Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, who's for a balanced budget amendment now? I'm still fully in favor, despite the present deficit. For all those Democrats crying about the deficit now, have you switched positions (from were most Democrats were years ago) and would you be in favor of a balanced budget constitutional amendment now? My bet is that most Republicans still would be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
DougSloan said:
So, who's for a balanced budget amendment now? I'm still fully in favor, despite the present deficit. For all those Democrats crying about the deficit now, have you switched positions (from were most Democrats were years ago) and would you be in favor of a balanced budget constitutional amendment now? My bet is that most Republicans still would be.
What about term limits (weren't those supposed to come with Newt and company)? I would defininately be in favor of those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
maybe not

Tri_Rich said:
What about term limits (weren't those supposed to come with Newt and company)? I would defininately be in favor of those.
The perception by some of how term limits are working here in California is fairly bleak. It appears that when legislators know they will be out office, they don't act very accountable. They spend like mad, ingratiating themselves with certain constituencies or special interests, hoping to use that goodwill to move up or get a job after office. They don't act like someone who needs to be re-elected -- their record is fairly irrelevant to them.

Since some districts will nearly always go for the Democrat or Republican candidate, as the case may be, a party can be fairly assured of retaining someone in that seat; therefore, again there is little accountability -- the guy who run up the spending isn't the one being challenged come next election.

I'm torn on the issue. While it sounds good to throw people out of office periodically to prevent their acquiring excessive power, there are downsides, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
DougSloan said:
The perception by some of how term limits are working here in California is fairly bleak. It appears that when legislators know they will be out office, they don't act very accountable. They spend like mad, ingratiating themselves with certain constituencies or special interests, hoping to use that goodwill to move up or get a job after office. They don't act like someone who needs to be re-elected -- their record is fairly irrelevant to them.

.
How is that different than the current situation?


With overlapping terms there would always be some members who were facing reelection who could keep things under control, theoretically.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,426 Posts
I'm all for the "amendment of the week" program

Here's my list.
1) The "DON'T INSULT THE FLAG" amendment.
2) The "GET OUT OF TOWN, GAYS" amendment
3) The "BALANCED BUDGET" amendment
4) The "DON'T QUESTION OUR PRESIDENT'S MILITARY HISTORY" amendment
5) The "WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING, ABDUL" amendment.
6) The "NEW SEDITION" amendment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Really?

MR_GRUMPY said:
Here's my list.
1) The "DON'T INSULT THE FLAG" amendment.
2) The "GET OUT OF TOWN, GAYS" amendment
3) The "BALANCED BUDGET" amendment
4) The "DON'T QUESTION OUR PRESIDENT'S MILITARY HISTORY" amendment
5) The "WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING, ABDUL" amendment.
6) The "NEW SEDITION" amendment

Hmmm, not me!!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Come on, Doug. Bush would faint dead away...

I'd be all for it if you told the Pres right now that he had to show us a balanced budget before the election, so people could see what he'd cut. It's impossible, as is his promise to reduce the deficit by half in five years. I'll bet you $1000 right now, with this whole board as witness and judge, that it won't happen.
As for the Dems vs. Repubs, that's just rhetoric. The record deficits were run up under a GOP president and a GOP-controlled Congress, and you can't make that go away by saying, "Well, a few years ago it was the Dems." It ain't the Dems now, and that's fact.
As for term limits, which somebody else mentioned: We already HAVE a mechanism to get rid of politicians we don't like. It's called a free and fair election. If there's a politician we DO like, why shouldn't we be able to keep him or her in office as long as we want?
Well, OK, we'd still have Reagan. But he's functioning now as well as he ever did; he just doesn't have the backup singers behind him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
a republican congress balanced the budget, even with the fornicator in chief, so we'll damn well spend it now!

as for your comment about reagan and his "functionality", i hope you dont get alzheimers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
fornicator in chief

that's funny - and oh so relevant to his ability in office - shame the $50m witch hunt didn't uncover anything worse than a blowjob (other than the fundamentalist vendetta) - why are you so preoccupied with Clinton's filandering? - you'd think there'd be other things more worthy of criticism

I'll tell you what - you keep attacking Clinton - maybe that'll work for you over the next nine months eh?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
You forgot a few:
1) The lets forget middle America amendment - eliminate the Electoral College
2) The don't ask the good senator too many questions amendment - issues about his association with Hanoi Jane and his war injuries
3) The you can't pin me down amendment - playing both sides of the issues like Kerry does
4) The forget about the rule of law amendment - activist mayors all over the country ignoring state law regarding marriage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
why condition it?

Cory said:
I'd be all for it if you told the Pres right now that he had to show us a balanced budget before the election, so people could see what he'd cut. It's impossible, as is his promise to reduce the deficit by half in five years. I'll bet you $1000 right now, with this whole board as witness and judge, that it won't happen.
Why condition the Amendment on what Bush would do in the next 9 months? Aren't we talking about something affecting the country long term? It would take a while to get passed, anyway, and besides, we don't even know who would be president by the time it would take effect. In other words, it could equally affect either side.

