OFFLINE

Do you think the BBA is a good or bad idea, and why?

OFFLINE

I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

How else are we to have limitations on debt???

Besides we might actually get a .....gasp.....surplus. It has been known to happen. Even in countries without our considerable resources and manpower.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

How else are we to have limitations on debt???

Besides we might actually get a .....gasp.....surplus. It has been known to happen. Even in countries without our considerable resources and manpower.

and we could even ...gasp.... set aside emergency funds. i think the fact that every u.s. state other than vermont has to operate under a balanced budget, along with countless counties and municipalities, is proof that this isn't some radical theory here. indeed it escapes me how we've allowed the federal government to, for so long, follow a different set of rules. really, DC has been able to make it's own set of rules, seemingly detached from the realities of the world for well too long. i mean it's all just a bunch of monopoly money for these people. and if you run into a situation like this, where we're all tapped out, then no worries, some of the world's best accountants can figure out some manner of gimmickry to justify whatever it is they want to do. and the fact that 3 quarters of americans support a balanced budget amendment (who, after all, the government is supposed to represent) tells me it's worth pursuing.



found this from a bloomberg article:

“It’s a great idea in spirit,” said Tim Kane, an economist at the Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation.

He said the government nonetheless must have the ability to borrow and spend so that it can cushion the blow of an economic slowdown through programs such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and aid to states. Extra economic stimulus would be impossible under many balanced-budget proposals.
Economic Cycle

To avoid tying the president’s hands in time of war, or worsening a recession, an amendment should require a balanced budget over several years or an economic cycle, Kane said. Along with Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Republican President George W. Bush, Kane has circulated a proposal that would limit spending to the median of tax revenue over five years.

“That keeps the spending above cycle during a down turn” Kane said.

Prakken agrees, saying an amendment should track a business cycle instead of individual years. “In recessions you’d be allowed to run a deficit and in good years you can replace that,” he said.

Adding such caveats to a constitutional amendment would be unprecedented, said Joe Minarik, director of research at the Washington-based Committee for Economic Development.

“Every version of a balanced budget amendment provides some escape hatch based on a vote in the Congress,” said Minarik, who was the chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget under Democratic President Bill Clinton. “If such an amendment were passed and ratified, it would be the only provision of the Constitution that could be waived.”

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

How else are we to have limitations on debt???

Besides we might actually get a .....gasp.....surplus. It has been known to happen. Even in countries without our considerable resources and manpower.

and we could even ...gasp.... set aside emergency funds. i think the fact that every u.s. state other than vermont has to operate under a balanced budget, along with countless counties and municipalities, is proof that this isn't some radical theory here. indeed it escapes me how we've allowed the federal government to, for so long, follow a different set of rules. really, DC has been able to make it's own set of rules, seemingly detached from the realities of the world for well too long. i mean it's all just a bunch of monopoly money for these people. and if you run into a situation like this, where we're all tapped out, then no worries, some of the world's best accountants can figure out some manner of gimmickry to justify whatever it is they want to do. and the fact that 3 quarters of americans support a balanced budget amendment (who, after all, the government is supposed to represent) tells me it's worth pursuing.



found this from a bloomberg article:

“It’s a great idea in spirit,” said Tim Kane, an economist at the Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation.

He said the government nonetheless must have the ability to borrow and spend so that it can cushion the blow of an economic slowdown through programs such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and aid to states. Extra economic stimulus would be impossible under many balanced-budget proposals.
Economic Cycle

To avoid tying the president’s hands in time of war, or worsening a recession, an amendment should require a balanced budget over several years or an economic cycle, Kane said. Along with Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Republican President George W. Bush, Kane has circulated a proposal that would limit spending to the median of tax revenue over five years.

“That keeps the spending above cycle during a down turn” Kane said.

Prakken agrees, saying an amendment should track a business cycle instead of individual years. “In recessions you’d be allowed to run a deficit and in good years you can replace that,” he said.

Adding such caveats to a constitutional amendment would be unprecedented, said Joe Minarik, director of research at the Washington-based Committee for Economic Development.

