NationStates Jolt Archive

As I see the US government posting a record budget deficit of over $400 Billion Dollars and planning to add over another trillion dollars to out $10 Trillion Dollar Nation Debt. I consider the following, I believe that we as a nation need to consider pressuring our governement into passing a 28th Amendment to our Constitution. The purpose of this Amendment would be simple it would ban our government from Deficit Spending, unless our Congress declares a national State of Emergency. In case of a natural disaster, war, famine, plague, ect our Congress could by legislation declare a National Emergency which would allow deficit spending until the emergency subsided. I believe this would greatly limit our governments ability to continue to excessively spend and add more tax burden on the American Taxpayer.

I believe a amendment like this would greatly counter-act waste spending sense any increase in federal spending would have to directly relate to an increase in taxes (which would make taxpayer far more interested in how their taxes are spent).

What do my fellow American's think about my fictional proposal for the 28th Amendment?

No. Sometimes we need to run a deficit during War, depression ETC...

What we need to do is stop voting for people based on Tax cuts. Democracy fails when the people realize they can vote themselves the treasury and then do so.

Better solution. Cut defense spending just a little. Its absurd how much we spend.

Better solution. Cut defense spending just a little. Its absurd how much we spend.

well that would have been reasonable about 8 years ago.

Now it is get out of a war, Cut defense spending, Cut social services and raise taxes.

1. Such an amendment would never, ever pass.
2. If it somehow did pass, the nation would be in a constant state of emergency.
3. People who randomly capitalize words and use the abbreviation "ect" should not propose constitutional amendments.

1. Such an amendment would never, ever pass.
2. If it somehow did pass, the nation would be in a constant state of emergency.
3. People who randomly capitalize words and use the abbreviation "ect" should not propose constitutional amendments.

This.

Also, your poll has nothing to do with your proposal.

Also, your poll has nothing to do with your proposal.

I think it is related to deficit spending because a lot of our wasteful spending (especially pork spending) has greatly added to our nation debt.

I think it is related to deficit spending because a lot of our wasteful spending (especially pork spending) has greatly added to our nation debt.

Please. Our spending is much more wasteful in areas outside of "pork spending".

No. Sometimes we need to run a deficit during War, depression ETC...

This is why you allow deficit spending in a Congressionally declared State of Emergency. This provision would allow deficit spending only in time of great need and would draw added public attention to the debt our government is accruing.

Since it would basically shut down most of the government at the moment and worsen the mess we're in I have say we shouldn't.

If you feel that strongly about it you should write to the chinese. They have been "advising" our government about spending since the beginning of summer, so if you convince them enough they might take the suggestion on board.

People who randomly capitalize words and use the abbreviation "ect" should not propose constitutional amendments.

I am sure you can find far worst grammar in the mountains of legislation that is written on Capitol Hill each Congressional Session.

This is why you allow deficit spending in a Congressionally declared State of Emergency. This provision would allow deficit spending only in time of great need and would draw added public attention to the debt our government is accruing.

and I am sure such a state will be declared every spending bill. likely tacked on to the same legislation.

This is why you allow deficit spending in a Congressionally declared State of Emergency. This provision would allow deficit spending only in time of great need and would draw added public attention to the debt our government is accruing.

So, you'd add an amendment to our Constitution with a built-in loophole you could drive a semi-trailer through? No thank you.

And yes, the government does waste some of our tax dollars. On that you'll find most people agree. What people disagree about is what constitutes waste.

Earmarks and so-called "pork barrel" spending -- how ever you define that term -- don't make up the bulk of deficit spending.

I am sure you can find far worst grammar in the mountains of legislation that is written on Capitol Hill each Congressional Session.

It's actually pretty damn good. Tricky as fuck, but it's good grammar.

Edit: "It" refers to the legislation produced by Congress.

and I am sure such a state will be declared every spending bill. likely tacked on to the same legislation.

Add a supermajority requirement. 3/4ths to declare a state of emergency.

Then again that might just create even more monstrously pork laden stupidity.

It's actually pretty damn good. Tricky as fuck, but it's good grammar.

Edit: "It" refers to the legislation produced by Congress.

They are congressmen they have less to do all day then professional bloggers of course they are going to nitpick grammar.

It's actually pretty damn good. Tricky as fuck, but it's good grammar.

Edit: "It" refers to the legislation produced by Congress.

True that. Shame that 90% of the ideas behind the legislation are such ill informed shit though.

Since it would basically shut down most of the government at the moment and worsen the mess we're in I have say we shouldn't.

See it would not worsen the situation here I believe. If congress felt that debt spending was necessary to save our market they could do it under a declaration of emergency.

This kind of mimics a protection that the State of Colorado wrote into there Constitution when the State was accepted into the Union.

Under the Constitution of the State of Colorado the legislature is not allowed to Deficit Spend except in a state of Emergency.

This means that in Colorado the State can only spend what they collect in taxes unless their is a State of Emergency.

This means the State cannot borrow money to fund government programs and protects the Citizens of the State of Colorado for their legislature gathering debt without their approval.

I think a solution like this is needed on a national level, and in my home state of Massachusetts who has the most State debt in the nation.

This proposal would not prevent spending it would force Congress to increase taxes to fund projects which is a surefire way to get the voters more concerned about how our governement spends our tax money.

