Balanced Budget Amendment

[jackson33]

Cut/Cap/Balance, passed by the House, is expected to fail in the US Senate, even if allowed to be debated and voted on, the President has said he would veto and it's almost a sure case the Senate could not over ride the 'bill', even if the House could. However many are in agreement that the States should be allowed a voice in adding a "Balanced Budget" amendment to the Constitution (the balance), which takes a 2/3rd's vote from both Chambers. IMO if presented separately and the President could do nothing about it. Do they even know this??? Did you....and while your at it, where do you expect the National Debt to be January 1st, 2013, my guess being 18T$, regardless what passes before 8/2/2011.

 

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. [/Quote]

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Dekan]

Cut/Cap/Balance, passed by the House, is expected to fail in the US Senate, even if allowed to be debated and voted on, the President has said he would veto and it's almost a sure case the Senate could not over ride the 'bill', even if the House could. However many are in agreement that the States should be allowed a voice in adding a "Balanced Budget" amendment to the Constitution (the balance), which takes a 2/3rd's vote from both Chambers. IMO if presented separately and the President could do nothing about it. Do they even know this??? Did you....and while your at it, where do you expect the National Debt to be January 1st, 2013, my guess being 18T$, regardless what passes before 8/2/2011.

 

 

 

http://www.archives....r/constitution/

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I grieve at the mess America has got itself into. You were the hope of the world. Now look at you. A National Debt of $18,000,000,000 by 2013?

 

Please sort yourselves out. The world needs you.

[jackson33]

Well we now have a second Cut/Cap/Balance bill passing the House, requiring Congress to successfully vote for a Balanced Budget amendment and as said, this will not require executive approval or is it subject to a veto. Even though the Senate is *likely* to table this new bill, because it requires a passage of an amendment to gain the second "debt increase" (only reason), I really hope Reid or Obama explain what would be wrong if 38 States actually ratify the proposed amendment.

 

The possible reason might be if ratified, it then become Constitutional law above that of Congress and subject to legal action if violated. An example is Paygo, which does virtually the same thing, but Ms. Polosi's has managed to by-pass the act 32 times, since re-enacted and Congress has the judgement call privilege to bypass their own act.

 

 

Four years after Democrats campaigned on the promise of using pay-as-you-go budgeting, their record is dismal. Since gaining control of Congress in 2007, they’ve gamed, ignored or employed PAYGO on 32 occasions to justify new spending or tax increases.[/Quote]

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39386

 

 

I grieve at the mess America has got itself into. You were the hope of the world. Now look at you. A National Debt of $18,000,000,000 by 2013?[/Quote]

 

Dekan; I've bounced this apparently dull thread up to allow you to vent, noticing you deleted a post on another thread. Have at it...

 

Also one thing I've noticed on Science Forums, in particular since I've always supposed members should comprehend numbers, is that I really don't think folks understand just how TRILLIONS relates to anything political or economically. It's extremely common and I'm NOT making fun of your number, but your number is 18B$, not 18T$. It takes 18,000B$ to equal 18T$ and aside from a few GDP figures, trillion is rarely used.

Edited July 30, 2011 by jackson33

[swansont]

I really hope Reid or Obama explain what would be wrong if 38 States actually ratify the proposed amendment.

I wonder if maybe they're waiting for the explanation of why the republicans never bothered to propose such an amendment when they controlled congress and the presidency and were obligating the unpaid-for expenditures that have helped put us in this position.

[jackson33]

I wonder if maybe they're waiting for the explanation of why the republicans

never bothered to propose such an amendment when they controlled congress and

the presidency and were obligating the unpaid-for expenditures that have helped

put us in this position.[/Quote]

 

Well swansont, the simple answer is the make up of the current House, is not that of those the Bush administration and the urgency of the problems today, were minor by comparison. However as now mentioned for the third time this thread, whom is President or what party are of no importance and Congress alone is charged with the process. In 1996 a "Balanced Budget Amendment" failed in the House...by one vote. Anyway, I strongly feel States should have THE Voice, in what the States feel they can tolerate and a BBA would be a good starting point. I look at it this way, if the Senate and the House can't agree, meaning the States/People are NOT being represented, then those States and their people should be heard.

