Why Democrats are against a balanced budget amendment

Hmmm... don't spend more than you bring in.

Yup, that makes way too much sense for Washington to be able to handle it. Well, apparently not all but it will still never get passed without being killed off first.

 

I'm not a Democrat but I'm against a balanced budget amendment. Why? It's embarassing to put in the Constitution something that is already incumbent on the Congress. It's like going to my lawyer and having him draw up a writ mandamus to ask the city garbage truck to run by my house on trash day.

 

I think his statement was tongue in cheek...:thumbs:

 

Would you then be in favor of an amendment that spells out the punishment for those in Congress who steadfastly refuse to carry out that which is incumbent upon them to do? Like...if you had a trash truck driver who absolutely refused to stop at his required stop?

 

I am not a democrat, nor republican nor anything, but I am independent. I say that so it does not seem like I am defending this man. My question is what was the rest of the story. This is one statement taken from a conversation that, on the surface, looks stupid, but it may not be that way. What exactly is in the balanced budget act that makes him feel that way? There are many questions.
A couple a weeks ago I listened to Herman Cain say that each community should be able to stop the building of a mosque if they wanted to. That raised concern about that man for me because I felt it could also fall back on the church and where they want to build but I had not heard all the story. Now I have and I am in some agreement with him after the rest of the story and hearing his reasoning.
So there is not enough information for me to decide if Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has made a dumb or profound statement.

 

We can enforce term limits you know...

It is called the ballot box!

 

Your response is the reason I am not a democrat or republican or of any party. Holding to party lines tends to skew the truth and truth is all I care about no matter who or what is costs.

In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.
http://atypicalguy.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/spending-statistics-republicans-vs-democrats/

 

What your cited analysis fails to mention is that the next president (often of the other party) inherits the policies of the former president.

For ample evidence of this fact, just do a bit of research as to when Obama plans for all his tax increases and budget measures to enact. Also check the "born on date" of the multiple-multiple 10,000+ page bills that have been signed into law by Obama and company, all of which will work to make the next president, presumably a Republican, look like a thug and a thief!

 

Makes sense to me, government should grow in proportion to the economy. My guess, even in a balanced budget amendment, that there will most likely be allowances for "deficit spending" in crisis circumstances such as war etc.

 

"Balanced budget" means what? As long as I can pay my debts including interest debt my budget is balanced.

You all prefer price inflation over higher taxes?

 

Higher taxes CAUSE price inflation. If we raise the taxes on the people at the Snickers factory, for instance, what do you think happens to the price of that bar of nougaty goodness? The rich don't pay the price of higher taxes, the poor do and middle class do. If you raise the price on the rich, they just pass it right down the line!

 

Please elaborate. Grossly simplified, inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. If people are taxed there is less money in the system so prices would not rise.

Also, prices rise to the level the market can bear. If the average person has less money to spend on something, they won't buy it and therefore manufacturers will lower prices in an effort to get the consumer's money.

 

If you remember the republicans voted yes on the biggest spending spree in history along with the democrats. It was called a stimulus package giving millions, used for bonuses for CEO's, motor vehicle companies, and wall street not to mention banks and other business'. Both parties as as irresponsible and corrupt as the other.