Let's Pass A Balanced Budget Amendment Now...

[Gadgeteer]

Nice take from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Not always a fan of Hatch's but he really did nail this one.


Our national debt has soared past $15 trillion- forcing a historic debate about the proper size and scope of our government. This debate is an enduring one in our great Republic. It will define who we are as a nation – about our future for our children and grandchildren.

The American people are demanding dramatic action. But standing in the way is a President who refuses to back away from his failed agenda of higher taxes and higher spending. This is a President who has presided over the single largest reduction in employment in modern times. This is a President who has tried to tax almost anything that moves. This is a President who has increased the national debt by 35 percent on his watch.

There is only one response to this President and to our spending-fueled debt crisis – that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation’s addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

Read More:
» Let

It makes me so steamed when I hear about "CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET". No he didn't; the national debt GREW every year, even under the clintons.

Check out what Representative Paul Ryan said about their "tricks and gimmicks"; suggesting we pass a $5 trillion bill to cover the Moon with yogurt; then tomorrow we REPEAL that bill and report it as a FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT REDUCTION!

http://www.breitbart.tv/rep-paul-ry...ering-speech-lets-cover-the-moon-with-yogurt/

We would like to HAVE a country in ten years. Next year even.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fuck the country... you guys are right... we'll just let America sink to the bottom... as long as the wealthy keep getting theirs...nothing else matters.

Proof positive that you cannot respond with anything of substance.
That's what happens when your mastery of the subject goes no further than bumper-sticker slogans.

Well... truthfully... I don't consider the same old bullshit coming from your side very substantial either.

This doesn't change the fact that you cannot respond with any degree of substance.

 

[Gadgeteer]

This doesn't change the fact that you cannot respond with any degree of substance.

The bama ran against everything GWB did - He advertised Himself as "change" from the failed policies of GWB.

And so, what has The Obama done since taking office?
Continued, if not expanded, just about every one of those policies.

If GWB was a terrible President because of those policies, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that, The bama, by continuing and expanding those polices, is worse.

The bama cannot continue running on "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT". Nor can he say "FOUR MORE YEARS!"

Bush was a socialist; it's said he was taking us to socialism on a fast train. And obama is taking us to socialism on a rocket!

So who do we have to choose from in Two Thousand Twelve? Gingrich is smart enough and has enough experience; only a couple things concern me, like his supposed quote "Roosevelt was the best president".

Clearly against the bama, Gingrich is by far the better choice. I wish we had a true constitionalist who would return us to prosperity. Bachmann would be excellent, but doesn't look like she's electable.

 

[Steelplate]

Proof positive that you cannot respond with anything of substance.
That's what happens when your mastery of the subject goes no further than bumper-sticker slogans.

Well... truthfully... I don't consider the same old bullshit coming from your side very substantial either.

This doesn't change the fact that you cannot respond with any degree of substance.

Why should I? You'll just keep vomiting the same old stuff anyway.

Funny how everyone...even the poorest of the poor...the MOST disaffected in our country are supposed to be "Patriotic". But when it comes to wealthy people being patriotic and doing what's best for our country...even if it means that it cuts into their profits, patriotism goes out the window.

But yeah... I know you don't get it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well... truthfully... I don't consider the same old bullshit coming from your side very substantial either.

This doesn't change the fact that you cannot respond with any degree of substance.

Why should I?

Why should you respond to a point with substance?
So that you might someday stop self-sodomizing your credibility as a sentient being.

 

[paulitician]

It's time to get our house in order. Can't put if off forever. Our future generations deserve better. It's time to quit with all the petty politics and do the right thing. Period,end of story.

 

[auditor0007]

Nice take from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Not always a fan of Hatch's but he really did nail this one.


Our national debt has soared past $15 trillion- forcing a historic debate about the proper size and scope of our government. This debate is an enduring one in our great Republic. It will define who we are as a nation – about our future for our children and grandchildren.

The American people are demanding dramatic action. But standing in the way is a President who refuses to back away from his failed agenda of higher taxes and higher spending. This is a President who has presided over the single largest reduction in employment in modern times. This is a President who has tried to tax almost anything that moves. This is a President who has increased the national debt by 35 percent on his watch.

There is only one response to this President and to our spending-fueled debt crisis – that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation’s addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

Read More:
» Let

Glad to see someone else realizes that we need to raise tax revenue.

 

[Jackson]

Though I am in favor of a balanced budget, now is not the time to implement it.
Why? As economists from all sides fear it would hurt any economic growth that we are experiencing now. Some economists think that implementing a balanced budget now it would actually put the US back into a recession.
In the UK, conservatives cut spending and since then the UK was forced to lower the economic growth projections. Also the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects Britain will enter a recession next year.
In other words, if we cut spending (which would be part of the balanced budget), it cuts overall spending that contributes to the GNP. When the GNP goes down, the economy slows down to the point of being dangerous to the overall economy as witnessed in the UK.
A balanced budget would be fine, but only after the economy is righted.

We should have passed a balanced budget amendment years and years ago. Then, in times of ardent need, go to Congress to go above it, like times of war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is only one response to this President and to our spending-fueled debt crisis – that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation’s addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

Nonsense.

It’s a dreadful idea and utterly unworkable. The Constitution should never be amended for partisan reasons.

