Should the Republican Congress send a balanced budget amendment to the States?

[Judicial review]

If you want to pay off debt and balance the budget;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 400 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

sounds too complicated. 1st rule of budgeting - Keep things simple and not cluttered. Another words abolish the IRS. That eliminates 90% of the above.

 

[chikenwing]

"Should the Republican Congress send a balanced budget amendment to the States?"

No.

The notion is partisan idiocy; amendments should be predicated on facts and logic, not failed, subjective rightist economic dogma.

Advocates of such an inane amendment exhibit a simplistic, naïve, and sophomoric 'understanding' of modern 21st Century industrialized societies, where it's normal and perfectly appropriate for national budgets to move from surplus to deficit and back to surplus again, depending upon events and economic conditions.

BBAs have little to do with 'fiscal responsibility' and everything to do with contriving a weapon to attack social programs and regulatory policy that don't conform to errant conservative political doctrine.[/QUOTE

More hysterical nonsense from fake jake,a balanced budget should be a fact not a far off notion,your kind are a mill stone around this nations neck.

 

[TooTall]

"Should the Republican Congress send a balanced budget amendment to the States?"

No.

The notion is partisan idiocy; amendments should be predicated on facts and logic, not failed, subjective rightist economic dogma.

Advocates of such an inane amendment exhibit a simplistic, naïve, and sophomoric 'understanding' of modern 21st Century industrialized societies, where it's normal and perfectly appropriate for national budgets to move from surplus to deficit and back to surplus again, depending upon events and economic conditions.

BBAs have little to do with 'fiscal responsibility' and everything to do with contriving a weapon to attack social programs and regulatory policy that don't conform to errant conservative political doctrine.

Yes.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has traditionally reported that 49 states must balance their budgets, with Vermont being the exception. Other authorities add Wyoming and North Dakota as exceptions, and some authorities in Alaska contend that it does not have an explicit requirement for a balanced budget. Two points can be made with certainty, however: Most states have formal balanced budget requirements with some degree of stringency, and state political cultures reinforce the requirements.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No because Americans refuse to be taxed at a rate that would support the government, pay down the debt and have a surplus for emergencies.

And that is why we are now $127 Trillion in debt and why we need a balanced budget amendment. Why do you want to pass the above debt to our children and grandchildren and deprive them of their economic freedom?


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.

This is hyperbolic nonsense and unfounded demagoguery.
Again, you and most others on the right seek only to attack programs that conflict with your partisan agenda.

 

[TooTall]

No because Americans refuse to be taxed at a rate that would support the government, pay down the debt and have a surplus for emergencies.

And that is why we are now $127 Trillion in debt and why we need a balanced budget amendment. Why do you want to pass the above debt to our children and grandchildren and deprive them of their economic freedom?


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.

This is hyperbolic nonsense and unfounded demagoguery.
Again, you and most others on the right seek only to attack programs that conflict with your partisan agenda.

I attack programs that are wasteful spending without regard to any partisan agenda. When the only budget that gets passed by Congress is a continuing resolution with increases in spending, the various agencies continue spending on really stupid crap to satisfy their constituents. This has gone on for decades and needs to be stopped.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TooTall has some points to consider.

As far as the right goes, in Utah we have a fairly good accounting but woefully under spend on education and pollution control while overspending on transportation and bushiness friendly goodies.

We also have a lousy ethics law on conflicts of interest, which results in the head of business associations or companies being elected to the legislature and sitting on committees that are involved with such companies.

 

[whitehall]

We have enough trouble with the mess Obama left to try to amend the Constitution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fuck no!

Guess, what, it takes money to maintain a first world country and much of the time we will have debt.

Yeah, but our debt has far exceeded GDP....

^^The rich won't pay their share.

Not this stupid shit again... oh, wait, it's Jake the Fake.

Never mind.

 

[rightwinger]

Only if that balanced budget amendment includes provisions for both tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget

 

[johnwk]

If you want to pay off debt and balance the budget;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 400 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

sounds too complicated. 1st rule of budgeting - Keep things simple and not cluttered. Another words abolish the IRS. That eliminates 90% of the above.

A-freaken-men to ending federal taxes calculated from lawfully earned incomes and shutting down the IRS as we know it.

Now, which one of our so-called "conservatives" in Congress will introduce the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?


JWK






“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How about they just start off by sending a balanced budget to the Senate.

 

[Judicial review]

How about they just start off by sending a balanced budget to the Senate.

Been done every year Obamas been in office......

 

[nodoginnafight]

How about they just start off by sending a balanced budget to the Senate.

Been done every year Obamas been in office......

In your fantasies:

The GOP Plan to Balance the Budget by 2023 Budget.House.Gov

 

[g5000]

Stick around. Live through a few more Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents.

Then try to say with a straight face that only one party spends too much.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Balanced Budget Committee threw in the towel:

House Republicans adding to debt as balanced budget commitment wavers - Washington Times

 

[g5000]

The GOP Plan to Balance the Budget by 2023 Budget.House.Gov

Ryan has four steps he outlines in that budget. His first step about opening up federal lands to oil and gas exploitation is practically meaningless. He does not say how much revenue that would generate, and I seriously doubt it would generate much, especially since our government hands out below market rates to oil companies.

The second step is what I call "Repeal ObamaCare...and then what?" He doesn't really say. Just some meaningless "patient-centered reforms" throwaway phrase. We've have been debating ObamaCare for 7 years now (7 YEARS!), and the GOP STILL HAS NOT COUGHED UP AN ALERNATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. What are we supposed to do, trust them to come up with a solution to the problem after they repeal ObamaCare?

I don't THINK so! Show us the plan first.

Same thing for his Medicare reform. Show us the plan, then we'll talk.

Ryan also talks about block grants to the states for Medicaid and food stamps. This, I don't have much of a problem with.

 

[g5000]

Ah, I forgot the fourth step in Ryan's plan. Tax reform.

He teases my scrotum with "simplify the code by closing loopholes and consolidating tax rates". Yes!

It is no secret I am deeply committed to the idea of banning ALL tax expenditures. Somehow, I don't think Ryan is willing to go even a quarter of that distance. He will preserve the deductions, credits, and exemptions of big GOP donors. Count on it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And then .... somehow ... the budget will miraculously be balanced by 2023.

 

[g5000]

Ryan's plan for Medicare is to effectively end Medicare by 2022 and have seniors choose from a list of private insurance plans. The government would subsidize their premiums.

Does anyone believe that will work out better for seniors than what they get now, or will they get royally fucked?

 

[g5000]

The solution to Social Security and Medicare is very simple. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established the eligibility age at 65. We need to raise that eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Only 5.4% of Americans were over the age of 65 when Social Security was established. It was not intended to support everyone in their old age. It was insurance for those who lived beyond the mean life expectancy.

By the time Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of Americans were over the age of 65.

Today, 13.1 percent of Americans are over 65.

This is an unsustainable trend and the solution is blazingly obvious.