Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Repubs will likely bring this back up and there is a significant amount of public support for such an amendment. So it will provide them some political talking points for Nov., but the reality is, it would require 2 thirds vote in House and Senate, plus 38 States to ratify. Not going to happen, anytime soon, it would take many years to get it done. Who knows, the President's Deficit Commission may suggest some form of that. Right now, its just going to be meaningless talking point politics, much like the meaningless talking points on the 14th Amendment.
As long as states continue to cut down on funding on social services those cutts will need to be offset by federal spending otthervise the states cuts in to state funding will have devastating effect on the economy as whole.
But in long term the balanced budget amendment seem to be a good idea and it is far from the first time that the congress have balanced a budget through an budget amendment.
Unless some kind of "loophole" is put in for times of great national strife, war, military action, whatever.
Otherwise, we'd have never been able to fight WWII, the civil war, won the space race, countless other national achievements that we've done would never have happened. States don't have to worry about state disasters to much, because the federal government will step in to help them, if needed. Even that couldn't happened with a strongly worded balanced budget amendment.
Unless some kind of "loophole" is put in for times of great national strife, war, military action, whatever.
Otherwise, we'd have never been able to fight WWII, the civil war, won the space race, countless other national achievements that we've done would never have happened. States don't have to worry about state disasters to much, because the federal government will step in to help them, if needed. Even that couldn't happened with a strongly worded balanced budget amendment.
I think, pretty much all previous proposals did include emergency clauses. The problem, is what defines an emergency. But it could be done, but would require cooperative political effort. Does anybody see any of that in Washington?
I am certainly not opposing the idea. I am stating that in this political environment, as with the environments of recent history, there is no way it could be accomplished. The Repubs know that and will just use the rhetoric for political gain, if they can. In order for a Balanced Budget to be accomplished, there will have to be a return to actual bipartisan representation. I don't see that in the near future.
As long as states and local governments continue cuting back on services and funding and other outlayes thier will be a neeed for more fedral spending in order offset the cuts made by local and state governments otherwise state and local governments cuts would have a devastating effect on the economy ass whole.
But in the long term the balanced budget amendemt seem to just what is needed and its far from the first time and budget amendement like it has been introduced and when it has happend earlier it also led to a balanced budget.
As long as states and local governments continue cuting back on services and funding and other outlayes thier will be a neeed for more fedral spending in order offset the cuts made by local and state governments otherwise state and local governments cuts would have a devastating effect on the economy ass whole.
But in the long term the balanced budget amendemt seem to just what is needed and its far from the first time and budget amendement like it has been introduced and when it has happend earlier it also led to a balanced budget.
It could be done. But, as evidenced by the bill just signed for aid to the States, there was a 2% Repub support in the Senate and a 1.12% Repub support in the House. Unfortunately, that is the extent of bipartisanship in Congress. That level of support, for a bill that is paid for, and one that I don't know how anybody can deny the need for.
It could be done. But, as evidenced by the bill just signed for aid to the States, there was a 2% Repub support in the Senate and a 1.12% Repub support in the House. Unfortunately, that is the extent of bipartisanship in Congress. That level of support, for a bill that is paid for, and one that I don't know how anybody can deny the need for.
Well the Repuclicans are minority party and thus very defensive letts hope that more Republicans in congress will lead to more bipartisanship wich is just what is needed for the balanced budget amendment to pass and be inplemented successfully
ROFLMAO.
1. Federal Reserve Notes (aka "Dollar bills") are not dollars.
2. Pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec. 411, they are promises to pay face value in lawful money, on demand.
3. That promise was repudiated in 1933.
4. No one has "paid their debts" with lawful money since 1933.
5. Debt does not pay debt.
6. By law, the only way new FRNs are authorized, is when Congress goes deeper into debt.
7. They are "legal tender" only by the trickery of "voluntary" participation in FICA / Socialist InSecurity. Each enumerated "contributor" is equally liable for the public debt, thus making the FRN his own obligation.
8. The United States of America were replaced with the United Socialist States of America, in 1935.
9. After the collapse (2010-2012), the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America will rise from the ashes.
10. Most likely, after a bevy of 'amendments' to the USCON are passed, by public acclaim.
But in long term the balanced budget amendment seem to be a good idea and it is far from the first time that the congress have balanced a budget through an budget amendment.
As a Congressional amendment to a Congressional bill, yes. But this is about an amendment to the Constitution requiring the federal government to operate under a balanced budget at all times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
I think, pretty much all previous proposals did include emergency clauses. The problem, is what defines an emergency. But it could be done, but would require cooperative political effort. Does anybody see any of that in Washington?
Short - and obvious answer ... no.
This is one of those ideas that sounds really, really good in theory. After all, why should the federal government spend more than it has? If individuals try that, they get into a world of hurt.
But the precise wording of such an amendment would have to cover a wide range of circumstances, AND be very, very exact as to who makes the determination of what constitutes an emergency. There are times when, frankly, the situation is so dire - on a local, state, or national level - that the vast majority of citizens want the federal government to act, NOW, and worry about the cost of such action later. 9/11 is an obvious national crisis that invoked such a response.
I guess it comes down to this: Who bails out the federal government? States get a lot of support from the federal government; individuals get a lot of support from the states and localities.
But who would the federal government turn to for help if expenditures - due to an emergency - deplete all available funds? Do we really want the federal government to default, and what would that mean to the various states, local governments, and millions of individuals with regard to funding for education, Social Security and Medicare payments, and so on?
The mantra to "cut spending" is very popular, and I get it. It makes sense ... on the surface. I support sensible, thoughtful, and rational cuts in federal spending. The proposals advanced by Secretary Gates re: military spending seem reasonable to me.
It's easy to say "cut spending" - it's a great sound bite, and it has been one for a long, long time. But personally I would prefer that our elected officials not take the easy way out, but rather, think about and then act on specific cuts that make sense, both in the present and long-term.
The Repubs will likely bring this back up and there is a significant amount of public support for such an amendment. So it will provide them some political talking points for Nov., but the reality is, it would require 2 thirds vote in House and Senate, plus 38 States to ratify. Not going to happen, anytime soon, it would take many years to get it done. Who knows, the President's Deficit Commission may suggest some form of that. Right now, its just going to be meaningless talking point politics, much like the meaningless talking points on the 14th Amendment.
Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness.
and...
The journey of a thousand miles begins by taking the first step.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
