Should we have a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Accountable, Aug 6, 2011.

?

Should we have a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution?

  1. Yes, of course. Don't be stupid.

    71.0%
  2. Yes, because the Democrats can't stop their out-of-control social spending on their own.

    9.7%
  3. Yes, because the Republicans won't quit starting their illegal pre-emptive wars on their own.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. No, because the Democrats would spend all the money on social programs instead of defense.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. No, because the Republicans would waste too much on illegal wars instead of social programs.

    6.5%
  6. No, because we can elect responsible people into office and everything will be okay.

    12.9%
  1. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yolwIkZQ3U"]‪Cornyn: Washington Needs a Balanced Budget Amendment‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    First off, he doesn't believe it will pass, otherwise he'd never call for it.

    If an amendment actually makes it to the floor for a vote, he will vote against it, saying that the provisions are not realistic or some other tripe.

    If it does pass,

    1. They will delay the enactment to a date long after the more senior of them expect to actually still be in office, so that they can spend as much as they can, calling it leaving a legacy, and/or
    2. It will have some kind of caveat, which both parties will revel in misinterpreting, remisinterpreting, and expanding to the point that the amendment would be meaningless.
    Sorry, feeling just a tad cynical about this.
     
  2. Kimaris

    Kimaris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    10,249
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, because it is insane to cap our debt at arbitrary levels.
     
  3. speedingtime

    speedingtime Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,220
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does any other developed nation have one?
     
  4. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many don't have written constitutions. Many don't have presidents. Many don't have bicameral legislatures. The US is the only nation with an official debt ceiling.

    So you see, the question's not really relevant, unless I'm missing something.
     
  5. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why? Don't we need to get a handle on Washington's out of control spending?
     
  6. megatron

    megatron New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what about in a time of war?? Would the admendent be tossed aside then or still be law?
     
  7. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    eliminate their ability to create currency.
    Problem solved.
     
  8. megatron

    megatron New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and what go back to the gold standard
     
  9. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please combine choice 2 and 4.. perfect choice that way.
     
  10. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No, no, no... we should be spending more money than we take in. It's the American way!

    These crazy capitalists... "but, but, how are you going to pay for the programs that you're paying for but not getting the funding for?"

    Crazy, crazy, crazy...
     
  11. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I addressed that in #2 of the OP.
     
  12. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we will change to some other standard, like it or not.

    Did you ever wonder why greece doesn't just print itself out of its troubles ?

    What happens when the bulk of oil stops being traded in dollars ?

    Do you think the world will voluntarily keep itself at disadvantage to us forever ?
     
  13. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I voted yes. Congress needs to be restrained because it wont restrain itself.
     
  14. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's sad that these salesmen have convinced almost anybody that the only way to run a decent government is to pay top dollar to attract the most savvy politicians with law degrees to do it, when our history so vividly shows that these vermin are the last people that should be put in office.
     
  15. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Probably too late for that...

    ... a balanced budget amendment at this point would really throw the economy into a tail-spin...

    ... better to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy which would help us slowly work our way out of this hole we've dug.
    :fart:
     
  16. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Absolutely, but we don't have enough spine to go through with it.
    We can't spend if we don't have jobs, we can't keep on borrowing.
    Its jobs.
     
  17. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aren't you tired of the double-speak? Bush signed for tax cuts. They were set to expire. Obama signed to extend those tax cuts. Why aren't they his now?

    Here's a weird concept: why not call it raising taxes? This is more accurate since 1) taxes will go up and 2) the money belongs to the taxpayer (it's not the property of the government due to be returned upon the expiration date).
     
