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

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Exactly!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.)

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.

That sounds reasonable, Wonky. Even so, do you think people are just in a bad mood right now because they can't plan a vacation in the car to take the kids to see a national park a thousand miles away on account of gasoline being so high? If I were the owner of a hotel or a motel, I'd be pretty unhappy about the lack of vacationer traffic along America's roads because of gas prices.

Not to worry!!!

The Status Quo is....

....financially-$table!!

 

[Steelplate]

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....

There's a simple solution to your problem.... move.

 

[jillian]

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!

it makes perfect sense. the rightwingnuts doubled 200 years of deficit in 8. and now you all are whining because it's not you deciding how its spent.

until the bush tax cuts are restored, no one is really interested in the continued "ihategovernmentsowanttostarveittilyoucandrownitinabathtub" rants of the radical right.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

Now read the rest. The books were cooked.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts.

The '$5 Trillion Surplus' - The Myth that Refuses to Die - The New Editor

Destroying the myth of the Clinton surpluses. | The Silent Majority

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jzrBAYAfs]YouTube - ‪Refuting Liberal Talking Points: The Clinton Budget Surplus‬‏[/ame]

 

[Toro]

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.

Now read the rest. The books were cooked.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts.

The '$5 Trillion Surplus' - The Myth that Refuses to Die - The New Editor

Destroying the myth of the Clinton surpluses. | The Silent Majority

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jzrBAYAfs]YouTube - ‪Refuting Liberal Talking Points: The Clinton Budget Surplus‬‏[/ame]

Clinton ran a surplus. Serious Republicans don't make this argument. But Republicans with zero understanding of government accounting do.

 

[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.

I benefit from nothing - I never will either..

I'm not on any government program unlike you.

**** 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 **** up.... You're stealing as far as I'm concerned.

ahh the naivety of youth. I once felt as you did. Reality will bite your ass sooner or later kid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Now read the rest. The books were cooked.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts.

The '$5 Trillion Surplus' - The Myth that Refuses to Die - The New Editor

Destroying the myth of the Clinton surpluses. | The Silent Majority

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jzrBAYAfs]YouTube - ‪Refuting Liberal Talking Points: The Clinton Budget Surplus‬‏[/ame]

Clinton ran a surplus. Serious Republicans don't make this argument. But Republicans with zero understanding of government accounting do.

Balancing the budget refers to the annual spending vs revenues BALANCE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So there was no surplus in 2000, according to you geniuses?

Then why did George Bush in 2001 cite the SURPLUS as the main justification for CUTTING TAXES?

You're telling us that wasn't justified?

Very interesting....

 

[freedombecki]

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.

It's okay. I did my time at the long-gone NYT Forums and TIME's old Pathfinder Boards before and after Clinton. I can handle either side and am still smack dab in the middle, a smidge to the right. Only trouble is, both Wiley Coyote extremes think smacking someone in the middle is pure pay dirt. Just call me the Roadrunner.

 

[freedombecki]

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’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‘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.


“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’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‘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’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’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’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’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


“…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.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’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

I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[johnwk]

I stand corrected. Thanks.

What is so disturbing to me is, rather than identifying and removing the tools used by our folks in Washington to inflict economic misery, the great debate persists among voters as to which party leadership has cause most of our nation&#8217;s financial distress. Is it not common sense and in the people&#8217;s own best interests to abandon a defective and out-of-control malfunctioning vehicle rather than merely changing its driver? Are the people really incapable of identifying the tools used by our folks in Washington to inflict economic misery while fattening their personal fortunes and furthering their own political ambitions under the cloak of &#8220;legislation&#8220;?

Unlike today&#8217;s voters who argue amongst themselves over party politics, our founding fathers when framing our Constitution focused upon the causes and cures of despotic government! And this becomes only too obvious when studying their debates in connection with the framing and ratification of our nation&#8217;s original Constitution and the rules they set to insure honest money and honest taxation, both of which have been perverted to such a degree they are now freely used to inflict economic misery and plunder what America&#8217;s businesses and labor has produced.