Like the House proposal that crashed and burned in mid-November, the balanced budget amendment slated for a vote in the Senate today is doomed. Which is a very good thing. It's an extremist piece of work that would gut social programs and make it impossible for the government to intervene effectively in economic crises. Since it's going down, why even bother discussing it? Because the right wing is relentlessly persistent in getting its agenda enacted. Lose now? Be assured they will return again and again. That's one trait of our foes we would do well to adopt.

Daily Kos: Senate's extremist balanced budget amendment worse than the one defeated in the House

The Senate’s Balanced Budget Amendment Would Require Extreme Budget Cuts

The constitutional balanced budget amendment (BBA) that the Senate is expected to consider this month would, like any version of a BBA, risk serious harm to the economy by requiring that the budget be balanced even during an economic downturn. But this BBA, in particular, would do far more damage because it also would prevent the federal government from meeting the nation’s basic needs even when the economy is healthy.

The Senate

Conservatives may indulge their pathetic, naïve fantasies about ‘small government’ and ‘balanced budge amendments,’ and pretend it’s the early 1800s again.

But in the real world their reckless and irresponsible proposals such as a BBA can have a real and detrimental impact on real peoples’ lives: in particular the elderly, the working class, and children.

The right is welcome to whine and complain about how terrible things are on their inane blogs and tedious AM radio shows, but don’t bring your childish nonsense to the real world of the Constitution and its case law,

 

[dblack]

The right is welcome to whine and complain about how terrible things are on their inane blogs and tedious AM radio shows, but don’t bring your childish nonsense to the real world of the Constitution and its case law,

I don't see anything childish about the concept of limited government. And suggestions to change status quo aren't, in general, 'welcome'. That's certainly no reason to silence them however.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives may indulge their pathetic, naïve fantasies about ‘small government’ and ‘balanced budge amendments,’ and pretend it’s the early 1800s again.

Interesting to see another liberal attack the traditional American value of freedom and liberty from government. Why not go to Cuba if you hate American values so much?

Also, you must know that fiscal irresponsibility whether by a person family city state country or European Union leads to ruin, not ever growing welfare programs as you incredibly imagine.

 

[FactFinder]

Nice take from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Not always a fan of Hatch's but he really did nail this one.


Our national debt has soared past $15 trillion- forcing a historic debate about the proper size and scope of our government. This debate is an enduring one in our great Republic. It will define who we are as a nation – about our future for our children and grandchildren.

The American people are demanding dramatic action. But standing in the way is a President who refuses to back away from his failed agenda of higher taxes and higher spending. This is a President who has presided over the single largest reduction in employment in modern times. This is a President who has tried to tax almost anything that moves. This is a President who has increased the national debt by 35 percent on his watch.

There is only one response to this President and to our spending-fueled debt crisis – that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation’s addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

Read More:
» Let

Big government includes one who insists on a dominating military with bases scattered throughout the planet. Would you please include bringing all our troops home and quit this planetary egomanism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We should have passed a balanced budget amendment years and years ago. Then, in times of ardent need, go to Congress to go above it, like times of war.

yes it was part of Newt's "Contract with America". If we had listened to Newt then or Jefferson in 1800 we would have no debt now, plus the Chinese and Japanese would be buying our goods and services rather than our debt, thus making our economy boom.

A BBA would in effect make Democratic fiscal irresponsibility illegal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Would you please include bringing all our troops home and quit this planetary egomanism.

We found out on 12/7 and 9/11 that we are far safer if the world learns to value freedom and liberty from government.

We just saved 10's of millions from liberal starvation in China because we promoted Republican freedom! Without Republican American values civilization would be lost.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A balanced budget amendment is not possible and would be absolute self destructive folly.

What do you believe makes a balanced budget amendment impossible and why would that be self-destructive folly?

 

[dblack]

Big government includes one who insists on a dominating military with bases scattered throughout the planet. Would you please include bringing all our troops home and quit this planetary egomanism.

Indeed. While I could get behind a real balanced budget amendment, I don't see it ever happening. The Republicans will always include caveats and exceptions for the warfare state, and the Democrats will insist on the same for the welfare state. Actually, on second though, the Democrats would probably agree on the warfare state exceptions as well. In any case, I don't see anything to this beyond smoke and mirrors.

 

[gallantwarrior]

how well can a family get ahead if they never go into debt for anything?

But how does incurring increasing amounts of debt help them get ahead, and stay there?

 

[gallantwarrior]

There are many unintended consequences to this, not the least of which is to tie our hands in an emergency situation. Not only would we have to balance the budget, we would have to keep huge surpluses on hand in case of hurricanes, earthquakes and other unforeseen disasters.

What specifically do you consider government obligations, what actions should government take, to alleviate emergencies or unforeseen disasters? What types of disasters warrant what level of government response?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Can't balance a budget that doesn't exist. It's been more than 3 years now since there was a budget.

OK, I can definitely see the truth in that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Indeed. While I could get behind a real balanced budget amendment, I don't see it ever happening.

Newt's passed the House and failed by one vote in the Senate. Then 33 states voted for it. Then, we were very very close indeed. But the Tea Party knows fiscal rresponsibility backfired against Republicans so this time they are treading softly, playing it safe and, sadly, going no where as a result.

Democrats know that a BBA would in effect make them illegal so they fight hard, naturally.