Let's discuss 'Balanced Budget'

[RandomVariable]

A big, maybe the big, argument for Ryan's budget is that it is a 'balanced budget'. Trying to figure this stuff out is not easy so I ask, nay beg, for someone to explain this to me, especially you righties.

The budget has balanced in the past but has there ever been a "balanced budget" by the U.S. government?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Ryan's proposal is typical republican crap.

Push the substantial cuts off for a decade for another congress to deal with.

And they wonder how it is they get called RINOs.

 

[kwc57]

Balanced budgets are always criticized by liberals. It acknowledges that stuff isn't free. When you don't have a budget, let alone try to balance it, it makes spending money you don't have to provide for shit the government thinks you are entitled to a whole lot easier.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There hasn't been a balanced Federal budget since 1957.

That was the last year in which the National Debt did NOT go up... in fact, it went down very slightly.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

In every year since then, the Natl Debt has gone up. Meaning, spending exceeded revenue, and we had to borrow more money to make ends meet, resulting in the increase in the Debt, every year.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Balanced budgets are always criticized by liberals. It acknowledges that stuff isn't free. When you don't have a budget, let alone try to balance it, it makes spending money you don't have to provide for shit the government thinks you are entitled to a whole lot easier.

They may be criticized by liberals, but NO ONE supports one. Conservatives may SAY they support a balanced budget .... until THEY get to be the ones signing the checks.

 

[RandomVariable]

There hasn't been a balanced Federal budget since 1957.

That was the last year in which the National Debt did NOT go up... in fact, it went down very slightly.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

In every year since then, the Natl Debt has gone up. Meaning, spending exceeded revenue, and we had to borrow more money to make ends meet, resulting in the increase in the Debt, every year.

I gave you a thanks but I can't actually verify your statement from that page.

 

[DGS49]

A government balanced budget is not that great a trick. Most of the states are required by law to live within their budget (i.e., expenditures cannot exceed revenues), although they often employ tricks to do it.

At the federal level, you have two unfortunate phenomena: politicians get re-elected by giving away taxpayers' dollars, and the government can create "money" out of thin air in several ways. So there is no reason (other than integrity) why any federal politician would do anything other than continue the pork barrel spending.

The Federal Budget could be balanced in a heartbeat by simply eliminating all of the Unconstitutional outlays. Of course that would throw millions of people out of work but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, eh?

 

[Little-Acorn]

There hasn't been a balanced Federal budget since 1957.

That was the last year in which the National Debt did NOT go up... in fact, it went down very slightly.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

In every year since then, the Natl Debt has gone up. Meaning, spending exceeded revenue, and we had to borrow more money to make ends meet, resulting in the increase in the Debt, every year.

I gave you a thanks but I can't actually verify your statement from that page.

Oops, try this one, which was linked on that page.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

 

[RandomVariable]

There is also the theory that budgets balances in cycles. In a way Ryan is saying when the cycle will cross the line, I really don't think anyone thinks the federal budget will stay on a line, it can't and reduce debt. The President's budget says we're on the bottom of the cycle and his policies will get us off the bottom but does not try to guess when it is when the cycle will cross the line again.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is also the theory that budgets balances in cycles.

Probably true.

1.) Liberals come to power
2.) Spending goes through the roof, far more than they can raise in taxes
3.) National Debt goes sky-high.
4.) People get tired of it, and vote the liberals out.
5.) Conservatives come to power
6.) Spending is reduced.
7.) Deficits go down, though the press screams about conservatives "Starving children, dispossessing Seniors" etc.
8.) People get tired of austerity needed to compensate for huge liberal spending
9.) People vote the conservatives out
10.) Liberals come to power
(Back to square #1)

That used to be the "cycle" Ryan was talking about. Until people found to their surprise, that liberals had infested the Republican party in 2000 (known as RINOs or Neocons), so when they voted for them, the Republicans raised spending as much as the Democrats ever had, for the first time. The cycle has been one of constantly accelerating spending by both parties, ever since.

