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.
And if 51% or more of the people of this country are the, um
"liberal welfare dependent class", did not the founding fathers give them the power to have their voices heard. And if they indeed decide that they want a government that panders to them, then who the hell is the minority to tell them otherwise.
Oligarchy vs Democracy
We the people....
Did you just say that the old Founders who said that when people find out that they can vote money to themselves you need to watch out? No you didn't say that, you said that they have a right to vote for people who will take from the smaller group and pay it to them. Sure as hell that is what I think you said.
Oh, you mean like the Iraq War and unfunded Medicare part D? When the Republicans were in charge, they ran up the largest deficits and that was when the economy was good. You need to remember that Bush's last budget was 2009 and that was projected as a $1.3 trillion deficit before Obama stepped into the WH.
Get your facts straight.
The gov't didn't demand that banks give loans to anyone that couldn't afford the loan. That's plainly false. Next you will be telling us that the gov't forced banks to run TV ads that said, "no job, no credit, no problem." Financial institutions gave those loans because their plan was to sell them to unsuspecting investors. If they failed, so what?, was their view. Those institutions never intended upon holding the loans.
Actually, it is you that do not have the facts straight. The House originates all budgets, not Presidents. The Democrats took control of the House in 2007, and it was the lack of a budget that caused deficits to soar from FY2008 through FY2011.
Before you accuse President Bush of agreeing to those increasing deficits, you better check the roll call votes. Every Omnibus, Supplemental, and Continuing Resolution enacted by Congress from 2007 through 2009 passed with a veto-proof majority that included all the Democrats and almost half the Republicans.
Did you just say that the old Founders who said that when people find out that they can vote money to themselves you need to watch out? No you didn't say that, you said that they have a right to vote for people who will take from the smaller group and pay it to them. Sure as hell that is what I think you said.
What they said, and the government they created are two very different things, now aren't they?
The people can elect whomever they want to congress and the white house. If they decide to vote only for politicians that pander to their every whim and desire, and the politicians are out to get re-elected, then they are going to do what the people want.
That wouldn't be saying much. Is it your contention that the majority should be able to vote themselves any amount of spending???
Oh don't worry, the state of our democratic republic suffers from both possible ills in this form of government. The tyranny of the majority is in abeyance because of the low grade intelligence of the people.
This thread, being case in point, ought to be titled "I don't know how our credit money system works" as should all threads that discuss balanced budget amendments.
Exactly, apparently a majority of Republicans did like it either. In the house, if every Republican voted for it, they bill would pass without a single Democratic vote.
That sounds very good and, of course, is very true but we need to get out budget under control as soon as possible and since the Congress can't balance the budget without law forcing them to do it we need to get Dems out of control in the Senate to pass a bill like that. There was no sense in the House passing that thing when Dirty Harry would just have tabled it with the ten or so jobs bills they have sent to him. We have to get real sometime and now would be a good choice of time.
That sounds very good and, of course, is very true but we need to get out budget under control as soon as possible and since the Congress can't balance the budget without law forcing them to do it we need to get Dems out of control in the Senate to pass a bill like that. There was no sense in the House passing that thing when Dirty Harry would just have tabled it with the ten or so jobs bills they have sent to him. We have to get real sometime and now would be a good choice of time.
Congress can't get the budget balanced because people don't care about that.
All they want is to make sure they have social security, medicare, and the military. To hell with everything else. When roads start to fall apart, they'll demand those.
Until the people decide to prioritize, it won't happen, with or without a balanced budget amendment. But as I said, if Republicans don't want a balanced budget, and its clear they don't (they say they do, but when you ask for specifics, not so much), then its their country if they are the majority, is it not?
Congress can't get the budget balanced because people don't care about that.
All they want is to make sure they have social security, medicare, and the military. To hell with everything else. When roads start to fall apart, they'll demand those.
Until the people decide to prioritize, it won't happen, with or without a balanced budget amendment. But as I said, if Republicans don't want a balanced budget, and its clear they don't (they say they do, but when you ask for specifics, not so much), then its their country if they are the majority, is it not?
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.
That sounds very good and, of course, is very true but we need to get out budget under control as soon as possible and since the Congress can't balance the budget without law forcing them to do it we need to get Dems out of control in the Senate to pass a bill like that. There was no sense in the House passing that thing when Dirty Harry would just have tabled it with the ten or so jobs bills they have sent to him. We have to get real sometime and now would be a good choice of time.
What you said is certainly true, however, I am not certain that a Republican controlled Senate will be any better. If you recall, the GOP controlled House passed a Balanced Budget Amendment with a two-thirds majority in 1996, but only got 66 votes in the GOP controlled Senate. Failing by one vote.
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.
When the government speaks of a balanced budget, it means to keep the rate of growth at a good deal greater percentage then the growth of the amount of bonds sold.
When the government speaks of a balanced budget, it means to keep the rate of growth at a good deal greater percentage then the growth of the amount of bonds sold.
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.
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.
