Do you support a balanced budget amendment?

[QvQ]

Spend as they like and place the burden on the tax payers and employers.

In Modern Money theory, there isn't any burden.
The Government could simply print enough money to pay off the debt.
The Government has a blank check, as the government can "issue" any amount of money as long as Congress rubber stamps it
That is the reasoning behnd the $T Covid packages

The Modern Money Theory is untested as yet
There is still an argument of whether those $T dumped in economy created inflation
Or whether inflation was the result of the bottleneck economy during Covid,

Can a government simply decide it needs X money and produce it out of a rabbit hat?
Why not?

However, the issue remains
Trillions of dollars are being dumped into the economy
Have you seen any of it in your neighborhood?
The DOGE is supposedly going to address Government inefficiancy, fraud and waste.
That is the "blue collar issue" that won the elections
1) Where is all that money going?
2) What is the ultimate result of Government Blank Check Fiscal Policy?
Unlimited Government Money
Musk says bankruptcy.
Modern Money Theorist say the economy will expand to soak up the excess
Is all that money "Stimulus" Or Devaluation of the Currency?
We will see, most certainly

 

[Always in His Presence]

$4.9 trillion (2024)


$4.2 trillion (2024)

$0.9 trillion (2024)



-$0.2 trillion

I have no way of knowing that is accurate, since you provided no proof - but even if it is accurate it Clearly demonstrates how out of control spending is - thank you. Time to real it in . Live within your means...

 

[QvQ]

Live within your means...

Your Means
$50,000
1) food
2) housing
3, 4, 5, 6) Etc
You add up all of that and it must not exceed $50,000
You can't write yourself a check or print money to cover your deficit.
Your income is fixed finite.

Government Means
1) Social Security
2) DOD
3, 4, 5, 6) Etc
$6T
The government can add up to whatever all those items cost and "issue money" from the Treasury to cover the amount
The Government is Not on a Fixed Income and it's actual $ is infinite
Obviously, when a millionaire is now middle class and "Trillion" is not how many miles to the moon
That is Government spending
Stimulus and Subsidies are the Modern Economic Theory

 

[Always in His Presence]

Your Means
$50,000
1) food
2) housing
3, 4, 5, 6) Etc
You add up all of that and it must not exceed $50,000
You can't write yourself a check or print money to cover your deficit.
Your income is fixed finite.

Government Means
1) Social Security
2) DOD
3, 4, 5, 6) Etc
$6T
The government can add up to whatever all those items cost and "issue money" from the Treasury to cover the amount
The Government is Not on a Fixed Income and it's actual $ is infinite
Obviously, when a millionaire is now middle class and "Trillion" is not how many miles to the moon
That is Government spending
Stimulus and Subsidies are the Modern Economic Theory

That is what needs to be reigned in and eventually eliminated

 

[Aaron112]

That is what needs to be reigned in and eventually eliminated

I don't think it is even possible for it to be controlled.
Instead, as planned for centuries now, the government will offer everyone thousands of dollars per month if /when/ they go along with cashlessness, giving up their souls whether in desperation or perfectly deceived.

 

[Aaron112]

Or whether inflation was the result of the bottleneck economy during Covid,

It was all part of the plan the corporations, jesuits, religious leaders, and governments all went along with to be a part of it or to survive , to keep their place, and not be wiped out.

 

[Aaron112]

First they would have to be able to pass a budget, which seems to be beyond their capabilities.

The dragon has been fueled and fed too long, on purpose, and no one can control it now even if they wanted to (they don't want to - they want more and more and more! )

 

[RDKirk]

I definitely support a balanced budget. I've been concerned about our deficit and debt since way back in the '80s, when Mondale and Perot and Tsongas were talking about it.

I don't know whether a balanced budget amendment is the way to achieve a balanced budget, or not. Some states, I believe, have a balanced budget requirement in their state constitutions, so it's worthwhile to look at their experiences and see whether there's some drawback that's not obvious at first glance. I haven't yet done that research, though.

Did you forget that back in the 80s there was a law requiring a balanced budget?

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 set annual deficit-reduction targets, gradually decreasing the allowable deficit each year, with the goal of eliminating the federal deficit entirely by 1991. These targets were binding and required Congress and the President to adjust spending and revenue to meet them.

If Congress and the President failed to enact legislation to meet the deficit targets, it would trigger automatic across-the-board spending cuts (known as sequestration). These cuts were divided equally between defense and non-defense programs but exempted certain mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The Gramm-Rudman Act was somewhat successful in temporarily reducing deficits, but Congress often circumvented its requirements by adjusting targets or using accounting measures. Basically, neither party liked being so tightly handcuffed.

