• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Balanced Budget Amendment

subgenius

Illuminator
S
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
4,785
Why don't we hear about it anymore?
If it had passed we'd still be subject to it.
That's the b*tch about amending the Constitution.
 
Bad idea. Instead of reduce spending, the government would just raise taxes. The last thing we need is a constitutional amendment which forces the government to raise taxes. You might as well amend the constitution to make slavery legal.
 
Tony said:
Bad idea. Instead of reduce spending, the government would just raise taxes.
Click to expand...
Is'nt borrowing and paying back with interest worse than paying now? It's a lot harder to fund a program if you have to raise taxes, and face the backlash. As it is, the president just borrows the money, and the next guy has to raise taxes. Why not make the guy who spends it accountable?
 
Well of course I raise the issue because this was a big part of a certain party's platform, and now you don't hear anything about it.
Another point is to emphasize the dangers in amending the Constitution over transient political issues.
 
Michael Redman said:
Is'nt borrowing and paying back with interest worse than paying now? It's a lot harder to fund a program if you have to raise taxes, and face the backlash. As it is, the president just borrows the money, and the next guy has to raise taxes. Why not make the guy who spends it accountable?
Click to expand...


We both make good points. Personally, I would rather see a double package of an amendment repealing the income tax ratified together with the balanced budget amendment.
 
I'd like to hear from any of the 100% of Republican senators at the time, who supported the measure, what they think about deficit spending now. Let's see, Republicans in control of the White House and Congress, and bigger deficits than ever. Ah, would that we had that amendment to the constitution.
 
hgc said:
I'd like to hear from any of the 100% of Republican senators at the time, who supported the measure, what they think about deficit spending now. Let's see, Republicans in control of the White House and Congress, and bigger deficits than ever. Ah, would that we had that amendment to the constitution.
Click to expand...

My guess is that the answer lies in the filibuster. If the majority party actually proposed a balanced budget (with the proper cuts) it would be filibustered. Anything less than a tax increase would be filibustered.
 
corplinx said:


My guess is that the answer lies in the filibuster. If the majority party actually proposed a balanced budget (with the proper cuts) it would be filibustered. Anything less than a tax increase would be filibustered.
Click to expand...
Sorry, just a sec, I'm knocking the hallucinatory tumor out of my head. There, that's better. I thought I heard you say that the Dems made them do it. But you wouldn't say anything that crazy, would you?
 
hgc said:
Sorry, just a sec, I'm knocking the hallucinatory tumor out of my head. There, that's better. I thought I heard you say that the Dems made them do it. But you wouldn't say anything that crazy, would you?
Click to expand...

You asked what their answer would be, not mine. :)

I proposed what their answer would be. I think they would pass the buck.
 
corplinx said:


You asked what their answer would be, not mine. :)

I proposed what their answer would be. I think they would pass the buck.
Click to expand...
Got it. Thanks. Whew, that's a relief.
 
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/v5.htm
Of course there was an out clause during times of certain military conflicts, but interesting that any deficit was not tied to the amount of expenditures for same.

The Constitution should not be a substitute for legislation.

Its like the starlet said, "Who do I have to ◊◊◊◊ to get OUT of this contract."
 
"Republicans support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, phased in over a short period and with appropriate safeguards for national emergencies. We passed it in the House of Representatives, but Bill Clinton and his allies -- especially the Senate's somersault six, who switched their longstanding position on the issue -- blocked it by a single vote." [Congressional Q. Weekly Rept., Aug. 17, 1996, page 2319.]

And my question is, with control of all three (OK two for you quibblers) branches of government. Where is the hue and cry?
Was this not a cornerstone of party philosophy? Or was it just a political ploy, to be discarded when no longer useful? Isn't it just a little bit hypocritical (yes I know the other guys are bigger hypocrites)?
 
National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well.
"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, said at a news briefing with the other five leaders. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112447-9758r.htm
 
http://www.rnc.org/gopinfo/platform
http://www.straightthought.com/2000-republican-party-platform.shtml

Well I found an interesting excerpt:
Third, we must protect our economic interests and ensure the reliable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. And fourth, we must reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the region. Because America cannot achieve these objectives by acting alone, U.S. policy must rest on leadership that can build strong coalitions of like-minded states and hold them together to achieve common aims.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/repplat.html

I think I found it!!!
http://www.expandnato.org/r2000.html
I don't see balanced budget or amendment mentioned anywhere, maybe someone can find it for me.
Maybe it was just a political ploy. Kinda like term limits.
 
Wouldn't it make sense to have some kind of arrangement similar to that being ignored in Europe:

- The deficit cannot be greater than x% of GDP (say 3%)
- The debt cannot be greater than y% of GDP (say 40%)
- Taxes cannot be greater than z% of GDP (say 50%)

Of course then you just end up giving tax credits instead of welfare to keep the total tax take down
 
Michael Redman said:
Is'nt borrowing and paying back with interest worse than paying now?

...snip...
Click to expand...

No - that's what the kids are for. Perhaps we should start naming children as "Repay 2004 deficit"?

Seriously I wonder how many people realise that most governments work on a "buy now pay back later" philosophy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom