ya sure just ignore previous replies
--

BadBoyBenny: I got the impression that this bill is not meant to pass. It just has to sound good/radical enough to please the voters.

Maybe you're attributing my "republican politics" quote to refer to republicans ITT rather than republican politicians, who I intended it to refer to, but your second quote is exactly what I was referring to when I said nuance has no place in Republican politics.

Do you understand why that is?

It didn't even get 2/3 in the House.

Game over.

Do you always ask rhetorical questions you feel you know the answer to?

Do you always try to engage someone in a mind numbingly slow one question one answer one counterpoint line of posting instead of skipping like 6 hours and just slamming out your whole argument at once so we can get to the point?

Why do you think he does that?

It was more because of an absurd fiscal policy. Cutting revenue while increasing spending is not a path to financial security. Bush did it anyways. Now his party is trying to blame the result on the new guy.

Why do you think he does that?

How about the budget must balance from say one election to the next (4 years right?) arbitrary obv but that way they could institute actual real Keynesian economics where you spend during the downturn but make up for it by running surpluses (lol yeah right) during the good times.

Also make it so any deficit over the 4 year term is split 500 and whatever ways and automatically deducted from the bank accounts, stock portfolios and physical assets of those in congress during that time. Then we'd see some fiscal responsibility in a hurry.

what about prolonging politician's terms? Ie from 4 years to say 10 years...

If the BBA is such a great idea, then why are so many states broke and in debt?

Yes to all your questions

Wookie, much like fly, thinks he has a grasp on economics and banking and how money and debt and interest rates work. The problem is they do not. It's actually kinda painful to read their ideas on these topics.

Our gov't has a debt of 40,000 per person.

In zimbabwe, a loaf of bread cost 10,000,000,000,000,000 dollars. Literally a wheelbarrow full of billion dollar bills. You inflation bugs are really really paranoid and not very smart.

Also, we can produce stuff in America. IDK what Zimbabwe produced, but I doubt they could produce dirt. Seriously, hyperinflation can't happen in a country where food production exceeds demand.

my Email to Rep. Bobby Schilling R IL-17

REo You Support a BBA?

Hon. Representative Schilling,

I think rigid inflexibility in fiscal policy sounds like a bad idea.

Have you asked yourself this question: In a day of monumental technological innovation, is it probable that investments made today will pay off in the future?

I believe that we are essentially borrowing money at 5% and we're going to see a return of more than 5% in the future. Maybe we'll see a 25% return on our investments. Perhaps that is too optimistic, yet you probably understand that it'd be foolish to stop borrowing money when your ROI is greater than the interest rate at which you borrowed the money.

I believe the BBA sounds real nice but will be a tremendous waste of time and effort. I would like to have a Congressman who outlines his view of the future of our great State and creates a gameplan for reaching those goals. I think you were elected because you exude integrity. That's admirable, but this BBA effort is all BS and it stinks of an effort to make friends with the Republican frat boys. Try to figure out where the Treasury is leaking money and propose legislation to stop it. You don't need a new amendment to do that. Having the courage to say "we don't need a BBA to do our jobs" would have earned a lot more respect than showing support for that proposal.

Sincerely,

the rest of the country and world is in debt?

As Wikipedia notes, food was the main export of Zimbabwe until gross mismanagment of the land took place. Bad government policies can turn any surplus into a deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe

The problem with the balanced budget supporters is that they can't identify enough of what they would cut to balance the budget today. This year (2011), the deficit is $1.3 trillion. The total budget is $3.6 trillion. Of the spending, 6% is for interest (anyone defaulting?), 20% is defense and 55% is mandatory. Even if every discretionary non-defense $ was eliminated from the budget, the US would still have a deficit.

Your choices are (numbers from the CBO for 2011):

Defense: $0.7 trillion
Social Security: $0.7 trillion
Medicare: $0.6 trillion
Non-Medicare Health: $0.3 trillion
Military Retirement: $0.1 trillion
Unemployment: $0.1 trillion
Interest: $0.2 trillion
Veterns Benefits: $0.1 trillion
Roads: $0.1 trillion
Everything else: $0.7 trillion

And before you start with "cut the waste in Social Security", all non-benefit distribution costs are $0.1 trillion. Somebody has to mail those checks out even if you closed the department.

Therefore, if you are in favor of a strict amendent that would prevent the federal government from spending more than they took in, you need to have the honesty to say what taxes you'd raise and/or what you would cut to get the $1.3 trillion. Anything less and you are just as full of hot air as the politicians you despise.

So much makes sense now!

Their dirt has chromium, platinum, gold, coal, niobium, silver, tantalum, copper, nickel, tin, lithium, diamonds...

I quite like the idea of an Unbalanced Budget Amendment - in "good times" the federal government must run a surplus. It's all well and good talking about Keynesian fiscal policy, but an often neglected aspect of that is saving during good times, which governments have been notoriously poor at doing.

It's a hell of a lot better than the BBA, that's for sure. Republicans would never support it, though, because "ZOMG raising taxes will cause a recession/cutting defense and teh terrorists wins/argh!!!"

That's basically a requirement of a normal BBA though, and Republicans seem to support that.

One issue is with wars and other large, temporary expenditures. If "good times" is only defined by economic indicators, then you might not be able to borrow for a war even if it would in fact be wise. (Imagine trying to fund WWII only with tax hikes and spending cuts). If wars can be part of what makes a period "bad times" and allow for deficit spending, then politicians who want to be spendthrifts have an extra incentive to start wars.

FYP.

BBA, hmmm, seems like it would make it really hard to finance more wars and more wealth redistribution.

warfare-welfare statists all up ITT

That doesnt follow.

If a balanced budget amendment means you cant get into debt and the states have a BBA then how are they in debt?

The reason is they transfer debt off the balance sheets in various ways which is all the fed would do. Because they have to. Because debt isnt just not bad, its good.

I disagree with those saying that a BBA would prevent active demand management. The Federal Government (unlike state governments) has the power to conduct monetary policy and thus can offset any fiscal tightening in recessions with monetary expansions.

That said it's a still a bat**** crazy idea, as many of the things that the government spends money on, for example wars, disaster relief and some infrastructural investments, require large one-off payments and its much better for the long run health of the economy to pay for these through slightly higher tax rates over a long period of time, than through vastly highly tax rates for a short period of time.

People say that the government must live within its means like a household, but a BBA would not only stop the govt from running up credit card bills, but also stop it getting a mortgage or borrowing to pay for college.