July 18, 2011 - 9:37am
Today's Poll: Should the Constitution be amended to require a balanced budget?
posted by Howard B. Owens in polls.
July 18, 2011 - 10:26am#1
July 18, 2011 - 11:16am#2
Yes, but I don't think now is the right time. Congress and the Pres. need to focus on spending reductions, immediate reductions. Any amendment has to include a stop to borrowing from Social Security surpluses, one of the few good ideas Al Gore had. Th way the government does it's accounting needs to be simplified, Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics, but then he signed on with Reagan & did it anyway, even though he knew better. W called it fuzzy math and became the worst perpetrator of fuzzy math ever. Spending first, deficits will follow, then better accounting practices and balanced budgets will follow. http://www.geldpress.com/2008/07/us-budget-reporting-deception/
July 18, 2011 - 11:42am#3
If not now, when? When do we say enough is enough? Yes, CM, I understand the implications domestically and internationally. Are we to trust this congress and President to make *serious* cuts down the road? I don't think so. And raise taxes in this economic climate? Absolutely not. Mandatory spending AND discretionary spending must be on the table. Why is it when entitlements are brought up, welfare is not mentioned? All you ever hear about are Social Security and Medicare - both of which we have paid into all our lives. The ridiculous welfare system MUST also be on the chopping block. Folks, the risk of severe consequences if we default is real. It will be devastating. But WE created this mess, and WE must pay for it - NOT our children. If we continue to raise the debt ceiling we are only delaying the inevitable. This house of cards MUST and WILL collapse. Let it be on those that created it - not our kids and grand kids.
July 18, 2011 - 12:12pm#4
Bob, consider this: if a balanced budget law is forced on congress and the pres., do you think they will say, Oh, guess we can't have welfare and wars anymore, 'cause we need to save social security and medicare? They will hit us (the middle class voters) where it hurts first and hard. The things that should be cut, won't be because that's where the big boys make their money. Just like what's going to happen in NY because everyone wanted a tax cap to force the state to change it's ways. I hope I'm wrong. We need to elect people into office who are not beholden to the special interests who want the government to keep on spending and borrowing. You're absolutely right, it's up to our generation to fix it. Here's a pretty interesting website: http://www.washingtonmess.com/index.php http://www.washingtonmess.com/how%20to%20eliminate%20the%20budget%20defi...
July 18, 2011 - 12:17pm#5
Why do Teapublicans always talk about the sanctity of the Constitution and the brilliance of the Founding Fathers if they didn't include a balanced budget in the Constitution to begin with? If it was as important as the self important neotards believe, it would have been in the original document. When are they going to do the work that the American people elected them to do and stop playing games? Give me a Constitutional amendment legalizing the growth of a medicinal herb that many of us know and love and I will reconsider my stance. Until then, "Probama 2012." Oh, and Rick Perry is a poser, totally. In Texas we call him: "Lil' Abner Rick (Elmer Gantry) Tippy Toes Perry." Or, at least I do.
July 18, 2011 - 12:26pm#6
If there were a balanced budget amendment, half the budget would be taken up with paying off all the current deficits. Kind of like your household budget -- run up a big credit card debt and suddenly, you can't afford that unexpected medical bill, and since you've ruined your credit, you can't borrow to pay for treatment. Cap government spending, and we wind up just paying off debt. Basically, we're screwed. We pretty much have to borrow now in order to keep making debt payments, let alone finance a bloated military and unnecessary foreign adventures, out-of-control entitlements, wasteful federal departments and bureaucrats to monitor the bureaucrats. It all comes back to what we've talked about before: the inevitable collapse of complex societies.
July 18, 2011 - 12:42pm#7
One answer is to repeal the Bush Tax cuts along with the preferential treatment given to corporations who pay no tax on money made outside the country. During the Clinton years after he raised taxes the budget was balanced and the economy grew leaving a surplus behind....in comes GWB with all of the BS we have come to exect from the Republicans when it comes to taxes and spending arriving here we are today... Thank you George W. Bush you and your crew have put America on the fast track to becoming a "banana republic" where lottery tickets are sold on every corner and the busses never run on time.
July 18, 2011 - 12:57pm#8
Edmund, Clinton never balanced anything, there was no balanced budget. They just took some stuff off line (out of the budget). You could call it smoke and mirrors. And Presidents don't balance anything, it's Congress, which has shown it will not. A repeal of the Bush/Obama tax cut is not a bad idea, if you repeal it for everyone.
July 18, 2011 - 1:32pm#9
Clinton did not leave a surplus nor balance the budget, but if you look at the first link I left above to geldpress, you'll find that he got it a heck of a lot closer than his predecessor and certainly better than the 2 after he left office. Bob; the reason people bring up social security & medicare is because we were lied to bald-faced by Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. They came up with the idea of increasing FICA to build a social security & medicare surplus so they would remain solvent as the population demographic changes. Then Reagan started using surplus funds for other expenditures and leaving IOU's in the till. It is not being put back, SS & Medicare are going broke fast. Not to mention it only applies to the first $106,000 you make, I don't make 106k, neither does 90 some % of America. If it was fair, it would apply to ALL income earned plus capital gains from interest & investments outside of 401k's and other retirement programs. It was a tax hike on the backs of the working class plain and simple. I don't know about you, but that makes me angry.
July 18, 2011 - 1:36pm#10
I got an idea; let’s create a law that will force us to do our jobs… That way we can talk about the bullshit law instead of actually coming to an agreement before the next election.. I wonder how many suckers are born each day in this country??
July 18, 2011 - 1:57pm#11
Dave, I agree. If SS was really solvent, then why would Obama scare people by saying he could not guarantee they would get their SS checks in August? The money should be there, right? There is no money in some bank to pay SS. We borrow to pay for it just like we do most things.
July 18, 2011 - 2:18pm#12
Life is filled with vicissitudes, ride them out or perish.
July 18, 2011 - 2:35pm#13
I was going to comment. Since Bob anticipated my response, I feel sufficiently represented.
July 18, 2011 - 8:11pm#14
George, there was no budget, plus or minus, when the country began. the gold standard was ineffect essentially. It wasnt until 1938, when we spent more than we took in that the budget started to matter. If the founding fathers had foreseen the idiots in power would remove us from the gold standard, they likely WOULD have written that into the constitution- that you cant because its stupid. It would have been realized that would give the gov't power TO JUST PRINT MONEY. We need money- well print it! I generally agree with your other point, especially for medicinal needs. Who does it harm? Any harm comes from the laws against it, really.
July 19, 2011 - 6:51pm#15
I voted no soley because if it is amended for that purpose then it will be easy and tempting to amend for other reasons at all....until it is totally eradicated. It is sad that the very thread that holds this once fine nation together is being unraveled for the faults of others. It is sad.