Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2011, 08:30 AM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,546,690 times
Reputation: 1951

Advertisements

Balanced Budget Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had granted to the Continental Congress the power
to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted And, with this as a model[6] Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants to the United States Congress the power
To borrow money on the credit of the United States; At the time that the Constitution came into effect, the United States had a significant debt, primarily associated with the Revolutionary War. There were differences within and between the major political coalitions over the possible liquidation or increase of this debt. As early as 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one.
For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.[7]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2011, 08:34 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030
i would have no problem with a balanced budget amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 08:38 AM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,283,089 times
Reputation: 3296
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
i would have no problem with a balanced budget amendment.
I would have no problem with it either.

Could be the only thing at this time to stop the nation's decline.

Some want to endlessly raise taxes, but the result would be diminished returns as people stop working as hard for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 08:42 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,455,215 times
Reputation: 4243
I have no problem with it, but it will never pass because they know they can't do it on a consistent basis. I would really like them to try though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 08:52 AM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,283,089 times
Reputation: 3296
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
I have no problem with it, but it will never pass because they know they can't do it on a consistent basis. I would really like them to try though.
They will NEVER try and do it without a balanced budget amendment.

Usually small breaks in that are allowed for time of war and state of emergencys, but that wouldn't allow a big hole to keep large deficits.

The honesty of what we need to do is to either for a long time stop hiring more government workers or to unfortunately fire some.
It is also a fact of life that we can't support people's lives through social programs to the levels we have in the past. We've done so much that we risk being able to do ANYTHING in the future.
We also have to live for a decade on past budgets, like maybe a 2004 budget.

I know some believe you just tax the living hell out of especially other people's money, but there is the law of diminishing returns and as you tax more you get back far less as people stop producing since it doesn't do anything for you.
New York and California are starving from the over-taxing problems.

Pensions for government workers outside of fire, police and such need to go down to the level of a social security check.
Right now they are making so much money you'd have to have tens of millions in the bank to get those payments at current interest rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 08:58 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
They will NEVER try and do it without a balanced budget amendment.

Usually small breaks in that are allowed for time of war and state of emergencys, but that wouldn't allow a big hole to keep large deficits.

The honesty of what we need to do is to either for a long time stop hiring more government workers or to unfortunately fire some.
It is also a fact of life that we can't support people's lives through social programs to the levels we have in the past. We've done so much that we risk being able to do ANYTHING in the future.
We also have to live for a decade on past budgets, like maybe a 2004 budget.

I know some believe you just tax the living hell out of especially other people's money, but there is the law of diminishing returns and as you tax more you get back far less as people stop producing since it doesn't do anything for you.
New York and California are starving from the over-taxing problems.

Pensions for government workers outside of fire, police and such need to go down to the level of a social security check.
Right now they are making so much money you'd have to have tens of millions in the bank to get those payments at current interest rates.
well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:13 AM
 
2,095 posts, read 2,581,902 times
Reputation: 1268
I would be completely against a balanced budget amendment because it would be economically disastrous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:15 AM
 
45,229 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123 View Post
I would be completely against a balanced budget amendment because it would be economically disastrous.
For the federal government or the taxpayer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:17 AM
 
2,095 posts, read 2,581,902 times
Reputation: 1268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
For the federal government or the taxpayer?

For the economy in general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:19 AM
 
45,229 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123 View Post
For the economy in general.
Can you explain how/why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top