I am sorry if my initial explanation or this explanation does not clear up and confusion about my intentions with this thread.

Add a supermajority requirement. 3/4ths to declare a state of emergency.

Then again that might just create even more monstrously pork laden stupidity.

yep each congressman needed for the super majority would get some federal project built in his district.

If we ban deficit spending, what will the bloggers complain about? You'll bankrupt them! Won't somebody think of the bloggers!? If this monstrosity passes, they'll have to go out and get legitimate, real, productive work like the rest of us to support themselves! Isn't this kind of personal responsibility anathema to modern Americans?

But seriously, what's to keep Congress from declaring a perpetual state of emergency? The American people will just keep swallowing it as usual.

I must be in a cynical mood. The idea of the Supreme Court sitting on what does or does not constitute "deficit spending" and a "state of emergency" actually strikes me as funny.

I must be in a cynical mood. The idea of the Supreme Court sitting on what does or does not constitute "deficit spending" and a "state of emergency" actually strikes me as funny.

Why? The supreme court loves to jam itself in the middle of Very Serious Business to make Very Important Decisions. They live for that shit. I could see them loving this.

The US gov't spending levels are massively beyond comprehension. Tax cuts are good, but only when accompanied by spending cuts that exceed the tax cut. I don't see that happening as long as the two major parties are bought out by special interests and want to buy their next reelection with tax dollars.

Deficit spending is a terrible blight on any budget at any scale from personal to national. The deficit is one of the contributing causes of the current economic troubles. The national debt should be considered a mark of shame, and the entire federal government is at fault. All branches, both parties.

Why not make your suggested amendment something similar to the Fiscal Responsibility Act that we have in New Zealand? It gives the New Zealand Government the flexibility to run deficits during economic recessions, emergencies, wars and so on; but it also requires our Government to run a surplus over the medium term and specifies the amount of debt that the New Zealand Crown is allowed to carry.

Another thing; in my opinion, there should be something prohibiting spending amendments (your earmarking) on non-supply bills (i.e. except for bills to do with taxation and the like, there should be no spending amendments).

Why not make your suggested amendment something similar to the Fiscal Responsibility Act that we have in New Zealand? It gives the New Zealand Government the flexibility to run deficits during economic recessions, emergencies, wars and so on; but it also requires our Government to run a surplus over the medium term and specifies the amount of debt that the New Zealand Crown is allowed to carry.

Another thing; in my opinion, there should be something prohibiting spending amendments (your earmarking) on non-supply bills (i.e. except for bills to do with taxation and the like, there should be no spending amendments).

This is another approach to the same problem and I appreciate your introducing how New Zealand has approached this problem.

See it would not worsen the situation here I believe. If congress felt that debt spending was necessary to save our market they could do it under a declaration of emergency.

This kind of mimics a protection that the State of Colorado wrote into there Constitution when the State was accepted into the Union.

Under the Constitution of the State of Colorado the legislature is not allowed to Deficit Spend except in a state of Emergency.

This means that in Colorado the State can only spend what they collect in taxes unless their is a State of Emergency.

This means the State cannot borrow money to fund government programs and protects the Citizens of the State of Colorado for their legislature gathering debt without their approval.

I think a solution like this is needed on a national level, and in my home state of Massachusetts who has the most State debt in the nation.

This proposal would not prevent spending it would force Congress to increase taxes to fund projects which is a surefire way to get the voters more concerned about how our governement spends our tax money.

I am sorry if my initial explanation or this explanation does not clear up and confusion about my intentions with this thread.
Um... you haven't looked at Colorado lately, have you? Their government is slowly shutting down.

Nevada also has to balance its budget each year (which leads to fun times as our legislature meets every two years for just over 100 days, we Nevadans demand psychic ability in our politicians), which has led to 14% cuts across the board in everything from health, to education, to public spending because our idiot governor has decided that he will not raise taxes period.

our idiot governor has decided that he will not raise taxes period.

Well fortunately for our Federal Government Congress has the sole authority over taxation. Now the President will use Senators and Reps to try and get favorable tax bills passed but taxation is still ultimately in the hands of the legislature, or course the President can ultimately veto new taxes but that is when the legislature needs to grow some balls and stand up to him. It is silly to see legislatures fold to the President's requests and line up to suck on the Presidential power tit.

Maybe this is the situation in Nevada, if it is so I would hope that your legislatures would hind a way to arm bar your governor into do what is right. If not he is due up for re-election some time and letting education and all go down the crapper is going to hurt him. You could then vote in a new governor who will increase taxes to properly find programs, or cut spending in certain areas to increase spending in education and healthcare.

Either way deficit spending is not the answer, deficit spending makes about as much sense as buying a home that you can afford.

If the revenues can not cover the expenditures, spend less, you can find solutions if you work. That is the problem governments don't like having to spend wisley so they rather deficit spend and not worry about it.

Cause ultimately they won't suffer middle class people suffer and in the long run the next generation suffers.

Ok. looking at spending. This nation has already had this type of plan: It was called the gold standard. this basically stated that every dollar had to be backed by gold in the national reserve.

Admittedly, it was a needed step to suspend this in order to recover from the depression of the 30's. However, afterward the solution became to throw money at nearly every problem until the value of our money was less than the value of the material it was printed on: which it is.