 

http://www.proaxis.com/cop/sv960158.htm

 

To clarify my viewpoint and I've often mentioned on this forum how Bush 43 and the Congress acted (big spending, one veto 6 years) was a bitter disappointment for any conservative. IMO, the Tax Cuts would have fit the expired Paygo requirements, but in no way could have the Prescription Drug Act fit, even if there had been no tax cuts.

 

The PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this, Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements:[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

[swansont]

Well swansont, the simple answer is the make up of the current House, is not that of those the Bush administration and the urgency of the problems today, were minor by comparison.

 

Funny thing is that nobody seems to have shown that this is the case. A lot of people have claimed it, but without any argument to back it up. Right now debt is cheap — the government can borrow money for a really low interest rate, and that's when you want to borrow money. If you can invest money and get a return greater than the interest, you want to borrow. Businesses know this — even when they have a lot of cash on hand they will take on debt when it's cheap, because the cost of interest is actually negative. And if we invested in things that improved our infrastructure and created jobs, we would make more than it costs us. A big problem is the GOP/tea-party perpetuating the lie that all spending and all debt is evil.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/07/10/cheaper-than-cash/

 

Putting people to work reduces the burden of unemployment and other support programs, so money invested in jobs is cheaper than what would be spent on a jobs program, since it would result in reduced government spending elsewhere. The real problem we have is a lack of jobs. And the republican house hasn't introduced any jobs bills. They continue to distract from the real problem.

 

Further, the debt servicing as a function of GDP is actually lower now than it was under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. The only reason it's any higher than Bush II's best economic years is the economy. We aren't a bad risk — people are still eagerly buying government securities. If we were at a real (non-manufactured) risk of being too far in debt, that wouldn't be the case. Customers would demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the risk they wouldn't be repaid.

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/15/the-u-s-is-not-drowning-in-debt/?hpt=hp_t2

 

The so-called urgency is nothing but a distraction. There is little truth behind the show. It's a smokescreen to carry out mean acts by gutting government programs that wouldn't stand on their own merits. We've seen several examples of proposed "cuts" that don't actually save money.

 

However as now mentioned for the third time this thread, whom is President or what party are of no importance and Congress alone is charged with the process. In 1996 a "Balanced Budget Amendment" failed in the House...by one vote. Anyway, I strongly feel States should have THE Voice, in what the States feel they can tolerate and a BBA would be a good starting point. I look at it this way, if the Senate and the House can't agree, meaning the States/People are NOT being represented, then those States and their people should be heard.

 

It's true that the president isn't part of the amendment process. Why is bringing Obama's name relevant when you do it, but if I mention Bush (in a different context) you feel a need to "correct" me? Bush was complicit in creating the large deficits and increasing the debt burden by not paying for expansion of an entitlement program and two wars.

 

The main flaw with the proposed amendment is the requirement of a supermajority to increase taxes. It's been disastrous for California. Why does anyone think it's a good idea?

[John Cuthber]

Well we now have a second Cut/Cap/Balance bill passing the House, requiring Congress to successfully vote for a Balanced Budget amendment and as said, this will not require executive approval or is it subject to a veto. Even though the Senate is *likely* to table this new bill, because it requires a passage of an amendment to gain the second "debt increase" (only reason), I really hope Reid or Obama explain what would be wrong if 38 States actually ratify the proposed amendment.

 

The possible reason might be if ratified, it then become Constitutional law above that of Congress and subject to legal action if violated. An example is Paygo, which does virtually the same thing, but Ms. Polosi's has managed to by-pass the act 32 times, since re-enacted and Congress has the judgement call privilege to bypass their own act.

 

 

 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39386

 

 

 

 

Dekan; I've bounced this apparently dull thread up to allow you to vent, noticing you deleted a post on another thread. Have at it...

 

Also one thing I've noticed on Science Forums, in particular since I've always supposed members should comprehend numbers, is that I really don't think folks understand just how TRILLIONS relates to anything political or economically. It's extremely common and I'm NOT making fun of your number, but your number is 18B$, not 18T$. It takes 18,000B$ to equal 18T$ and aside from a few GDP figures, trillion is rarely used.

