Balanced Budget Amendment

I wonder what the Teabaggers who have been crying that "Obama doesn't have a plan" and "Obama won't spell out any details" are going to say when they see this:



There are different versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment, and it's not clear which one would be included.


Fiscal conservatives prefer a version that would require a balanced federal budget, but would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate for any tax increases.


It would also cap federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product. Others prefer a version that's "clean" and requires a balanced budget, but does not tie the hands of future lawmakers.


Members coming out of GOP conference this morning said that the plan, at this point, is not to specify the language.


Language would be inserted saying that the House and Senate must pass a BBA and send to the states as a condition to raising the debt ceiling again in six months. But it would not say which amendment must pass...



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085491-503544.html
 
cawacko said:
I like this in theory but admittedly don't know many of the details about it. Here's something from Bruce Barlett so I take it with somewhat of a grain of salt but nonetheless is he accurate when he says spending will be limited to a percent of GDP?


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1883491
Click to expand...

The model proposed under Reagan capped spending to percentage of GDP. It also had provisions for dealing with emergencies, where a super-majority could temporarily over-spend, in order to deal with the unforeseen. Of course, this all makes too much sense for Democrats. It's too responsible!

Our government needs to be controlled when it comes to spending. A Constitutional amendment would ensure the control is in place. I disagree with the premise a BBA 'could never be enforced' in the same way I would disagree an Amendment to guarantee voting rights could never be enforced. Sure it could be! Maybe not at first, but after a SCOTUS case ruled, and became the precedent, then it would be enforced... Congress might not like it... but it would be the law.
 
BBA is DOA.



How come the refusal of the Teahadists to provide their plan's details doesn't seem to bother Dixie?
 
It all depends on the wording, I guess. I tend to not support the BBA, since I think it is reactionary and will handicap America in the future. It might be possible to create an Amendment that was not so binding that it would harm America, yet still be enforceable while under a Democrat controlled House, Senate, and Presidency, but it would be difficult. What happens when an emergency happens? If you make emergency exceptions in the amendment, what would the definition of emergency be? Would include only acts of nature or would it include fiscal emergencies as well? If you include a "war clause," could starting a war allow Democrats to bypass the BBA? America did go into police actions, similar to war, under Clinton and Obama and war under Roosevelt and Truman (he didnt go to war, but he did drop the bomb).
 
Tags said:
It all depends on the wording, I guess. I tend to not support the BBA, since I think it is reactionary and will handicap America in the future. It might be possible to create an Amendment that was not so binding that it would harm America, yet still be enforceable while under a Democrat controlled House, Senate, and Presidency, but it would be difficult. What happens when an emergency happens? If you make emergency exceptions in the amendment, what would the definition of emergency be? Would include only acts of nature or would it include fiscal emergencies as well? If you include a "war clause," could starting a war allow Democrats to bypass the BBA? America did go into police actions, similar to war, under Clinton and Obama and war under Roosevelt and Truman (he didnt go to war, but he did drop the bomb).
Click to expand...

Okay, here is where many get muddled in confusion. A BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment) deals with the fiscal General Budget of the US. It is the appropriation of funding for all the various governmental departments and services. It does include cost for Defense, and payment of interest on our debt. The General Budget does not include cost of war, or payouts to Social Security beneficiaries, those are handled separately by Congress. The same is true with natural disasters and financial emergencies, those are dealt with outside the General Budget. So, balancing the budget wouldn't automatically mean the US is fiscally responsible and paying down the debt, there are still other ways for the government to circumvent the general budget and spend our money. But the BBA would at least HELP the cause, and force Congress to adhere to some modicum of common sense, when it comes to spending.

We've got to stop what's happening now, and fast... or we'll become GREECE!
 
BBA is DOA.


These two think the Teatards' chances are funny as hell.



BushObamaLaughingItUp
​
 
Dixie said:
Okay, here is where many get muddled in confusion. A BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment) deals with the fiscal General Budget of the US. It is the appropriation of funding for all the various governmental departments and services. It does include cost for Defense, and payment of interest on our debt. The General Budget does not include cost of war, or payouts to Social Security beneficiaries, those are handled separately by Congress. The same is true with natural disasters and financial emergencies, those are dealt with outside the General Budget. So, balancing the budget wouldn't automatically mean the US is fiscally responsible and paying down the debt, there are still other ways for the government to circumvent the general budget and spend our money. But the BBA would at least HELP the cause, and force Congress to adhere to some modicum of common sense, when it comes to spending.

We've got to stop what's happening now, and fast... or we'll become GREECE!
Click to expand...

That does make a lot more sense. However I don't think any Democrat will vote for it, since the only thing it limits is.... well... everything they have done in the last 80 years. Since it has to receive 2/3 of both Houses before going to the states, I don't see this happening until 2013 at the earliest (and then only if the Republicans have complete control on both houses). So why are we sweating it now?
 
Tags said:
That does make a lot more sense. However I don't think any Democrat will vote for it, since the only thing it limits is.... well... everything they have done in the last 80 years. Since it has to receive 2/3 of both Houses before going to the states, I don't see this happening until 2013 at the earliest (and then only if the Republicans have complete control on both houses). So why are we sweating it now?
Click to expand...

Well of course no Democrat will vote for it! Hell, if a meteor was heading for Earth, sure to wipe us out completely, and Republicans had a plan to send a nuke up to destroy the meteor before it struck Earth, pinheads would obfuscate, demagogue, find fault and ridicule the plan, while insisting we raise taxes on the rich, to make amends for all of human history where the rich held all the power. That's where we've gotten to with Democrats, they are simply going to be unreasonable and irrational, no matter what is proposed by Republicans, no matter how much good sense it makes.
 
since the only thing it limits is.... well... everything they have done in the last 80 years.
Click to expand...

This is true. We've been subjected to the same game from Democrats nearly the last century... Tell us all what we really need for government to provide for us, implement it, then raid our pockets for more money to pay for whatever they did... or worse, borrow the money from our enemies to pay for it. Soon as they get one thing implemented, they move to the next, there is never an end. If we're still surviving in a century, you will probably find liberals lamenting how we really need for government to provide full-time butt-wiping services for us, and how the mean republicans want to force old people to wipe their own butts! *gasp*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top