Republican proposes Balanced Budget Amendment

Post Reply New Topic

A balanced budget effort changes the equilibrium - in this case, the compensation would inevitably be taken on by the private sector through more crushing private debt. As such efforts would fail as the private sector is in a deleveraging mode and so a spiral to the bottom would be the real effects which would serve to reduce revenues and thus the quest to balance the budget would be a bit like a dog chasing its tail.

By the way, lowering taxes reduces demand for currency so you strong currency fanatics should support high taxes.

There is no way that the budget can be balanced any time soon. At this point we could eliminate the entire military and still be buried in red ink. A balanced budget will require budget cuts, peace, an improved economy, and increased tax revenue. That's how it's been done in the past. Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan all raised taxes at various times.

To say that we are too good to pay for government, refuse to pay for it on principle and then borrow against our children's wages to supplement our lifestyle is pretty much indefensible.

It is not about balanced budgets being bad, it is about parties trying to impose their views (whether correct or not) by modifying the constitution.

Imagine if a democrat proposed to add a right for Medicare amendment to the constitution, how would you feel about it?

Not different from Chavez' and his gang that changed their countries' constitution to fit their views. Only difference is that you agree with the change.

One big change since the increase of the deficits is that the taxes on the upper classes have been greatly reduced. They send the money to the government anyway - in form of interest-bearing bonds!

I would tell the Democrat where he could stick that amendment.

Here is the Difference between a balanced budget amendment and your entitlement guarentees.


As we go into debt we end up getting further and further into a hole that will eventually cause this country to implode. By forcing the Government to live within it's means we start to climb out of the hole.

A medicare entitlement amendment would continue the downward spiral if not accelerate it, which it could be argued is what Leftists want.

Yeah taxing a nation into prosperity is gonna make it collapse under its own weight or at least face a plausible threat of that occurring.

Ergo the only difference is that you like balanced budget and you don't like global medicare. And that's exactly my point.

You are all for pushing an agenda into the constitution when you like the agenda, and you are outraged about the idea of someone else pushing his agenda into the constitution, you are a hypocrite and a failure.

Balanced budgets I guess are good, but the place for such thing is not to be locked into the constitution, seeing how it is a partisan idea. Perhaps a good idea, but still an attempt to infuse the constitution with ideology.

So, how about this: let's have an amendment to ensure that government should not give tax incentives (aka calling them charities) to churches because of state-religion separation.

Or how about an amendment that bans the creation of new fossil fuel cars. Economically speaking, like non-balanced budgets, non-electric cars will drive the country to doom. Uh oh let's do it!

Your point seems to fall on the opinion that the Constitution has no ideology which would make it fail I guess.

I think the real issue is trying to settle modern political scuffles through an overly extreme method. The Constitution gives us a general framework for governing- as soon as we codify more specific political issues in it, we cripple it.

Similarly, the so-called "Nuclear Option" where the GOP wanted to get past a Democratic filibuster simply by ending the practice of the filibuster entirely would have been completely inappropriate. Chaning our system of checks and balances, or any of our more fundamental political structure, simply for short-term political expedience or to win political points, is extremely unwise.

No very specific, partisan ideology.

Seriously, this sort of thing is what Chavez' gang has been doing in Latin America, and it is terrible. You shouldn't be all for changing the constitution just because you like the intended effects of the change.

When you say partisan you mean todays specific ones, yes? Because unless I am remembering incorrectly the constitution was made through partisan compromise. Meaning partisan elements that where deemed acceptable by both groups, so really the argument really should be about what type of partisan agenda would be more effective as part of the constitution.

Taxation gives money value. That is, if the government charges its taxes in its currency, people are forced to get themselves some of that currency to pay the taxes. The higher the taxes, the more currency is needed. So if you want a strong U.S. dollar, let's say, then you must support higher U.S. taxes.

If that were the case the economy of Illinois would be booming instead of Jimmy Johns potentially moving their headquarters to another state.

Are you serious? That's a disincentive. People are forced to make less investments and have less money for paying operating costs. Because of the ridiculously high minimum wage in Ontario as well as progressive taxing, most convenience stores that aren't chain stores are run by a husband and a wife since they don't have money to hire people. All this leads to inflation not only from the wholesales they buy their inventory from, but also within the small businesses it trickles down to. It affects both big businesses and small businesses simultaneously as well as trickling down from the big businesses. How's that for a double whammy?

And guess what? Inflation means the money has LESS value. Holy s**t, do left wingers know anything about business or do they just think a layman's understanding is enough?

I would argue that a layman would have a better understanding than they do.

It's called the State Theory of Money and it's true - money gets value because of taxes. The lower the taxes the less money is needed and thus the lower the value of the money. Simple. Gold became valuable when sovereigns demanded gold for payment of taxes. That's how gold became valuable.

When the state owned everything in the USSR there was no taxes and guess what - as soon as market reforms began the currency became worthless because there was no need for any roubles if there was no taxes to pay. Why try to get roubles at all with no tax bill?

I don't see how taxes force people to make fewer investments. If anything, they should be more inclined to follow good business opportunities rather than sit on the money. What's with this silly idea that people go out of their way to not make money just because of a high tax bill?