 

What's the big deal?

The US debt is of the order of 10 or 20 trillion. So is the GDP. The income is about equal to the debt (within a factor of 2 or so).

 

I have a mortgage on my house that's for a bit more than my current income, and when I bought the place it was a debt of about 3 times my income.

Nobody thinks that's a major problem because I can pay the interest (and the capital).

The US can pay the interest and capital too.

Why is the US so upset about being in debt? It's not as if they owe a lot of money.

Edited July 30, 2011 by John Cuthber

[jackson33]

What's the big deal?

 

The US debt is of the order of 10 or 20 trillion. So is the GDP. The income is about equal to the debt (within a factor of 2 or so).[/Quote]

 

John, lets put this into some kind of a perspective; The current US FEDERAL Debt (money owed to Americans &/or others) is 14.55T$ with an estimated INCOME of around 2.5T$ (nearing 5 times its debt) and the current requested Debt Increase is for 2.4T$, to last through 2013. Add to this, CURRENT &/or unfunded future Federal obligations about 115T$ and the true unknown cost of several new Federal Programs (Healthcare/College Funding). This said another way, with in a few years all Federal Revenues will be obligated prior to receiving, estimated servicing the Debt alone hitting a trillion dollars in about 10 years. GDP which is a guide for potential incomes, has never grown fast enough to keep up with these kinds of figures.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

I have a mortgage on my house that's for a bit more than my current income, and when I bought the place it was a debt of about 3 times my income.

 

Nobody thinks that's a major problem because I can pay the interest (and the capital).

The US can pay the interest and capital too.[/Quote]

 

Sir you said it, your paying down the principle, which the US and I'll add GB have NOT been doing for years. Then NO, into the future without major changes the US cannot pay off any debt, but roll over everything, for sure at higher interest rates.

 

Why is the US so upset about being in debt? It's not as if they owe a lot of money. [/Quote]

 

At about 50-65% debt vs. GDP, in a growing economy few have worried about it. To enhance your argument and at 65% of GDP have many times argued myself; The US Federal Government owns multi-trillions of dollars of Real Estate (near a third the total land) and the resources on those lands and can draw revenues from resources well off it's shores. It is possible these items can be sold or even the gold/silver reserves, but adding into the equations State and local obligations even here that's NOW questionable.

 

swansont; The Kruman's charts take inflation into account, but that inflation only effects American who invest in Federal Bonds, they are losing money but feel their cash is more secure. Folks from else where, are fairing much better. I think the 30 year bonds actually broke under 3% last week, which would be an all time low cost to service. Keep in mind however the Federal Reserve has been the biggest buyer (something like 2-3T$, QE 1-2) or those bonds would never have sold. I also feel sure you have noted some inflation, which is a result.

 

A big problem is the GOP/tea-party perpetuating the lie that all spending and all debt is evil.[/Quote]

Whom in Government is lying, is subjective and both sides are probably politically motivated, but I do believe 'Tea Party" members are primarily well educated owners of small business, work for those business or invested in some manner in the Capitalist System, they barrow money, have debt and understand some debt is not a bad thing.

 

The so-called urgency is nothing but a distraction. There is little truth behind the show. It's a smokescreen to carry out mean acts by gutting government programs that wouldn't stand on their own merits. We've seen several examples of proposed "cuts" that don't actually save money.[/Quote]

Unless your understanding this the "smokescreen' might be directed at you as neither party, any talk or actual plan being discussed CUTS anything but the increases in future spending. Cutting future spending by 10%, which is up by 25% over 10 year or more is meaningless.

 

It's true that the president isn't part of the amendment process. Why is bringing Obama's name relevant when you do it, but if I mention Bush (in a different context) you feel a need to "correct" me? Bush was complicit in creating the large deficits and increasing the debt burden by not paying for expansion of an entitlement program and two wars.[/Quote]

 

Thought I had agreed, Bush was no conservative or his Congress. Any comparison to what was then the House and is now, are simply not the same. Yes, Bush and his Congress created probably the largest single deficit building item in history (prescription drug) far above the cost of the Wars, which I didn't and don't oppose. Looking at the Debt Clock site above, for what it's worth, that program's obligation is now over 20T$, the cost of those two wars around 1.5T$, and IMO one is Constitutional and one is not.

