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

[freedombecki]

Regulation 46521.623, Paragraph 36.2, subsection C of the OSHA code prohibits the operation of any kiln within 1500 feet of a minor. The smithy's license to operate is hereby suspended while charges of child endangerment are pending.

That is all.

What a world!

 

[Sallow]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

Do you mean this, Sallow?

Yeah..that.

Of course the WSJ would have a baby about it. They love the tax cuts.

 

[Sallow]

When I got married I told my wife that we would, under no circumstances, spend more than we had to spend. If we didn't have the money for it, we would do without. I expect my government to run the same damned way.

Then vote Democrat.

 

[HUGGY]

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.)

You are not JUST a liar. You are a liar AND you are bat shit crazy!

You really need to stop polling your little nest of meth crazed wild eyed raccoons and trying to pass it off as legitimate.

Thanks for playing!

Welcome to the fray, Huggy.

Sorry, you are mistaken. I have never had the slightest desire to do illicit drugs, and the only raccoons we ever have to deal with on our farm are the ones who died that my Miss Puppy rolls in for genetic reasons way beyond my grasp. We hope she stops it pretty soon as it smells major bad.

What's in it for you if the remainder of your fellow Americans are up to their eyeballs in the national debt? Are you buying stock from our overseas bank masters or are you just shilling for them?

Thanks for sharing, I'm sure.

The secret to tanning Raccoon is a lot of Rock Salt. Had my own home made Coon skin hat and moccasins when I was 9.

I'm willing to wager that no more than 5% of the population understands the mechanics of the national debt. Your "other" 70% just repeats what they see and hear on Fox "News". Their opinion is worthless.

Here is a clue for you all. It takes two to tango and it takes a lender and a borrower to make a loan. No one makes a loan with the hopes that their debt sold will be turned into a default. If we are so out of control don't you think that there would be no one willing to risk buying our paper?

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be reigned in but all this teeth gnashing and wringing of hands is ridiculous.

 

[Too Tall]

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.)

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

One of the previous balanced budget amendments had a clause that required a super majority vote, 3/4 of the Senate if my memory serves me ,to overide spending in case of war or a natural disaster.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.)

Meh. Rather have a Presidential line item veto before something like this.

Why?

ever seen what governors do to the budgets with em? Talk about the end of special interest spending.

 

[Big Black Dog]

When I got married I told my wife that we would, under no circumstances, spend more than we had to spend. If we didn't have the money for it, we would do without. I expect my government to run the same damned way.

Then vote Democrat.

You're shitting me right? The same pack of Democrats that are hell bent to destroy the economy of the United States with the ObamaCare, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and all of that other horse shit.

 

[eflatminor]

One of the previous balanced budget amendments had a clause that required a super majority vote, 3/4 of the Senate if my memory serves me ,to overide spending in case of war or a natural disaster.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

Paygo is a Liberal Democrat farce.

Read this and be informed.

The 'Paygo' Coverup - WSJ.com

 

[freedombecki]

When I got married I told my wife that we would, under no circumstances, spend more than we had to spend. If we didn't have the money for it, we would do without. I expect my government to run the same damned way.

Well, they say wise men have the ear of the king.

Unfortunately, we're in this pretty deep right now: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Please send your congressman over here. We have a great team of American historians and problem-solvers over here putting their two cents in, and I'm for one grateful for yours. And I hope things go well for you and your missus.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Paygo is a Liberal Democrat farce.

Read this and be informed.

The 'Paygo' Coverup - WSJ.com

Apart all the partisan nonsense in this opinion piece..the one thing that rings true is this bit:

In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

And that's what drives Conservatives crazy about Paygo.

Revenue is treated as equally important as expenditure.

Something so basic to economics...

 

[Sallow]

When I got married I told my wife that we would, under no circumstances, spend more than we had to spend. If we didn't have the money for it, we would do without. I expect my government to run the same damned way.

Then vote Democrat.

You're shitting me right? The same pack of Democrats that are hell bent to destroy the economy of the United States with the ObamaCare, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and all of that other horse shit.

In recent memory the economy of the US has been nearly destoryed by both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And both those guys came pretty damned close.

 

[freedombecki]

Meh. Rather have a Presidential line item veto before something like this.

Why?

ever seen what governors do to the budgets with em? Talk about the end of special interest spending.

Big Fitz, I don't know what to say. I lived in Wyoming all my adult life until retirement, and people there vote politicians out who raise taxes. Their state sales tax is 4%, and the population is around 500,000, except less if it's a real cold winter.

Wyoming doesn't have much of a debt. They just make do with the green paint this year and the blue paint the next instead of building glass towers under the circumstances.

I'm sorry if you live in a state where they've overspent and undersaved.

Seems the high tax places are the ones in the most money troubles, but what would I know?

Where there isn't much money, there aren't many plays for the big bucks, I reckon.

 

[Too Tall]

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

Apart all the partisan nonsense in this opinion piece..the one thing that rings true is this bit:

In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

And that's what drives Conservatives crazy about Paygo.

Revenue is treated as equally important as expenditure.

Something so basic to economics...

What you call partisan nonsense, sane people call facts:

From the same WSJ article:

Paygo is "very simple," the President claimed. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

That's what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that "the first thing" House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that "Republicans had let lapse." By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won't tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget.

This loophole matters, because on the very day Mr. Obama was hailing paygo the House Appropriations Committee was gleefully approving a 12% increase in 2010 nondefense discretionary spending, the third year running that Democrats have proposed double-digit increases. Or consider that the 2010 budget resolution included a $2 billion increase for low-income heating assistance as an entitlement change that should be subject to paygo. But Congressional Democrats simply classified it as discretionary spending, thereby avoiding the need for $2 billion in cuts elsewhere. C'est-la-paygo.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

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.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.....

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

When I got married I told my wife that we would, under no circumstances, spend more than we had to spend. If we didn't have the money for it, we would do without. I expect my government to run the same damned way.

Then vote Democrat.

You're shitting me right? The same pack of Democrats that are hell bent to destroy the economy of the United States with the ObamaCare, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and all of that other horse shit.

Now dimwiddy, have you noticed that the majority of the auto bailout is paid for? Not only that, when the US sell it's GM stock on the market, we will likely see a profit on it.

As far as the other horseshit goes, would not be neccessary if you fellows had not had to wars off of the books, and totally failed to watch what Wall Street was doing. You took your bribes, and we damned near saw the Second Great Republican Depression.

 

[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.....

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.

 

[xsited1]

...

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government?

...

You mean like this?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

To express the sense of the Senate in support of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Vote Date: March 2, 2011, 05:16 PM
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

Vote Counts:
YEAs 58
NAYs 40
Not Voting 2

Looks like the Senate needs another shellacking.