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)
 
Old 08-07-2011, 09:04 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,204,447 times
Reputation: 22751

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
It is an unneeded waste of time. Congress, by Constitutional order, must provide good stewardship over the peoples money.
EXCUSE ME.

I didn't say - why isn't a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT A GOOD THING.

I said - why is a BALANCED BUDGET a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2011, 09:07 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,923,822 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Well there is always "emergency spending" only we have seen that Congress is very free with what constitutes "emergency" over the past few years.
Yep, look at the paygo rules, which have been waived on every single bill since it was passed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 09:12 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,204,447 times
Reputation: 22751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
A balanced budget is a fine thing. A balanced budget amendment is stupid.

I'll explain.

Sometimes the federal government has to take action, outside of normal budget constraints, to save the country. Whether that is massive spending for wars, like WWII, or whether that is a cold war with Russia that required massive military build up.

The budget was balanced in the 90's without a balanced budget amendment. The current congress can do the same.

But it can't be done over night. The federal government is a massive consumer of products, and puts massive amounts of money into the economy through various projects. That can't just be stopped, cut the nozzle off in one day. It would hurt the economy.

Hence the 10 to 15 year balanced budget plan. Let congress pass a budget that cuts spending, and raises revenues slowly over 10 to 15 years. Then the budget can be balanced then, without hurting the economy, transition to private sector jobs where Federal were. It would also give business owners the knowledge of what the future brings, so they can decide to invest the money they are sitting on, 2 trillion dollars, and get the economy going again also.

Thats what is needed, both parties have been more then reluctant to do so, and until they do our economy will continue to slip.

S&P mentioned specifics in their reasoning for lowering our rating.

1. Fighting over the debt ceiling
2. A reluctance to make long term cuts in spending
3. A reluctance to have revenue increases as part a deficit plan
4. A reluctance to have real entitlement reform.
BUSINESS 101: A balanced budget can contain discretionary spending.

My whole point is . . . we should not have to pass AN AMENDMENT to FORCE Congress and the President to simply do what any idiot knows should be done: we need to HAVE A BUDGET (something this Administration has failed to do) . . . and it needs to be a balanced budget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,320,215 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
BUSINESS 101: A balanced budget can contain discretionary spending.

My whole point is . . . we should not have to pass AN AMENDMENT to FORCE Congress and the President to simply do what any idiot knows should be done: we need to HAVE A BUDGET (something this Administration has failed to do) . . . and it needs to be a balanced budget.
World History 101:

Nations aren't business, and some events occur that you can't prepare for.

Ask Roosevelt on December 7th, 1941
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,020 posts, read 47,392,778 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
EXCUSE ME.

I didn't say - why isn't a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT A GOOD THING.

I said - why is a BALANCED BUDGET a bad thing.
I think most people would say it is a good idea, but it could cause more problems than is solves. For example in a time of war or economic trouble the country might need to borrow, but cannot because the constitution says so. The constitution mandates certain spending, and if you add an amendment to limit spending, then you might end up in situations where you will disobey the constitution no matter what you do. How would it look if you had a constitution which says the nation must provide for defence, and then you have another cause which prohibits you from fulfilling the mandate? Or would it mean that in order to fulfill the mandate to provide for defence or welfare of the nation, the country would confiscate people's money in order to pay for it? Say 90% tax? I think it will come down to arguments like that, which will kill the balanced budget idea. It is a good sounding idea, but it is detached from reality. It other words it is mosly political pandering. It is what people want to hear, but I think they know it will be shot down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 10:05 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,390 posts, read 17,061,069 times
Reputation: 17431
But, but Tim the tax cheat said that would never happen!

The tax cheat that heads the treasury welcomed us the 'recovery summer' last year.

tim the tax cheat swore the US would never monitize its debt!

Obma told us if we raised the debt ceiling we would not lose our credit rating.

The only shovel ready project Obama had in mind was the hole which he had dug deep enough to bury us.

Cries of the T-party trying to crash the US economy are evidence the accusers are clueless as to how to avoid a downgrade in our credit rating.

Obama may be good at sports pools but he is a total failure predicting the carnage of his economic and social policies.

Imagine how anyone could take comfort in the gentle words of Nancy Pelosi when she said, as if speaking to little children, "we have to pass it to see what's in it". Nancy has perfectly captured Obama's strategy of supporting things he knows nothing about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,804,394 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
EXCUSE ME.

I didn't say - why isn't a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT A GOOD THING.

I said - why is a BALANCED BUDGET a bad thing.
I think Congress wasting time on pointless issues, is a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,840,100 times
Reputation: 7118
S&P hits back on the White House's "math error";

Standard & Poor's Clarifies Assumption Used On Discretionary Spending Growth - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Standard-Poors-Clarifies-prnews-1708904900.html?x=0 - broken link)

Quote:
The primary focus remained on the current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook. None of these key factors was meaningfully affected by the assumption revisions to the assumed growth of discretionary outlays and thus had no impact on the rating decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,320,215 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
S&P hits back on the White House's "math error";

Standard & Poor's Clarifies Assumption Used On Discretionary Spending Growth - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Standard-Poors-Clarifies-prnews-1708904900.html?x=0 - broken link)
Elected officials as a group.

Yep.

From your article
Standard & Poor's today said that the ratings decision to lower the long-term rating to AA+ from AAA was not affected by the change of assumptions regarding the pace of discretionary spending growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,513 posts, read 5,225,721 times
Reputation: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
World History 101:

Nations aren't business, and some events occur that you can't prepare for.
Ask Roosevelt on December 7th, 1941
Reality 101:

If you are constantly spending far more than you receive in income, in good times and bad, when emergencies do arrive, you have NO WAY to deal with them.
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 08:48 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