 

The main flaw with the proposed amendment is the requirement of a super majority to increase taxes. It's been disastrous for California. Why does anyone think it's a good idea? [/Quote]

 

By Law California was supposed to Budget their expense to the expected incomes of the next fiscal year and just as is done by the Federal, they have always over estimated those incomes. In doing so, they have fallen short, but not allowing increased taxes without a super majority, is probably a good reason every business has not left. Additionally, California has many other problems that are not conducive to growth, such as Green Energy Regulation, high individual/corporate taxes and some notion that illegal's are not illegal.

 

I haven't seen the proposed Federal Amendment, but if it does have a 2/3rd's majority vote to increase taxes or I assume increase revenues, it should require the approval of over half the peoples representatives. Most Congressional legislation already requires a 60% majority to get past the senate. I'd suggest nobody in the US thinks taxes will not go up anyway, once the economy does pick up and if I've been correctly advised, tax rates will be tied to GDP growth...

[amanda more]

John, lets put this into some kind of a perspective; The current US FEDERAL Debt (money owed to Americans &/or others) is 14.55T$ with an estimated INCOME of around 2.5T$ (nearing 5 times its debt) and the current requested Debt Increase is for 2.4T$, to last through 2013. Add to this, CURRENT &/or unfunded future Federal obligations about 115T$ and the true unknown cost of several new Federal Programs (Healthcare/College Funding). This said another way, with in a few years all Federal Revenues will be obligated prior to receiving, estimated servicing the Debt alone hitting a trillion dollars in about 10 years. GDP which is a guide for potential incomes, has never grown fast enough to keep up with these kinds of figures.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

 

 

Example:

 

I am so in debt that I only pay interest, not principle. For every $1 I have to spend .50 goes to pay just the interest on the debt. Serious problem. I could increase revenue and would basically have to. The "reverse Robin Hood" of recent years only allows increasing burdens on the poor and middle class and gives that money to the rich. The way government increases revenue is called fees if you are a Bush or taxes if honest. Destroying increases in revenue costs even more than you think.

 

The default we are getting Tuesday means that the 50 cents of debt payment at very low interest will increase to a pleasant 10% here benefitting those with money who are happy to get the high interest rate from those new t-bills.

 

So now the way we will have changed the pie is we will spend 55cents of every dollar instead of the 50 cents on nothing- no goods ,services, prevention of economic collapse. Increasing our inability to ever pay off the debt.

 

We will have increased spending.

 

Great way to balance the budget. This does not seem like rocket science. But maybe it is?

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"Sir you said it, your paying down the principle,"

Strictly speaking, I'm not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_mortgage

I'm investing in something else that will pay it off.

Is that so different from a government investing in things like education and healthcare?

 

Incidentally, note to US Govt; Increase income tax.

[doG]

I personally would like to see a separate bill for a Balanced Budget Amendment without any other legislation attached. I see no downsides to a balanced budget and no reason for anyone to vote against it.

[jackson33]

I'm investing in something else that will pay it off.[/Quote]

 

John; Agreements by individuals and financial institutions, in most every Country can vary, but if you had not been paying some portion of one note (building equity), you would not likely have got an additional note/loan.

 

Noun: investment in'vest-munt

 

The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit[/Quote]

 

Your trying to define spending, as some sort of an investment and I understand your expectations are for positive results for citizens. However Governments change, in the US every two years and under the Parliamentary System at any given point, confidence has been lost. Spending, then is never done with expectation of monitory returns, even though when properly administered the reactions can be positive to increased tax revenues. Frankly every major welfare program ever devised has begun as a simple safety net, with the idea people will only use while in some kind of need, with end results of people becoming what ever it takes to meet the lower requirements.

 

Is that so different from a government investing in things like education and healthcare?[/Quote]

 

John, you have offered a couple good examples; Disregarding in the US, if you follow the Constitution, both items were intended to be State issues if not at the individuals discretion, but people will naturally take advantage of both if to them it's seen as free. IMO, the end results here are reduced quality of either since there will be a finite infrastructure handling more and more people. The losers then the truly ill and those qualified for higher degrees of learning.

