I would like some opinions please.....

Just a way to enforce cuts to infrastructure investment and social programs.

Also counter-cyclical to the economy.

But couldn't it also be used to cut military spending?
That was my reason for asking the question.

...but it wouldn't be used to cut military spending. There would inevitably be some sort of exemption for the boys at Lockheed et al.

since we seem to be always at "war" somewhere, the MIC is exempt.

I don't know where you've been, but the BBA is strictly a RW/Repub meme in my experience. The Dems don't go there.

This is another method they try to use to gut SS/Medicare/Medicaid.

Thanks for yours. It is much appreciated.

Congress has all the tools it needs to balance the budget any time it want's to do so. Frankly it is not always a good idea to have a balanced budget, this is the national government, not our personal checkbook or some business, there are many factors in play such as the economy that cannot be hamstrung by some stupid campaign, media driven catch phrase.

false equivalence between household finance and sovereign government finance.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to dispel that myth ... But the simple-minded just can't understand the distinction.

when the economy is bad we need to be able to stimulate it. after the economy has rebounded we can take a look at the debt situation and address it.

In this case, we have both.

Say there's a 9.5 quake in San Francisco. We're going to need a massive amount of temporary government spending. Does it make sense to slash Medicare and SS in the rest of the country instead of having a temporary deficit?

It came up in a coversation I had the other night.
Just wanted some opinions.

Although the jist of the article was against the idea. I noticed this paragraph. confusing.

First, we should realize that the balanced-budget amendment is a genuine mass movement, overwhelmingly supported by the bulk of the people in this country, regardless of income group, occupation, party label, or self-proclaimed status as "liberal" or "conservative." Let us look at the overwhelming consensus of the most recent polls. Gallup gives the results as 81 percent for the amendment, 11 percent against; CBS-New York Times makes it 70 percent pro, 17 percent against. The ABC Harris poll makes the amendment a 3 to 1 winner: 69 to 23 percent. Associated Press-NBC is even more conclusive at 4 to 1: 75 percent pro to 16 percent against.

Like you didn't see this coming...

Expect I would insist on best of three, though....

I may have to breed them. Or perhaps it would be best to just let them do that themselves.

and bishops & knights are transposed...He never will win that way.)

I hadn't paid attention. That's pretty funny.

Stupid dog...

That passage appears in exactly one place that I can find, the Ludwig von Mises site, which is about as Liberal as I am a Martian. https://mises.org/daily/4514/The-BalancedBudget-Question It is rather strictly Libertarian, and while they do share a few letters in common surely you can tell the difference.

I could tell you that piece selectively interprets the poll numbers to make it's case, or that the polls in question were themselves largely push-polls, or that when the same question is worded differently the public overwhelmingly opposes such legislation, and so on. I suspect though that one who confuses the LvM site with a Liberal blog either wouldn't understand what I was talking about or wouldn't care.

As I said, the jist of the article was against, I just found that
paragraph odd.

A little more confusing I'm sure as they put the word "liberal" right there in the title but even a short perusal should reveal to the reader their actual intent.

""Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade." http://the-classic-liberal.com/classical-liberalism/

In short they are attempting to undermine actual Liberals by muddying the meaning of the word. It is akin to claiming that since Lincoln was a Republican the GOP is a friend to minorities everywhere. It's nonsense, but easily seen through.

A "thank you" might be appropriate.

"I suspect though that one who confuses the LvM site with a Liberal blog either wouldn't understand what I was talking about or wouldn't care"

Really? A sharp, pull yourself up from the bootstrap businessman such as yourself confused by the intertubes? Not understanding the sources you are citing? Really? I find that hard to believe after your post the other day explaining how successful and hard working you are.

Here is your post, you remember the one that got hidden?

26. Ok, that's it...I've had enuff.

View profile
*note to mods* In my short time here I've tried to be polite and accommodating, but some of the snarky retorts that I've received demand a heartfelt response. I realize that this post may get me bounced but if this is indeed a Democratic forum, then freedom of speech is the foundation of that Democracy. I ask for your leniency.

EOTE : this is not directed at you personally but your post was the one that broke the camels back.

I have had it to HERE with the notion that because one becomes successful, that they are somehow THE ENEMY. Or that all of my hard work was simply luck. Was it lucky that I got up every morning at 4:00 am so that I could do my own accounting? Was it luck that had my family eating macaroni and cheese for two years? Was it lucky that my family lived for 6 months in my business space? Is it luck that I haven't had three consecutive days off in 10 years? Was it lucky that I drove a piece of shit car for 3 years? Was it luck that put me on the brink of bankruptcy before I pulled my self out?