Seems to me that lots of Democrats are whining about the deficit, even the same ones who had no problems with deficits whatsoever when they were doing the taxing and spending. Shouldn't this flush out both sides who otherwise want to complain about spending? If you're against the deficit, then why not support the amendment? Or, are deficits only bad when the one complaining is not doing the spending?

I absolutely do not like the fact that we have a large deficit now. I doubt hardly any Republican does. To the extent Democrats complain, well, we all know that's purely partisanship, as noted above, they had no problems with deficits years ago.

Clinton had a balanced budget drop in his lap by virtue of three things, primarily: 1. a Republican senate to keep things in check; and 2. a booming economy, largely from dot.com growth and computer/internet infrastructure spending; and 3. combined with reduced military spending.

The booming economy resulted in "bonus" taxes to reduce the deficit. This is, if nothing else, proof that economic growth is the best way to fund the goverment, as the more money people make and spend, the more transactions create taxable income.

The reduced military spending was, in a way, borrowing against the future. Instead of taking care of existing problems, Clinton band-aided them, such that some administration in the future was going to see the result and need to pick up the tab; as with most problems, the "pound of cure" is much more expensive than the "ounce of prevention." Clinton dumped ill-handled circumstances in Bush's lap, such that the "pound of cure" was indeed very expensive. Maybe Clinton was too distracted?

I suppose all this actually argues against a balanced budget. If one administration or congress irresponsibly ignores circumstances such that the future ones must deal with the problems, then the latter get blamed for the taxation and spending necessary to solve the problems, lest they not be solved at all. Also, potentially economic stimulus through lower taxes may be temporarily necessary to create impetus for more investment, jobs and therefore higher gross tax revenues in the future.

Nonetheless, I'd still be in favor of the amendment. If circumstances are sufficiently dire, they can be addressed by a supermajority vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
funny

Live Steam said:
You forgot a few:
1) The lets forget middle America amendment - eliminate the Electoral College
2) The don't ask the good senator too many questions amendment - issues about his association with Hanoi Jane and his war injuries
3) The you can't pin me down amendment - playing both sides of the issues like Kerry does
4) The forget about the rule of law amendment - activist mayors all over the country ignoring state law regarding marriage
I wouldn't of thought that conservatives would support such amendments - but then again I guess that's the hypocritical point - you say you want smaller government (then look what Bush does) that doesn't interfere in people's lives (then look at the gay marriage issue) - I guess it's tough to figure out what it is exactly that you actually stand for - big government / small government - legislative meddling / laissez faire (a big word - go look it up)
 

·
Seeking shades of grey
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
DougSloan said:
So, who's for a balanced budget amendment now? I'm still fully in favor, despite the present deficit. For all those Democrats crying about the deficit now, have you switched positions (from were most Democrats were years ago) and would you be in favor of a balanced budget constitutional amendment now? My bet is that most Republicans still would be.
I've been in favor of a balanced budget for a long time, but I think that a constitutional amendment is overkill. What is so hard about spending what you have? I can't operate a household at a loss (for long), so why does the government get to do it?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I have said here, and still stand by it, that I have no problem with gay marriage. Heck they want to be miserable like the rest of us, let them ;) I do have a problem with how these mayors are handling the issue though. I think they should be tossed in jail. I could just imagine the raucous outrage that would occur here should a mayor take a similar approach to some more conservative issue. The liberals would be ready to hang him from the nearest tree.

laissez faire? I am surprised you know what it is :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
why overkill?

Duane Gran said:
I've been in favor of a balanced budget for a long time, but I think that a constitutional amendment is overkill. What is so hard about spending what you have? I can't operate a household at a loss (for long), so why does the government get to do it?
Why is it overkill? It's a neutral constraint on whichever party may be in power and at the time willing to spend more than they take in.

You could just as easily argue that the 13th Amendment is overkill, because everyone should be moral and understand that slavery is wrong...
 

·
Seeking shades of grey
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
Tri_Rich said:
What about term limits (weren't those supposed to come with Newt and company)? I would defininately be in favor of those.
I think the ballot box is the proper mechanism for term limits, included the presidency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
how is the gay marriage stance being taken across the US

Live Steam said:
I have said here, and still stand by it, that I have no problem with gay marriage. Heck they want to be miserable like the rest of us, let them ;) I do have a problem with how these mayors are handling the issue though. I think they should be tossed in jail. I could just imagine the raucous outrage that would occur here should a mayor take a similar approach to some more conservative issue. The liberals would be ready to hang him from the nearest tree.

laissez faire? I am surprised you know what it is :p
any different from the civil rights movement or suffragette movement or abolitionist movement or the Boston Tea Party

get off you're black letter law interpretation of what's right and wrong

it's pretty clear that social change in America is never taken from legislation - it's from social and legal precedents that force legislation to be updated...

you gotta pick the tempo up there Steam
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I ask you, would you accept a conservative breaking the law in the name of some conservative cause? I am sure your open-mindedness would allow for the idea that conservatives have this same activist right you speak of :O) Heck we really don't need laws anyway. They just get in the way of "everyone's" rights!
 

·
Daylight Fading
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
Doug,

I'm curious. If the overage in the budget has you in such a tither, will you vote for Bush? Is this enough of a problem to get you NOT to vote for him?

BT
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top