On the one hand with regard to honest money, our founders forbid Congress to emit bills on the credit of the united States, nor make notes of any kind a &#8220;legal tender&#8220;. If Congress were not forbidden to make notes a legal tender, the evil temptation would exist for Congress to declare a particular note to be our nation&#8217;s legal tender, thereby creating a paper money monopoly and ultimately forcing businesses and individuals to accept worthless script in payment of debt, while those issuing such script would be free to sap the real material wealth created by America&#8217;s businesses and labor using its worthless paper that had been declared a &#8220;legal tender for all debts public and private&#8221;.

To prevent the mischief of paper money and its historical use as a vehicle to steal what labor and business has produced, our founders left the market place free to determine what &#8220;notes&#8221; were &#8220;safe and proper&#8221; by forbidding Congress to declare any particular note [such as Federal Reserve Notes] to be a &#8220;legal tender&#8221; for all debts public and private. . SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

______ cut ______

On the motion for striking out ["and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-]

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.



[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.



And with regard to taxation and allowing Congress to raise a federal revenue in a manner which preempted the evils of taxation we now experience, our founders relied upon principles which are as valid today as when our Constitution went into effect. For example, our founders intended that Congress use taxes at our water&#8217;s edge as a first means to fill our national treasury which not only had foreigners filling our national treasury for the privilege of doing business on American soil, just as one pays for a ticket to set up a booth at a flea market to sell one&#8217;s goods and wares, but restricting Congress to raising its revenue from taxes imposed on judiciously selected articles of consumption which are imported, not only does such a system allow the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected, but when Congress is compelled to raising its revenue by taxing consumption as our founders intended, it becomes in Congress&#8217; self interest to encourage a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn leads to a productive consumption and thus a healthy flow of revenue into the federal treasury. This too applies to internal excise taxes imposed upon articles of consumption as a second means to fill the national treasury ___ the market place was intended to determine the limit of tax on each article selected. Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:

---may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.&#8221;___ Federalist No 21


And what is to happen if an emergency arises, such as war, and imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on consumption are found insufficient to meet Congress&#8217;s expenditures? Our wise founding fathers solved this problem by allowing Congress to then lay a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum needed. But in such cases the rule of apportionment would be strictly observed and a very real movement of accountability would be created when each State&#8217;s Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their State&#8217;s Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. Upon receiving its bill from a state&#8217;s congressional delegation the Governor and Legislature were then required to transfer its state&#8217;s apportioned share from the State&#8217;s treasury into the national treasury or raise additional taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. And it is important to note that the rule of apportionment removes the temptation from Congress&#8217; hands to engage in class warfare when imposing the general tax among the states as each State&#8217;s share of the burden is determine by a fixed formula, and each state was intended to to raise it&#8217;s share in it is own chosen way. The formula for a specific sum being raised by Congress ties representation and taxation by the same standard ___ each state&#8216;s population size:

States&#8217; population

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

Total U.S. Population


State`s Population
_______________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.


Unfortunately, instead of working to re-establish our founding father&#8217;s original tax plan and its honest money system, both of which paved the way for a free market system to work and flourish, and resulted in America becoming the economic marvel of the world, America&#8217;s political pundits prefer to argue partisan politics while the leadership of both political parties work in concert to lay claim to what America has produced, and does so using a dishonest money system and dishonest taxation, both of which were specifically rejected by our founding fathers.


So why is it that not one of our &#8220;conservative&#8221; talk show pundits has taken the time to compare our founder&#8217;s intended honest money system and honest taxation to what is currently used by the Washington Establishment to lay claim to what America has produced? Who among the following list has taken the time to discuss our Constitution&#8217;s original plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, &#8230;. WHO? Do they not willingly fan the flames of political partisanship which causes a distraction, and avoids identifying the tools used to cause our miseries?




JWK




History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.___ James Madison