  18. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Federal revenue:

    2000 -- $2.02 trillion ($2.14 trillion constant 2003 value)
    2001 -- $1.99 trillion ($2.08 trillion constant 2003 value) 2% decrease since 2000 adjusted for inflation
    2002 -- $1.85 trillion ($1.89 trillion constant 2003 value) 11.5% decrease since 2000 adjusted for inflation
    2003 -- $1.78 trillion ($1.78 trillion constant 2003 value) 17% decrease since 2000 adjusted for inflation <-- Bush implements tax cuts
    2004 -- $1.88 trillion ($1.82 trillion constant 2003 value) 2% increase since 2003 adjusted for inflation
    2005 -- $2.15 trillion ($2.01 trillion constant 2003 value) 13% increase since 2003 adjusted for inflation
    2006 -- $2.40 trillion ($2.19 trillion constant 2003 value) 23% increase since 2003 adjusted for inflation
    2007 -- $2.56 trillion ($2.27 trillion constant 2003 value) 27.5% increase since 2003 adjusted for inflation

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...ts=b&fy=fy12&state=US&local=s&pie=fed#usgs302
    http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

    Is it the revenue you seek or do you just like the government forcefully taking money from people?
     
  19. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Holy crap! Facts about how tax cuts increase revenues!

    Awesome post. That destroys basically ten years of socialist talking points.
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I simply don't believe in our elected representatives to government when they claim to want a balanced budget amendment; especially if it doesn't provide for banning for life from any public office under the United State, those elected representatives who failed to balance the budget.

    There would not need to be any other civil or criminal penalties.
     
  21. DookieMan

    DookieMan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, and blame on both the Republicans and Democrats.
     
  22. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You missed the option of

    No because the States have ballanced budget amendments but they do not follow it. Hence the borowed money for municiple bonds.

    And

    No, because when you change presidents and congressman/women every 2-4 years you will have one party screwing it up for the next party. That is why you can't ballance the budget.


    Furthermore, the banks and investment corporations would be out of trillions in interest, and other countries would not be able to own a piece of the USA.
     
  23. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are no good answers to this poll, most likely because of the bias of the creator.
    The BBA, like almost all "common sense" popular measures is ridiculous and I would have preferred a "No" option that was like the "don't be stupid" option in the yesses.
    "(*)(*)(*)(*) NO!!!" would be my preferred answer.

    A BBA is a feel-good device that straight-jackets the government, making it more difficult to adapt. As we've seen with the debt ceiling idiocy, our system actually has too much of that and is working toward ungovernable.
    Just look at California's budget fights if you want to see where a BBA would take us.

    The problem is that according to one of the main economic theories, in fact the one that is most supported, deficit spending is a good idea at some times. Surpluses too are good at times. And government must be able to shift its budget policies as necessary.
    The Founders gave the country the ability to go into debt for good reason: the Articles of Confederation sucked! It's too bad Tea Partiers seem to think we should change our Constitution into that antiquity through ammendments and "constructionist" rulings.

    The real point is this:
    If you want to keep a balanced budget, even in times where it's a really dumb idea, vote people in who are for balanced budgets all the time.
    The BBA is the kind of thing that people who idolize Thomas Jefferson do while ignoring his scoffs at screwing over future generations by trying to hold them in a strict constitutional straight-jacket.
     
  24. B.Larset

    B.Larset Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,390
    Likes Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmm whats next? I know lets have a campaign finance law. So we don't end up with say, an Asian dumping a sack full of contributions on a conference table at the commerce dept. McCain must laugh every time him and his Buddy's get together to have him put his good name on legislation to hoodwink the electorate. Lets see, McCain -Feingold, Balanced budget Amendment? .....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

    Gramm-Rudman-Hollings ActPerhaps motivated by the number of state legislatures calling for such a convention approaching the required two-thirds, and recognizing its inability to make sufficient cuts on its own initiative to balance the budget, Congress responded in 1985 with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, named for its Senate sponsors, which called for automatic cuts in discretionary spending when certain deficit-reduction targets were not met. This act soon became a convenient target for opponents of all stripes, who blamed it for government failing to meet perceived needs, for not abolishing the deficit, and anything else that might be wrong with government. When it began to affect popular programs, and was partially overturned in the courts, it was first amended to postpone the strength of its effects until later years, and then repealed in its entirety.
     
  25. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where have you been? Washington needs to be straight-jacketed. They're out of control.

    Are you trying to seriously claim that California would be in better shape with unfettered spending??

    Yes, but we've been going into debt for any reason at all, good or bad!

    The Constitution is to hold the federal gov't in the straight jacket. Get it right.
     

Share This Page