The gold standard is not achievable at this point: this nation isn't likely to last long enough to bring itself back to that level. A plan of this type, however, would be good, but it is doubtfull we would want to adhere to it if implimented.

Simply put we are not willing to support ourselves without the government there to help, and therefore it must spend. Since we are unwilling to pay higher taxes it must spend in deficit.

Well fortunately for our Federal Government Congress has the sole authority over taxation. Now the President will use Senators and Reps to try and get favorable tax bills passed but taxation is still ultimately in the hands of the legislature, or course the President can ultimately veto new taxes but that is when the legislature needs to grow some balls and stand up to him. It is silly to see legislatures fold to the President's requests and line up to suck on the Presidential power tit. It also takes a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto, something not likely to happen, especially when a few congressmen can use their votes to either dig in their heels to keep it from happening for ideological reasons, or try to bribe the chamber.

Maybe this is the situation in Nevada, if it is so I would hope that your legislatures would hind a way to arm bar your governor into do what is right. If not he is due up for re-election some time and letting education and all go down the crapper is going to hurt him. You could then vote in a new governor who will increase taxes to properly find programs, or cut spending in certain areas to increase spending in education and healthcare.
He has two more years to go on his term. Right now, the people in the know are saying that, even if the economy improves, it will take years to undo the damage that has been done, assuming of course that the governor doesn't do anything else in the meantime.

Either way deficit spending is not the answer, deficit spending makes about as much sense as buying a home that you can afford.

If the revenues can not cover the expenditures, spend less, you can find solutions if you work. That is the problem governments don't like having to spend wisley so they rather deficit spend and not worry about it.

Cause ultimately they won't suffer middle class people suffer and in the long run the next generation suffers.
Except that governments are not businesses, nor are they home budgets. They have responsibilities above and beyond both of those two and need the freedom to move to meet those responsibilities. Trying to limit the government in that way ends up hurting more than the deficits do.

As I see the US government posting a record budget deficit of over $400 Billion Dollars and planning to add over another trillion dollars to out $10 Trillion Dollar Nation Debt. I consider the following, I believe that we as a nation need to consider pressuring our governement into passing a 28th Amendment to our Constitution. The purpose of this Amendment would be simple it would ban our government from Deficit Spending, unless our Congress declares a national State of Emergency. In case of a natural disaster, war, famine, plague, ect our Congress could by legislation declare a National Emergency which would allow deficit spending until the emergency subsided.
I believe this would greatly limit our governments ability to continue to excessively spend and add more tax burden on the American Taxpayer.
Your proposal would have done nothing to limit the current debt & deficit crisis, as GWB + Congress would have easily, and with full support of the American Public, declared a National SoE 7 years ago this month. With the ongoing war in Iraq + Katrina + Afghanistan + the current bailout, an SoE would have remained up until now (and beyond); thus all that outrageous spending over the past 7 years would still have happened.
Your proposal would have as much use as tits on a bull.

Trying to limit the government in that way ends up hurting more than the deficits do.

Penny pinching for a few years, which happens regularly with social services such as education and health care, is far more acceptable then trillions of deficit.

To add salt to the wound we do not actively pay off the principal on our debt on the interest. So I fail to see how deficit spending is an acceptable solution unless the nation is literal state of emergency.

If people want more spending they need to pay more taxes, simple as that they don't want more taxes they better get use to less government spending.

Your proposal would have done nothing to limit the current debt & deficit crisis, as GWB + Congress would have easily, and with full support of the American Public, declared a National SoE 7 years ago this month. With the ongoing war in Iraq + Katrina + Afghanistan + the current bailout, an SoE would have remained up until now (and beyond); thus all that outrageous spending over the past 7 years would still have happened.
Your proposal would have as much use as tits on a bull.

You are right this idea can be just as abused as our congress' lack of competence when it handed over our treasury to Pres. Bush after September 11, 2001 and gave him free reign to spend, spend, spend. Then their unconstitutional legislation that gave the executive absolute control to deploy troops to Iraq for as long as he wanted.

The hope of this proposal would be that if Congress had to blatantly come out and tell the public what it was about to deficit spend it would at best get the people more involved and at worst make them have to work a little harder to spend our nation to death and maybe cause them to spend less.

To add salt to the wound we do not actively pay off the principal on our debt on the interest. So I fail to see how deficit spending is an acceptable solution unless the nation is literal state of emergency.

If people want more spending they need to pay more taxes, simple as that they don't want more taxes they better get use to less government spending.

^this is pretty much the way I see it. We expect the government to fix everything for us, but it's generally not the best or most efficient solution to beg Uncle Sam to do whatever needs doing.

It also takes a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto, something not likely to happen, especially when a few congressmen can use their votes to either dig in their heels to keep it from happening for ideological reasons, or try to bribe the chamber.

I understand that it takes a 2/3 majority to override a veto but legislature are the only people that have the power to enact taxation or to allow spending of tax dollars. This is why our budget must be approved by congress, and legally should be made by Congress not the President, but our Congress is good at not doing their job so we let that one slide.

What I was saying is that since Congress it the only body of government allowed to tax or allot spending why doesn't is stop being the executive bitch and start doing it's job. I know it's the government and worse off it is the federal governement so asking them to do their jobs is a lot of work. Hey cause me crazy but I think if I am paying some one to be legislatures they should do their jobs and do a complete job, not just the jobs they like and hand the rest off to the executive branch.

