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.
Maybe it would help if government could not spend more than it earned the year before. This way they could track spending and correct it if necessary. Like in a cash-only world where the money is really gone when it's gone.
Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll: "a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate. 65 percent of the public supports the amendment with 27 percent opposed; 8 percent are undecided.
as the poll’s press release notes, “nearly every state in the nation has a balanced budget amendment.” The state amendments could indicate the feasibility of ratifying a constitutional amendment that would put the same restriction on Congress."
Why would anyone be opposed to it especially if their states have one? Are these the same people who run up personal debt they can't pay for?
The actual wording of the polling question is in the article.
People want a balanced budget but not when it affects their interests.
Some do not mind but when you look closely at budget cut many wasteful programs are protected. I do not agree with subsidies for farmers and other programs. Many programs that get governmet subsidy are the most wasteful. Also, why support some research program that has no value if it does not help save lives or cure diseases? Take care.
Maybe it would help if government could not spend more than it earned the year before. This way they could track spending and correct it if necessary. Like in a cash-only world where the money is really gone when it's gone.
Or maybe the tax level that the government must achieve could be set to the last year outflow.
There seems to be some magic requirement that the inflow be fixed and the outflow adjusted to it. Why not spend what is neccessary and then tax sufficiently to balance the books?
Much simpler actually than trying to limit outflow to a fixed inflow.
If the tax burden exceeds what the citizenry is willing to spend we get new legislators. They trade off need versus want...
Or maybe the tax level that the government must achieve could be set to the last year outflow.
There seems to be some magic requirement that the inflow be fixed and the outflow adjusted to it. Why not spend what is neccessary and then tax sufficiently to balance the books?
Much simpler actually than trying to limit outflow to a fixed inflow.
If the tax burden exceeds what the citizenry is willing to spend we get new legislators. They trade off need versus want...
Spending before earning is just as bad idea as overspending.
Or maybe the tax level that the government must achieve could be set to the last year outflow.
There seems to be some magic requirement that the inflow be fixed and the outflow adjusted to it. Why not spend what is neccessary and then tax sufficiently to balance the books?
Much simpler actually than trying to limit outflow to a fixed inflow.
If the tax burden exceeds what the citizenry is willing to spend we get new legislators. They trade off need versus want...
I guess that is the main problem... Different people have different ideas as to what is necessary.
It is also a problem of priorities. When there is only so much money available, shall we spend $xxx million on health care or infrastructure or buy an additional stealth bomber instead? Decisions like that...
A government has to rule. Taking away monetary tools will severely limit its governing capabilities. One example is the Euro in Europe. No country is allowed to adjust the currency which leads to one crises after another. It just causes tensions among European nations. People are getting tired of this large scale experiment and I am sure the Euro will be abandoned in the future. If the government is only about balancing sheets, we don't need a government. A good computer program will suffice.
Also comparing national budgets to household finances is wrong. These are 2 separate issues.
Wouldn't a balanced budget amendment mean that if a natural disaster or war came up that in order to pay for it you'd have to cut something else? It doesn't mean you don't pay for it.
If you cut something to pay for something else then whomever got cut paid for the new emergency or war. Gonna be kinda hard to decide who and what gets cut without any advanced notice in order to pay for something else totally unrelated.
It should be funded with slight increases in all forms of federal taxes, and done immediately after the president or congress decide to go forward on whatever they think the American people will buy. Congress and the president should have their asses on the fire right away, as the money will come out of your pocket right away. They will take the political risk right away for the better or worse, depending on how it turns out, and don't get to pass it off on the future. When something has been paid for, then taxes will then be cut in the good years when we have no serious natural disasters or war.
Pay as you go, don't waste money on interest payments for debt. It works good for home finances and works good for government. The only difference is that government can immediately raise it's pay in the form of taxes and never have to be in debt for anything but for the most grave of emergencies. If Russian tanks are rolling down from Alaska then they can go in debt if that's what they have to do to save our bacon.
Spending before earning is just as bad idea as overspending.
YOu have two choices. A reserve sufficient for any eventuality...or adjusting the budget from year to year. If you like you could set this years taxes at some percentage in excess of last years expenditure thereby always runninng with a surplus.
this should all work quite well if the task is in fact to balance the budget.
Practically I would balance over a longer scope...save five or ten years...as otherwise any significant variation in a year would cause all sorts of difficulty.
I guess that is the main problem... Different people have different ideas as to what is necessary.
It is also a problem of priorities. When there is only so much money available, shall we spend $xxx million on health care or infrastructure or buy an additional stealth bomber instead? Decisions like that...
How did you arrive at the sum of the money that is available? I see no reason why the US could not double income if needed.
So we have a trade off...increase taxes or decrease spending or some portion of both.
The right seems fixated on a system which rigidly limits the input and then forces the output to match.
It is however also feasible to determine the output and then set the taxes to supply sufficient revenue. And if we don't like the taxes that result we get some new guys to set more realistic output.
There is this fixation on limiting taxes on one part of the citizenry and on maintaining benefits upon the part of another. and to some degree the two camps overlap.
We need to achieve a balanced budget while spreading the pain. Taxes up and services limited...and we will never get it done by the silly "no new taxes and cut to a balance" proposals. Ain't gonna fly...ever.
I oppose it because it would become a national joke. Congress already has the power to pass a balanced budget. Are certain members of Congress saying they can't do it because the Constitution does not require it? So two thirds of Congress has to pass it, then 38 States ratify it. That could take decades! Perhaps the present Congress wants to impose it on its successors. They will have to find a legal way around it.
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.
