Balanced Budget Amendment

[EnglishEdward]

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

Not sure I can comment regarding Texas, but thirty years ago the great majority of
mortgage lending in England was undertaken via mutual building societies which were
run more on cooperative than capitalist lines; and yes; it was run much better.

 

[Cutlass]

I will always believe private enterprise fuels the economy, not the government.

That depends a lot on what you mean by "fueling the economy". Here's a hint: Neither side does it alone. Ever.

 

[holy king]

just switch from the gold standard to the scrambled egg standard.

 

[bugwar]

We would not be able to tax people enough to meet the balance without massive destruction of the economy.

And if we put that to the voters to decide?

I can see the ballot now.

'Vote yes to increase the national debt by a trillion dollars now to pay for X (your favorite program) for the next twenty years.
Funds to pay for it come out of increases in all tax sources by Y percent (payback over 20 years, about 50 billion a year in principal payments).'

Sounds balanced to me, and doable, if the voters want it. If they don't, we saved a trillion dollars.

 

[Murky]

Do you realize how much time it would take out of the congressional budget sessions to get a balanced budget amendment? Wouldn't it be better to figure out how to get more people back to work? Isn't solving the climate crisis just slightly more important?

 

[Cutlass]

And if we put that to the voters to decide?

Then the people with the least factual information and the most influenced by special interest rhetoric will make all the decisions. See California.

I can see the ballot now.

'Vote yes to increase the national debt by a trillion dollars now to pay for X (your favorite program) for the next twenty years.
Funds to pay for it come out of increases in all tax sources by Y percent (payback over 20 years, about 50 billion a year in principal payments).'

It won't work like that. The voters will vote to spend the money, but not raise the taxes. And then whine and moan when their programs get cut. Again, see California.

Sounds balanced to me, and doable, if the voters want it. If they don't, we saved a trillion dollars.

That won't happen either. Government spending is too intertwined with the health of the economy. You can't just cut the spending like that without reducing the size of the economy, and so losing tax revenues and so having the same or worse deficits.

 

[bugwar]

Do you realize how much time it would take out of the congressional budget sessions to get a balanced budget amendment?

You tell me. From my vantage, that is time well spent.

Wouldn't it be better to figure out how to get more people back to work?

Nope. Pretty sure that if your government can't figure out how to balance income with outgo, their solution to unemployment will be slightly suspect.

Isn't solving the climate crisis just slightly more important?

Nope. See the above.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Do you realize how much time it would take out of the congressional budget sessions to get a balanced budget amendment? Wouldn't it be better to figure out how to get more people back to work? Isn't solving the climate crisis just slightly more important?

Wel, if this results in having a worthless currency, it's debatable.

 

[Joecoolyo]

just switch from the gold standard to the scrambled egg standard.

Ah yes, Dennyesian economics.

 

[Murky]

So where were all you budget hawks during the Bush Administration?

 

[bugwar]

Then the people with the least factual information and the most influenced by special interest rhetoric will make all the decisions. See California.

Interesting viewpoint.
Citizens can't be trusted to decide the future of their nation.
I guess we should cancel the upcoming ballot in November then?

It won't work like that. The voters will vote to spend the money, but not raise the taxes. And then whine and moan when their programs get cut. Again, see California.

Well gee, why don't we just find out?
Either they are as spendthrift as the current congress, in which case you haven't lost anything you weren't going to lose anyway, or they do show the beauty of Democracy.

That won't happen either. Government spending is too intertwined with the health of the economy. You can't just cut the spending like that without reducing the size of the economy, and so losing tax revenues and so having the same or worse deficits.

Don't you think voters like you can figure that out? Oh wait, you already answered that.

 

[bugwar]

So where were all you budget hawks during the Bush Administration?

Same place we are now, voices in the wilderness.

 

[JollyRoger]

So where were all you budget hawks during the Bush Administration?

Fighting the Iraq war from their keyboards.

 

[emzie]

No, but the corollary is I don't support tax cuts during government surpluses.

 

[Murky]

Same place we are now, voices in the wilderness.

So are you for raising taxes on the wealthy if it means balancing the budget or do you want only the poor and middle-class to suffer the pain?

 

[JollyRoger]

I think the theory is that you have to cut taxes to solve the deficit.

 

[Cutlass]

Interesting viewpoint.
Citizens can't be trusted to decide the future of their nation.
I guess we should cancel the upcoming ballot in November then?

Strawman much? We have a representative democracy because direct democracy can't work.

Well gee, why don't we just find out?
Either they are as spendthrift as the current congress, in which case you haven't lost anything you weren't going to lose anyway, or they do show the beauty of Democracy.

The current congress is extremely austere for the circumstances. Not like the spendthrift Bush and Reagan congresses.

Don't you think voters like you can figure that out? Oh wait, you already answered that.

The general public does not take the time to learn the issues. That's what representatives are for.

 

[bugwar]

So are you for raising taxes on the wealthy if it means balancing the budget or do you want only the poor and middle-class to suffer the pain?

Yes.

Seriously though, I would be much happier balancing the budget by cutting spending.
I kinda like the 50/50 program. Fifty percent in defense, the rest in the remainder of the budget.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes.

Seriously though, I would be much happier balancing the budget by cutting spending.
I kinda like the 50/50 program. Fifty percent in defense, the rest in the remainder of the budget.

That's a lot of Americans homeless and starving....

 

[bugwar]

Strawman much? We have a representative democracy because direct democracy can't work.

The current congress is extremely austere for the circumstances. Not like the spendthrift Bush and Reagan congresses.

The general public does not take the time to learn the issues. That's what representatives are for.

Then let us agree to disagree.

Your view of the qualities of the common people of America (the 99%'ers) does not coincide with mine.

Which is good.

Someone has to serve as an example of misguided thinking.