We set taxation and spending in the legislature because it would be hard to get hundreds to agree on budget and spending, this is better than their rubber stamp system where the executives have the power.

Simple ruled of freedom if you want to keep it don't let the power consolidate in on branch of government. The executive has gain dozens of new powers because our Congress has been to lazy to do its job over the last 50 years. It is time this unconstitutional practice stops and government pulls its head out of its ass.

Why? The supreme court loves to jam itself in the middle of Very Serious Business to make Very Important Decisions. They live for that shit. I could see them loving this.

And that. Is. Funny.

Expert witnesses ... who are Economists! Fist fights in the Court, the Justices ducking out the hatch behind the bench (ok, my imagination that ... but it's not out of the question) and looking at each other like "wtf?"

"Dude, you said Plaintiff. He thought you said 'Tariff.' So that trouble with the fountain pen. We have to get those things checked."

^this is pretty much the way I see it. We expect the government to fix everything for us, but it's generally not the best or most efficient solution to beg Uncle Sam to do whatever needs doing.

It's nice to see you defending the mis-spelling noob. Right chivalrous it is of you too.

PG (Patrick Gentry) knows stuff; pretty good game there I'd say. But this idea that a Constitutional Amendment is the way to make government work how you like, when there isn't a mandate to do it for even one term ...

Well, that's going down. We're going to see a compromise on that, or PG is going to get stomped, whichever side you take.

Just because creating a huge deficit (as the USA is) is generally a bad idea, doesn't mean deficit spending as an entire concept is bad.

Uh, fuck no?

If the government always has to make a profit (which, incidentally is what business is about, not government) then what will happen to all that money? It'll just begin to accumulate and rot. Money will be continually be sucked out of the economy and the only reaction would have to be inflation, which is generally considered to be the best thing in the world - a little, yes; lots, no.

Secondly, how do you think most of the world's debt economy is propped up. By the security offered by government bonds. It's not every day a government collapses and has to default on its loans.

Thirdly, as already mentioned, deficit spending is very useful during certain periods. Depressions being one of them (and not being defined as a natural disaster). A depression being a reduction in money circulation. The ability of the government to just start deficit spending when no one else can will help to reduce the effects and length of the depression.

If the USA really wants to cut it's national debt then just maybe it just stop going to war quite so frequently. It's like a student who goes out binge drinking every night during their first semester and then moans that they don't have any money left in the second semester.

government and economic intrests (is there a seperation here? where?) BOTH waste tax money of course.

but ENDING, not just capping but actually ENDING defficit spending, no matter how much a may like or dislike that idea, this has got to be some kind of ultimate fantasy. look the basis of monetary economy is the flim flam known as credit.

so the thing is, who is there to end it. the very flim flamers who are soaking everybody with it? sure they are. along with santa clause and the easter bunny.

So if this passed, America wouldn't be able to fund ANYTHING until congress declared a state of emergency. No more Army, Navy, Marine Corps, FBI, CIA, NSA, pay cheques for congressmen and senators, pay cheques for white house staff. The lady that cleans the toilets in the White House won't be able to pay her bills any more if this passes.

Seriously, try to think these through a bit more next time.

It's nice to see you defending the mis-spelling noob. Right chivalrous it is of you too.

PG (Patrick Gentry) knows stuff; pretty good game there I'd say. But this idea that a Constitutional Amendment is the way to make government work how you like, when there isn't a mandate to do it for even one term ...

Well, that's going down. We're going to see a compromise on that, or PG is going to get stomped, whichever side you take.

Uh - expressing a degree of agreement with one post does not equal full agreement with every post. Calm down. I'm in the libertarian sector of political thought, so I tend do oppose government expansion, deficit spending, taxation, militarism, etc. Oh, right. Are you the guy who said that anyone using etc. deserved to be ignored and marginalized?

And I though noob-stomping was generally considered rude.

It should be possible for a government to function without deficit spending and accumulation of massive debts. The problem is that deficit spending seems to have become the standard fiscal policy, the deficit is simply accepted by both parties, and no attempt is being made to fix the core problem.

some info on the issue here (http://perotcharts.com/home/)

But this idea that a Constitutional Amendment is the way to make government work how you like, when there isn't a mandate to do it for even one term

Maybe I am blind but it seems that most American's are concerned about deficit spending especially given the current economic situation's we are facing.

A regular piece of legislation would be nice, only problem is it is only a fix till Congress decides to change it. So if the media is correct (I know of seeing polls about concern over deficit spending on both CNN and Fox, think MSNBC also had a story of it but not sure) and American's are concerned about our Debt and our record budget deficit, the only permanent solution would be to amend our Constitution.

Congress had no problem amending the constitution to legalize income tax (16th), change our election process (17th), enact prohibition (18th), and end prohibition (21st).

If America is concerned about our government's use of deficit spending, and I have no idea why any sane person wouldn't be, then a Constitutional Amendment is a must.

Just because creating a huge deficit (as the USA is) is generally a bad idea, doesn't mean deficit spending as an entire concept is bad.

Yes, deficit spending is helpful, during times of great need. The problem is that our nation uses deficit spending to bank roll everyday operations.

