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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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).
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
hmm...
