Balanced Budget Amendment

[Cutlass]

Ah, so you really have no intent to convince me, or anyone else who may be on the fence, of your philosophy? Because "Look at the real world" isn't going to do it.

I pay attention to politics. The way I see it, the liberals are by and large causing this problem by continuing to raise the debt ceiling and continuing to spend more money on new social programs while keeping up the expensive foreign policy of the previous administration. Where I'm sitting, this really seems like its Obama's fault, at least in part. And I am not the only one.

So you don't pay attention to politics.

 

[bugwar]

So you don't pay attention to politics.

Would you be so kind as to post something of substance????

 

[Cutlass]

Would you be so kind as to post something of substance????

Would it be read?

 

[bugwar]

I wasn't trying to deny that, although I am posting in a "Fast style" right now as its late at night and I'm about to go to bed, and to be fair, I did put in more time than the person I responded to did. Forgive me.

I'm pretty much disgusted with Republicans as much as Democrats these days. The only "Conservative" candidate running was Ron Paul, and that because he was willing to cut enough of the government that money would actually be saved rather than spent, as everyone else wants to do.

The Republicans have basically blended with the Democrats this year anyway. Nobody has a plan to truly save this trashed economy. It doesn't matter if there's an "R" or "D" in front of their name, I read it as an "I" and I don't mean independent

Appreciate that you are about to shut down for the evening. I will too in a while, but if I do not have time to respond as I really want too, I just hold off till the following day. That way I am bright eyed and bushy tailed for the esoteric arguments presented.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Would you be so kind as to post something of substance????

He's almost 30 years older than me and he still can't

I would have thought that the older members here would have more wisdom to pass down than the younger members, but I guess not always.

Cutlass, dare you to prove me wrong

 

[bugwar]

Would it be read?

But of course. Agreed to? Probably not. But read? Always.

 

[bugwar]

He's almost 30 years older than me and he still can't

I would have thought that the older members here would have more wisdom to pass down than the younger members, but I guess not always.

Cutlass, dare you to prove me wrong

I thought he was just being flippant.

 

[warpus]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but..

In 2006 the U.S. spent $59 billion on traditional social welfare programs and $92 billion on corporate subsidies.

 

[bugwar]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but..

In 2006 the U.S. spent $59 billion on traditional social welfare programs and $92 billion on corporate subsidies.

Thank you for the insight.
And that relates to the balanced budget proposal,... how?

 

[WindFish]

Ghostwriter,

The only president to have more than one year of surpluses in the last 40 years was the infamous tax and spend liberal Mr William Jefferson Clinton.

 

[bugwar]

Ghostwriter,

The only president to have more than one year of surpluses in the last 40 years was the infamous tax and spend liberal Mr William Jefferson Clinton.

Of course.
And during all three years of that surplus, both houses of congress were under Republican control.

And your point, as well as mine, relate to a balanced budget amendment how?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think people who keep suicide pills (I guess that is the implication?) for their kids are a way greater threat.

How are they a threat ? They are a problem that solves itself and even purges their offspring from the gene pool.

 

[Leoreth]

Again, that depends on your wording of the amendment, as well as your value judgment of what ‘too much’ is.

Yeah, exactly. I claim that no careful wording exists that covers all possible situations where spending would be necessary, without making the whole amendment toothless and pointless.

And "too much" limit would certainly be in cases where government spending is necessary to counteract an immediate crisis. At least.

Gee, I wonder if inserting the phrase along the lines of ‘...unless two-thirds of Congress votes to suspend this amendment for a period of one year.’ would handle that?

No, it wouldn't. See the partisanship around the budget in 2011, and imagine that turned up to eleven. I wouldn't want to see your country paralyzed or plunged into severe crisis just because one party (which in this case could even be in the minority!) favors cheap obstructionism at the moment.

An interesting value judgment on your part, though that is not what I wrote. I wrote that we are TRYING our best to get there. As for the period, those again are your words, not mine.

I'm aware of that. I'm saying that where the US is headed right now won't take them anywhere close to where Greece is. And even less is anyone actively trying to steer you in that direction. Again, I doubt you know much about the situation of the Greek state beyond "lots of debt".

Well, it is within the realm of possibility that I am in error, which is why I left that passage in. Is there also a chance that you too are not infallible?

Did I claim infallibility? I just stated my opinion. On the other hand, it was you who personally attacked other posters here, and that deserved to be pointed out.

And this is the fundamental problem liberals have. They treat national budgets like licenses to print money, as if their credit is good as long as they have red ink in their quills.

We can trade snappy remarks all night, or move on to providing concrete details supporting our thoughts.

Your choice.

It's you who's parroting me without contributing anything of substance.

How are they a threat ? They are a problem that solves itself and even purges their offspring from the gene pool.

Are you implying his children deserve to die because he's crazy? Besides the fact that nobody deserves to die because they're crazy, and that we don't know if his education has actually made them crazy, I think it's still everyone's own decision to take a frakking suicide pill!

