Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment

[cawacko]

I have not read the proposed legislation. What are the supposive caveats in it that would allow the U.S. to run a deficit if need be? Does anyone here know?

[Bonestorm]

Supermajorities in both houses of Congress. Declared war. Military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security

[The Dude]

sounds like nirvana
I give it between zero and .0001% chance

[hotdog]

Would it be easier to just start balancing the budget rather then to pass an amendment?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Would it be easier to just start balancing the budget rather then to pass an amendment?

Yes, but neither will happen.




The GOP only pretended to care about deficits after Obama was elected.

[Bonestorm]

sounds like nirvana
I give it between zero and .0001% chance

I imagine you'd sing a different tune when we enter a recession and the government makes severe cuts in addition to the business cycle downturn. The government would be mandated to make a recession worse.

[The Dude]

I imagine you'd sing a different tune when we enter a recession and the government makes severe cuts in addition to the business cycle downturn. The government would be mandated to make a recession worse.

You can't imagine much of what I'd think financially. Your a turbo-lib, I'm an MBA with 25 yrs serious investing. To me a recession is a normal part of the business cycle (look that term up) to you it's a scab than needs to be ripped off.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Would it be easier to just start balancing the budget rather then to pass an amendment?

Yes, it would be. Yet for over 50 years the idiots in DC have outspent their income.

A balanced budget amendment is not enough. Every year that the ACTUAL spending is greater than the ACTUAL revenue, the politicians should lose their salaries and the salaries of their senior staff members. The only exceptions would be for the exceptions listed in the final amendment

[NOVA]

Yes, it would be. Yet for over 50 years the idiots in DC have outspent their income.

A balanced budget amendment is not enough. Every year that the ACTUAL spending is greater than the ACTUAL revenue, the politicians should lose their salaries and the salaries of their senior staff members. The only exceptions would be for the exceptions listed in the final amendment

You won't have to worry about a "Balanced Budget Amendment"......it would never pass the Democrat controlled Senate.....they wouldn't dare allow the 50 states (the people) the opportunity to actually vote and take the chance of such an Amendment getting passed.......
Over the last century, the socialist liberals have stripped a lot of the power to govern from the people in general and will not take a chance are losing their hold on government power....

Every US state other than Vermont has some form of balanced budget amendment; the precise form varies

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yes, it would be. Yet for over 50 years the idiots in DC have outspent their income. A balanced budget amendment is not enough. Every year that the ACTUAL spending is greater than the ACTUAL revenue, the politicians should lose their salaries and the salaries of their senior staff members. The only exceptions would be for the exceptions listed in the final amendment

Yet when a Dem president achieved what Teabaggers claim to want, they pilloried him.

[NOVA]

Yes, it would be. Yet for over 50 years the idiots in DC have outspent their income.

A balanced budget amendment is not enough. Every year that the ACTUAL spending is greater than the ACTUAL revenue, the politicians should lose their salaries and the salaries of their senior staff members. The only exceptions would be for the exceptions listed in the final amendment

A balanced budget???? Remember the Clinton years....

The Contract with America helped secure a decisive victory for the Republicans in the 1994 elections. Republicans were elected to a majority of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1953, and several parts of the Contract were enacted.

Some elements did not pass in Congress, while others were vetoed by, or substantially altered in negotiations with President Bill Clinton.

As a blueprint for the policy of the new Congressional majority, the Contract placed the Congress firmly back in the driver's seat of domestic government policy for most of the 104th Congress, and placed the Clinton White House firmly on the defensive.

Thus, a balanced budget in 1997.....

[Bonestorm]

I'd also note for the BBA proponents that the last time the government met the percentage of GDP requirements in the BBA was 1956 and that Paul Ryan's budget passed by the House would not meet compliance until 2030.

It's fucking stupid.

[Guns Guns Guns]

A balanced budget???? Remember the Clinton years...Thus, a balanced budget in 1997.....

Poor Blabo.


His hatred of all Democrats is so extreme he lies about the budget surplus.






The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury have released figures showing the largest budget surplus and the largest pay-down of debt in history




The President urged Congress to keep our nation on course by passing his budget plan that protects Social Security, pays down the debt, and meets the nation's priorities in the areas of education, health care, crime, and the environment.





In 1993, President Clinton put in place a three-part economic strategy of fiscal discipline, investing in people, and opening markets abroad.







The Largest Surplus in History:

• The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
• The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
• 1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
• This is the first time in U.S. history that we've experienced seven years in a row of fiscal improvement.

The Largest Debt Reduction in History:

• America paid down $140 billion in public debt, the largest debt pay-down ever;
• The debt held by the public was $1.7 trillion lower than was projected when President Clinton took office;
• As a result, in 1999 alone, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected.

President Clinton warned that proposals by Congressional Republicans for irresponsible tax cuts, spending the Social Security surplus, and across-the-board spending cuts would threaten our continued prosperity.




The President urged Congress to keep America on this course of progress by passing his budget plan, which pays down the debt, protects Social Security, strengthens and modernizes Medicare, and invests in national priorities like education, health care, public safety, and the environment.







http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

[Cancel 2016.2]

A balanced budget???? Remember the Clinton years....

The Contract with America helped secure a decisive victory for the Republicans in the 1994 elections. Republicans were elected to a majority of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1953, and several parts of the Contract were enacted.

Some elements did not pass in Congress, while others were vetoed by, or substantially altered in negotiations with President Bill Clinton.

As a blueprint for the policy of the new Congressional majority, the Contract placed the Congress firmly back in the driver's seat of domestic government policy for most of the 104th Congress, and placed the Clinton White House firmly on the defensive.

Thus, a balanced budget in 1997.....

Which brings me back to my point.... 1960 was the last fiscal year we saw our nations debt DECREASE year over year. THAT is an ACTUAL surplus being realized.

I give credit to Clinton and the Rep led Congress (for neither could have done it on their own), but they still failed (though came very close in 2000)

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'd also note for the BBA proponents that the last time the government met the percentage of GDP requirements in the BBA was 1956 and that Paul Ryan's budget passed by the House would not meet compliance until 2030.

It's fucking stupid.

Personally, I think it is rather silly to be tying it to a percentage of GDP number. Don't outspend revenue. Period. If you bring in 3 Trillion in revenue and GDP falls to 4Trillion.... the only thing I care about from a fiscal standpoint in DC is that they don't spend more than the $3 trillion(obviously this extreme scenario would never occur, but it illustrates my point).... if you have expected revenues of 2 trillion and GDP is expected to be $10trillion and thus you expect to hit a 20% target, it would be silly if revenues came in at $2T as expected, GDP at 9.5Trillion and we said.... 'sorry, but you can't spend that extra $100b because it puts you over the limit'