The House Will Vote On a MAJOR Constitutional Amendment ......

[MMC]

The House of Representatives will vote on a constitutional amendment meant to address Congress’s fiscal irresponsibility, an issue that continually irks conservatives.


However, The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/381896-house-tees-up-vote-on-balanced-budget-amendment) stated that the amendment is very unlikely to garner the support required for addition to the Constitution: “The measure has virtually no chance of becoming law as it would need Democratic support in the Senate and ratification from the majority of states.”.....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/alexnitzberg/2018/04/06/house-will-vote-on-balanced-budget-amendment-to-the-constitution-n2468584


Okay.....you have to give Ryan some credit with this. He knows this won't pass. As the Demos and Rinos wont be supporting it. But it is a smart move as the blame will fall on the Democrats. Which then all can use this for the election along with Pelosi saying they will raise taxes on people. Double whammy for the Demos to deal with. As all know Demos do nothing but spend money while claiming they will bring down the deficit. What say ye?

[Peter1469]

Yes. Let's get the Congress Critters on the record. Which ones are opposed to a balanced budget?

Target them for defeat when their terms are up.

[Archer0915]

WTF has the House got to do with a Constitutional amendment? Not a damn thing, in the end, it is just for show.

Yes they are involved with the process but the states are the end all for this.

EDIT: Sorry read the opening and not the entire OP. I agree nothing will come of it.

[MMC]

WTF has the House got to do with a Constitutional amendment? Not a damn thing, in the end, it is just for show.

Yes they are involved with the process but the states are the end all for this.

Because the House and Senate also have to take a vote. Plus as Pete said. Then we have people down on record for their vote. Think how that will look with some Rinos voting no from States they control.

Then think of all those Demos that can be hammered over their vote. The Demos only control 5 states fully and totally. So all those Demos in Red States will be on the defensive.

[DGUtley]

I am all for a BBA. I vote yes.

[MMC]

I am all for a BBA. I vote yes.

The Demos have touted for years that they balanced the budget. You would think they would step up and put their money where their mouth is. But they won't.

[Tahuyaman]

I am all for a BBA. I vote yes.


It's a fraud. The only way I could support it is if it also contained a foolproof way to prevent them from simply raising taxes to achieve this balanced budget.


The BBA is a scam. Don't fall for it.

[MisterVeritis]

An Article V convention of states balanced budget amendment with penalties for a failure to create a budget must be causing some alarm. Note there are no penalties in the squishy house-sponsored amendment.

This is for show, nothing more.

[Mini Me]

All this from The Rethuglican House of Horrors.

Trickery and deceit!

[Peter1469]

All this from The Rethuglican House of Horrors.

Trickery and deceit!
GOP = Dems.

[Mini Me]

GOP = Dems.

Yes, its the dichotomy! Two sides to the same coin! Both parties work for the same master!

[Peter1469]

Yes, its the dichotomy! Two sides to the same coin! Both parties work for the same master!

Agreed.

[MMC]

All this from The Rethuglican House of Horrors.

Trickery and deceit!

Yeah.....taking the play out of the Demo handbook Page 1.

[Tahuyaman]

A balanced budget amendment without an enforceable tax limiting provision would be a disaster.


It would be used as a way for tax and spend types to say that they are required by law to raise taxes.

[MMC]

A balanced budget amendment without an enforceable tax limiting provision would be a disaster.

More important is getting the Demos down on the vote. Which if they vote no. Then the Repubs can make fools of them when they say they are for fiscal responsibility.
It would be used as a way for tax and spend types to say that they are required by law to raise taxes.

[MisterVeritis]

A balanced budget amendment without an enforceable tax limiting provision would be a disaster.

More important is getting the Demos down on the vote. Which if they vote no. Then the Repubs can make fools of them when they say they are for fiscal responsibility.
It would be used as a way for tax and spend types to say that they are required by law to raise taxes.

Quote box failure?

[MMC]

A balanced budget amendment without an enforceable tax limiting provision would be a disaster.

More important is getting the Demos down on the vote. Which if they vote no. Then the Repubs can make fools of them when they say they are for fiscal responsibility.
It would be used as a way for tax and spend types to say that they are required by law to raise taxes.

Quote box failure?

