Balanced Budget Amendment

[jackson33]

It lies squarely with the group who relies on evidence, makes internally consistent claims, and uses more than mere assumption to present their case.[/Quote]

 

iNow; Although I'd rather be debating F/F's involvement, along with Government by regulation, for the current Economy Environment, I seriously believe you and swansont are talking expression or how/why/what posters will go through, for what most feel are online conversations, their simply not going to be involved, if every word is scrutinized by long time, experienced posters, scientist or not, knowing how to discourage further comments, to them then a victory.

 

 

Another question; Do you believe the US Federal Government, should or should not be restricted to a firm Constitutional Amendment (Balanced Budget), for spending, in turn size and why?

 

 

doG; Having been many years in Trucking, both as an employer and an over the road driver, I've seen many folks from other professions, become drivers and do quite well. Until 2006, as regulation and fuel prices increased, after reading such stories as you have told, I often could suggest looking into Truck Driving or some related field to check, but now no better off.

 

From your "33.78N 84.66W", I assume you live somewhere north of Atlanta, along I-85 which has been hit pretty hard, still around 10% unemployment, however in all honesty with your resume having worked on heavy equipment, a mechanic and only 50yo there really should be a job out there for you, in that field. Frankly over here in the Permian Basin, if willing alone to work, you would probably be hired in a flash, Hobbs NM and the area running 4-6% unemployment and oil related fields, including equipment mechanics in very high demand. As iNow mentioned, I know of you as well, even remembering you not posting for some time, returning and mentioning an educational course you were taking, now guessing for the new job, in a lab.

 

I was lucky, retiring my very small fleet in 1996 and my last truck (I drove), leased to US Xpress, a little north of you, main yard south of Chattanooga and have fond memories of the area, but even USX has long since reduced itself to a fraction of what they were, or I'd put you touch with them. Good luck...Updated info; Happy to hear your working, but all I've mentioned still applies if interested in upgrading your position, or some of your friends...

[iNow]

I seriously believe you and swansont are talking expression or how/why/what posters will go through, for what most feel are online conversations, their simply not going to be involved, if every word is scrutinized by long time, experienced posters, scientist or not, knowing how to discourage further comments, to them then a victory.

Irrelevant, really. Those are the rules to which we all agreed when we registered here (at a "science" forum) for membership. Also, it's hardly about "discouraging further comments and claiming victory." If that's what you think, then you've not been paying attention.

 

It's about validating our assertions against reality, submitting them to peer review with evidence in support, and dismissing those shown lacking. It's about each of us having a common baseline for discussion, and that baseline resting solidly in facts. What chaps my ass is how frequently these discussions move forward as if facts don't matter, and how there is this false equivalence like "everything is just an interpretation." Rubbish. What we see is how often people dismiss the evidence and argue ideology instead. Sorry, but one side is clearly more solid in a debate or argument than the other. I'm just calling attention to that. If that's what you want to do, and you'd rather take the "all opinions are equal" approach to discussion and debate, then take yourself to a "make up any damned thing that you please" forum, but don't do it here at a science forum.

 

 

Another question; Do you believe the US Federal Government, should or should not be restricted to a firm Constitutional Amendment (Balanced Budget), for spending, in turn size and why?

Do not. Too restrictive. Doesn't allow the actions required during quick economic change. Seems to ignore that investment rather often leads to growth. Budget has been balanced repeatedly in past without a changed constitution forcing it, as recently as Clinton. It's a distraction from the real problems facing our economy right now. The problem is with lack of growth, not lack of balanced budget.

 

On the economic side of the discussion, the argument is pretty lopsided. Those who have commanded the most respect and have most consistently been accurate in their views on the economy tend to find such an amendment to be a bad idea. Follow this link to read their letter to the president, the summary of which I've included here:

 

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3543

A group of leading economists, including five Nobel Laureates in economics, today publicly released a letter to President Obama and Congress opposing a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The letter outlines the reasons why writing a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution would be "very unsound policy" that would adversely affect the economy. Adding arbitrary caps on federal expenditures would make the balanced budget amendment even more problematic, the letter says. The Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities organized the letter.

 

"A balanced budget amendment would mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions," the letter notes. By requiring large budget cuts when the economy is weakest, the amendment "would aggravate recessions."

 

The signatories of the letter are Nobel Laureates Kenneth Arrow, Peter Diamond, Eric Maskin, Charles Schultze, William Sharpe and Robert Solow; Alan Blinder, former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors; and Laura Tyson, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and former Director of the National Economic Council.

 

In that letter are seven very distinct reasons to avoid such an amendment, and I happen to agree with them.

 

 

 

Now, if we could put an amendment in place that we should no longer elect ignorant ideologues who ignore facts, evidence, and the lessons of history, I might consider supporting that.

[Essay]

Do you believe the US Federal Government, should or should not be restricted to a firm Constitutional Amendment (Balanced Budget), for spending, in turn size and why?

 

Right! For the basic reason that a BBA removes the ability of the government to buffer against either man-made or natural disasters, it doesn't make sense. And as INow mentioned, because of the ability to invest, or undertake projects on a grand scale, or even just save for a future unforeseen problem, it makes sense to be able to buffer the fiscal management of our nation.

 

I'm curious to know what mindset assumes that changing one fundamental parameter of the system will magically solve all of our problems. I suppose that after finding no success in tweaking the secondary parameters, that must seem to be an option worth trying. Why does this BBA "solution" come up, every decade or so, as the solution to whatever fiscal problem has arisen?

