Balanced Budget Amendment

[Murky]

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

If there is not 60 votes for the Presidents bills the Senate can do a filibuster, but there are ways around that. Given that the Democrats are more likely to compromise, if there is a Democrat majority in the Senate, but still Republican majority in the house and a President Romney, we can expect the same bad economics of the Bush Administration.

If there is a Republican super majority that just rubber-stamps everything, you can kiss whatever you have planned for your future goodbye unless you are super-rich like they are. Even then, the long-term future of richest people in the USA is in doubt. The (upper-class) economy might go gang-busters for a time, but you can't eat money as the saying goes.

 

[bugwar]

If there is not 60 votes for the Presidents bills the Senate can do a filibuster, but there are ways around that. Given that the Democrats are more likely to compromise, if there is a Democrat majority in the Senate, but still Republican majority in the house and a President Romney, we can expect the same bad economics of the Bush Administration.

If there is a Republican super majority that just rubber-stamps everything, you can kiss whatever you have planned for your future goodbye unless you are super-rich like they are. Even then, the long-term future of richest people in the USA is in doubt. The economy might go gang-busters for a time, but you can't eat money as the saying goes.

Thanks. That adds to my desire to see a balanced budget amendment to preclude such chicanery.

 

[Murky]

Thanks. That adds to my desire to see a balanced budget amendment to preclude such chicanery.

That's not politics works.

If Obama wins the Republicans may push for a balanced budget amendment, but refuse to raise taxes so that they have an excuse to cut entitlement spending. If Romney wins they will not worry about having a balanced budget because his budget will likely cut entitlement spending without raising taxes anyway. The deficit will continue to increase.

 

[bugwar]

That's not politics works.

If Obama wins the Republicans may push for a balanced budget amendment, but refuse to raise taxes so that they have an excuse to cut entitlement spending. If Romney wins they will not worry about having a balanced budget because his budget will likely cut entitlement spending without raising taxes anyway. The deficit will continue to increase.

That is your view of the future. Mine is a bit different.

My question is, what are your objections, if any, to the amendment itself?

 

[Murky]

That is your view of the future. Mine is a bit different.

My question is, what are your objections, if any, to the amendment itself?

I think the strongest argument is the it could tie government hands during a crisis. The second best argument is that it's not practical, it's ideological.

The whole thing is just a political move by the Republicans to tie the Presidents hands as much as possible so they can get him out and their guy in. They don't give a rat's tail about balancing the budget when their guy is in the Oval Office.

 

[bugwar]

I think the strongest argument is the it could tie government hands during a crisis. The second best argument is that it's not practical, it's ideological.

The whole thing is just a political move by the Republicans to tie the Presidents hands as much as possible so they can get him out and their guy in. They don't give a rat's tail about balancing the budget when their guy is in the Oval Office.

Good enough. Thanks.

If I may add, 'tie governments hands during a crisis' could apply to any constraint the constitution places on the federal government. We have managed to handle two hundred years of 'crisis' so far. I don't think this single amendment will be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Murky]

I'm no economist but imagine what it would have been like in 2008 when the economy was in free-fall and there had been a balanced budget amendment. The budget was already maxed out and a BBA would have prevented things like TARP, the Auto-bailout and the stimulus program. What would have happened to the GDP if the banks, the auto industry and the rest of the economy collapsed? It would have made the great depression seem like a picnic.

Edit:

Found this quote from Paul Krugman's blog. He's an economist and a Nobel prize winner.

The basic problem with a balanced budget amendment is that it precludes the federal government from doing exactly what it should do during recessions: step in and provide support. Automatic stabilizers such as unemployment benefits and Medicaid cost more when more people need them, which happens not coincidentally when tax revenues decline. A balanced budget amendment would hinder if not eliminate this fundamental function of government — to help those who are temporarily unable to help themselves.
http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/...hs-sources-and-the-balanced-budget-amendment/

 

[bugwar]

The budget was already maxed out and a BBA would have prevented things like TARP, the Auto-bailout and the stimulus program. What would have happened to the GDP if the banks, the auto industry and the rest of the economy collapsed? It would have made the great depression seem like a picnic.

Um, TARP, bailouts, and stimulus? Those are all things that should NOT have happened in the first place.

As for the effects, the failed banks would have been sold to functioning ones, the auto industry would have chugged
along nicely selling the same product as before, and the economy would continue on just fine. Now on the other hand,
several mega investment firms would have taken a first quarter profit hit, forcing their directors to put off installing
the gold bathroom fixtures in their Tahiti estate guest houses.

See, I can spin the probable future as well as you can.

 

[Murky]

Um, TARP, bailouts, and stimulus? Those are all things that should NOT have happened in the first place.

What evidence do you have that supports this? Is it just ideology that leads you to make these claims?