 

[RandomVariable]

There is also the theory that budgets balances in cycles.

Probably true.

1.) Liberals come to power
2.) Spending goes through the roof, far more than they can raise in taxes
3.) National Debt goes sky-high.
4.) People get tired of it, and vote the liberals out.
5.) Conservatives come to power
6.) Spending is reduced.
7.) Deficits go down, though the press screams about conservatives "Starving children, dispossessing Seniors" etc.
8.) People get tired of austerity needed to compensate for huge liberal spending
9.) People vote the conservatives out
10.) Liberals come to power
(Back to square #1)

That used to be the "cycle" Ryan was talking about. Until people found to their surprise, that liberals had infested the Republican party in 2000 (known as RINOs or Neocons), so when they voted for them, the Republicans raised spending as much as the Democrats ever had, for the first time. The cycle has been one of constantly accelerating spending by both parties, ever since.

If your cycle makes a frown, turn it upside down.

 

[kwc57]

Balanced budgets are always criticized by liberals. It acknowledges that stuff isn't free. When you don't have a budget, let alone try to balance it, it makes spending money you don't have to provide for shit the government thinks you are entitled to a whole lot easier.

They may be criticized by liberals, but NO ONE supports one. Conservatives may SAY they support a balanced budget .... until THEY get to be the ones signing the checks.

And yet there are conservatives like Ryan who actually propose them.....repeatedly and get criticized by liberals as wanting to kill and starve women, children and the elderly. It's used as political fodder to ensure votes from low information voters afraid of losing "stuff" so the Democrats can stay in power. No different than racism charges when it comes to voter ID or immigration.

 

[RandomVariable]

There hasn't been a balanced Federal budget since 1957.

That was the last year in which the National Debt did NOT go up... in fact, it went down very slightly.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

In every year since then, the Natl Debt has gone up. Meaning, spending exceeded revenue, and we had to borrow more money to make ends meet, resulting in the increase in the Debt, every year.

I gave you a thanks but I can't actually verify your statement from that page.

Oops, try this one, which was linked on that page.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Pointing to 1957 which was the only year the debt went down begs the question of what were the economic policies from 1945 to 1957. Of course there is only one answer there: Elvis. Wildly screaming girls is always good for the economy. There is also the point that a balanced budget does not necessarily have any relation to debt. (sort of, not really, but makes a point)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Balanced budgets are always criticized by liberals. It acknowledges that stuff isn't free. When you don't have a budget, let alone try to balance it, it makes spending money you don't have to provide for shit the government thinks you are entitled to a whole lot easier.

They may be criticized by liberals, but NO ONE supports one. Conservatives may SAY they support a balanced budget .... until THEY get to be the ones signing the checks.

And yet there are conservatives like Ryan who actually propose them.....repeatedly and get criticized by liberals as wanting to kill and starve women, children and the elderly. It's used as political fodder to ensure votes from low information voters afraid of losing "stuff" so the Democrats can stay in power. No different than racism charges when it comes to voter ID or immigration.

Ryan isn't proposing to balance the budget. He is proposing to cut social programs - retain the goodies for the wealthy and leave it for future leaders to make the budget balance.

When someone proposes cutting spending across the board - let me know, I'll be interested in THAT person.


How long does he say it will take to balance his budget? Long after he is gone?

 

[DiamondDave]

A big, maybe the big, argument for Ryan's budget is that it is a 'balanced budget'. Trying to figure this stuff out is not easy so I ask, nay beg, for someone to explain this to me, especially you righties.

The budget has balanced in the past but has there ever been a "balanced budget" by the U.S. government?

Well.. balanced budget does not mean surplus... and you can have it on paper all you want, but if in REALITY you go beyond the budget, you can scream 'balanced budget' until you are blue in the face and it means nothing (Clinton)...

