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

[Foxfyre]

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

I'm sorry but if you have no idea what my argument is you didn't read it. I can't make it any clearer than how I stated it. But wishing you a wonderful rest of your afternoon and evening.

 

[johnwk]

I'm sorry but if you have no idea what my argument is you didn't read it. I can't make it any clearer than how I stated it. But wishing you a wonderful rest of your afternoon and evening.

You wrote: "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." The problem with that is, you ignore the apportioned direct tax allows Congress to raise whatever it decides is needed.

You also seem to object to the rule of apportionment. But that rule only applies when a direct tax is used to extinguish a deficit caused by Congress borrowing. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment Congress is to raise its primary revenue from indirect taxes such as those laid on consumption.

I have no idea what your arguments are, or if any of your arguments are relative to the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

Let me suggest you read the ACTUAL TEXT of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and the commentary which is also provided.

 

[Foxfyre]

You wrote: "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." The problem with that is, you ignore the apportioned direct tax allows Congress to raise whatever it decides is needed.

You also seem to object to the rule of apportionment. But that rule only applies when a direct tax is used to extinguish a deficit caused by Congress borrowing. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment Congress is to raise its primary revenue from indirect taxes such as those laid on consumption.

I have no idea what your arguments are, or if any of your arguments are relative to the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

Let me suggest you read the ACTUAL TEXT of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and the commentary which is also provided.

I asked for a simple description of what the amendment does. You seem to be unwilling to provide that which suggests to me that you don't know what it says either. Consumption taxes are always going to be regressive and are too easy to push upwards when the government wants more money for whatever.

It is far easier to get the public to shrug off an increase of a quarter cent and assume it won't affect them that much. Nor can the government tell them what that quarter cent will cost them, especially taking in the ripple effect throughout the economy. But they can figure out pretty quickly what an increase in their income tax will cost them.

As for my basic objection to any quota system see my Post #52

 

[johnwk]

I asked for a simple description of what the amendment does.

There is no "simple description".

Let me suggest you read the ACTUAL TEXT of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and the commentary which is also provided. If you disagree with what is written, quote what you disagree with in its context, and then provide your objection. Your constant evasiveness does not lead to a productive discussion.

In regard to your post 52, each state is left free to raise its share in its own chosen way.

"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.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no "simple description".

Let me suggest you read the ACTUAL TEXT of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and the commentary which is also provided. If you disagree with what is written, quote what you disagree with in its context, and then provide your objection. Your constant evasiveness does not lead to a productive discussion.

In regard to your post 52, each state is left free to raise its share in its own chosen way.

"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.

Again sir, so long as you ignore my arguments, it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion. I assume you mean well but you just aren't getting it. But again do have a lovely evening.

 

[johnwk]

Again sir, so long as you ignore my arguments, it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion. I assume you mean well but you just aren't getting it. But again do have a lovely evening.

Why are falsely accusing me of ignoring your arguments? I recently addressed them in THIS POST

 

[johnwk]

Former Gov. of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu calls for balanced budget amendment.​

.
The calls for DOGE to recommend a balanced budget amendment being added to our Constitution are becoming louder as each day passes. See: For models of efficiency, Musk and DOGE should ignore DC and look to the states

"For the long term, it is also time to reconsider the need for a Balanced Budget Amendment. A Balanced Budget Amendment isn’t just a good idea — it’s essential for national survival. It’s a compact with the American people, signaling that Washington will finally operate under the same fiscal constraints as every household."

I fully agree with Chris Sununu and the need for a BBA. I also believe the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, which is our Founder’s thinking, is based upon fundamental principles which do not change with the passage of time, and it meets the necessary criteria for a rule of law structural mechanism to end Congress’s love affair with adding to our national debt year after year.

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.

 

[johnwk]

The kabuki dance continues. Republican leaders predicted to downplay deficit concerns.

See: House Republicans face massive debt problem

Jan 12, 2025

"As Republicans now weigh their approach to a reconciliation package, some lawmakers said budget neutrality is preferable, but suggested GOP leaders might ultimately revert to the old model of downplaying deficit concerns for the sake of adopting highly sought legislation.

“I don’t know how serious we’re going to be about it,” said Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus."

We are near the point of no return and our Republican Leadership seems to ignore the massive US Debt problem.

Does this not prove a balanced budget amendment is the only hope to force Congress to stop adding to our national debt?

 

[j-mac]

Neither party has an interest in a balanced budget amendment. That would curtail their ability to enrich themselves and their donors.....Screw the people.

 

[johnwk]

Neither party has an interest in a balanced budget amendment. That would curtail their ability to enrich themselves and their donors.....Screw the people.

Massive debt leads to high inflation, lowers quality of life, and disrupts a stable economy

.

See Here's why economists are so worried about soaring US debt levels

Apr 20, 2024

"The mountain of debt is a breeding ground for economic problems, including higher inflation, lower quality of life, and — in the worst-case scenario — a destabilization of the wider financial system, according to Les Rubin, a markets veteran who has called the US debt situation one of the "greatest Ponzi schemes" in the world."

The writing is on the wall as investors pull out of long-term US bond market.

See: US debt reckoning escalates sharply as top bond buyer pulls back from long-term Treasuries

December 14, 2024

"Pimco said it's reducing exposure to long-term U.S. bonds amid concerns about soaring federal deficits and debt. Instead, it favors shorter-term bonds, some overseas issuers, and corporate debt."

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.

 

[pknopp]

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.

The Founders didn't print money willy nilly so we really can't go off anything they once supported. Those who benefitted the most from that printing (and debt) should be on the hook the most for paying it back.

 

[johnwk]

The Founders didn't print money willy nilly so we really can't go off anything they once supported. Those who benefitted the most from that printing (and debt) should be on the hook the most for paying it back.

You didn't answer the question you quoted.

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.

 

[pknopp]

You didn't answer the question you quoted.

Balanced budget. Period.

 

[johnwk]

Balanced budget. Period.

You still have not answered the questions in the post you quoted:

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.

 

[pknopp]

You still have not answered the questions in the post you quoted:

Yes, I disagree with anything outside of a balanced budget. Period.

 

[johnwk]

Yes, I disagree with anything outside of a balanced budget. Period.

Once again you have not answered the questions in the post you quoted:

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?

 

[lg325]

The Clinton administration balance the budget so it can be done.