amendment create accountability in today's houses of Congress?

The requirement that the apportioned tax is to be laid whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, and each state&#8217;s congressional delegation having to return home with a bill in hand for their State Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress.

JWK

Voluntary pay or involuntary? I mean that in a good and a practical way, as my heart and thoughts are with the folks in Joplin, Missouri, who just lost everything lately... which reminds me, I need to go and visit the Red Cross.

Back in a bit.

I guess you missed the important part of what I posted in regard to our Constitution&#8216;s intended method to deal with deficits. SEE: POST NO.12

Now let us look at a real balanced budget amendment!

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


&#8220;SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father&#8217;s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America&#8216;s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water&#8217;s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State&#8217;s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder&#8217;s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States&#8217; population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE&#8217;S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion&#8217;s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!



"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
.

JWK


&#8220;&#8230;a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.&#8221;___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation&#8217;s first revenue raising Act

Our founding fathers corrected what was voluntary under the Articles of Confederation by granting our Congress power to enter a State should it be delinquent in contributing its apportioned share in a time period set by Congress.



Regards,

JWK