Hello:

There's a balanced budget amendment, and then THERE'S a balanced budget amendment... They SOUND like they're same, but one AIN'T like the other...

Now, you've got your Republicans looking, oh so sincerely, into the camera's BLAMING the Democrats for NOT wanting to balance the budget -- those wasteful spendthrifts... Only Republicans can save the day... But, when you look into THEIR balanced budget amendment, you find that not only does their plan balance the budget, but it HAMSTRINGS congress from raising revenues - EVER. It won't SAVE us money. It'll COST us a fortune.

Here's an example. We'll have to MAINTAIN an army BIG enough to defend us from ALL comers, for ALL time. That's because if we're attacked, we won't be able to BORROW to buck up our forces... It ties the government's hands just like the pledge Republicans made to Grover Norquist does, only this won't be a pledge. It will be the law.. In my view, that's national SUICIDE.

But, there IS a REAL balanced budget amendment around... It's called the CLEAN one.. Why? Here's how Republican, Mike Pence explains it, "It's the historic balanced budget amendment that passed both houses of Congress 15 years ago," Pence explained. That was the version of the amendment that had no caps on how much Congress was allowed to spend, no new rule that required two-thirds of Congress to approve new tax cuts. "That's the one that has an opportunity to get 290 votes, to pass by the sufficient two-thirds majority. We can make a good faith effort to pass the version that has a fighting chance."

I agree with Mike Pence. The Democrats agree with Mike Pence. I think EVERYBODY agrees with Mike Pence. So, what's wrong with your ordinary Republican?

DON'T be fooled when they talk about THE "balanced budget amendment".. It AIN'T a balanced budget amendment. It's Republican IDEOLOGY!

excon

Having just lived through a state shutdown because Republicans wouldn't bend and Democrats gave in to not raising taxes for those who can AFFORD the taxes (and how many members of Congress are in that 1% of Americans, hmmmm?), I despair of anyone ever doing ANYTHING to not only balance the budget, but to balance the disparity between the rich and the poor. Hell, just between the rich and the middle class would be great. That gulf is HUGE.

Tax big business, and take 10% away from EVERY area we spend money on our budget (including those benefits and salaries that Congress gets) and I'm betting we not only BALANCE the budget, we start paying back what we already owe in deficits.

SOME generation has to start giving government benefits up or start paying back the money that previous generations DIDN'T pay in taxes. Why not start now, BEFORE we hit rock bottom and have a revolution in our country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Tax big business...

---

Yeah, we can start with Apple, "the second largest company on the planet".

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.

Perhaps if they had to give out of their own pockets to make up the difference every time they gave out tax CUTS, they'd do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Perhaps if they had to give out of their own pockets to make up the difference every time they gave out tax CUTS, they'd do the same.

---

I'm still waiting for all those billionaires and others begging to be taxed more to just forward their extra to the feds. Obama himself said he didn't need any more money so he could lead by example and walk it down to the treasury.

In principle I am opposed to a balance budget amendment because that would add Court involvement in the budget process .

I also oppose it because ,like Hamilton ,I think maintaining a well managed bebt is essential . I only oppose a debt that has gone out of control .Hint ,when obligations exceed the national GDP then it's time to reign in the debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.

---

Hello again, Steve:

So, Republicans continually repeating the talking point that Democrats DON'T want A balanced budget amendment IS true?? It's absolutely NOT!

Look, Steve. I'm an exconvict on a website. I don't RUN sh*t. In fact, you'd EXPECT me to lie... But, our LEADERS?? The people running things?? I don't want them to LIE to me. You do?

excon

Of course not, I'm fed up with hearing Democrats repeat ad nauseum about their "balanced approach", "increasing revenues", that Republicans are "running the country over the cliff" and especially, Democrats are saving the world and life as we know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Of course not, I'm fed up with hearing Democrats repeat ad nauseum about their "balanced approach", "increasing revenues",

---

Hello again, Steve:

Aside from the social issues, I can't understand why a working stiff supports people who DON'T have your interests at heart. You certainly don't believe in trickle down... You're certainly going to be drawing SS, and carrying a Medicare card. You have relatives who BANK on those services, don't you?

If tax cuts create jobs, I'm still waiting...

excon

How about getting rid of the two party system entirely?

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Aside from the social issues, I can't understand why a working stiff supports people who DON'T have your interests at heart.

---

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

---

*greenie*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

---

Hello again, Synn:

I agree. But, you can't stop people from associating with whomever they want. You CAN pass term limits, though, and that would do the same thing.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

---

Hello again, Steve:

What you say, is essentially TRUE. However, I don't distinguish between the trillions they want to spend on domestic programs, from the trillions they want to spend on empire building. You do.

Let's speak some truth, here. BOTH sides want BIG GOVERNMENT. So, it boils down to what kind of country we want... If we're going to HAVE big government, I'd RATHER my big government tell me what to eat, than SPY on me.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

How about getting rid of the two party system entirely?

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

---

I think it's less the fact that is a two=party system and more the fact that campaign donations direct the politician's voting.

My husband and I were talking about campaign donations.

I'd LOVE to see a cap on them. If you can't get elected on $1 million or less as a president and $500k or less as a Congressperson, then you shouldn't be in office, IMO.

If they couldn't take ANY donations above that mark, I'm betting they'd get a lot more efficient about their campaigns AND their spending of taxpayer money.

Quote:

---

"It's the historic balanced budget amendment that passed both houses of Congress 15 years ago," Pence explained. That was the version of the amendment that had no caps on how much Congress was allowed to spend, no new rule that required two-thirds of Congress to approve new tax cuts. "That's the one that has an opportunity to get 290 votes, to pass by the sufficient two-thirds majority. We can make a good faith effort to pass the version that has a fighting chance."

---

Here is the 1995 version of BBA

Quote:

---

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

Article--

SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll call vote.

SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

---

Yeah it was better .It required a 3/5 vote of Congress to approve spending above revenues .

However ,I oppose both versions. I'd go with the Jefferson plan however .
But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison)

And term limits would make much of the spending in campaigns obsolete .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And term limits would make much of the spending in campaigns obsolete .

---

It's not so much as the spending during the campaign itself but rather the subsequent voting for issue that support the corporate donors versus supporting the constituents in their riding.

Don't you worry folks, the leader of the chamber that hasn't put forth any budget resolution as required by law for over 800 days is going to swoop in to save the day.

Quote:

---

Calling his plan “the last train out of the station,” Reid said there are only hours to act before Tuesday's Treasury deadline, so he plans to file a procedural motion Friday to move towards a final vote in the next few days.

“That is why, by the end of the day today, I must take action on the Senate's compromise legislation,” he said.

---

The man who hasn't done his job in over two years is going to save us. I wonder if he's going to push the best known plan out there , the non-existent Obama plan.