The arrogance and condescension that it takes to make such
assumptions is beyond my belief. Does the fact that I make enough money so that I can contribute to The Democratic party count for anything? Does the fact that I am able to donate to the Make a Wish foundation count for anything?
I guess that it's easier to sit there in comfort in front of your computer and attack something or someone that you know absolutely nothing about. I haven't heard one complaint about actors that make 20,000,000 per picture simply for acting like someone else. Oh No....let's question and deride an honest working man who had the balls to get out on his own and stake his claim. Because the truth is, you don't want to hear about success stories. You don't want optimism. You want everyone to be dragged down to YOUR common denominator.

In closing, I've met some very nice people here, and if I get bounced, I will miss you, but I hope that SOMEONE gets to read this post and then take a good long look in the mirror.






A Jury voted 4-2 to hide this post on Tue Jul 31, 2012, 02:01 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

Thanks for reposting that, I didn't realize I was in time out.
Well at least 2 people didn't find it disruptive.lol

And now claim you did not realize you had been locked out of it? Really? Really? Dude don't quit your day job. You know the one you get up at 4am for.

I simply found it difficult to believe that a Liberal could view either of those websites and be fooled by their content. I still do frankly, though I admit the possibility.

Back to your original question though. Are you familiar with the work of John Maynard Keynes, whose economic philosophy spawned what is popularly known as Keynesian economics? The question you posed, though you may not be aware of it, is used as a direct argument against the principles of Keynesian economic policy. It is quite impossible to discuss a balanced budget proposal without an understanding of Keynes' ideas, and making an argument either for or against them. If you are not already familiar with him, start there. Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes . Please research further as you see fit.

My advice is if you find yourself discussing a balanced budget amendment with anyone who does not understand Keynesian economic theory, and can mount a cogent argument either for or against it, stop talking to them. They don't know what they are talking about.

I've read Keynes, Smith, De Tocqueville, Ricardo, etc.
As I said, I'm a sucker for information and opinions.

A Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea, if for no other reason, what's the utility of an amendment that will be routinely gamed. If there is any question as to how any BBA will be gamed, just look at the contortions State governments go through every year - from cost shifting to local governments, local government revenue sweeps, revenue collection/payment deferral and all the other accounting tricks.

We already have billions of "off budget" expenses, like most of the Iraq war, and that won't stop.

The loopholes would be astounding. Should it become unconstitutional to borrow to pay the bills, a new entity will be set up to do the borrowing-- Social Security will be set up as a quasi-governmental corporation like the Post Office and allowed have its own debt pool. The Pentagon, too, and maybe the federal judiciary... Everything the government does will be privatized to some extent and the loans backed by the government.

What a mess it would be.

The people who support it generally do not support cutting military funding. Even calls to cut spending equally is a wolf-in-sheep's clothing ploy: it equates cuts to bloated military budgets (see how they have grown since 2000) to cuts to already underfunded social and infrastructure programs.

Balanced budget rhetoric always calls for spending cuts rather than tax increases on the wealthy and is therefore just another anti-middle-class weapon in the austerity toolbox. When austerity fails, the answer is always more austerity. The fact that they never learn from experience is one of the reasons these people were hired (I mean elected) in the first place.

If we had had to balance the federal budget at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, we'd all be speaking Japanese today.

The federal government needs to be able to deficit-spend for economic stimulus in bad economic times. I live in a state in which a balanced budget is constitutionally required, and which has constitutional spending limits. Since those have been in effect, the declines in infrastructure, educational quality, social safety net, and economic growth have been significant. Budget cuts in badly needed programs have been savage and very painful. The balanced-budget/spending limits laws around the country have have similarly disastrous effects on people. They're a bad idea from top to bottom.

Otherwise, so much would need to be slashed it would kill the country.

Your last sentence is incorrect. Balancing the budget hasn't been a priority for either party, not until Obama was elected and the Tea Party took the House hostage.

fill me in on the Democrats' support for such an amendment.

The GOP got 25 Democrats to join them in supporting the balanced-budget amendment, but four Republicans — Ryan, Reps. Justin Amash, David Dreier and Louie Gohmert — voted against it.

Seven Democrats who voted for the balanced-budget amendment in 1995 flipped to a “no” for Friday’s vote: Reps. Rob Andrews, Jim Clyburn, Mike Doyle, Steny Hoyer, Marcy Kaptur, Jim Moran and Frank Pallone



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68695.html#ixzz22Phcj2bE

1995 was the same thing. Again, the GOP failing to pass their B.B.A.

