"Populist Policy" org. addresses US debt crisis, calls for a balanced budget amendment

[Foxfyre]

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment allows for a "predictable source" of revenue. And it also would stop Congress from adding to the national debt year, after year, after year, which has now brought us to a national debt (not including unfunded debt liabilities) of $ 36 TRILLION, which currently draws over $1 TRILLION in annual interest payments taken from the U.S. taxpayers’ pockets. Seems to me there is an enormous annual profit to be realized by those who invest in Congress’s irresponsible spending which leads to Congress’s borrowing.

America's taxpayers have essentially been made into taxed slaves to those who thrive by investing in Congress's reckless borrowing.

View attachment 1064208

A general simple summary of what the 'fair share' would be to generate revenue for the federal treasury please.

 

[johnwk]

A general simple summary of what the 'fair share' would be to generate revenue for the federal treasury please.

I already provided that HERE

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Foxfyre]

I already provided that HERE

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

That is hardly a simple summary. But if you think the U.S. government serving 330+ million people can raise sufficient money through duties and excise taxes, you are not being realistic at all in how the economies throughout the free world now function.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That is simply not true.

particularly since the USSR was totally dependent on oil and gas revenue to pay its debts. When that dropped through the floor, the end was in sight, arms race or no.

But you can have a go at backing up your claim.

That oil glut was a result of more supply in the west. OPEC, having become a smaller fish in a bigger pond, increased supply to try to undermine those operations as they’ve done often since. USSR was impacted but Reagan’s arms buildup was the clincher.
Democrats are so obviously phony in this, claiming the arms buildup had no impact and the USSR would have failed anyway. This is why lefties made movies like Testament, Threads, The Day After?

 

[johnwk]

That is hardly a simple summary. But if you think the U.S. government serving 330+ million people can raise sufficient money through duties and excise taxes . . .

You forgot the apportioned direct tax which our founders thoughtfully provided.

Did our Founders intend to allow year-end deficiencies funded by borrowing to accumulate from year to year? The evidence indicates they did not as a number of our State Ratification documents of our Constitution confirm, e.g, see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, our Founder’s remedy__ currently promoted as The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ which is a structural mechanism, a rule of law which effectively addresses the root cause of adding to our national debt year after year and requires, upon the creation of a federal deficit funded by borrowing, that each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own treasury an apportioned share to extinguish that deficit, at which time a shocking moment of reality and accountability is created, and particular so when the people of each state and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

I still wonder why the DOGE team is only focused the symptoms of Congress's reckless spending, which are invited and even encouraged by not having a real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation and the people of their state, when reckless spending is funded by borrowing.

JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Foxfyre]

You forgot the apportioned direct tax which our founders thoughtfully provided.

Did our Founders intend to allow year-end deficiencies funded by borrowing to accumulate from year to year? The evidence indicates they did not as a number of our State Ratification documents of our Constitution confirm, e.g, see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, our Founder’s remedy__ currently promoted as The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ which is a structural mechanism, a rule of law which effectively addresses the root cause of adding to our national debt year after year and requires, upon the creation of a federal deficit funded by borrowing, that each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own treasury an apportioned share to extinguish that deficit, at which time a shocking moment of reality and accountability is created, and particular so when the people of each state and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

I still wonder why the DOGE team is only focused the symptoms of Congress's reckless spending, which are invited and even encouraged by not having a real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation and the people of their state, when reckless spending is funded by borrowing.

JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

The Founders governed a fairly modest size country of when they established the policies then. It took weeks to sail from New York City to the nearest European ports. I am pretty sure they would have applied their wisdom much differently in a world of 8 billion people and modern technology. The principles would be the same but the process would need to be structured quite differently.

An income tax applied evenly across the population is by far the most equitable form of taxation government can utilize now but ALL should pay something in taxes in such a system so that all who vote will know their vote could affect them personally. It is not good that about half our population pays little or nothing in income tax so their vote doesn't affect them in that way as it does other.

And again a reasonable modest income tax along with mandated spending reforms is the best incentive we can give the government to implement policies that help all demographics prosper.