I think the way I would approach it, given any power in government, would be to require a spending budget that is NO GREATER than the previous year's tax revenues... required BY LAW... and that BY LAW, anything that would go beyond the budget would be taken out of the next year's allotment, with a full audit and prosecution for those who took us beyond budget without 2/3 congressional AND executive approval... and BY LAW, bring every citizen into the income tax fold with every dollar taxed that is earned.. no 'floor' where X number of dollars in the beginning goes untaxed.. preferably with a complete flat tax, but if anything only 2 tax rates with zero deductions, exemptions, exceptions, omissions, or exclusions

Reign in the ease in which politicians and government itself can freely spend... audit all spending... and hold government completely accountable, including the individuals serving on our behalf

 

[DiamondDave]

Ryan's proposal is typical republican crap.

Push the substantial cuts off for a decade for another congress to deal with.

And they wonder how it is they get called RINOs.

I agree with this...

NO CONGRESS IN THE FUTURE is REQUIRED to hold true to the promises of future cuts.. fuuture cut promises mean zero

 

[kwc57]

They may be criticized by liberals, but NO ONE supports one. Conservatives may SAY they support a balanced budget .... until THEY get to be the ones signing the checks.

And yet there are conservatives like Ryan who actually propose them.....repeatedly and get criticized by liberals as wanting to kill and starve women, children and the elderly. It's used as political fodder to ensure votes from low information voters afraid of losing "stuff" so the Democrats can stay in power. No different than racism charges when it comes to voter ID or immigration.

Ryan isn't proposing to balance the budget. He is proposing to cut social programs - retain the goodies for the wealthy and leave it for future leaders to make the budget balance.

When someone proposes cutting spending across the board - let me know, I'll be interested in THAT person.


How long does he say it will take to balance his budget? Long after he is gone?

Ah yes, the evil rich. I'm trying to remember my history lessons, wasn't there once a political party who demonized a specific group of people as the cause of all their societal ills? Damn it! Who was it? I know it will come to me eventually.

 

[DiamondDave]

And yet there are conservatives like Ryan who actually propose them.....repeatedly and get criticized by liberals as wanting to kill and starve women, children and the elderly. It's used as political fodder to ensure votes from low information voters afraid of losing "stuff" so the Democrats can stay in power. No different than racism charges when it comes to voter ID or immigration.

Ryan isn't proposing to balance the budget. He is proposing to cut social programs - retain the goodies for the wealthy and leave it for future leaders to make the budget balance.

When someone proposes cutting spending across the board - let me know, I'll be interested in THAT person.


How long does he say it will take to balance his budget? Long after he is gone?

Ah yes, the evil rich. I'm trying to remember my history lessons, wasn't there once a political party who demonized a specific group of people as the cause of all their societal ills? Damn it! Who was it? I know it will come to me eventually.

Yes.. things need to be cut across the board.. but to get down to what we took in last year, social programs do not only need to be cut, they need to be (and rightfully so) eliminated from the federal budget

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ah yes, the evil rich.

ahhh the strawman

Please show me any post in which I call the rich "evil" or say anything other than I do not begrudge the wealthy anything - becoming wealthy is the American Dream.

Perhaps making up some bullshit to argue with is easier than arguing with what I REALLY said.

Which is: Cut across the board.

 

[Brain357]

There is also the theory that budgets balances in cycles.

Probably true.

1.) Liberals come to power
2.) Spending goes through the roof, far more than they can raise in taxes
3.) National Debt goes sky-high.
4.) People get tired of it, and vote the liberals out.
5.) Conservatives come to power
6.) Spending is reduced.
7.) Deficits go down, though the press screams about conservatives "Starving children, dispossessing Seniors" etc.
8.) People get tired of austerity needed to compensate for huge liberal spending
9.) People vote the conservatives out
10.) Liberals come to power
(Back to square #1)

That used to be the "cycle" Ryan was talking about. Until people found to their surprise, that liberals had infested the Republican party in 2000 (known as RINOs or Neocons), so when they voted for them, the Republicans raised spending as much as the Democrats ever had, for the first time. The cycle has been one of constantly accelerating spending by both parties, ever since.

Republicans have been spending since Reagan, probably before.