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 11-18-2011, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,798 posts, read 6,706,804 times
Reputation: 2889

Advertisements

Rules Chairman David Dreier to vote against balanced-budget amendment - The Hill's Floor Action


Quote:
House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said he would vote against the balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution later this week, a high-profile Republican defection that will make it one vote harder for the GOP to find the 290 votes needed to pass their amendment on Friday.
Speaking on the House floor, Dreier said that while he supported an amendment in 1995, he has changed his mind, and now believes that Congress does not need to amend the Constitution in order to balance the budget. He said his 1995 vote was based on the belief that an amendment was the only way to balance the budget.


"I was wrong," Dreier said. "Two short years later, we balanced the federal budget. We balanced the federal budget and that went on for several years.
Balanced budget amendment to Constitution fails in House vote - NYPOST.com

Quote:
Four Republicans voted against the measure, one of whom -- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) -- explained his opposition as a stand against the possibility of future tax increases as a result of the amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:12 PM
Status: "Trump: "Eric, go rake the forest"." (set 17 days ago)
 
10,069 posts, read 5,828,079 times
Reputation: 6917
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
If you had read the linked article in the OP you would know that those provisions had been made.


House rejects balanced budget proposal - Yahoo! News
You are absolutely correct. I spoke without reading, thinking it was the same old same old. I see, deep within, where they do speak of that. I wish it had the actual proposed amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:13 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,147,757 times
Reputation: 6378
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Despite all of the Democratic claims that they want to be fiscally responsible, and balance the budgets, they vote once again not to do so.

House rejects balanced budget proposal - Yahoo! News

Democrats, swayed by the arguments of their leaders that a balanced budget requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs, overwhelmingly voted against it.

Just like paygo, they dont really want to live without their means and they dont mind spending our childrens money for votes.
So you would be for shrinking the money supply I take it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:15 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,147,757 times
Reputation: 6378
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
If the GOP really wanted a balanced budget amendment they could have passed it when they held both houses of Congress. But then W Bush would have faced an embarrassing dilemma.

You can never balance the budget. That is why they never can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:16 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,774,676 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
So you would be for shrinking the money supply I take it.
"Conservatives" don't realize that would cause deflation and catastrophic default.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,646 posts, read 13,666,528 times
Reputation: 1679
Lightbulb hmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post

Just like paygo, they dont really want to live without their means and they dont mind spending our childrens money for votes.

You're interested in seeing the Paygo rules reinstated?

Interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:20 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 36,108,660 times
Reputation: 12733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
"Conservatives" don't realize that would cause deflation and catastrophic default.
Something which would have been a lot less painful had it been allowed to happen in 2009 instead of TARP. It is going to happen and kicking the can down the road only makes it worse (something Progressives don't admit).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:24 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,147,757 times
Reputation: 6378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
"Conservatives" don't realize that would cause deflation and catastrophic default.

What these geniuses don't seem to know is that the Fed masquerades this process with a banking facade:

* country has no money
* country spends money into existence.
* country with surplus sucks money back in.
* country with deficits spends more money into existence.


Of course they made a FED that pretends to loan money, and then they slapped an interest draw on it so they could call it debt.


So basically the "fiscally conservative plan" is to rely on the velocity of money(increasing bank debt with interest). The problem is banks are not lending to broke Americans, and the ones who do drive up asset prices crushing all hope of recovery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:26 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,147,757 times
Reputation: 6378
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Something which would have been a lot less painful had it been allowed to happen in 2009 instead of TARP. It is going to happen and kicking the can down the road only makes it worse (something Progressives don't admit).

Its mathematically impossible to pay off a debt that you also use as ....yyyyoouuuurrrr .....MONEY!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 02:31 PM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,015,071 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
So basically the "fiscally conservative plan" is to rely on the velocity of money(increasing bank debt with interest). The problem is banks are not lending to broke Americans, and the ones who do drive up asset prices crushing all hope of recovery.
exactly. we give the ability to create money entirely to the private sector banks, and then the rest of America can beg the banks to loan us money.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top