(I assumed that MC's children are underage which based on his comments might not be true, but if they are adults, can't they buy their own suicide pills?)

 

[amadeus]

Depends on what you balance it at.

 

[Cutlass]

But of course. Agreed to? Probably not. But read? Always.

As I say, if you know recent American history, you know that the Republicans did it. There's not actually a way to dispute that. It all comes down to the change to more conservative government and economic policy.

The United States has had outstanding debt since WWII. But only with the election of Reagan, the Republican control of the Senate, and conservative control of the House, after 1981 did debt begin growing faster than GDP grew. Before that the dollar value of GDP stayed up, but did not much increase. But debt as a share of GDP dropped consistently.

Now the reason that the debt exploded at that time was Reagan's inability to understand economics. His embracing of Supply Side economics convinced him of things that were not true, and so he believed that tax cuts would increase economic growth. That never happened, and so while he thought he could cut taxes and raise spending, what he got was debt. And so he raised taxes every year after that, but never enough to get out of the hole he dug.

Now it was the abandonment of the basic Keynesian economic paradigm by Washington that resulted in economic polices that were pro debt. It fundamentally slowed our ability to pay for current and future spending.

So people who blame Keynesian economics are really just lying for political purposes. The US government has not followed Keynesian economic prescriptions in the years that debt has substantially increased. But the lack of doing so has had many other greatly negative effects on the economy that make debt a problem. Namely, the conservative economic policies killed the American Dream. It killed the idea that you could work harder and make more money, and that you could live off the income of your own work. Because the conservative polices kill income growth, they reduce the taxes most people could pay, while making many more people eligible for welfare.

The problem being that in the real world, the tax cuts did not result in investment, and so did not result in job creation, and so did not result in income growth.

And so with the incomes of 8/10 Americans stagnant, the tax revenue just isn't high enough to pay for the costs of a government that is becoming increasingly expensive because the same policies that stagnate jobs and wages (the same polices that Romney is promising to do even more of), more people than ever before cannot earn enough money on their own to be self sufficient.

This is what you need to understand. The Republican/conservative/Supply Side/market rules economic policy both cuts government revenue and increases government costs because it makes more people poor and dependent on some form of welfare rather than earning enough money to pay taxes.

When you kill jobs and drive down people's incomes, they pay less taxes and receive more welfare!

And the politics of the day will not allow economic polices that correct the problem. The core of the problem is that taxes are too low and businesses are not investing and creating jobs. Lowering taxes resulted in the reduction of business investment and job creation, so lowering them even more can in no way be expected to raise business investment and job creation. Business investment and job creation is low because consumer spending is low. So once you kill the American Dream with conservative Supply Side policies you have to expect low business investment and job creation.

Welfare dependency is driven by low wages and low job creation. Throwing people off welfare only accomplishes even lower wages and job creation. So conservatives are fundamentally going in the wrong direction. As conservative policies drive more people into dependency, it is increasingly failing to pay for the situation it is causing.

As for the future, now that Obama is in office, what choices have been left to him? Conservative policies caused the Financial Crisis and Great Recession. And Congress will not return to Keynesian economics to get us out of the hole. And so we're stuck in a debt situation. It isn't Obama that is driving debt. It is the failure to abandon conservative policies.

Which at least Reagan, as incompetent as he was, recognized the actual problem.

 

[bugwar]

Nice.
I would recommend you use the spoiler tags to cut down on the acreage though.

I am curious though, when all these republican bills to increase debt were being passed, what were the democrats doing? Why, they were voting to do the same.

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png

So as much as I would like to lay this to blame all on the liberals spending like there was no tommorrow, it appears that EVERYONE had their hands in the cookie jar.

To me, that makes a balanced budget amendment all that more attractive.

 

[Murky]

Thanks for the info charts. It'd be nice if they were to teach that in a high school class or at least in required secondary economics courses. Sadly, most voters have no clue how the economy really works. You can also expect conservative types like Romney/Ryan to double down on bad policy.

 

[bugwar]

Thanks for the info charts. It'd be nice if they were to teach that in a high school class or at least in required secondary economics courses. Sadly, most voters have no clue how the economy really works. You can also expect conservative types like Romney/Ryan to double down on bad policy.

Ah, but won't it require the liberals to agree to his bills?

 

[Leoreth]

Wait, you accused Cutlass of being unable to support his argument but when he does, your best argument against the failure of conservative economic policies is "but liberals agreed to it"? What does it matter?

I thought the goal was to find the right solutions for the future instead of allocating blame for the past.

 

[bugwar]

Wait, you accused Cutlass of being unable to support his argument but when he does, your best argument against the failure of conservative economic policies is "but liberals agreed to it"? What does it matter?

Um, is it really a 'failure' if both sides support it???? Actually, you have a point. What I should say is that both sides are behaving without considering the long term implications. Another reason for the balanced budget amendment.

I thought the goal was to find the right solutions for the future instead of allocating blame for the past.

I am pretty sure that a balanced budget amendment meets that criteria. Thanks though for reminding me of that.