Uh huh, and the page asked if I wanted to leave. :laugh:

[MisterVeritis]

Uh huh, and the page asked if I wanted to leave. :laugh:
I have had that happen to me. I tried to edit something I wrote. The page stopped functioning for a minute. When it began working again instead of an edit I had a new post that included what I intended to edit plus a new line with the edits.

[Tahuyaman]

I would vote against a balanced budget amendment if it did not include a real and enforceable tax limiting provision. A provision which would make it extremely difficult to balance a budget simply by raising taxes

[MMC]

I would vote against a balanced budget amendment if it did not include a real and enforceable tax limiting provision. A provision which would make it extremely difficult to balance a budget simply by raising taxes

Its not going to pass anyways.....the Demos themselves can block it in the House and Senate. So its only good to get those names down for their vote.


Hence the play by Ryan.

[Tahuyaman]

It's a completely phony vote. Symbolism doesn't work.

[MMC]

It's a completely phony vote. Symbolism doesn't work.

Getting Demos on the record.....there is nothing phony about that.

[Tahuyaman]

Getting Demos on the record.....there is nothing phony about that.

Like I said. A true conservative would be on record as opposing a balanced budget amendment if it can be used to say tax increases are mandatory.

The BBA issue is a fraud. It's a scam.

[Kalkin]

Yes, its the dichotomy! Two sides to the same coin! Both parties work for the same master!

Everyone works for the same master: Money.

[Kalkin]

Like I said. A true conservative would be on record as opposing a balanced budget amendment if it can be used to say tax increases are mandatory.

The BBA issue is a fraud. It's a scam.

If it were combined with a maximum tax rate of, say, 10%, would you support it?

[Tahuyaman]

If it were combined with a maximum tax rate of, say, 10%, would you support it?

No.

The only way I would support a BBA is if it mandated that spending cuts are required to achieve a balanced budget. Plus any proposed increase in taxes needs a 60% majority in both houses of the congress.


If there was a straight up balanced budget amendment, the congress would never achieve it through cutting spending. It would only be used as a way to say tax increases are mandated by law.


We need to get spending under control. We need to limit the ability to increase taxes. We need to limit the ability to increase spending.

[Kalkin]

No.

The only way I would support a BBA is if it mandated that spending cuts are required to achieve a balanced budget. Plus any proposed increase in taxes needs a 60% majority in both houses of the congress.

If the law stated that taxation could be no more than 10% and spending must fall within that revenue stream, cutting spending would be the only legal option to balance the budget as I see it. Or growing the economy so the 10% would be a greater amount.

[Max Rockatansky]

The House of Representatives will vote on a constitutional amendment meant to address Congress’s fiscal irresponsibility, an issue that continually irks conservatives.


However, The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/381896-house-tees-up-vote-on-balanced-budget-amendment) stated that the amendment is very unlikely to garner the support required for addition to the Constitution: “The measure has virtually no chance of becoming law as it would need Democratic support in the Senate and ratification from the majority of states.”.....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/alexnitzberg/2018/04/06/house-will-vote-on-balanced-budget-amendment-to-the-constitution-n2468584


Okay.....you have to give Ryan some credit with this. He knows this won't pass. As the Demos and Rinos wont be supporting it. But it is a smart move as the blame will fall on the Democrats. Which then all can use this for the election along with Pelosi saying they will raise taxes on people. Double whammy for the Demos to deal with. As all know Demos do nothing but spend money while claiming they will bring down the deficit. What say ye?Agreed on Ryan getting credit for proving the Democrats are against fiscal responsibility. The Republicans need some wins on their side prior to November. Even though this probably won't pass, at least the Republican can use it as proof that Democrats are still the same old "tax and spend" liberals we've seen for decades.

[Max Rockatansky]

If the law stated that taxation could be no more than 10% and spending must fall within that revenue stream, cutting spending would be the only legal option to balance the budget as I see it. Or growing the economy so the 10% would be a greater amount.

It's been awhile since I did the calculations, but I do not see how we can pay our bills, including debt, and fund even a downsized Federal government for less than a 20% flat tax, no deductions.