===

 

An economy based on sustainable production should be developed to replace our unsustainable consumption-based economy, before changing the fundamentals of the system in such a restrictive manner with a constitutional amendment.

 

~imho

[jackson33]

Essay and iNow;

 

The proposed BBA, simply limits budgeting the next years cost to that of expected receipts, based on 18% of GDP. Congress at anytime, for any seen emergency, can vote to increase, the Proposed Budget by 2/3rd's of both chamber or for specific reasons (emergencies), increasing the debt, by 3/5th's. Note here that most legislation already requires 3/5th's (60%) of the Senate and I serious doubt, since then a public vote (in record) any person would truly vote against any REAL emergency or for one most certainly not, taking the US Census.

 

http://devil67712.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/full-text-h-j-res-1-a-balanced-budget-amendment-to-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/

 

Proposing a Balanced Budget, based on revenues and expenditures, can have different outcomes and iNow expenditures have exceeded Budgets, since Eisenhower.

 

http://www.geldpress.com/2008/07/us-budget-reporting-deception/

 

Basically the thought esteemed economist 7 problems with the BBA, all indicate otherwise, but before going further, I'd like you to question my understanding. It's not likely anything will pass before 2013 and even then the allowed 7 year limitation will be needed, as State Houses are also somewhat divided.

Edited August 9, 2011 by jackson33

[Essay]

The proposed BBA, simply limits ...cost to ...that of expected receipts...

 

But limiting costs based on "expectations" is problematic. To more fully enjoy the benefits of civilization, we agree to take on fixed costs; so forcing limits from year to year reduces the certainty with which we can undertake beneficial obligations.

 

But I see your point about all the ways to get around those limits. I guess a BBA would be about as useful as a "debt ceiling," eh?

[swansont]

iNow; Although I'd rather be debating F/F's involvement, along with Government by regulation, for the current Economy Environment, I seriously believe you and swansont are talking expression or how/why/what posters will go through, for what most feel are online conversations, their simply not going to be involved, if every word is scrutinized by long time, experienced posters, scientist or not, knowing how to discourage further comments, to them then a victory.

The only comments I'm interested in discouraging are ones that are offered as factual but have no basis in fact. If I have knowledge that contradicts someone's claim, I want to know where the information supporting that claim came from. I'm willing to put forth the effort to support statements I make (and do so before being asked), but if I also have to research in order to debunk spurious claims in another's post, that's an asymmetric burden — it leaves others free to spout nonsense, half-truths, lies and distortions in order to "claim victory" (or whatever your motivation happens to be) and bury everyone with large-volume, low-factual-content posts.

 

This isn't a cocktail party or a chat room. One is not free to simply BS one's way through a topic.

[Athena]

This discussion is too abstract for me. I think we need to begin with simpler concepts, such as a penny isn't worth a penny now that they are made without copper and if buried in Fall and dug up in Spring they will be rotted, some beyond recognition.

 

I think our big economic problem is, discussions of economics are not based in reality. We do not understand the relationship between oil and our economy, so how can we speculate about what will happen a year from now? Oops, baby is awake. Have to shut down and feed baby.

[Realitycheck]

I regret saying what I did. I have often wondered why there is no economics forum, but there could probably be a case made that it wouldn't be used that much, and if we're talking strict economics (not mixed with politics), then applied mathematics isn't so bad.

[iNow]

This discussion is too abstract for me.

Doesn't that speak more about you than it does about the topic under discussion?

 

 

I think our big economic problem is, discussions of economics are not based in reality.

Can you elaborate about what has caused you to make this assertion? I disagree, completely.

 

 

We do not understand the relationship between oil and our economy,

Can you elaborate about what has caused you to make this assertion? I disagree, completely.

[amanda more]

This discussion is too abstract for me. I think we need to begin with simpler concepts, such as a penny isn't worth a penny now that they are made without copper and if buried in Fall and dug up in Spring they will be rotted, some beyond recognition.

 

I think our big economic problem is, discussions of economics are not based in reality. We do not understand the relationship between oil and our economy, so how can we speculate about what will happen a year from now? Oops, baby is awake. Have to shut down and feed baby.

 

Discussions of economics are so very,very rarely based in reality. But now shock jocks and cheerleading style groups develop really crazy stuff. I suppose that can be a reason the economy tanks. Even if imperfect, views of reality are a bummer.

[Athena]

Discussions of economics are so very,very rarely based in reality. But now shock jocks and cheerleading style groups develop really crazy stuff. I suppose that can be a reason the economy tanks. Even if imperfect, views of reality are a bummer.

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYBE THERE IS HOPE OF A BETTER ECONOMIC DISCUSSION.

 

I seriously do not want to take threads off topic, and this one has been going very well. However, the Maryland almost went bankrupt ~1830s/1840s has not been so active and I did some explaining about oil and the value of the dollar in that thread. There are similarities between the banking problems in 1830s/1940's and very dangerous dissimilarities. Reality can be a bummer right now, however, when something is destroyed, that is an opportunity for something new to take its place, and we seriously need to look for something new!

[swansont]

Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis — Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act

 

Just in case there is still some question about this.

[iNow]

Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis — Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act

 

Just in case there is still some question about this.

Great link. Unfortunately, there seems to be an inverse relationship in these things between facts which disprove their assertions and the vigor with which they put them forth. It's a lot like evolution and global warming denial, actually.