 

 

Example: I am so in debt that I only pay interest, not principle. For every $1 I have to spend .50 goes to pay just the interest on the debt. Serious problem. I could increase revenue and would basically have to. The "reverse Robin Hood" of recent years only allows increasing burdens on the poor and middle class and gives that money to the rich. The way government increases revenue is called fees if you are a Bush or taxes if honest. Destroying increases in revenue costs even more than you think.[/Quote]

 

Basically Amanda, your saying the same things John has said above and how people or business operate has no comparison to any Government. If you were paying 40% (what's going on in the US Federal) of every earned dollar toward interest and not building any liquid equity, you could simply cut back on something, accept some welfare program to get out of that hole or file for bankruptcy, where Government's only options are to devalue there money system (print money), continue to barrow, service that debt (interest) or raise taxes. Regardless when taxes are raised, the economy will drop, unemployment will rise, no different than if attempted in bad times (which is the current situation). To go a little further and the underlying purpose for a Federal Reserve, during good times as they raise taxes, this supposedly will prevent inflation (demand above supply) or if dropped too low will allow deflation (demand below supply), some feel the actual cause for the Great Depression.

 

The Bush Tax cuts, I think your blaming the current economy on actually lowered taxes on everybody, which allowed more consumption for the less wealthy (47% of Federal filers, actually pay no taxes today, many more than before those cuts), while the more wealthy bought more high end products, actually paid more over all taxes, bought into or developed some business, creating jobs and so on...Any way you look at it raising taxes, especially on the middle class, will cost the poor or less wealthy much more than could be gained in the current economical environment. Lost jobs, to where that environment is better (Singapore/China/India/South America) and an unknown dollar value of Investment and business activity off shore, would be devastating. This is all documented in the same things happening in States that have lost people and business and I'd suggest in the many American business that already do more business outside the US, than inside and are receiving few incentive to stop this movement.

 

I personally would like to see a separate bill for a Balanced Budget Amendment without any other legislation attached. I see no downsides to a balanced budget and no reason for anyone to vote against it. [/Quote]

 

doG; That was the original point of the thread and the second House Bill does exactly that by making the second portion of the Debt Increase contingent on Congress passing the Amendment. If then the States don't ratify, which may take years, the debt will still be raised...It's not attached.

[swansont]

If you were paying 40% (what's going on in the US Federal) of every earned dollar toward interest

No, that's not what's going on. The interest payments are 6% of federal spending. About $225 billion out of $3.8 Trillion. As a fraction of just revenue, it's 10%

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf (table 1-1)

[jackson33]

Probably a mis-understanding but this was meant, although I could have cited it for clarification to Amanda, whom figured it at 50%....

 

Rep. Scott Rigell says the United States borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends.

Federal budget season officially opened on Feb. 14 with the release of President Obama’s spending proposal for the coming fiscal year.

 

Some of the first shots were fired by Virginia Republicans in the House of Representatives, charging Obama is not doing enough to cut spending and sink budget deficits.[/Quote]

 

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/feb/17/scott-rigell/rep-scott-rigell-says-united-states-borrows-more-4/

 

Interesting sidenote, meaning really little, but the Asian Markets have opened; DOW up 150 and all other American Stocks UP, Gold down near 20$/oz...Somethings missing from the news I'm getting!!!

[amanda more]

 

 

So if the government pays 10 % instead of less than 2% according to you then, it has not increased spending. Any economics you have sited is so poorly documented as to be considered extremely unscientific.

 

Not that this religion hasn't put you in company that would be considered good company. The serfs pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. They pay 15% into a system that if you realize poor people live less long they will never benefit from. That defines it as a pure tax. Another way you tax the poor to keep the rich happy and healthy. Put everyone in poverty then Limbaugh it that him and the 2% rich may have to let go of some because the poor don't have bread and the King can't extract anything. Percentage wise the rich spend less on govt obligations..

 

Destroying the American economy Tuesday benefits whom? Follow the money. Who will benefit in a win-win, they benefit from bringing it to the brink and they benefit from crashing it?

 

Who?

 

I'm honestly asking here. I see little upside to crashing the economy.

