The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lowry of the National Review answered why we should not have a BBA.

JULY 19, 2011 12:00 A.M. Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment It probably wouldn’t work, and if it did, it would be even worse.

Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

can you read the article and report back essential finding

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edward, if it comes down to Rich or you as to balance, it is going to be Rich every time.

Everybody should read it for themselves, as you should, and make up their own mind.

Why would you argue for a position if you can't argue or know the arguments against it?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Lowry of the National Review answered why we should not have a BBA.

JULY 19, 2011 12:00 A.M. Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment It probably wouldn’t work, and if it did, it would be even worse.

Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

can you read the article and report back essential finding

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

In California, we have a balanced budget amendment, and all it does is make the dems lie more. Brown put out a budget that balances, but is based on a complete fantasy. First off, it relies on voter approved tax increases that have virtually zero chance of passing, then it assumes other revenue that simply doesn't exist. It is a farce.

The only means of balancing the budget is to hold the government responsible, by voting people like Brown and Obama out of office - even if that means dipwads like Romney get in for a term - it sends the message that defying the people will not stand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

UncensoredFascist is going to vote for Romney then be amazed when Mitt ignores the people like Uncensored when it comes to policy making.

Lowry is right on in the entire article. That far righties don't like it doesn't matter.

 

[dblack]

Lowry of the National Review answered why we should not have a BBA.

JULY 19, 2011 12:00 A.M. Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment It probably wouldn’t work, and if it did, it would be even worse.

Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

can you read the article and report back essential finding

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

 

[Dr.Drock]

can you read the article and report back essential finding

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

I agree on paper, but as Uncensored says even if it's passed it's not like our politicians are going to honestly abide by it. They'll lie, put in out clauses, fudge numbers, and war spending happen outside the balanced budget. Since we're in a constant state of war, we'd remain in a constant state of unbalanced budgets.

 

[dblack]

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

I agree on paper, but as Uncensored says even if it's passed it's not like our politicians are going to honestly abide by it. They'll lie, put in out clauses, fudge numbers, and war spending happen outside the balanced budget. Since we're in a constant state of war, we'd remain in a constant state of unbalanced budgets.

Sure. I wasn't speaking up for the various balanced budget amendments - just the idea of higher taxes. I think limited government advocates should embrace them vigorously. I'd like to see automatic, across the board tax increases that kick in to make up the shortfall of any budget. It's the only thing that will get the average voter to really address the questions: How much government do we want? How much do we need? How much is it worth?

Right now we just put it on the credit card for our grandkids to pay off. Kinda shitty, that. Except for the the financiers collecting the interest on the debt. They make out ok.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

I agree on paper, but as Uncensored says even if it's passed it's not like our politicians are going to honestly abide by it. They'll lie, put in out clauses, fudge numbers, and war spending happen outside the balanced budget. Since we're in a constant state of war, we'd remain in a constant state of unbalanced budgets.

Sure. I wasn't speaking up for the various balanced budget amendments - just the idea of higher taxes. I think limited government advocates should embrace them vigorously. I'd like to see automatic, across the board tax increases that kick in to make up the shortfall of any budget. It's the only thing that will get the average voter to really address the questions: How much government do we want? How much do we need? How much is it worth?

Right now we just put it on the credit card for our grandkids to pay off. Kinda shitty, that. Except for the the financiers collecting the interest on the debt. They make out ok.

I was thinking about this the other day. Another way would be the automatic deductions from payroll. If people had to write a check to the government every week they would start getting pissed real fast.

What about a law that prohibits deficits? We already have one so it would have to provide for a way to pay down the current deficit and prohibit adding to it. You can only tax so much before people start rioting so they would have to cut spending I would think.

 

[Foxfyre]

can you read the article and report back essential finding

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

But if there is no limit on what government is allowed to pay for, a balanced budget can be just another gimmick to empower government to confiscate as much from the people as it wants to take.