Then emergencies come around and the deficit spending skyrockets, of course the Bush tax cuts helped compound this issue.

It is like a college kid that is gets a starter credit card for emergencies. Who proceeds to uses that credit card to fund his binge drinking for the first semester, and then has his transmission blow second semester.

The only problem is that he continues to use it for his parties while also using it for repairs, and only pays the interest off on the card.

Eventually he will max out the card and will ruin his credit. Now the USA has unlimited credit because we have always paid our debt, but each dollar of that debt is the responsibility of each of our citizens, we need to pay for our government benefit programs with Tax dollars not Deficit dollars, that is the intention behind this proposal.

If you want to interpret this any other way feel free to but this is not intending to stop deficit spending or stop our government for funding benefit programs or any federal program. It is set to stop using our national credit poorly.

A side note North Carolina has way of deficit spending called bonds, bonds are debt taken out with the permission of the citizens of the state. In 2000 North Carolina bonded 3.1 billion dollars to improve education, through a referendum on our state ballot.

I can see this as an acceptable way of debt spending on non-emergency issues. At least then the citizen that has to foot the bill will be given a say about the government spending the money.

I am sure you can find far worst grammar in the mountains of legislation that is written on Capitol Hill each Congressional Session.
Fixed:

"I am sure you can find far worse grammar in the mountains of legislation that are written on Capitol Hill each congressional session."

Note: "...mountains...are..." "[O]f legislation" is a prepositional phrase modifying "mountains," and the verb must agree with the subject of the phrase, not the modifier.


As to your suggestion, THIS:
So if this passed, America wouldn't be able to fund ANYTHING until congress declared a state of emergency. No more Army, Navy, Marine Corps, FBI, CIA, NSA, pay cheques for congressmen and senators, pay cheques for white house staff. The lady that cleans the toilets in the White House won't be able to pay her bills any more if this passes.

Seriously, try to think these through a bit more next time.

Also:
Maybe I am blind but it seems that most American's are concerned about deficit spending especially given the current economic situation's we are facing.

<snip>
I think you are mistaken. Most Americans don't even know what "deficit spending" is. Regardless, your proposal is not the answer to the problem. Rather than fix it, it would only make it far, far worse.

Consider: You would let the Congress use "states of emergency" to justify deficit spending, and you would let Congress declare those "states of emergency," and you would give them that power under the Constitution (by amendment). This means you would eliminate the power of other branches of the government and/or the people to stop them abusing SoE declarations for the purposes of rampant spending, short of forcing a repeal of said Constitutional amendment, a very difficult process.

In other words, not only would you allow deficit spending to continue, you would make it almost impossible for anyone to stop it. Good going there, Mr. Fix-it. I'll bet you'd get some nice thank-you gifts from Halliburton-Bechtel, Raytheon, Westinghouse, GE, Blackwater, et al., for that one.

Yes, deficit spending is helpful, during times of great need. The problem is that our nation uses deficit spending to bank roll everyday operations.

<snip>
Yeah, as Ifreann pointed out, "everyday operations" like meeting payroll for all the people who actually do the work of government -- you know, the thousands of people who type the letters, send out the mail, provide security for government offices, fix the computers, brew the coffee, deliver lunch, clean the toilets, do the research, analyze data, crunch numbers, etc., etc., etc.; the people who show up for work every day, Monday through Friday, and expect to get paid for it every two weeks. Do you expect them to volunteer to work for free? Or do you expect the government to default on payroll?

EDIT: Or perhaps you'd just like the government to do things like refuse to maintain interstate roads, stop collecting taxes, and default on international loans in order to avoid "deficit spending"?

So if this passed, America wouldn't be able to fund ANYTHING until congress declared a state of emergency. No more Army, Navy, Marine Corps, FBI, CIA, NSA, pay cheques for congressmen and senators, pay cheques for white house staff. The lady that cleans the toilets in the White House won't be able to pay her bills any more if this passes.

Seriously, try to think these through a bit more next time.

This statement was never made at all during the entire thread in fact. The whole thread has stated that spending would be allowed but taxes would have to be generated to pay for it unless we were in a time of crisis.

OOC: Repeating this every 5 mins is starting to get annoying :mad:

This statement was never made at all during the entire thread in fact. The whole thread has stated that spending would be allowed but taxes would have to be generated to pay for it unless we were in a time of crisis.

OOC: Repeating this every 5 mins is starting to get annoying :mad:
Taxes are generated every year as it is. Are you suggesting tax raises every single year? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Thing about deficit spending is that it can be an investment. If the government wises up and offers low-interest no-pressure government "loans" to all tertiary students to pay for their courses, then that will of course send the government into a big deficit, which will ultimately be paid off by the students once they get good jobs because of their degrees, but will also pay off in a different way. It is a statistical fact that people with university degrees on average earn more than people without them. It is also true that a lot of people make decisions on uni based on the extreme cost. So, with cost no longer being an issue, many more people would want to go to uni to get a degree so they can get a good job and earn more money. With more money to spend, this will of course help the economy to no end.

Education is the best investment a government can make, and any government wanting to spend billions of dollars it doesn't have making education better in some way has my full support, because in the long term, it will ultimately pay off much better.

Banning deficit spending highly limits the effectiveness of the government, and limit their ability to do innovative things like I suggested, which could happen, with a good government in power (though the probability of that happening is nil).