One particular shenanigan that really griped me was in 1989 when they shorted the military troops to make the budget. They actually skipped the last twice-monthly military paycheck of the fiscal year. Instead of paying us that check at the end of September, they moved the October mid-month check to the first of October: "We're just paying you a day later," they said. But I was keeping my accounts on my computer, and my computer told me, "You missed a check last year, bud." The military never admitted that, always claiming the pay was up to date. I was angry about that for over a decade until I retired...and they made good on the amount in my final active duty paycheck.

 

[PloverWing]

Did you forget that back in the 80s there was a law requiring a balanced budget?

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

Actually, yes, I had forgotten about Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, but I remember it now.

It seems to have failed, for the reason you state here:

The Gramm-Rudman Act was somewhat successful in temporarily reducing deficits, but Congress often circumvented its requirements by adjusting targets or using accounting measures. Basically, neither party liked being so tightly handcuffed.

So I think that settles it. If there were a balanced budget amendment, Congress would probably find some loophole or tricky accounting to get around it.

As far as I can tell, the only solution is going to be to raise taxes AND cut funding for stuff we all want and depend on, both at the same time. It'll take bipartisan work, if Congress can figure out how to do that again. Those painless cuts to "waste, fraud, and abuse" are only going to take us so far.

 

[rjs330]

Why? If voters speak out en masse and not acquis to "it just can't happen" things change.

The days of spend as they please to appease the lobbyist should come to an end. Make the government serve the people, not the people serve the government. Spend as they like and place the burden on the tax payers and employers.

I suppose if the voters did. We really had a push for it before and nothing happened. With out country so divided and the Democrats solidly against it, it's not going to happen.

 

[QvQ]

I suppose if the voters did. We really had a push for it before and nothing happened. With out country so divided and the Democrats solidly against it, it's not going to happen.

It depends
It is a question whether the government can continue to create jobs and entitlements using play dough distributed as stimulus and subsidies. The economy is saturated in $
The game may be over and done as how many more $T can the economy absorb?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's going to hurt ... the retired and disabled ... So inevitably it'll get into SNAP, Social Security, disability insurance, Medicare, veteran's benefits -- things people rely on and are literally entitled to.

House Republican: ‘Hard decisions’ needed on Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare​

“We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,” McCormick told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.

“When you talk about cutting the budget, I’m all about that."

Asked if defense funding should also be cut, McCormick said he’s “not a big fan of that.”

President-elect Trump has vowed not to touch entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, but he has made no such promise when it comes to Medicaid.

 

[durangodawood]

No party, D or especially not R, wants to enact this thing while they are in power.

The pain would move the voters to turn them out en masse.

 

[Belk]

A constitutional amendment that would force Congress to pass a balanced budget every year.

I support a balanced budget. A constitutional amendment strikes me as both a blunt instrument and a political non starter.

 

[essentialsaltes]

House Republican: ‘Hard decisions’ needed on Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare​

“We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,” McCormick told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.

​

It's going to hurt ... the retired and disabled ... So inevitably it'll get into SNAP, Social Security, disability insurance, Medicare, veteran's benefits -- things people rely on and are literally entitled to.

GOP Rep. [a different one] Eyes Medicare, Social Security For DOGE Cuts: ‘We Can Move The Retirement Age Back’​

Republican Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO) suggested Monday that Medicare and Social Security are on the table when it comes to accomplishing the Department of Government Efficienty’s goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget.

And so we’ve got to right the ship and it’s going to mean cuts. It’s going to mean cuts to the 24% of the discretionary spending that we have and it’s also going to mean looking long-term at the front end of some programs like Social Security and Medicare.

And on the front end on Social Security, I think there’s a way, when people are living longer, they’re retiring later, then on the front end we can move that retirement age back a little bit.

--

In 1983, full retirement age was raised one year for those born after 1960.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

 

[Always in His Presence]

For those still believing. The false hoods about Trump cutting Social Security

Trump says ‘we're not touching’ Social Security in proposed cuts to government spending

During an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, President-elect Donald Trump says he’ll make the federal government “more efficient,” but he does not plan to touch federal entitlements like Social Security or Medicare.

www.nbcnews.com

Setting the record straight.

 

[rambot]

Do you support tax increases....EVER?

Because if not, then it's just an ever shrinking government. And America is not in a financial position to abandon supporting it's poor. I don't think that would work.

 

[rambot]

For those still believing. The false hoods about Trump cutting Social Security

Trump says ‘we're not touching’ Social Security in proposed cuts to government spending

During an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, President-elect Donald Trump says he’ll make the federal government “more efficient,” but he does not plan to touch federal entitlements like Social Security or Medicare.

www.nbcnews.com

Setting the record straight.

That's good to hear.
I'm wondering what it would take to shut up the few republican talking heads/senators who keep bringing it up if that's the case.

 

[essentialsaltes]

For those still believing. The false hoods about Trump cutting Social Security

This thread is more about the falsehood that the budget can be balanced without cutting entitlements (and/or raising revenue).

No one has suggested Trump is going to do either, but GOP congressman are telling the truth here about what it would take.