My Republican Senator, who voted for the recent $1T spending bill, is in favor of an amendment to the Constitution. I guess it sounds good except they could just raise taxes to fulfill their hunger for spending - if they have a supermajority. There are a number of links on the subject on google. Here is one.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...ced-budget-amendment

I sure don’t trust politicians with anything. What say you?

They will never get an amendment approved. Maybe this is just fluff to try and cover their asses for their last vote.

Why do these chumps need laws to follow existing laws and amendments to balance a budget.

nope

not worth a pinch of coon shit

they already ignore the 2nd - what makes you think they'll follow this one?

Absolutely in favor of one. It would need limited exceptions however (war or national disaster).

No.

There are legitimately times the USG needs to borrow. For example, FDR building up defense capabilities before we entered WWII.

What we need is something other than a two-party system where one side taxes and spends and rejoices in it, and the other side taxes and spends, but feels a bit remorseful.

Here’s what happens to such legislation..
Gramm - Rudman Act

First, term limits. Two terms, no seniority.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
First, term limits. Two terms, no seniority.

I have heard that the resulting turnover would end up stacking the congress with libs too much. But just as much chance for the other way.

Why do you need an amendment to balance the budget? An amendment means shit aka the 2nd when people keep fucking with it.

quote:

Balanced budget amendment to Constitution. Do you support?

No.

What is to stop them from having no budget at all like we had under Reid? Nothing.

Is the penalty severe enough for not balancing the budget? No. It'd have to be something like everyone in Congress ineligible for reelection if budget not balanced. Better yet, spend a day in minimum security Federal Prison Camp for every dollar over balanced budget.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
First, term limits. Two terms, no seniority.

I'm more of a (1) term limits and (2) line item veto. People shouldn't be making an entire career in DC while "representing" their state, and line item veto would get rid of the pork barrel spending that gets added to the omnibus spending bills seemingly every year.

I like your idea tatortodd with term limit of 1 and the veto. They've been irresponsible with money issues far too long. We dont get a handle on the size and scope of Government soon, we wont be voting in hopes of fixing things.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
First, term limits. Two terms, no seniority.

That would shift power to the unelected high bureaucrats, who tend to lean left. No thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
First, term limits. Two terms, no seniority.

That would shift power to the unelected high bureaucrats, who tend to lean left. No thanks.

Exactly what I was going to say. The bureaucrats would essentially run the show then.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
First, term limits. Two terms, no seniority.

That would shift power to the unelected high bureaucrats, who tend to lean left. No thanks.

Agreed. You would also get 'extreme legislation' because legislators would be willing to 'go off the deep end' politically precisely because they were not eligible to re-election.

And the balanced budget thing sounds cool until you think about it practically. Just wouldn't work.

As long as our debt is 'manageable' relative to GDP we are going to be okay.

The old joke: 'when you owe the bank $100,000 and can't pay - you have a problem; when you owe the bank $100Million and can't pay - the bank has a problem' comes to mind.

---------------------------------------------------

The country is way too divided to add or remove anything from the constitution.

I'd just be happy if they could pass a budget - any budget - on time once. Never in my 40+ years working with the Feds has that happened....

Complete waste of time because it'll never happen. They're doing it all for show when they need to focus on real issues.
If there was enough momentum for real fiscal responsibility they could do that each session without having to get a two thirds majority and then get three quarters of the states to ratify.

Nope.

If it did happen, there would be more ways to subvert it than we can imagine. Unintended consequences! Loopholes!

Imagine if in your family you sat around the kitchen table, made a budget, agreed on it unanimously, then everyone went around ignoring it, figuring out special situations where it didn’t really apply, emergencies, and no enforcement mechanism.

This time it’s different!

Now that the idea has become Holy Writ, that the government must spend whatever it takes to take care of people, it is the government’s responsibility to do so, that it is perfectly ok to tax some to give to others, indeed, is a fundamental function of government, the budget process is and will remain a farce.

Coolidge was the last President to actually stay on a budget. Roosevelt showed that busting the budget, spending more than you had, was not only not bad but very good, for currying favor, earning votes, and big government was necessary to oversee everything, which took big budgets.

All the horses are out of the barn now, no turning back.

quote:

My Republican Senator, who voted for the recent $1T spending bill, is in favor of an amendment to the Constitution.

No.... he's really not.
He doesn't need a balanced budget amendment to NOT vote for spending more than the government takes in.
It's not you and I who decide to spend all of this money. It's Congress. He has a vote in Congress. You and I do not. They are the reason we have deficits. There are 535 of them... and they all point the finger at the other 534.

quote:

I sure don’t trust politicians with anything. What say you?
They will never get an amendment approved. Maybe this is just fluff to try and cover their asses for their last vote.

Right you are... it's just cover to be used when speaking to his constituents.
See... I'm in favor of a balanced budget.... it's all these other guys who aren't.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans cannot blame the deficit on the Democrats anymore.

Why do politicians spend more than they take in?
Because they can.

In an era of extremely low interest rates, and with other countries willing to finance a large portion of our debt, deficit spending has been the easy thing to do.

But it won't last.... at some point the debt will become much more difficult to service. The catalyst will be an unwillingness of Japan and China to continue financing our debt.



Sustainable? Not likely?
And... what are we getting for all of this additional debt? Is it adding to GDP? Or is it hurting GDP?

quote:

Now that the idea has become Holy Writ, that the government must spend whatever it takes to take care of people, it is the government’s responsibility to do so, that it is perfectly ok to tax some to give to others, indeed, is a fundamental function of government, the budget process is and will remain a farce.

... and that's why it won't happen.
The ONLY way to balance the budget is serious entitlement reform which won't happen until there are no alternatives.
So... deficit spending remains the easy thing to do.
Pretend and extend.... until you can't.

quote:

Balanced budget amendment to Constitution. Do you support?

I support the idea of Balanced budgets but I know it won't happen... for the reasons pointed out by JALLEN.

No - for the reasons pointed out by JALLEN.

Nope.