[MisterVeritis]

It's been awhile since I did the calculations, but I do not see how we can pay our bills, including debt, and fund even a downsized Federal government for less than a 20% flat tax, no deductions.
Downsize further. We have around 430 executive branch independent agencies. Only of few of them have a Constitutional basis. Terminate the smallest ones. And cut the rest by 10% each year until they are gone.

[Kalkin]

It's been awhile since I did the calculations, but I do not see how we can pay our bills, including debt, and fund even a downsized Federal government for less than a 20% flat tax, no deductions.

The percentage could be adjusted. I'd prefer 10%, personally, and let them slash spending to, say 70% of that income, using the remaining 30% to pay down the debt.
IMO, 20% would be the maximum acceptable rate, though.

[Kalkin]

Downsize further. We have around 430 executive branch independent agencies. Only of few of them have a Constitutional basis. Terminate the smallest ones. And cut the rest by 10% each year until they are gone.
Yes. Those who say it can't be done are lying to themselves. Spending could be cut to zero. It is not written in stone that governments must tax and spend.

[Tahuyaman]

Yes. Those who say it can't be done are lying to themselves. Spending could be cut to zero. It is not written in stone that governments must tax and spend.

spending can't be cut to zero. We will always need to fully fund our military forces and other constitutionally mandatory functions of government. It is indeed written in stone that government has the power and authority to levy taxes. There's just no requirement that tax rates always need to continue to rise.

[Max Rockatansky]

The percentage could be adjusted. I'd prefer 10%, personally, and let them slash spending to, say 70% of that income, using the remaining 30% to pay down the debt.
IMO, 20% would be the maximum acceptable rate, though.
Me too. OTOH, total income of all US citizens is about $16T. Total corporation income is about $1.7T. Of course, those figures can vary depending upon the health of the economy.

10% of both is $1.77T. The total US Federal budget is $3.8T. Ergo, we the budget would have be cut by over half. 20% is $3.54T which would also require budget cuts. Set a balanced budget amendment and we might be able to reduce a flat tax to 15-17%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-profits

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

[Tahuyaman]

In theory a BBA sounds like a great idea. However, if not drafted with specific and firm tax limiting restrictions and mandates for cuts in spending, it would be a total disaster.

[Tahuyaman]

I am all for a BBA. I vote yes.

would you vote yes with no conditions or restrictions on how that balanced budget is achieved?

[Kalkin]

spending can't be cut to zero. We will always need to fully fund our military forces and other constitutionally mandatory functions of government. It is indeed written in stone that government has the power and authority to levy taxes. There's just no requirement that tax rates always need to continue to rise.

Military doesn't have to be funded via taxation, and just because the Constitution gives congress the authority to tax, it doesn't make it manditory. I know our current taxation structure is deeply embedded and would be quite difficult to change, but it could be done. Let things be funded by voluntary contributions, tarrifs, and/or user fees. If there's not enough money, then there's not enough money.

[Tahuyaman]

Military doesn't have to be funded via taxation, and just because the Constitution gives congress the authority to tax, it doesn't make it manditory. I know our current taxation structure is deeply embedded and would be quite difficult to change, but it could be done. Let things be funded by voluntary contributions, tarrifs, and/or user fees. If there's not enough money, then there's not enough money.


Government doesn't produce anything. How will our military forces be funded by means other than taxation?

Sheesh......

[Dr. Who]

Government doesn't produce anything. How will our military forces be funded by means other than taxation?

Sheesh......
How much smaller would the military be if it concentrated on defense only? How much smaller would the CIA be? How about cutting back money transfers to states that are enriching the private, for profit, prison system rather than actually addressing social issues? How much less would the government ultimately spend if NO private donations were allowed for Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential campaigns? How about merging VA medical services with Medicare and paying the states to administer it? Eliminate the Department of Education - let the states form an inter-state council for educational standards. How about getting rid of the Fed (it's just a private banking cartel)? Merge the U.S.Department of Heath with the E.P.A.

[Tahuyaman]

How much smaller would the military be if it concentrated on defense only? How much smaller would the CIA be? How about cutting back money transfers to states that are enriching the private, for profit, prison system rather than actually addressing social issues? How much less would the government ultimately spend if NO private donations were allowed for Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential campaigns? How about merging VA medical services with Medicare and paying the states to administer it? Eliminate the Department of Education - let the states form an inter-state council for educational standards. How about getting rid of the Fed (it's just a private banking cartel)? Merge the U.S.Department of Heath with the E.P.A.


