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.
Just bear in mind that I believe DeMint's timing was impeccably conceived. He, like Pence, is pretty much a straight-shooter as poiticians go and now has put those committed to passage of ObaCare at all costs (quite literally) up against it. If they stand by in silence they become obvious and the trapping begins and ends in nuanced suffocation Bc4-e2, Nd4-f3 mate. Obama says it won't cost anything and will actually save money, so come on boys..., sign on to the balanced budget amendment legislation!
A balanced budget amendment would be a stupid idea, and so would banning earmarks. A narrow line-item veto that could meet Constitutional muster would probably be a good idea, but the devil would as always be in the details. Non-emergency government spending is not out of line -- Obama has in fact SLOWED the rates of increase from those of the Bush era, even while including in the budget a variety of programs that Bush pushed through outside the budget process. The deficits that people whine over are meanwhile the result of much-needed emergency spending and recession-related declines in receipts. Each of those is a temporary factor. What's needed to resolve those is economic growth. More reports like those this morning confirming a 5.9% increase in GDP are the way out...
a balanced budget amendment would be a stupid idea, and so would banning earmarks. A narrow line-item veto that could meet constitutional muster would probably be a good idea, but the devil would as always be in the details. Non-emergency government spending is not out of line -- obama has in fact slowed the rates of increase from those of the bush era, even while including in the budget a variety of programs that bush pushed through outside the budget process. The deficits that people whine over are meanwhile the result of much-needed emergency spending and recession-related declines in receipts. Each of those is a temporary factor. What's needed to resolve those is economic growth. More reports like those this morning confirming a 5.9% increase in gdp are the way out...
why would a balanced budget, be a stupid idea?????
Last edited by workingclasshero; 02-26-2010 at 01:45 PM..
I await this gem from saggy also and she forgot the bad complimentary news of lower housing resale figures and more depressed new housing construction starts on the eve of Spring. Well, half the story is better than none, huh! Both sure signs of the lack of government to enact disciplined fiscal policy.
Hardly ever do I agree with KevK, but I do on this. This must happen now! To continue on the path we are on and to not add a balanced budget amendment would be an epic mistake.
why would a balanced budget, be a stupid idea?????
Because it means that the government couldnt keep expanding without paying their bills. It might mean saganista would lose her government job when they couldnt pay all of the $200K salaries for government employees. We wouldnt want to encourage a fiscal responsible Washington because doing so would mean so many federal employees would lose their jobs..
This was brought up in the early 1980s when Reagan was running up deficits and I am wondering if it is not time to take another look at the idea of putting a Balanced Budget Amendment on the Federal Constitution. My own view is that I would support the idea so long as the amendment had a provision for an emergency opt out that would require the President declare a National Emergency and that 4/5ths of the Congress and the Senate declare the emergency and that it be repaid within 5 years of the end of the emergency. If the emergency lasted longer than a year (such as a major war or disease outbreak), the President, Congress and Senate would be required to renew the declaration with the same 4/5ths vote.
It is my belief that, if these politicians know they either have to RAISE taxes or CUT other programs to fund all this pork, they will think twice. They are not going to say "I am voting to cut Social Security to pay for a bridge to nowhere". What do you think?
It was time for a balanced budget amendment 30 years ago. Now we need a budget that is BELOW revenues to reduce the debt.
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.
pghquest
!