We have had a few surpluses on paper, but in no year since the government has not balanced a budget have we not seen an increase in the national debt.

The ONLY answer is an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that restricts the federal government to its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and allows it no other. The federal government at all levels must be prohibited from using the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by benefitting any individual, group, entity, or demographic without benefitting all others equally regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status.

Further, all government employees and elected and appointed officials will fund their own healthcare plans and retirement plans from their salaries and will not continue to receive unfunded benefits after they leave government employment or their elected or appointed positions.

Do that, and we will again have public servants in all levels of government instead of political opportunists, we will have eliminated 90% of the graft and corruption at all levels, and the problem will be largely solved.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

In California, we have a balanced budget amendment, and all it does is make the dems lie more. Brown put out a budget that balances, but is based on a complete fantasy. First off, it relies on voter approved tax increases that have virtually zero chance of passing, then it assumes other revenue that simply doesn't exist. It is a farce.

The only means of balancing the budget is to hold the government responsible, by voting people like Brown and Obama out of office - even if that means dipwads like Romney get in for a term - it sends the message that defying the people will not stand.

There another way to force government to balance its budget: Make it illegal for the government to borrow money. There is no reason a state government should ever need to borrow money. If it can fund something out of current expenditures, then there's no reason for it to be doing whatever it is.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

I don't need an incentive to cut government, and it's not an incentive for politicians. For them it's as much of an incentive as increasing the limit on your teenager's chard card is an incentive for him to cut his spending.

I can't think of anything good about raising taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

In California, we have a balanced budget amendment, and all it does is make the dems lie more. Brown put out a budget that balances, but is based on a complete fantasy. First off, it relies on voter approved tax increases that have virtually zero chance of passing, then it assumes other revenue that simply doesn't exist. It is a farce.

The only means of balancing the budget is to hold the government responsible, by voting people like Brown and Obama out of office - even if that means dipwads like Romney get in for a term - it sends the message that defying the people will not stand.

There another way to force government to balance its budget: Make it illegal for the government to borrow money. There is no reason a state government should ever need to borrow money. If it can fund something out of current expenditures, then there's no reason for it to be doing whatever it is.

You would still have to have an ironclad limit on what government would be allowed to spend money on period, and an ironclad limit on how much the government would be allowed to tax us. Otherwise you just give government more and more incentive to confiscate more and more of the people's money.

 

[Polk]

can you read the article and report back essential finding

There's a lot of partisan nonsense in there, but he does make one good point that passing a balanced budget act wouldn't necessarily slow down gov'ts wasteful spending, it would just mean higher taxes.

Higher taxes or higher deficts which are taxes on future generations, it's essentially the same thing.

I don't think so. Higher taxes are honest. If you really want limited government, requiring that we pay for ALL the government we get is a surefire incentive.

And this is why I've always respected you. Even if I don't agree with your view, you always give an honest assessment on the topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In California, we have a balanced budget amendment, and all it does is make the dems lie more. Brown put out a budget that balances, but is based on a complete fantasy. First off, it relies on voter approved tax increases that have virtually zero chance of passing, then it assumes other revenue that simply doesn't exist. It is a farce.

The only means of balancing the budget is to hold the government responsible, by voting people like Brown and Obama out of office - even if that means dipwads like Romney get in for a term - it sends the message that defying the people will not stand.

There another way to force government to balance its budget: Make it illegal for the government to borrow money. There is no reason a state government should ever need to borrow money. If it can fund something out of current expenditures, then there's no reason for it to be doing whatever it is.

You would still have to have an ironclad limit on what government would be allowed to spend money on period, and an ironclad limit on how much the government would be allowed to tax us. Otherwise you just give government more and more incentive to confiscate more and more of the people's money.

The issue of course is that We the People in an overwhelming majority will not do that, foxfyre.

