• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Balanced Budget Ammendment

Do you support a balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution?

  • Yes, we should live within our means.

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • No, it handcuffs the government.

    Votes: 9 39.1%

  • I don't care about it; I have no opinion.

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23

The wording the amendment is critical. Balance how, by raising taxes? By cutting necessary lawful spending to maintain unconstitutional harmful programs? Who gets taxed? How are the taxes implemented?

The need is for Comprehensive Spending Reform, also known as Comprehensive Unilateral Taxpayer Salvation, or C.U.T.S.

(The Mayor notes that the use of the word "Comprehensive" seems to have a Pied Piper effect on Lefties. They like to pretend lots of syllables mean more than fewer syllables. So, rather than using the single, three syllable word "amnesty", the Leftist Who Hate America call their scam "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", three words, ten syllables. Only Lefties are fooled into thinking it's not Amnesty, but only Lefties are fooled anyway. Comprehensive Unilateral Taxpayer Salvation is the only way to go.)
 
Camlon said:
I actually don't think this is a problem, when time comes and there is a big war then congress can meet and create a temporary amendment that let them override the spending limit. US hasn't been in a proper war since second world war anyway.
Click to expand...

What's a "temporary amendment" and what articles of the Constitution authorize them?
 
ricksfolly said:
Not necessary. US budget IS balanced every year. The Treasury Department makes up the difference. Good thing too. All Government debts have to be paid when due. The proof is there is never a carry over deficit the following year.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

?

The sum of the previous years' deficits that have not been paid are called the National Debt. Or have you got one of those magic credit cards that resets it's balance to zero on New Year's Eve?
 
ricksfolly said:
All governments are in debt, most are in worse shape than us. Even if we raise the National Debt to 20 trillion, we'll still be the best risk.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

The projected debt of the United States is in excess of 100,000 billion dollars.
 

i don't. i've never borrowed money for a car, to go to college, etc. and i'm doing pretty well.

but what you are missing in your analogy is that people run short term deficits and long term surplusses. I borrow 180K one year for a house, and spend the next 30 running a slight surplus as I pay it off. the government runs 180K deficits every year and never runs a surplus to pay it off.

in technical terms, this is known as "being dumb".
 
Want to REALLY balance the budget, and do so without killing the taxpayer?

Yes? Then recognize that a three step process is needed.

First, implement Comprehensive Unilateral Taxpayer Salvation. Focus on the easy things first, gutting NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts and similar luxury items no one needs. Once the public sees how good CUTS feels, expands to other unconstitutional programs.

Secondly, and this is more important than CUTS and it's a move that would guarantee success, do something completely simple.

Move the tax filing deadline to Halloween or November First, just a scant week or less before the Congressmen raising your taxes is up for re-election.

Third Step, and agan, equally simple, and essential: End the process of payroll withholding. Make the taxpayer write a check, from his own bank account, using his own money that he's already seen and counted, to pay the tax he owes. The taxpayer manages to pay his rent/mortgage, his cable and telephone bills, his electric and gas bills, he can pay his taxes.

The Mayor would certainly support a Constitutional Amendment implementing Steps Two and Three. Call it the Raise Awareness of What your Congressmen is Doing To You Amendment.
 
I like the ideal but, the federal government does not care about and does not follow the US Constitution
 

no... with our government, at this point, it's more like cutting off the penis of a child-rapist who (for some reason) cannot be imprisoned. the problem is not temporal; it's inherent.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
It hampers us in the future. For example, if we ever want to fight another war for any reason, the inability to go into debt would hurt us.
Click to expand...
Wars are frightfully expensive, and a complete waste of money, but, sometimes they are necessary.
Why do people blame Bush and then Obama for this mess ??
IMO, its started with Reagan's voo-door economics when the real problem was the trade deficit.
There should be a "temporary" exemption for wars, both declared and non-declared.....
IMO, no economist in his right mind would advocate tax cuts for the rich when the tax revenues were down. I am not convinced that this concept has any merit.
 

Yes we should have a balanced budget amendment assuming there is an exception for a major national emergency or war. For regular day to day operations the government should live within its means.
 

I won't dispute that with you. Which is why we also need to be more efficient about the things the federal government spends money on. But that particular issue won't be fixed by a balanced budget amendment either. That would require separate reforms.
 
phattonez said:
I don't care what other countries are doing. I showed that it was bad because it means less capital for private businesses that provide the services that people want. Governments do not do that nearly as well as private companies do.
Click to expand...

Wrong, private businesses borrow from banks. Government backed business money comes from taxes. Banks have no capital shortage, but they only loan to low risk companies and people. Other than Federal deposit insurance (FDIC) limit, the Government has no other connection with private banks.

ricksfolly
 

govt backed business money still comes from banks.
 
ricksfolly said:
True, but only from Federal Reserve banks, not private ones, backed by selling T bills, notes, and bonds, and then added to the National debt.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

not so.......govt "backed" funds are lent from banks but guaranteed by the govt.
 

Private businesses also get money from investors. Try again.
 

certainly agreed.
 

really?

in that case, I demand to know who this guy is really, and why the hell they won't shut up about him on my television:




or these people?
 
Last edited:
If the federal government actually only spent money on what is authorized in the Constitution and raise money as per the Constitution then there wouldn't be a need for a Balanced Budget Amendment.


Incorrect since the Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank and controls the entire money supply.
 
Last edited:
Mayor Snorkum said:
What's a "temporary amendment" and what articles of the Constitution authorize them?
Click to expand...

Well, they could make a lawchange that overrides the amendment till the war is finished. My point is, when time comes and there is a big war, they will change the amendment to be able to spend more money. They will have the support of both parties.

Therefore, we could just make a balanced budget amendment to the constitution without any possibilities of opting out.
 

Which is why we should enact term limits. Presidents get a single six year term. Senators max (2) 6 year terms and reps a max (2) 4 year term. Thus we take away their constant perspective focusing on the next election.

a two year balanced budget suffers from the same problems as a single year.
 
then we just maximize their incentive to use their position to secure themselves a "real" and better paying job in the private sector - Lobbyists of former congresscritters become the de-facto Congress, and we end up encouraging corporatism.

:shrug: a 2-year suffers the same problem as a 10-year. at some point you have to draw the line, and if you don't do it in such a way as to match the incentives of the actors to your desired result, then you won't be happy with what you end up seeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…