DOGE will not have the authority to audit state spending because that would definitely violate the letter, law, principle of the Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

The Founders governed a fairly modest size country of when they established the policies then. It took weeks to sail from New York City to the nearest European ports. I am pretty sure they would have applied their wisdom much differently in a world of 8 billion people and modern technology.

I doubt if they would abandon their fundamental thinking to immediately extinguish a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing.

.
.
You still have yet to explain your objections to the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in-between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt if they would abandon their fundamental thinking to immediately extinguish a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing.


View attachment 1064303
.
.
You still have yet to explain your objections to the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in-between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

Again I asked for a simple one or two line summary of what that is. Your link to your loooooooong post was not all that helpful.

 

[johnwk]

Again I asked for a simple one or two line summary of what that is. Your link to your loooooooong post was not all that helpful.

see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

 

[Foxfyre]

see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

Again it is a much different state, a much different country, a much different culture, a much different world now. The population of Massachusetts is over 7 million, and the population of the USA has gone from something over 2 million in 1776 to 330+ million now.

Many MANY laws and processes that were right for the Founders in their day are no longer efficient if even possible for us now. The principles can remain the same but the methods to accomplish them must of necessity change over time.

I have long argued that what works for small countries with areas and populations smaller than most of our states cannot be extrapolated as a model for the USA. And the culture of 1776 in the USA is not the culture of the USA in 2025.

 

[johnwk]

Again it is a much different state, a much different country, a much different culture, a much different world now.

Once again you do not post your specific objections to the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment



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


NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

"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 [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and 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 direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


"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 the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, 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 as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK scroll to page 62, 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 an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"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.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.





JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again you do not post your specific objections to the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment



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


NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

"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 [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and 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 direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


"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 the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, 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 as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK scroll to page 62, 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 an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"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.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.





JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Establishing such a quota would be an administrative nightmare for a nation as large, diverse, and complicated as ours. How do you establish a quota for say California with hundreds of federal installations there versus a state like Maine that has almost none? Or a state like Massachusetts with the highest median household income versus a state like Mississippi with the lowest median household income?

And what is to keep a rogue federal government from raising the quota every time they want to spend more money than they have?

 

[johnwk]

How do you establish a quota for say California

By the fair share formula:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The first time this apportioned direct tax was used was in 1798 and establishes each state’s share of the tax, see: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798


The principle is . . . representation with a proportional financial obligation . . . an idea which socialists and communists dread with a passion.

 

[Foxfyre]

By the fair share formula:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The first time this apportioned direct tax was used was in 1798 and establishes each state’s share of the tax, see: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798


The principle is . . . representation with a proportional financial obligation . . . an idea which socialists and communists dread with a passion.

That does not change my argument.

Much more fair is a affordable flat income tax that everyone pays above a fairly low threshhold. I only advocate for that threshhold to prevent a kid's lemonade stand revenues or small paper route from being taxable.

 

[johnwk]

That does not change my argument.

Much more fair is a affordable flat income tax that everyone pays above a fairly low threshhold. I only advocate for that threshhold to prevent a kid's lemonade stand revenues or small paper route from being taxable.

So, you don't agree with apportionment being applied to direct taxation.

Do you also disagree with apportionment being applied to each state's representation in Congress?

What exactly is your argument against the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment. You keep being elusive in your responses.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you don't agree with apportionment being applied to taxation.

Do you also disagree with apportionment being applied to each state's representation in Congress?

I stand by my argument. As you will no doubt stand by yours. You have not specified how you think it would work or why it would be superior to individual taxation.

 

[johnwk]

I stand by my argument. As you will no doubt stand by yours. You have not specified how you think it would work or why it would be superior to individual taxation.

I have no idea what your argument is against the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

Additionally, I explained in detail the attributes of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment IN THIS POST

 

[kyzr]

And yet Trump holds the record for the worst economy in 2020 next to 1929 and Hoover.

Yet voters prefer Trump's economy to Biden's economy. Not a surprise.

 

[Moonglow]

Yet voters prefer Trump's economy to Biden's economy. Not a surprise.

The election of 2020 proved that.

 

[kyzr]

The election of 2020 proved that.

There was no Biden economy in 2020, just election policy lies.

2024 proved who voters preferred.