Yeah, as Ifreann pointed out, "everyday operations" like meeting payroll for all the people who actually do the work of government -- you know, the thousands of people who type the letters, send out the mail, provide security for government offices, fix the computers, brew the coffee, deliver lunch, clean the toilets, do the research, analyze data, crunch numbers, etc., etc., etc.; the people who show up for work every day, Monday through Friday, and expect to get paid for it every two weeks. Do you expect them to do without? Or do you expect the government to default on payroll?

EDIT: Or perhaps you'd just like the government to do things like refuse to maintain interstate roads, stop collecting taxes, and default on international loans in order to avoid "deficit spending"?

First off "public servants" have cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars in lost productivity because our bureaucracy loves to cut work a lot.

CNN has a wonder piece on it just last week. You should have seen Lou Dobbs flip a lid over it once his program came on.

Second is no, spend all that you want. INCREASE taxes to cover it, what fool uses credit to permanently fund anything. All of you do understand that when you borrow money you got to pay it back with interest.

Our current practice of funding our budget with deficit spending is unethical, and it is harmful to our citizens and to our economy.

Small amounts of debt are good I admit this, gives mutal funds secure investment in the form of Treasury bonds. This helps retirement and pension funds.

By anyone who thinks that a $10 Trillion dollar debt that shows no sign of slowing in the near future is good in any way is out of their mind.

I believe there is about 300 million Americans, so lets do the math.

The US government has $10 Trillion in debt divided by 300 million citizens.

So each citizen's share of this debt is $33,333 currently, that is insane. We are burdening our economy and citizens because our leadership is lacking the ability to balance a budget.

Hell why don't I declare myself a nation I hate balancing my budget (especially balancing the checkbook that is such a pain in the ass).

I ask and expect my government to balance and wisely use it's budget just as I have to balance and wisely use my budget.

Of course you can never expect the corporate/special interest sponsored, bureaucracy chocked, conglomerate we call our federal government to actually do its expected job. That is asking too much I guess.

Thing about deficit spending is that it can be an investment. If the government wises up and offers low-interest no-pressure government "loans" to all tertiary students to pay for their courses, then that will of course send the government into a big deficit, which will ultimately be paid off by the students once they get good jobs because of their degrees, but will also pay off in a different way. It is a statistical fact that people with university degrees on average earn more than people without them. It is also true that a lot of people make decisions on uni based on the extreme cost. So, with cost no longer being an issue, many more people would want to go to uni to get a degree so they can get a good job and earn more money. With more money to spend, this will of course help the economy to no end.

Education is the best investment a government can make, and any government wanting to spend billions of dollars it doesn't have making education better in some way has my full support, because in the long term, it will ultimately pay off much better.

Banning deficit spending highly limits the effectiveness of the government, and limit their ability to do innovative things like I suggested, which could happen, with a good government in power (though the probability of that happening is nil).

Student Loans are paid by a trust fund given the the Department of Education, this fund was set up originally with tax dollars but does not receive further tax money, the fund is grown through investment and the interest on the loans they write.

The only educational benefits that directly come out of the federal budget is the GI bill and this is least we can do for our veterans.

Taxes are generated every year as it is. Are you suggesting tax raises every single year? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Yeah it would be so horrible for congress to only spend the money it actually has. Hell what am I thinking!! No one should ever be expected to only spend the money they actually have.

Hell why don't we just through responsibility and the value of the dollar right out the window.

On second though inflation and depression is a wonderful thing that's for opening up my eyes.

Banning deficit spending highly limits the effectiveness of the government, and limit their ability to do innovative things like I suggested, which could happen, with a good government in power (though the probability of that happening is nil).

Banning deficit spending is the only way to protect the taxpayer, or is another $10 Trillion dollars of evidence and a twice as broken economy needed to prove this point?

Second is no, spend all that you want. INCREASE taxes to cover it, what fool uses credit to permanently fund anything. All of you do understand that when you borrow money you got to pay it back with interest.

No, you do not increase taxes to cover it. If a government is in a recession and needs to stimulate the economy it does not attempt to balance it's budget. If it did, that then because people are earning less money, tax revenue will go down, and so to will spending. They could increase taxes but then this takes more money out of the economy. A government needs to run a deficit during periods of poor economic growth because it needs to stimulate the economy to grow again, so it will need to either increase spending and/or cut taxes thus placing the budget in deficit.

During the times of good economic growth the budget should be in surplus, it does this buy either decreasing government spending or increasing taxes in order to ensure that inflation doesn't run afoul, and that the economy keeps going. Now the American budget has been in deficit for a long time when it shouldn't be, but to ban it is not the answer and a government should never attempt to balance its budget.

As for people who are claiming that public servants will not get paid that doesn't really follow because the government can either cut away jobs and/or increase taxes to cover these costs.

We need Vault and Lord T on here to help he poor guy out.

Yeah it would be so horrible for congress to only spend the money it actually has. Hell what am I thinking!! No one should ever be expected to only spend the money they actually have.

Hell why don't we just through responsibility and the value of the dollar right out the window.

On second though inflation and depression is a wonderful thing that's for opening up my eyes.

throw not through

thought not though

Does the US spend any of those tax dollars on education?

