Why Democrats are against a balanced budget amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
  2. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219

    Then was the second admendment added to the Constituiton? Most folks outside of cities did have a weapon - ...
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    I don't understand why anyone would consider it embarrassing to take action to force politicians to do something positive for the country that they have absolutely refused to do?

    If the city garbage truck absolutely refused to go by your house, even though it was their job, it would be your right to force them to do so.
     
  6. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think his statement was tongue in cheek...:thumbs:
     
  7. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294

    Fooled me if it was. I hope you're right.:wavey:
     
  9. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    He has made a simple statement of fact ...from a democrat perspective. I did not say , nor imply, it was a stupid statement, but a revealing one.

    What he is objecting to is the required super majority to raise taxes.

    Makes it "virtually impossible", he thinks.

    What one has to remember is that democrats constantly call for tax increases to solve every economic problem. They used a simple majority to pass Obamacare, requiring the largest tax increases in history , while 60 % of the public was screaming NO!

    Democrats love to raise taxes and spend your money. They certainly don't want anyone or anything to get in the way of their gravy train.
     
    #10 carpro, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2011
  11. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can enforce term limits you know...

    It is called the ballot box!
     
  12. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    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/
     
  13. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  14. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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?
     
  16. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  17. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    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.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219

    In theory you are correct

    In reality, here are the facts:

    1) voters choose incumbents
    a) esp if they bring home the bacon
    b) to retain seniority - for power

    2) Voters often choose by name recgonition
    even if the candidate is the child of a former office holder

    3) Voters often vote by party line
    ( I proved that when I ran for city council)

    4) Voters often vote for or against by candidates profile
    examples
    Obama - black voters
    Kenendy Prosteants voted against
    At one time Divorce was a major issue (wonder what it will be like when the first homosexual runs for president?
     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Nice history lesson, but the only purpose of it is a partisan attempt to minimize the problem that exists TODAY.

    The last 2 years that democrats have run the country, their spending has been a runaway freight train. No other administration in history has even come remotely close to their spending increases, and they want it to continue.

    Of course they are against a balanced budget amendment. Their wild spending days would be at an end.
     
  20. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...