“Every version of a balanced budget amendment provides some escape hatch based on a vote in the Congress,” said Minarik, who was the chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget under Democratic President Bill Clinton. “If such an amendment were passed and ratified, it would be the only provision of the Constitution that could be waived.”

I've heard the state argument before, but some major flaws in it are that a) many of those states still sell bonds, b) many of those states mooch money off the Federal government when they can't pay their bills, and c) many of those states have a hell of a time passing a budget on time.

As for having a rainy day fund, I'm by no means an economist but wouldn't the government taking money out of circulation cause the value of the dollar to inflate considerably?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

How else are we to have limitations on debt???

Besides we might actually get a .....gasp.....surplus. It has been known to happen. Even in countries without our considerable resources and manpower.

Elect sane congressmen?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


I've heard the state argument before, but some major flaws in it are that a) many of those states still sell bonds, b) many of those states mooch money off the Federal government when they can't pay their bills, and c) many of those states have a hell of a time passing a budget on time.

....and you are defending a Federal government that has yet to even pass a budget during this current admin???
Much of the reason why many states cannot pay their bills is due to the many expenditures required of them by the Federal government.

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

As for having a rainy day fund, I'm by no means an economist but wouldn't the government taking money out of circulation cause the value of the dollar to inflate considerably?

Does saving your own money devalue it??? Little hint......the US dollar is devalued now because we have put too much into circulation.
This works for places like Chile and Norway.....of course the main difference is that these places do not let special interests dictate the harvest and use of their natural resources.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

How else are we to have limitations on debt???

Besides we might actually get a .....gasp.....surplus. It has been known to happen. Even in countries without our considerable resources and manpower.

Elect sane congressmen?

hehehe. That sentence sounds funny coming from a Californian. Seems that none of your elected are sane. You guys even put that idiot Brown back in office, I thought ya'll would have had enough lunacy after the Govenator.

Do the country a favor a stop electing Pelosi.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think its a bad idea.  It is important that a government be able to run a deficit during economic down turns to help reduce the financial impact on the people and to help pay for defensive wars and natural disasters.  I do think that the debts incurred during these times should be paid off when the economy is strong.  The BBA would limit the governments ability to financially maneuver its self.

How else are we to have limitations on debt???

Besides we might actually get a .....gasp.....surplus. It has been known to happen. Even in countries without our considerable resources and manpower.

Elect sane congressmen?

hehehe. That sentence sounds funny coming from a Californian. Seems that none of your elected are sane. You guys even put that idiot Brown back in office, I thought ya'll would have had enough lunacy after the Govenator.

Do the country a favor a stop electing Pelosi.

Look at Brown's opposition.  Moon Beam may be out there, but hes far superior to the hypocritical b***h that tried to buy her way into the governors mansion.  The Governator wasn't as bad as they made him out to be, he took a lot of flack from both Republicans and Democrats because he was a true moderate (even had ties to the Kennedys until recently).  Not to say he was perfect, just not as bad as the media played him out to be.  One thing Californians did that was brilliant was to pass a initiative preventing the legislature from getting paid until they pass a budget if they miss the deadline, and they don't ever get that money back.  Gave 'em a nice kick in the pocket.

As for Pelosi, even if I wanted her gone she doesn't represent my district.  I'm in the 19th, which is represented by Denham (R).  Prior to him we were represented by Redonovich (R), but the farmers (the money behind CA republican party) turned on him after he brokered a settlement between the water districts (read farmers) and environmentalists regarding letting more water flow down the San Joaquin River (they used to sail steam ships all the way up to Fresno, until recently the river ran dry half way to the SF bay because the farmers where overdrawing water).  The tragic thing about what happened to Redonovich is that the settlement he brokered was probably far more favorable to the ag industry than the pending court ruling.  The farmers have this idiotic all or nothing mentality, and they think the rest of the people in the valley are dumb enough to buy their theatrics (the highlight of which was a "government created dustbowl" sign next to a field full of recently planted crops surrounded by a canal full to the brink with water in the dryest part of the valley in late summer.  I just with I took a picture).