 

[dblack]

There another way to force government to balance its budget: Make it illegal for the government to borrow money. There is no reason a state government should ever need to borrow money. If it can fund something out of current expenditures, then there's no reason for it to be doing whatever it is.

You would still have to have an ironclad limit on what government would be allowed to spend money on period, and an ironclad limit on how much the government would be allowed to tax us. Otherwise you just give government more and more incentive to confiscate more and more of the people's money.

The issue of course is that We the People in an overwhelming majority will not do that, foxfyre.

There's truth in that. It's sort of like insurance, or gambling. As long as we hang on to the hope that 'the other guy' will get screwed and not us, most of us will approve of the confiscating. Call it the 'something for nothing' principle.

 

[Foxfyre]

There another way to force government to balance its budget: Make it illegal for the government to borrow money. There is no reason a state government should ever need to borrow money. If it can fund something out of current expenditures, then there's no reason for it to be doing whatever it is.

You would still have to have an ironclad limit on what government would be allowed to spend money on period, and an ironclad limit on how much the government would be allowed to tax us. Otherwise you just give government more and more incentive to confiscate more and more of the people's money.

The issue of course is that We the People in an overwhelming majority will not do that, foxfyre.

There is no 'we the people' when the government is given power to do anything it wants without restriction. And we are pretty close to that situation now unless 'we the People' take the initiative to reverse that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You would still have to have an ironclad limit on what government would be allowed to spend money on period, and an ironclad limit on how much the government would be allowed to tax us. Otherwise you just give government more and more incentive to confiscate more and more of the people's money.

The issue of course is that We the People in an overwhelming majority will not do that, foxfyre.

There is no 'we the people' when the government is given power to do anything it wants without restriction. And we are pretty close to that situation now unless 'we the People' take the initiative to reverse that.

I agree with your analysis, but I believe the people are beyond the point of resisting the Big Brother takeover.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You would still have to have an ironclad limit on what government would be allowed to spend money on period, and an ironclad limit on how much the government would be allowed to tax us. Otherwise you just give government more and more incentive to confiscate more and more of the people's money.

The issue of course is that We the People in an overwhelming majority will not do that, foxfyre.

There's truth in that. It's sort of like insurance, or gambling. As long as we hang on to the hope that 'the other guy' will get screwed and not us, most of us will approve of the confiscating. Call it the 'something for nothing' principle.

yes, there is no free lunch as Milton Friedman said but still it is the very essence of liberalism.

Is an average guy going to know a stimulus cant work, that stealing from the rich cant work, that regulation cant work, that printing money cant work, that Solyndra investing cant work, that corporate taxes don't raise revenue or that welfare doesn't work, or that government jobs aren't real jobs?

Democrats use these issues only to pander to the near perfect ignorance of liberals

 

[Foxfyre]

The issue of course is that We the People in an overwhelming majority will not do that, foxfyre.

There's truth in that. It's sort of like insurance, or gambling. As long as we hang on to the hope that 'the other guy' will get screwed and not us, most of us will approve of the confiscating. Call it the 'something for nothing' principle.

yes, there is no free lunch as Milton Friedman said but still it is the very essence of liberalism.

Is an average guy going to know a stimulus cant work, that stealing from the rich cant work, that regulation cant work, that printing money cant work, that Solyndra investing cant work, that corporate taxes don't raise revenue or that welfare doesn't work, or that government jobs aren't real jobs?

Democrats use these issues only to pander to the near perfect ignorance of liberals

Which is why I believe we are at the tipping point. We now have 50% of Americans dependent in some way on government benevolence--some a little bit; others a lot. But whether a little or a lot, once a person becomes dependent, they emotionally and mentally resist giving up what they have and are used to getting. So you rapidly have a mob self-protection mentality building as was demonstrated in the riots in Greece and has been demonstratedin Wisconsin when anybody presumed to start rolling back the freebies.

If we do not reverse that now, there will be too few of us left with the will and instincts to do so. It may already be too late, but all we can do is try.