I would read that if it was separated by paragraphs. As it is, it's too difficult to read.

[Dr. Who]

I would read that if it was separated by paragraphs. As it is, it's too difficult to read.

My apologies:
How much smaller would the military be if it concentrated on defense only? How much smaller would the CIA be?

How about cutting back money transfers to states that are enriching the private, for profit, prison system rather than actually addressing social issues?

How much less would the government ultimately spend if NO private donations were allowed for Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential campaigns?

How about merging VA medical services with Medicare and paying the states to administer it?

Eliminate the Department of Education - let the states form an inter-state council for educational standards.

How about getting rid of the Fed (it's just a private banking cartel)?

Merge the U.S.Department of Heath with the E.P.A.

[Kalkin]

Government doesn't produce anything. How will our military forces be funded by means other than taxation?

Sheesh......
Voluntary contributions. The well-moneyed have a vested interest in keeping the status-quo intact. Import tariffs are not taxes, technically, and that money could be used as well. Alternatively, the government could provide services that people are actually willing to voluntarily pay for. The truth is, I prefer a much smaller and more focused federal gov, one that would operate under a minimal national consumption tax and provide military protection and legal dispute resolution between states. Everything else? Leave it to the states per the 10th amendment.

[Tahuyaman]

Voluntary contributions. The well-moneyed have a vested interest in keeping the status-quo intact. Import tariffs are not taxes, technically, and that money could be used as well. Alternatively, the government could provide services that people are actually willing to voluntarily pay for. The truth is, I prefer a much smaller and more focused federal gov, one that would operate under a minimal national consumption tax and provide military protection and legal dispute resolution between states. Everything else? Leave it to the states per the 10th amendment.

our military should be funded by voluntary contributions? Really?

[Tahuyaman]

My apologies:
How much smaller would the military be if it concentrated on defense only? How much smaller would the CIA be?

How about cutting back money transfers to states that are enriching the private, for profit, prison system rather than actually addressing social issues?

How much less would the government ultimately spend if NO private donations were allowed for Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential campaigns?

How about merging VA medical services with Medicare and paying the states to administer it?

Eliminate the Department of Education - let the states form an inter-state council for educational standards.

How about getting rid of the Fed (it's just a private banking cartel)? Merge the U.S.Department of Heath with the E.P.A.


It was better when it was unreadable.

[Kalkin]

our military should be funded by voluntary contributions? Really?
And a small percentage national consumption tax, yes. I'm sure the tax would provide the majority of said funding.

[Tahuyaman]

And a small percentage national consumption tax, yes. I'm sure the tax would provide the majority of said funding.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


National defense is a mandatory function of government. There are hundreds of nonessential programs which should be funded by voluntary contributions.

[Dr. Who]

It was better when it was unreadable.
You respond with a second insult, but don't address the content specifically. Better not to respond at all. I will keep this in mind when there is yet another thread about how liberals insult conservatives and just make hyperbolic accusations.

[Tahuyaman]

You respond with a second insult, but don't address the content specifically. Better not to respond at all. I will keep this in mind when there is yet another thread about how liberals insult conservatives and just make hyperbolic accusations.
C'mon. You're smarter than that.

[Kalkin]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I'm gonna call that a lie. No need to insult. I'm not your enemy. We can just disagree.


National defense is a mandatory function of government.
Indeed, and it could be funded by a national consumption tax and donations. Perhaps not to the degree you'd prefer, perhaps so.

There are hundreds of nonessential programs which should be funded by voluntary contributions.
Agreed. And user fees.

[Ethereal]

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind...

[Ethereal]

Voluntary contributions. The well-moneyed have a vested interest in keeping the status-quo intact. Import tariffs are not taxes, technically, and that money could be used as well. Alternatively, the government could provide services that people are actually willing to voluntarily pay for. The truth is, I prefer a much smaller and more focused federal gov, one that would operate under a minimal national consumption tax and provide military protection and legal dispute resolution between states. Everything else? Leave it to the states per the 10th amendment.

It's time to return to the confederation. The union of the States is a giant failure.