Example 1 as to why a Balanced Budget Amendment is stupid

[The Derp]

Natural disasters cost a record-shattering $306 billion in 2017
The string of devastating hurricanes and wildfires across the United States in 2017 cost the country $306 billion in damages, a record-breaking number, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.

Key stat: In 2017, there were 16 separate disaster events that topped $1 billion in damages. And these 16 events — which included storms, wildfires, droughts and freezes — killed 362 people.​

A Balanced Budget Amendment would mean once you've reached your peak of allocated disaster spending, that's it. No more can be allocated. And since you can't predict natural disasters, you also cannot predict how much is needed to clean up after them.

 

[depotoo]

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

 

[TNHarley]

Not to be a party pooper, but according to the COTUS, regional disasters should stay regional.
Back a couple hundred years ago, they understood this.
Crazy how a bunch of dead peoples intent can change so much in the afterlife

 

[Little-Acorn]

Natural disasters cost a record-shattering $306 billion in 2017
The string of devastating hurricanes and wildfires across the United States in 2017 cost the country $306 billion in damages, a record-breaking number, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.

Key stat: In 2017, there were 16 separate disaster events that topped $1 billion in damages. And these 16 events — which included storms, wildfires, droughts and freezes — killed 362 people.​

A Balanced Budget Amendment would mean once you've reached your peak of allocated disaster spending, that's it. No more can be allocated. And since you can't predict natural disasters, you also cannot predict how much is needed to clean up after them.

States can't get together and do it themselves, forming associations to help each other etc.?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Something else to watch out for: Liberals regard Social Security as a the holiest of holies. Everything it needs, it gets, no matter how badly it busts the budget.

Some proposals for a BBA have had wording in them to the effect that "Congress cannot exceed the budgeted amount, except for the needs of Social Security" or something along those lines.

But if such a BBA were ratified and added to the Constitution, it would be the first time Social Security was ever mentioned in the Constitution. So it would become constitutional by default... for the first time in its history.

BTW, you would also start seeing program after program labelled "the Health Care Act and Social Security Act of 2025" etc. etc., whether the act had anything to do with Social Security or not. Given a Social Security loophole, every politician would hastily add that name to the silliest proposals, trying to make them passable even though they bust the budget.

The BBA would quickly become ineffective.

 

[The Derp]

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

 

[depotoo]

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

So, what are you yammering about?

 

[The Derp]

Not to be a party pooper, but according to the COTUS, regional disasters should stay regional.
Back a couple hundred years ago, they understood this.
Crazy how a bunch of dead peoples intent can change so much in the afterlife

Too bad hurricanes don't give a shit about state borders.

 

[TNHarley]

Not to be a party pooper, but according to the COTUS, regional disasters should stay regional.
Back a couple hundred years ago, they understood this.
Crazy how a bunch of dead peoples intent can change so much in the afterlife

Too bad hurricanes don't give a shit about state borders.

ok

 

[The Derp]

States can't get together and do it themselves, forming associations to help each other etc.?

What does that look like?

 

[The Derp]

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

So, what are you yammering about?

That you all support such a stupid thing, but then immediately start making exceptions to it.

Can't you just have one set of principles?

 

[depotoo]

When Florida helps other states when they are hit.

States can't get together and do it themselves, forming associations to help each other etc.?

What does that look like?

 

[depotoo]

Actually, your whole exception to it, has to do with you want a runaway budget that can be enhanced however you see fit, vs one that is balanced, except due to unforeseen disasters.

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

So, what are you yammering about?

That you all support such a stupid thing, but then immediately start making exceptions to it.

Can't you just have one set of principles?

 

[Mac1958]

Disaster bonds. War Tax. Contingency budgeting.

Life isn't as binary as some think it is. We can "get creative", "work together", "solve problems", and "come up with ideas".

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

So, what are you yammering about?

That you all support such a stupid thing, but then immediately start making exceptions to it.

Can't you just have one set of principles?

Yes, pass the balanced budget amendment and then rely on the generosity of your fellow man to cover the difference for the natural disasters. JJWatts raised how many millions for the people of houston, and he's not part of the government.

 

[depotoo]

Look at what the Cajun Navy/Army did. A purely voluntary group that rescued, has helped rebuild and done fundraising to support those affected and seen the money put to good use where it is truly needed.

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

So, what are you yammering about?

That you all support such a stupid thing, but then immediately start making exceptions to it.

Can't you just have one set of principles?

Yes, pass the balanced budget amendment and then rely on the generosity of your fellow man to cover the difference for the natural disasters. JJWatts raised how many millions for the people of houston, and he's not part of the government.

 

[hadit]

Natural disasters cost a record-shattering $306 billion in 2017
The string of devastating hurricanes and wildfires across the United States in 2017 cost the country $306 billion in damages, a record-breaking number, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.

Key stat: In 2017, there were 16 separate disaster events that topped $1 billion in damages. And these 16 events — which included storms, wildfires, droughts and freezes — killed 362 people.​

A Balanced Budget Amendment would mean once you've reached your peak of allocated disaster spending, that's it. No more can be allocated. And since you can't predict natural disasters, you also cannot predict how much is needed to clean up after them.

Only a moron would be seriously convinced that such an amendment would not be written in such a way as to account for such disasters.

 

[Mac1958]

Natural disasters cost a record-shattering $306 billion in 2017
The string of devastating hurricanes and wildfires across the United States in 2017 cost the country $306 billion in damages, a record-breaking number, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.

Key stat: In 2017, there were 16 separate disaster events that topped $1 billion in damages. And these 16 events — which included storms, wildfires, droughts and freezes — killed 362 people.​

A Balanced Budget Amendment would mean once you've reached your peak of allocated disaster spending, that's it. No more can be allocated. And since you can't predict natural disasters, you also cannot predict how much is needed to clean up after them.

Only a moron would be seriously convinced that such an amendment would not be written in such a way as to account for such disasters.

Contingencies would obviously be incorporated into a BBA.

And we definitely need less of this kind of either/or, zero sum thinking.
.

 

[hadit]

Are you stating Congress can’t authorize additional funds, in such a case?
Each time it has been presented it had provisions for such.

So it's not a real balanced budget amendment, then.

So, what are you yammering about?

That you all support such a stupid thing, but then immediately start making exceptions to it.

Can't you just have one set of principles?

So such an amendment must be defined by you and you alone so that you can then chew it up?

Can you say straw man?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Who are you people who post such juvenile nonsense? If we had our fiscal house in order, we would not only have a balanced budget but would have a reserve fund for just contingencies as natural disasters. Do you realize that some states not only have balanced budgets but have reserve funds? If there were no reserve fund, obviously an exception could be made for natural disaster relief.