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 11-18-2011, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 19,611,581 times
Reputation: 6479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
You can never balance the budget, unless you like depressions. I suppose we could eventually use a piece of eight, zinc penny to buy a house someday, but it sounds painful.
One has nothing to do with the other. Government spending should be based upon the prior fiscal year's revenues. Currently, they are based upon projected revenues. If revenues decline as a result of a declining economy, then government spending should be reduced by a proportional amount for the following fiscal year. Only in the event of a national emergency, such as a war or natural disaster, should Congress be allowed to spend more than it receives in revenues.

All 50 States already have laws in place that either require their legislature to enact a balanced budget, or prohibit their Governors from signing a budget that is not balanced. Congress is the primary hurdle with regard to passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. Should it eventually pass Congress, it would be ratified quickly by the required 38 States.

 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,327,161 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
So you are talking about limiting the deficit? I certainly would not be against that, but since we create money with deficits, I don't like the sound of it. It will just make more people think it works like the family budget.

The other thing I don't quite understand is why people think the da guberment is the only problem while we are getting slaughtered with ZIRP from the Fed. Da guberment could at least do some useful project. With the red hot keyboards printing up rent seeking money at Goldman Sachs, its going to keep jacking up prices. You can forget about balancing the budget in this environment. The FIRE economy is essentially at par with da guberment in eating into our budget, and we get nothing from them, not even crap for a pot hole.
da Guberment as you call it is propping up the fed and Goldman Sachs.

Without the power of the government, what they are doing would be considered theft.

And the people are all to willing to continue letting them do it, because they are unwilling to see the value of their house fall. When a free market conservative must acknowledge that the market must make correction, not to have the government try and create an artificial bottom. That only prevents the rebound.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:33 PM
 
17,750 posts, read 15,043,922 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
One has nothing to do with the other. Government spending should be based upon the prior fiscal year's revenues. Currently, they are based upon projected revenues. If revenues decline as a result of a declining economy, then government spending should be reduced by a proportional amount for the following fiscal year. Only in the event of a national emergency, such as a war or natural disaster, should Congress be allowed to spend more than it receives in revenues.

All 50 States already have laws in place that either require their legislature to enact a balanced budget, or prohibit their Governors from signing a budget that is not balanced. Congress is the primary hurdle with regard to passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. Should it eventually pass Congress, it would be ratified quickly by the required 38 States.

Where will new money come from? Will we keep dropping the reserve requirements? How are we going to get Americans to borrow even more money ?
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 19,611,581 times
Reputation: 6479
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Where will new money come from? Will we keep dropping the reserve requirements? How are we going to get Americans to borrow even more money ?
Congressional spending has nothing to do with the FRS, except for funding its budget of course. The FRS will continue to regulate monetary policy and determine its value as Congress directs. After all, that is a power the US Constitution specifically grants to Congress under Article I, Section 8.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:42 PM
 
17,750 posts, read 15,043,922 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
da Guberment as you call it is propping up the fed and Goldman Sachs.

Without the power of the government, what they are doing would be considered theft.
Agreed.

Quote:
And the people are all to willing to continue letting them do it, because they are unwilling to see the value of their house fall. When a free market conservative must acknowledge that the market must make correction, not to have the government try and create an artificial bottom. That only prevents the rebound.
What we need to do is nationalize mortgages which would essentially convert interest payments into land taxes. That would balance budgets and remove other taxes on production. We should also have laws that prevent rent seeking loans. That strikes at the root of the problem. If you can get the attention of da guberment, go for the throat.

However some fat boomers wanting their Mcmansion cash ins might be a problem. However they need to know the real estate ride is long over.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:48 PM
 
17,750 posts, read 15,043,922 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Congressional spending has nothing to do with the FRS, except for funding its budget of course. The FRS will continue to regulate monetary policy and determine its value as Congress directs. After all, that is a power the US Constitution specifically grants to Congress under Article I, Section 8.

Not spending per se, but certainly deficits. New dollars are created when the da guberment runs a deficit. That is why I want a large deficit in the form of tax cuts for ss with holding or other such things to put money in the goods and services economy. Then I would end ZIRP and jack up interest rates. This would put stagflation polices in reverse.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,327,161 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Agreed.


What we need to do is nationalize mortgages which would essentially convert interest payments into land taxes. That would balance budgets and remove other taxes on production. We should also have laws that prevent rent seeking loans. That strikes at the root of the problem. If you can get the attention of da guberment, go for the throat.

However some fat boomers wanting their Mcmansion cash ins might be a problem. However they need to know the real estate ride is long over.

Interesting, not opposed to the idea, I would have to study it further.

However, those fat boomers and Washington politicians have everyone running so scared, and they want the government to prop up the mortgage companies, to prop up their over inflated house value.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:51 PM
 
1,051 posts, read 1,036,604 times
Reputation: 536
I will support a BBA only if the R's allow for a War-tax. That way this unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan perpetual war actually hits pocketbooks and swift decisions can be made on these adventures.

If you want to go to war, first collect the money to do so.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,327,161 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mufc1878 View Post
I will support a BBA only if the R's allow for a War-tax. That way this unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan perpetual war actually hits pocketbooks and swift decisions can be made on these adventures.

If you want to go to war, first collect the money to do so.

I'm opposed to a war tax, but I would support significantly better then average interest rates on war bonds.

Lure the money out of banks, and flush the government with the money to pay for our military.
 
Old 11-18-2011, 10:03 PM
 
17,750 posts, read 15,043,922 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Interesting, not opposed to the idea, I would have to study it further.

However, those fat boomers and Washington politicians have everyone running so scared, and they want the government to prop up the mortgage companies, to prop up their over inflated house value.
After about 10 years of intense study reading classical economics, I have come to realize that I am in a FOG, Fiance Occupied Government.

Even more horrifying was the recognition that people will bid up housing and other assets until the effective least marginal return. This basically means lowering land taxes just jacks up interest with all the surplus going to finance:

$1000 tax per month
$1000 interest per month

$500 tax per month
$1,500 interest per month.

Thus they are turning everything into a financial asset that converts taxes and income into interest.


We got to get finance out of real estate ASAP. It just drives up prices and sends all our money to fat cats. You can't vote these people out.


Do that and Federal Budgets will be very tame.
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.


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