 

 

 

[jackson33]

I'm honestly asking here. I see little upside to crashing the economy.[/Quote]

 

Believe me amanda, if I didn't think you sincerely were looking for answers, I would not bother giving my opinions. In reading between the lines, trying to explain a Government, opposed to an individual, Government has an obligation cost (no less than interest to you) and the combined annual obligations of US Local/State/Federal Governments, into the NEAR future is above what can be sustained. While you and what's referred to as "Keynesian Economics" feel to cure a poor economy is for Government to spend their way out, you are not alone. It's my opinion that adding new programs, with questionable cost, adding regulation and cost to existing business/investors and taxes regardless on who, is not the way go.

 

Going a little further, to me "crashing the economy" implies a cause, which either needs to be corrected or changed. I believe in the Capitalist System as in the US and most the industrialized world, where all the people can participate, this means stimulating (relax regulation/tax/interest rates) on the Corporate World, which includes small business and they will and often have regenerate an economy.

 

There have been two posters/pundits that IMO understand Keynesian Principles (that I'm aware of), on this forum that could argue what I believe is you understanding, in iNow and bascule, in a "scientific manner" and there are a good many older threads, your welcome to go over. One thing neither would do is compare personal finances to that of a Government.

 

swansont; To update last nights futures, apparently some folks are really taking some big losses, as US markets are again down, partially based on continued uncertainty in raising the debt ceiling.

 

I would like to re-emphasize the 2.3T$, so called "cuts" over 10 years, where it remains based on improbably GDP increases and increase cost in new and older social programs. Even if future Congress adhere to the reduced figures and GDP's did increase at record levels, those "cuts" will still produce an increase of 7T$ to the deficit, NO CUTS.

 

Thread; The US GDP 1st Quarter was revised down from an annually adjusted rate of +1.9%, last week and the 2nd Quarter estimated (subject to revision) set at +1.3%. Now think about this, if they revised down the 1stQ down 1.5% more than the 2ndQ estimate, either the economy grew at 2.6% to make the annually adjusted 1.3% or we're in for another massive decreased revision.

 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

[swansont]

I would like to re-emphasize the 2.3T$, so called "cuts" over 10 years, where it remains based on improbably GDP increases and increase cost in new and older social programs. Even if future Congress adhere to the reduced figures and GDP's did increase at record levels, those "cuts" will still produce an increase of 7T$ to the deficit, NO CUTS.

 

Where are you getting this? If we wound down the unpaid-for wars, let the Bush tax cuts expire and the economy rebounded back to normal, the deficit drops to a relatively small number (CBO numbers exclude the ~$250B interest payment). The budget gets close to being balanced if congress does nothing.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/did-we-ask/

 

The main problem I see with a balanced budget amendment is that there would be no way to maintain spending during an economic downturn, which is when you need some of that safety-net spending. And having a supermajority requirement to increase taxes, of that were to be included, allows a minority to control the process. We've seen how well that's been working out the last few weeks.

[jackson33]

swansont, I think your saying if a future budget is projected at 100T$ (to exaggerate) and sometime before that project year begins, we cut those expectation to 4T$, we then have an actual cut of 96T$.

 

 

From your link...

 

The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, were never intended to go on forever, Obama even campaigning to shut Iraq off when he got into office. Even here from 2010 to 2015 the actual defense budget cost was around 895 to 900B$, when in 2007 it was 653B$ and in 2008, 730B$.

 

Sun setting the Bush Tax cuts, arguable could increase future revenue, but it's simply not going to happen in the before the 2012 Elections, I don't care what the proposed committee comes up with.

 

Short of Privatizing Fannie and Freddie or ALL the programs designed to artificially set a bottom for Housing, those problems in my mind would have exhausted themselves 2 years ago.

 

Again the economic downturn, may have been enhanced by this administration, we've been arguing this possibility for years.

 

All of these items however are artificial, designed to exonerate the current leaders from any quilt and purely subjective. What they neglect to mention is what caused each or gave a longer life to each problem.

 

Anyway the long and short of cutting expenses is to cut current expense, maybe the next budget (by the way has not been produced) or at least inevitable expense into the future and somehow make it law, which means a "Balanced Budget Amendment" that spells out emergencies, taking a National Census, not being one...