As for the effects, the failed banks would have been sold to functioning ones, the auto industry would have chugged along nicely selling the same product as before, and the economy would continue on just fine.

Not according to the experts. It would have failed spectacular according to some.

Now on the other hand, several mega investment firms would have taken a first quarter profit hit, forcing their directors to put off installing the gold bathroom fixtures in their Tahiti estate guest houses.

One place where I think the Obama Administration, so far, has failed is in bringing the crooks in the mega investment firms to justice.

See, I can spin the probable future as well as you can.

We'll see what the future brings. I try to base my predictions on being as well-informed as possible and base it on evidence instead of ideology.

 

[bugwar]

Edit:

Found this quote from Paul Krugman's blog. He's an economist and a Nobel prize winner.

As for Mr. Krugman, it is interesting that he posits that the amendment did not have an emergency clause. I supose that if it did, it wouldn't help his argument much though.

 

[Murky]

As for Mr. Krugman, it is interesting that he posits that the amendment did not have an emergency clause. I supose that if it did, it wouldn't help his argument much though.

The emergency clause as proposed would require two-thirds vote.

That so called “safety valve” requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers to authorize a deficit. But after what we are seeing in both houses today, what are the chances of seeing a two-thirds vote in this Congress? (I live in California and we have all learned how hard it is to get a two thirds vote as is required for raising taxes in this state.) And the proposed amendment requires that 60% of both houses must vote to increase taxes or the debt limit. This would again result in political gridlock and even more opportunities for legislative blackmail.
http://commonsense-gater.blogspot.com/2011/07/balanced-budget-amendment-would-be.html

 

[bugwar]

What evidence do you have that supports this? Is it just ideology that leads you to make these claims?

Um, looked at the deficit recently? That is my evidence.

Not according to the experts. It would have failed spectacular according to some.

And according to others, it would do well. Guess it depends on which experts you choose to accept. Oh, and I added the bold type to your comment.

We'll see what the future brings. I try to base my predictions on being as well-informed as possible and base it on evidence instead of ideology.

Good. We have the same methodology then.

 

[bugwar]

The emergency clause as proposed would require two-thirds vote.

Good. Don't want it invoked to OK pork barrel spending.

 

[Murky]

Um, looked at the deficit recently? That is my evidence.

You can't just look at the one big number and decide we need a balanced budget amendment. That's not enough evidence to convince most of the experts.

And according to others, it would do well. Guess it depends on which experts you choose to accept. Oh, and I added the bold type to your comment.

Just ask if your expert is basing his claims on ideology or evidence. Ideologues always talk a good game but in practice it never works out.

Good. We have the same methodology then.

Hardly.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

And that's also where you need to actually pay attention. First of all, if you say "Democrats are liberals" then you have zero understanding of US politics. Only a handful of Democrats are currently liberals, and sizable numbers of them were until recently the most conservative of politicians in the country. So the question is, which Democrats followed the Republican lead to cause the deficits with conservative fiscal and economic polices?

Further, conservatives played the game that they would cause deficits, and then force the "liberals" to solve the problem. That's what the "no new taxes" pledge is all about. The political game is for Republicans to cut taxes and raise spending, and then blame Democrats for the deficits when the Democrats refuse to cut spending. And then use opposition to tax increases as an election issue. Well Democrats have refused to play the game by the Republican's rules. The result being that there can be no political solution to the budget mess until the Republicans put patriotism ahead of partisanship. The current Republicans would rather ruin the country than run it.

 

[Cutlass]

Um, TARP, bailouts, and stimulus? Those are all things that should NOT have happened in the first place.

As for the effects, the failed banks would have been sold to functioning ones, the auto industry would have chugged
along nicely selling the same product as before, and the economy would continue on just fine. Now on the other hand,
several mega investment firms would have taken a first quarter profit hit, forcing their directors to put off installing
the gold bathroom fixtures in their Tahiti estate guest houses.

See, I can spin the probable future as well as you can.

Congratulations, comrade! You have destroyed capitalism!

 

[bugwar]

You can't just look at the one big number and decide we need a balanced budget amendment. That's not enough evidence to convince most of the experts.

If by experts you mean the American voter, then I think I do.

Just ask if your expert is basing his claims on ideology or evidence. Ideologues always talk a good game but in practice it never works out.

Hey, you are the one that said they were all experts, I just used you as a reliable source. Surely you were not mistaken in your evidence?

 

[bugwar]

OK guys, this is fun, but real life calls.

I will be back this evening most likely to continue this entertainment.

So until then, keep them posts a-coming!

 

[holy king]

Ah yes, Dennyesian economics.

it really is the only way to go...

 

[Joecoolyo]

it really is the only way to go...

I agree, it's a Grand Slam of a theory.