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.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why our federal government refuses to pass a Constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget every year. It failed in 1995 and renewed talks of one this year are already being quelled.
If an individual spends more than he brings in month after month, eventually the cumulative deficit becomes insurmountable, resulting in foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc. Many Americans learned this the hard way when the housing meltdown hit.
If a business spends more than it brings in month after month, it won't be in business for long... unless, of course, the federal government deems that business "too big to fail" and bails it out with billions of our tax dollars.
So if individuals and businesses have to live on what they make, why shouldn't the government be expected to do the same thing? Why is it okay for them to rack up massive debt year after year that will have to be paid by future generations who did nothing to contribute to the problem?
I would even support a provision in a balanced budget bill that would allow for a single-year deficit in an EXTREME emergency, but these billion and trillion dollar deficits that the government has gotten in the habit of running up year after year are for the birds.
As Dave Ramsey says, "Act your wage!" I do it, my business does it... so why the [expletive] can't my government do it?
I cannot for the life of me figure out why our federal government refuses to pass a Constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget every year. It failed in 1995 and renewed talks of one this year are already being quelled.
If an individual spends more than he brings in month after month, eventually the cumulative deficit becomes insurmountable, resulting in foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc. Many Americans learned this the hard way when the housing meltdown hit.
If a business spends more than it brings in month after month, it won't be in business for long... unless, of course, the federal government deems that business "too big to fail" and bails it out with billions of our tax dollars.
So if individuals and businesses have to live on what they make, why shouldn't the government be expected to do the same thing? Why is it okay for them to rack up massive debt year after year that will have to be paid by future generations who did nothing to contribute to the problem?
I would even support a provision in a balanced budget bill that would allow for a single-year deficit in an EXTREME emergency, but these billion and trillion dollar deficits that the government has gotten in the habit of running up year after year are for the birds.
As Dave Ramsey says, "Act your wage!" I do it, my business does it... so why the [expletive] can't my government do it?
Lots of reasons. Mostly because congress and the president use various spending programs as was of rewarding their supporters, lining their pockets and buying votes. A balanced budget ammendment would restrict their ability to do ao.
Also, because the American people seem to like things as they are. We have plenty of people that want a hand-out from the government, without looking at what it will cost (usually someone else) in the long run. Many people have lost the ability to look to the future and consider the outcome of poor decisions made today. If the American people had more integrity we would be demanding a balanced budget ammendment and hound congress till it passed.
You are probably right, and the above poster did a good job laying out the reasons. I have always been a proud American, but I am also ashamed to be living in a country where so many people walk around with their hands out, thinking the government owes them a living. The government is BROKE people, and the only way it keeps its head above water is by taking money from productive citizens like me! That, and devaluing the dollar by printing money and borrowing money from China.
Here's an interesting opinion piece from the London newspaper The Independent about the proposed balanced budget amendment circulating through Congress...
It effectively means an end to counter-cyclical fiscal policy: when a recession strikes, the federal government would not be able to stimulate the economy by spending more. Instead, it must cut back at the same time householders and businesses are doing the same, making the recession worse. It could condemn the US to a perpetual recession, a depression even.
I support a balanced budget amendment. It may have to be written in order to allow a response to an economic downturn.
^That article makes the assumption that government spending is the only effective way to end a recession. Of course, if a government is unable to borrow money because its credit is so bad or other countries just simply refuse, then I don't see how this would be effective anyways.
Balanced budget? great, but at what level?
It's unsustainble (not too mention criminal) at present.
No tax increases should be involved in the process, cuts only.
I think a balanced budget amendment would be a great idea. It should consider, both, receipts and spending aspects. That the revenue follows the economic growth and spending is well within the means. Any shortfall that contributes to the revenue, such as in the case of Medicare, be handled via reform effective the following year. Any spending that comes from general taxes, like military spending, follow the economic growth (say, no more than 4% of GDP).
I think a balanced budget amendment would be a great idea. It should consider, both, receipts and spending aspects. That the revenue follows the economic growth and spending is well within the means. Any shortfall that contributes to the revenue, such as in the case of Medicare, be handled via reform effective the following year. Any spending that comes from general taxes, like military spending, follow the economic growth (say, no more than 4% of GDP).
I cannot for the life of me figure out why our federal government refuses to pass a Constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget every year.
Because they want to spend, spend, spend, even if they don't have the money.
I would support a balanced budget amendment.
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.