First off "public servants" have cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars in lost productivity because our bureaucracy loves to cut work a lot.

CNN has a wonder piece on it just last week. You should have seen Lou Dobbs flip a lid over it once his program came on.
Support that assertion with some facts, please. Prove to me that "public servants" don't show up for work regularly. I'm sure you can find the link at the same time that you're looking up CNN links on that other thread. And I've seen Lou Dobbs flip his lid over lots of things. So what? I've seen lots of people flip their lids over stuff. I've even done it myself once or twice.

Second is no, spend all that you want. INCREASE taxes to cover it, what fool uses credit to permanently fund anything. All of you do understand that when you borrow money you got to pay it back with interest.
So, I was right, you are advocating tax increases to the public as an alternative to maintaining a permanent state of emergency to justify deficit spending.

Considering how financially strapped Americans are now, and how much they hate taxes anyway, I would bet the Congress will just establish that permanent emergency rather than court the wrath of voters.

Our current practice of funding our budget with deficit spending is unethical, and it is harmful to our citizens and to our economy.
I agree that current government spending practices are bad. What I object to is your proposed solution, which I maintain would be worse than the current problem.

Small amounts of debt are good I admit this, gives mutal funds secure investment in the form of Treasury bonds. This helps retirement and pension funds.

By anyone who thinks that a $10 Trillion dollar debt that shows no sign of slowing in the near future is good in any way is out of their mind.
Who said that a $10 trillion dollar debt is good? Kindly quote for me the person who suggested such a thing (I mean a person other than George Bush or Dick Cheney).

I believe there is about 300 million Americans, so lets do the math.

The US government has $10 Trillion in debt divided by 300 million citizens.

So each citizen's share of this debt is $33,333 currently, that is insane. We are burdening our economy and citizens because our leadership is lacking the ability to balance a budget.

Hell why don't I declare myself a nation I hate balancing my budget (especially balancing the checkbook that is such a pain in the ass).

I ask and expect my government to balance and wisely use it's budget just as I have to balance and wisely use my budget.

Of course you can never expect the corporate/special interest sponsored, bureaucracy chocked, conglomerate we call our federal government to actually do its expected job. That is asking too much I guess.
Nice manifesto there. Very dramatic. Didn't make much of a point in the current conversation, though.

Yeah it would be so horrible for congress to only spend the money it actually has. Hell what am I thinking!! No one should ever be expected to only spend the money they actually have.

Hell why don't we just through responsibility and the value of the dollar right out the window.

On second though inflation and depression is a wonderful thing that's for opening up my eyes.
If you don't have any money, do you get to skip your rent payments on the grounds that you shouldn't spend money you don't have? No, you do not. You have financial obligations, and you must meet them even if you do so at a loss, by incurring further debt and taking on future obligations so that you can meet current ones.

Even if you strip away all the waste and all the pork, the government will still have obligations that it MUST meet, which will exceed its current revenues. The fact that this is due to previous government over-spending (on things like wars of choice) is not relevant because it does not let the government off the hook of its proper obligations.

It is also not relevant to the fact that your proposed fix is a bad one.

Banning deficit spending is the only way to protect the taxpayer, or is another $10 Trillion dollars of evidence and a twice as broken economy needed to prove this point?
You have already stated that, aside from maintaining a permanent state of emergency to justify deficit spending, the Congress should increase taxes to cover its expenses. Considering how strapped most Americans are right now, how is your proposal a protection for the taxpayer? All it does is promise higher taxes or a continuation of the status quo with even less of a chance of changing it in future.

No, you do not increase taxes to cover it. If a government is in a recession and needs to stimulate the economy it does not attempt to balance it's budget.

Call me crazy but a recession seems to be an economic emergency, which under my proposal would allow congress to deficit spend for a temporary period of time.

During the times of good economic growth the budget should be in surplus, it does this buy either decreasing government spending or increasing taxes in order to ensure that inflation doesn't run afoul, and that the economy keeps going.

The problem is that, with the exception of the Clinton Administration, we do not balance our budget during times of good economic growth. This is why a amendment is need to legally force our government to comply with common sense. It is unfortunate that this has to happen but it is still not the less necessary.

Does the US spend any of those tax dollars on education?

The Federal Government sends some money to each State (in the US each individual state fund public education, not the central government).

The Department of Education also has a Student Loan Program that was originally established with tax dollars but has runs independent of the Federal Budget and receives new tax funds to the best of my knowledge.

Support that assertion with some facts, please. Prove to me that "public servants" don't show up for work regularly. I'm sure you can find the link at the same time that you're looking up CNN links on that other thread. And I've seen Lou Dobbs flip his lid over lots of things. So what? I've seen lots of people flip their lids over stuff. I've even done it myself once or twice.

This will be the last time I state this, CNN archives all of it programing at CNN. com unless they ahve changed their website in the last week.

I wish I had the psychic power to mentally project CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC's broadcasting from my mind into yours. Until then you will have to actually got and look up the minisodes at CNN.com.

As soon as I delveop those physic abilities I will be sure to telepathically send you my memory of the program if you do not wish to look it up yourself.

I think you misunderstand evidence and citation. When I tell you that you can find these new reports on the various media website's I am showing my evidence.