[amanda more]

Believe me amanda, if I didn't think you sincerely were looking for answers, I would not bother giving my opinions. In reading between the lines, trying to explain a Government, opposed to an individual, Government has an obligation cost (no less than interest to you) and the combined annual obligations of US Local/State/Federal Governments, into the NEAR future is above what can be sustained. While you and what's referred to as "Keynesian Economics" feel to cure a poor economy is for Government to spend their way out, you are not alone. It's my opinion that adding new programs, with questionable cost, adding regulation and cost to existing business/investors and taxes regardless on who, is not the way go.

 

Going a little further, to me "crashing the economy" implies a cause, which either needs to be corrected or changed. I believe in the Capitalist System as in the US and most the industrialized world, where all the people can participate, this means stimulating (relax regulation/tax/interest rates) on the Corporate World, which includes small business and they will and often have regenerate an economy.

 

 

HOUSE VOTES TO PAY ITS BILLS as of fifteen minutes ago.

 

 

Yes, you believe. That is the difficulty. Morphing faith into any kind of lucid discussion is problematic. I watched the house quit holding the debt ceiling hostage. Let's see if the ransom itself has dire effects.

 

Causality is pretty basic. If the debt ceiling wasn't raised first off the market tanks. Arguably the economy has already tanked. But at least a market drop is termed a crash. The economy then follows at whatever term you would like.

 

Checkout "The Warning" in Frontline. Greenspan apologizes. Really. His odd weird faith based ideas- he now says were wrong for twenty years.

 

Too bad it took stepping out, watching the "crash" and sidestepping responsibility to admit it. Not that it was an apology.

 

 

 

[swansont]

swansont, I think your saying if a future budget is projected at 100T$ (to exaggerate) and sometime before that project year begins, we cut those expectation to 4T$, we then have an actual cut of 96T$.

 

No, I don't think I said anything like that. I didn't mention any spending cuts at all. I asked you where you got your numbers, and then showed what the components of the current deficit are. They were inherited, and they can (and will) go away.

[jackson33]

swansont; I don't know for how long but budgets have been based on the previous years spending, without regards to the economy. While the economy of the US has been near stagnant since 2008. while budgets have nearly doubled, the excess spending, then being borrowed. All known estimated future budget, including 2012 are far over expected GDP and/or revenue, any reduction then into the future are revisions of those projections, not cuts. If interested check out "Zero Baseline Budgeting" or when the effort to go that route failed...

 

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. [/Quote]

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1442

 

I prefer to think you simply don't understand the problems being created by the Federal and frankly on to the States (entitlement programs), but it's just as possible I'm not explaining myself coherently. I don't normally don't start threads, feeling some sense of responsibility to follow through, so will bow to your self professed expertise in economics, no more replies this thread. Thanks for your participation???

 

Yes, you believe. That is the difficulty. Morphing faith into any kind of lucid discussion is problematic. I watched the house quit holding the debt ceiling hostage. Let's see if the ransom itself has dire effects.[/Quote]

 

You too amanda, thanks for your response and I hope you understand what's going on, I don't think you do...

 

The bill will no doubt pass the Senate today and be signed by Obama, the cuts meaningless, any tax hikes held off until 2013 and about 900B$ being added immediately to the debt ceiling and that money will all come from borrowed money, with interest. In December or early 2012 the fight will start up again to get the additional 1.5T$ added, just to get by 2012 and with the many programs already in law (HC/Tuition/others) and without some major changes in the Government makeup, your going to be looking at adding to the ND for years to come already estimated by some to be 24,000B$ (24T$) by the early 2020's. IMO, Mickey Mouse could beat Obama in 2012, but I'm not sure any of the Republicans running today could do much better.

[amanda more]

swansont; I don't know for how long but budgets have been based on the previous years spending, without regards to the economy. While the economy of the US has been near stagnant since 2008. while budgets have nearly doubled, the excess spending, then being borrowed. All known estimated future budget, including 2012 are far over expected GDP and/or revenue, any reduction then into the future are revisions of those projections, not cuts. If interested check out "Zero Baseline Budgeting" or when the effort to go that route failed...

