Balanced Budget Amendment - Yes or No?

[JohnnyMack]

Do you support a constitutional amendment requiring the Federal Government to operate within the confines of a balanced budget?

Yes?

No?

Why or why not?

Please keep all your partisan *********gery out of this and let's talk like grownups. Thanks.

[Vaevictis]

No. Sometimes you have to run a deficit.

I would like to see an amendment that makes a Congress-person ineligible to run if the Federal Government runs a deficit 5/6 years while they're on the Hill.

[Penguin]

Nah. Cuz one year you might have to raise taxes to un-Godly levels, while the next, you might have to send out ridiculous amounts of "refunds."

[Condescending Sooner]

Yes, but only if they balance it by reducing spending instead of increasing taxes. Several states have required balanced budgets and they seem to function fine.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yes -- emphatically yes. The only caveat is that there needs to be a clause allowing deficit spending in the case of, "extreme national emergency and/or war."

That sort of leaves things up to a loose interpretation though...

[JohnnyMack]

SicEm,

18 minutes to respond to a Constitutional Amendment thread? You disappoint.

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm,

18 minutes to respond to a Constitutional Amendment thread? You disappoint.
I've started shutting down for the weekend.

[OklahomaTuba]

While i agree with it in principle, I don't think its realistic while at the same time maintaining our "sphere of influence" around the globe. Nor will it be anywhere realistic if we are to now provide cradle to grave entitlements to all Americans and our non-American friends who live amongst us illegally.

I think the better way to approach it is to say the budget can not limit a certain percentage of GDP (sans a qualifying event). Its almost always bounced around 3-6%, and the treasuries don't seem to blink.

Now that the % will be well above 6% in the socialist paradise that the Big O has conceived, lord knows what will happen to our bonds, our currency, our inflation or our economy from here on out. Its just not sustainable long term.

[tommieharris91]

No. Sometimes you have to run a deficit.

I would like to see an amendment that makes a Congress-person ineligible to run if the Federal Government runs a deficit 5/6 years while they're on the Hill.

This.

[JohnnyMack]

While i agree with it in principle, I don't think its realistic while at the same time maintaining our "sphere of influence" around the globe. Nor will it be anywhere realistic if we are to now provide cradle to grave entitlements to all Americans and our non-American friends who live amongst us illegally.

I think the better way to approach it is to say the budget can not limit a certain percentage of GDP (sans a qualifying event). Its almost always bounced around 3-6%, and the treasuries don't seem to blink.

Now that the % will be well above 6% in the socialist paradise that the Big O has conceived, lord knows what will happen to our bonds, our currency, our inflation or our economy from here on out. Its just not sustainable long term.

You almost got through an entire post without saying something dildonic. Keep trying.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Who cares? It would be just another law the politicians can disregard...then write another law to not disregard the law...then write another law to not disregard the don't disregard law....yada yada,

[NormanPride]

Actually, a constitutional amendment would be pretty good at preventing something like that, Rush.

[yermom]

well, since we are going to be "at war" for the foreseeable future, i'm not sure what good it will do

[NormanPride]

Well, we could make the caveat be that the amendment is suspended for a congressional declaration of war against a politically recognized entity. So no "war on drugs" or "war on terrorism" crap. You've gotta say: "Afghani people, we're comin' atcha."

Maybe that would go a long way towards preventing us half-assing a "war" again.

[OUHOMER]

YES!! that's all there is to say. on the good years setup a raining day fun not to exceed (pick an amount).

leaving the bank account open to the folks in Washington is killing us. It would kill the ear marks, so many things need to be done.

Here is an example on how they can save some bucks.

travel, X amount will go into a fund. senators and congressmen, will have to apply for travel funds, if there are no funds left, they don't go on 3 day trips to Europe until the funds are replenished the next year.

[NormanPride]

I've always thought that we should make positions of power mild forms of torture. Make congressmen live in ****ty dorms and eat crappy food, with no interference from outside parties. Planned field trips to ghettos and meth labs to see what it is they're trying to fix, etc. etc. The idea being if we make it crappy enough, only those who are dedicated to the cause will want to do it. Even if the pork still gets doled out, at least we made them suffer to get it.

Also, abolishing political parties would be fun.

[Harry Beanbag]

If you have a balanced budget amendment that you must adhere to, that pretty much throws ever paying off the debt out the window.

[swardboy]

No....I would prefer the line item veto. Let the buck really stop at the President's desk.

[SicEmBaylor]

No....I would prefer the line item veto. Let the buck really stop at the President's desk.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A line item veto sort of goes hand-in-hand with a balanced budget amendment though both would require a Constitutional amendment.

A line item sure makes balancing the budget a hell of a lot easier.

[Vaevictis]

The problem with line item is that it fundamentally changes the power of the purse. It essentially turns budgeting into "Congress proposes individual expenditures, the President consents to individual expenditures."

Is that something we really want?

[CORNholio]

Yes. But only if they establish a tax cap or the Obaminators will just raise taxes every time they think there is an opportunity to extend govt control. Also needs that war/national emergency clause thing. But make it a bitch to declare those things as to discourage abuse.

[CORNholio]

I've always thought that we should make positions of power mild forms of torture. Make congressmen live in ****ty dorms and eat crappy food, with no interference from outside parties. Planned field trips to ghettos and meth labs to see what it is they're trying to fix, etc. etc. The idea being if we make it crappy enough, only those who are dedicated to the cause will want to do it. Even if the pork still gets doled out, at least we made them suffer to get it.

Also, abolishing political parties would be fun.

Or pay them the avg income from their district. They are public servants that need to relate to the people they represent. This would eliminate 'career politicians' and a little corruption, IMHO. $200,000/yr for a politician from Tecumseh, Ok is a joke. They work for us not rule over us. They're not our MFing king.

[yermom]

that's an interesting idea

[Okla-homey]

Or pay them the avg income from their district. They are public servants that need to relate to the people they represent. This would eliminate 'career politicians' and a little corruption, IMHO. $200,000/yr for a politician from Tecumseh, Ok is a joke. They work for us not rule over us. They're not our MFing king.


I've often thought we might be better off choosing legislators randomly from jury pools. That way, no one has to peddle their influence in exchange for campaign dollars. In the House, each year, half that body could be selected so that every two years, you would have a new House. The Senate could be selected similarly, with one sixth of the body chosen each year. If a chosen person had a legitimate excuse, they could be excused from service, rather like people getting out of jury duty.