Are there examples of the effort being led by the Democrats, as you say in your OP?

it was a good idea. I just wanted some information.
You asked me to fill you in on any Dem support. I did.

Sheeesh.

Aside from the fact that it is ignorant demogoguery as mentioned in previous posts, every proposed Balanced Budget Amendment ever has included national security or emergency exemptions. As preposterous as this entire discussion is, they are still bright enough to include that bit of necessity.

So every September we declare war on Iceland, pass an emergency budget and declare victory before the next season.

"As preposterous as this entire discussion is, "

things that it would have prevented us from doing

Fighting WW I

Fighting WW II

just two minor things.

They run the debt up sky high, while they're in office. Then, when they lose, they leave office with that deficit and start screaming about a balanced budget and putting the debt on our grandchildren. What they WANT it to cut social programs, and they're using the excuse of balancing the budget. OR they want to privatize, privatize, privatize and steal the taxpayer's money.

Over and over and over again, they've played this shit game and the American people have bought it. Right now? If we buy it, we are doomed to a very, very bad recession, because we need to spend more, as counterintuitive as it sounds, in order to get out of the recession.

Was that directed at the Question, or to me?

This thread is just a laugh-o-rama.

It's vulgar.

You asked for an opinion, and I gave you one. You didn't ask for an opinion about YOURSELF, did you? Well, then, that's not the opinion that you got.

Geez.

any longer. Remember reagan's top item on his wish list, the line item veto? They couldn't even get the dumbshits that thought he was not the worst President ever to get together long enough to pass it.

Could you please elaborate?

Since we got off of the gold standard, we've run a deficit. Reagan was the one who put the first spike into it. Clinton is the ONLY president that pulled off an annual surplus (two years in a row) and the shrub has the record for the largest spike in history. As a husband and father of three, I know there are times when you need to buy gas, groceries, or pay for utilities on credit. That's life. All a so-called "balanced budget amendment" would do is give the GOP more power to slash social services. You want a balanced budget? Make the rMoney sorts pay the same tax rate the rest of us do. You want to save Social Security? End the cap. We all have to pay the same rate, why should they get a cut-off because they're raking in ill-gotten gains?

What matters is what an administration and a Congress do once they come to power.

have obligations that have to be taken care of in order to keep our society running somewhat smoothly. If the budget was, by law, to be in balance then what would happen to say the military or the flood relief or the welfare of people which, btw, assures at least a somewhat peaceful society, if there were a drop off in revenue due to an economic downturn.

If the government goes down then the basic rules of our society will fall down.

Another for instance the courts would go away, the prison system would be at risk. If the government can't borrow, because that is basically the only way to have a balanced budget year by year, what happens if the revenue falls short for one month to the next.

There are all sorts of practical reason such as how to insure just basic continuity in service to no Social Security, even for those who have already paid into the program. But the government borrows every day on short term bonds just to get through money crunch times.

If there were to be a balanced budget required, they couldn't really borrow because you are basing what you need on a day to day basis with what you are EXPECTING to come in in the short term. That inevitably results in deficit spending from one fiscal year to the next.

fiscal year. Bridge loans are made by by pledging anticipated receipts in the next fiscal year.

If the economic downturn extends for more than five quarters, it will spill over to the next fiscal year.

Remember, there are billions of dollar raised on very short term paper. Some as small as a week. This allows for the Fed to put money into circulation so that there will be no shortage of cash.

By the way, these aren't opinions, these are facts.

When did Democrats propose a balanced budget amendment?

I don't think that most Republicans would actually vote for the thing.

This sounds like a tea-party or pseudo-libertarian idea. Far right thinking.

But if it has been covered I guess we should just stop asking questions.

It is just plain stupid.

Thanks Motown.

The root cause of why we need to curtail spending in the first place. In no particular order: Lobbyists, MIC, Republicans, conservatives, DLC/3way/Blue Dog Democrats, greed, The 1%.

To address the current debt we need to look at spending first. Start with all our wars, then our "defense" budget in general. Then we need to look at the tax cuts bush instituted. Then go all the way back to undoing the tax cuts on those most able to pay them since Nixon forward. Outlaw off shore accounts for the purpose of avoiding taxes for any person/business/entity for anything over $100,000. That is not per account, that is per entity.

In foreign affairs, we love to maintain that "all options are on the table."

When it comes to fiscal survival in emergencies, the same must be true for budgeting. If the USA can get away with debt spending, then sometimes that's what is required.

Besides, if they passed this Amendment, they'd find ways around it.