 

 

 

 

I prefer to think you simply don't understand the problems being created by the Federal and frankly on to the States (entitlement programs), but it's just as possible I'm not explaining myself coherently. I don't normally don't start threads, feeling some sense of responsibility to follow through, so will bow to your self professed expertise in economics, no more replies this thread. Thanks for your participation???

 

 

 

You too amanda, thanks for your response and I hope you understand what's going on, I don't think you do...

 

The bill will no doubt pass the Senate today and be signed by Obama, the cuts meaningless, any tax hikes held off until 2013 and about 900B$ being added immediately to the debt ceiling and that money will all come from borrowed money, with interest. In December or early 2012 the fight will start up again to get the additional 1.5T$ added, just to get by 2012 and with the many programs already in law (HC/Tuition/others) and without some major changes in the Government makeup, your going to be looking at adding to the ND for years to come already estimated by some to be 24,000B$ (24T$) by the early 2020's. IMO, Mickey Mouse could beat Obama in 2012, but I'm not sure any of the Republicans running today could do much better.

 

I guess there needs to be a new movement. Perhaps they will gather around a violin player as the economy goes up in smoke.

 

Since they can't learn from history they doom us all to relive it.

 

Since they don't think they are doing actual radical change let's let them keep the mantle of conservatism strong.

 

Hoovorists

 

 

 

[swansont]

swansont; I don't know for how long but budgets have been based on the previous years spending, without regards to the economy. While the economy of the US has been near stagnant since 2008. while budgets have nearly doubled, the excess spending, then being borrowed. All known estimated future budget, including 2012 are far over expected GDP and/or revenue, any reduction then into the future are revisions of those projections, not cuts. If interested check out "Zero Baseline Budgeting" or when the effort to go that route failed...

 

 

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1442

 

I prefer to think you simply don't understand the problems being created by the Federal and frankly on to the States (entitlement programs), but it's just as possible I'm not explaining myself coherently. I don't normally don't start threads, feeling some sense of responsibility to follow through, so will bow to your self professed expertise in economics, no more replies this thread. Thanks for your participation???

 

If you prefer to think I don't understand I really can't help that. Perhaps I don't, but I really think it's option b; you do have this tendency to go off on tangents and answer questions that were not asked rather than the ones that were. Your post here is an example. I asked where you got your numbers. You STILL haven't cited a source for them.

 

I don't recall ever professing an expertise in economics. Perhaps you could find where I did?

[doG]

The main problem I see with a balanced budget amendment is that there would be no way to maintain spending during an economic downturn, which is when you need some of that safety-net spending. And having a supermajority requirement to increase taxes, of that were to be included, allows a minority to control the process. We've seen how well that's been working out the last few weeks.

That's not really a good argument against it. Right now we have a credit card holder with a limit on how much they can spend but they're also the one in control of setting the limit so they just get to raise it every time they max the card out so they can just go further and further in debt with no checks or balances.

 

A responsible card holder would never max out the card if it was to serve as their safety net lest they had some savings to use for such a need. In the case of the American people their card holder, Congress, is not a responsible card holder. Congress constantly keeps the card maxed out with every single increase in the credit limit, that they themselves raise, because there is no legislative obstacle to keep it from doing so. The people will never get the fiduciary responsibility they deserve from Congress unless it is forced on them.

[amanda more]

That's not really a good argument against it. Right now we have a credit card holder with a limit on how much they can spend but they're also the one in control of setting the limit so they just get to raise it every time they max the card out so they can just go further and further in debt with no checks or balances.

 

A responsible card holder would never max out the card if it was to serve as their safety net lest they had some savings to use for such a need. In the case of the American people their card holder, Congress, is not a responsible card holder. Congress constantly keeps the card maxed out with every single increase in the credit limit, that they themselves raise, because there is no legislative obstacle to keep it from doing so. The people will never get the fiduciary responsibility they deserve from Congress unless it is forced on them.

 

Fiduciary? really? So you want to use a term reserved for people in banks?

 

That is the group you are holding up as exemplary. The current climate is "Reverse Robin Hood." The weird farout but longstanding unscientific religious belief system you are trying to gain converts to is Hooverism. How is that working for you?