Balanced Budget Amendment

[Disgustipated]

It's a simple yes or no whether you want this or not. I'll include a third option for alternative plans.

I of course support it. Only then can we get Republican and Democrat politicians in line. Until that happens both parties will see fit to spend whatever they want with no consequences. With Bush and his increase in education spending, expanding the federal government with homeland security, and 2 wars, and then Obama spending money on everything, it's gotten out of control. The politicians promise everything to the people, but don't actually pay for it. I'm glad I don't have kids, because eventually it's going to get real bad. I'm figuring another 20 years before we're forced to deal with this debt problem.

I support a balanced budget, the only exceptions I might make are in official recession (I say official because right now we aren't in a recession), and a defensive war (to protect against Republican presidents who think it's fun to start wars). If you are going to promise the people things, then you better find a way to pay for it with either spending cuts, and/or tax increases.

And I don't care if it isn't "realistic", I still want it. And yes it is realistic. It's better to deal with this now, rather than later. Yes it will hurt the economy in the short term, but it will do better in the long term.

Feel free to vote even if you don't live in the U.S. I welcome all opinions on the subject.

 

[JollyRoger]

A balanced budget amendment seems kind of foolhardy. It's not as if most households live by such restrictions - getting a mortgage pretty much blows that.

 

[LightSpectra]

and a defensive war (to protect against Republican presidents who think it's fun to start wars).

I'm glad Wilson, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson rest easily, as will Clinton and Obama.

 

[History_Buff]

Emphatically no. Budget deficits serve a very useful purpose. That the government has abused is for the last 30 years does not change that.

 

[Cutlass]

Stupidest. Idea. Ever.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm glad Wilson, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson rest easily, as will Clinton and Obama.

What war did Clinton start BTW? I'm aware that the rest of those guys have started at least one war.

YES at the thread title BTW. They do not have a right to spend money and leave it for our children to pay. Its immoral.

 

[bugwar]

A balanced budget amendment seems kind of foolhardy. It's not as if most households live by such restrictions - getting a mortgage pretty much blows that.

Yep, and the foreclosure rate shows how well they manage it. The housing crisis wasn't caused by everyone paying their loans on time.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What war did Clinton start BTW? I'm aware that the rest of those guys have started at least one war.

He bombed Serbia back to the stone age and regularly dropped death from above on Iraq. Though he didn't start either of those conflicts.

 

[bugwar]

Emphatically no. Budget deficits serve a very useful purpose. That the government has abused is for the last 30 years does not change that.

Tell that to Greece. You can abuse your lenders only so much, then they wise up.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Emphatically no. Budget deficits serve a very useful purpose. That the government has abused is for the last 30 years does not change that.

Useful purpose. I don't know if I agree with this choice of words. I'd call deficits a necessary evil in economic downturns. A really necessary evil if you don't want the economy to plunge into a deep and long recession. Robbing government of this kind of flexibility is sheer idiocy.

What war did Clinton start BTW? I'm aware that the rest of those guys have started at least one war.

Kosovo. Just as illegal as the Iraq war, but the German government was stupid enough to go along with it. By rights our former chancellor and several of our ministers at the time should have been thrown in prison for it.

Though he didn't start either of those conflicts.

Who did ?

 

[cegman]

I can't think of many good reasons for it and can think of a ton of problems with it. But there must be something redeeming if a Keynesian dislikes it.

I realize that one generation spending a ton of money and leaving the next with the bill is a huge problem but the unintended consequences of this bill make the "War on Drugs" look like child play.

On the other hand it would be a good way to stop that garbage economic Keynesian theory from being implemented.

In the end I'm forced to agree that this is a idea that would be horrible but it would be nice to have a debt ceiling and monetary policy that was tied to something other than getting re-elected/re-appointed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yep, and the foreclosure rate shows how well they manage it. The housing crisis wasn't caused by everyone paying their loans on time.

Are you saying that we would be collectively be better off if mortgage lending was outlawed?

 

[Cutlass]

I can't think of many good reasons for it and can think of a ton of problems with it. But there must be something redeeming if a Keynesian dislikes it.

I realize that one generation spending a ton of money and leaving the next with the bill is a huge problem but the unintended consequences of this bill make the "War on Drugs" look like child play.

On the other hand it would be a good way to stop that garbage economic Keynesian theory from being implemented.

In the end I'm forced to agree that this is a idea that would be horrible but it would be nice to have a debt ceiling and monetary policy that was tied to something other than getting re-elected/re-appointed.

90% of outstanding US government debt is Supply Side economics, not Keynesian......

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Kosovo. Just as illegal as the Iraq war, but the German government was stupid enough to go along with it. By rights our former chancellor and several of our ministers at the time should have been thrown in prison for it.

Illegal? Really? So now stopping a genocide is illegal. I call bs

The German government went along with our bombing campaign because they didn't have the stones to do it themselves.

Who did ?

The Serbs? Milosovich?

 

[bugwar]

Are you saying that we would be collectively be better off if mortgage lending was outlawed?

Good try at waving a red flag.

I am saying that responsible borrowers don't have a problem with loans.

The American people (through the people they regularly reelect) have not demonstrated responsible borrowing behavior.

Until they do, it is time to clamp some restrictions on the enabling behavior. Once America decides to behave as an adult fiscally, you can drop the ammendment. Or not.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Illegal? Really? So now stopping a genocide is illegal. I call bs

And I call bs on the 'genocide'.
There were atrocities commited by serbian forces, but there were also atrocities commited by Albanian terrorists who the media preferred to call freedom fighters at the time.
NATO bombings didd o a good job of escalating the violence on the Serbian side and create their own justification.
During the war we were fed propaganda about about soccer stadiums being turned into concentration camps by the serbs and similar things which turned out to be blatant lies after the whole affair was over.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

On the other hand it would be a good way to stop that garbage economic Keynesian theory from being implemented.

This Keynesian garbage worked pretty well during the forties and it's working pretty well right now in Germany, in stark contrast to the austerity route taken by the UK.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And I call bs on the 'genocide'.
There were atrocities commited by serbian forces, but there were also atrocities commited by Albanian terrorists who the media preferred to call freedom fighters at the time.
NATO bombings didd o a good job of escalating the violence on the Serbian side and create their own justification.
During the war we were fed propaganda about about soccer stadiums being turned into concentration camps by the serbs and similar things which turned out to be blatant lies after the whole affair was over.

It clearly was a genocide, however. I didn't say only one side was responsible, but one side is to blame for starting it.

And no, the bombing didn't escalate the violence, it ended it. But if you want to say, 'well there were no bombs being dropped before the intervention, therefore escalation', go ahead.

 

[bugwar]

It clearly was a genocide, however. I didn't say only one side was responsible, but one side is to blame for starting it.

And no, the bombing didn't escalate the violence, it ended it. But if you want to say, 'well there were no bombs being dropped before the intervention, therefore escalation', go ahead.

Who'd thunk a topic like national fiscal policy would degenerate into war crimes tribunal's so quickly?

Oh wait, this is an internet forum. Of course it deviates within three posts.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My bad, I was only meaning to clarify something for GhostWriter16, then the German Haters Group attacked. I'll leave it alone now