OK...I have a plan to reduce the deficit.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Missourian, Oct 29, 2010.

  1. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    It will require a Constitutional Amendment that:
    1) Would require a National Balanced Budget

    2) Would allow deficit spending ONLY in the event of a crisis and would require a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress AND Presidential authorization.

    3) Would institute a Value Added Tax, the revenues from which would apply 100% to reducing the deficit.

    4) The Value Added Tax would sunset after the deficit was paid off. It could be re-instituted to pay off any new deficit spending that resulted from crisis deficit spending.

    5) Would outlaw Value Added Taxes for any other purpose than paying off the deficit.
    Yes, I know it is difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, but I see no alternative.

    Critique.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2010
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,176
    Thanks Received:
    14,905
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,918
    I agree that a change is needed but if people wont follow the Constitution why will they follow an Amendment?
     
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    I couldn't support this. If you give the government authority to only deficit spend in an emergency you're going to see a lot more emergencies, not to mention a value added tax is one of the worst forms of taxation.
     
  4. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    I agree, one of the benefits of this proposal is it outlaws V.A.T.'s.

    I also agree that we would see more emergencies, but a 2/3rds Majority is difficult to reach AND the lawmakers would have to sell it to their constituents and put their vote on record.
     
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    My problem is the exceptions you give the government in the proposed amendment. It may be difficult to reach a 2/3's majority, but not difficult enough. I think an outright banning of the value added tax and deficit spending is the answer, not exceptions for "emergencies."
     
  6. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    My fear is, what if you allow no mechanism, and a situation occurs that requires it.
     
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    I think there's a much bigger chance of abuse than there is of that. I can't think of any situation that would warrant it.
     
  8. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,155
    Okay, I have a simpler plan. Give the POTUS a line-item veto on budget items, rather than leave the president the choice to veto or sign, he can return the budget signed with appropriations s/he wants removed, removed.
    Congress may then override this veto, and restore all or some of the items.
    The president gets one bite of the apple, the people see and understand his/her priorities, and each member of congress can pound his or her chest in front of their constituency.
    Transparent, and a way to reduce the finger pointing from the fringe, L & R.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    I supported the line item veto in 1996, unfortunately it would also require an amendment to the Constitution.

    While it would help, I don't think it would end deficit spending or reduce the national debt.

    EDIT - That "deduce" should have said "reduce" :redface:
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2010
  10. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,848
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    Why must we deficit spend?

    It's the ultimate fiscal irresponsibility.

    If you have something you feel is important to spend the money on, free up the money by eliminating other expenditures.

    Keep in mind too, that several states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions and they simply didn't adhere to it.

    I'm not giving these mother fuckers one inch, because they will take a mile.
     

Share This Page