Do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to spend hours citing each individual page. If you wish to be educated on this issue I have given you the tools to be so, your lack of knowledge is not based upon my lack of effort but your lack of action.

Citations are for research papers, evidence is for discussion. There is a big difference between the two.

This will be the last time I state this, CNN archives all of it programing at CNN. com unless they ahve changed their website in the last week.

I wish I had the psychic power to mentally project CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC's broadcasting from my mind into yours. Until then you will have to actually got and look up the minisodes at CNN.com.

As soon as I delveop those physic abilities I will be sure to telepathically send you my memory of the program if you do not wish to look it up yourself.
You don't need psychic powers any more than I do. All you need is the internet and the desire to support and defend your own position.

If you can't be bothered to back up your own assertions, why should I do it? Why should I give more of a shit about what you say than you do? As far as I'm concerned, an argument that the poster cannot be bothered to defend is an argument that can be dismissed as worthless.

I think you misunderstand evidence and citation. When I tell you that you can find these new reports on the various media website's I am showing my evidence.
No, you're not. You're just telling me it exists. You are showing me nothing.

Have you ever looked at an index of footnotes or citations? They list specific articles/books, not just vague references to places where someone might find something relevant if they felt like starting all the research from scratch without any guidance.

Do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to spend hours citing each individual page. If you wish to be educated on this issue I have given you the tools to be so, your lack of knowledge is not based upon my lack of effort but your lack of action.
Do not insult our intelligence with snobby excuses for your laziness and smartass cracks about how other people are ignorant.

Citations are for research papers, evidence is for discussion. There is a big difference between the two.
And you have provided neither.

This statement was never made at all during the entire thread in fact. The whole thread has stated that spending would be allowed but taxes would have to be generated to pay for it unless we were in a time of crisis.

OOC: Repeating this every 5 mins is starting to get annoying :mad:
Do the American public even make trillions of dollars in income each year?
Taxes are generated every year as it is. Are you suggesting tax raises every single year? Yeah, that'll go over well.
This too.
Call me crazy but a recession seems to be an economic emergency, which under my proposal would allow congress to deficit spend for a temporary period of time.
Is that so? Because Ireland is in a recession and our government isn't trying to get any kind of special powers.
This will be the last time I state this, CNN archives all of it programing at CNN. com unless they ahve changed their website in the last week.

I wish I had the psychic power to mentally project CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC's broadcasting from my mind into yours. Until then you will have to actually got and look up the minisodes at CNN.com.

As soon as I delveop those physic abilities I will be sure to telepathically send you my memory of the program if you do not wish to look it up yourself.

I think you misunderstand evidence and citation. When I tell you that you can find these new reports on the various media website's I am showing my evidence.

Do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to spend hours citing each individual page. If you wish to be educated on this issue I have given you the tools to be so, your lack of knowledge is not based upon my lack of effort but your lack of action.

Citations are for research papers, evidence is for discussion. There is a big difference between the two.

Welcome to NSG. We have something of an informal rule here. Well, I say informal in the sense that the mods don't enforce it. If you make a claim then you must provide the evidence for it, if there is such evidence to be found on the internet. We will not ignore this because you insist that we must prove your point for you. Fuck you. If you're trying to make a point then you make it and you back it up. If you say there is evidence for you case on cnn.com then get your ass to cnn.com and post a link to the relevant page/s.

Deficit spending is bad, but on a rare occasion it is a necessary evil, like during a national crisis. Although, the current spending of the US is out of control, and the Iraq war is not completly to blame, in fact I think if the US government had the least bit of economic sense, we wouldn't even have a deficit, or a very small deficit. We need to get rid of government waste and fraud, then the deficit will go down (getting rid of unconstituional government programs could also help quite a bit)

Too extreem. Sometimes we need deficit spending.

Thought to the actual question for the poll: yes, yes they do waste money.

Ok. looking at spending. This nation has already had this type of plan: It was called the gold standard. this basically stated that every dollar had to be backed by gold in the national reserve.

Admittedly, it was a needed step to suspend this in order to recover from the depression of the 30's. However, afterward the solution became to throw money at nearly every problem until the value of our money was less than the value of the material it was printed on: which it is.

The gold standard is not achievable at this point: this nation isn't likely to last long enough to bring itself back to that level. A plan of this type, however, would be good, but it is doubtfull we would want to adhere to it if implimented.

Simply put we are not willing to support ourselves without the government there to help, and therefore it must spend. Since we are unwilling to pay higher taxes it must spend in deficit.

In the 30's we only doubled how many dollar were per ounce of gold.
The US didn't go off the gold standard until the 70's. Nixon took us off the gold standard. population growth simply grew too fast for gold to be mined at a rate enabling enough money to be in circulation and each dollar to be valued against gold.

Do the American public even make trillions of dollars in income each year?

The United States as a nation does, yes.

GDP (purchasing power parity): $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 2.2% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP): $45,800 (2007 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year).

I think you misunderstand evidence and citation. When I tell you that you can find these new reports on the various media website's I am showing my evidence.

No, you aren't, just as I wouldn't be showing you any evidence if I said, "I read it in some issue or other of Nature. You can find it too if you dig back through the archives of Nature. Trust me."

What you are doing is asserting that some evidence exists. You may or may not be correct. If you cannot actually point to the evidence itself, we have no reason to believe you aren't simply making it up.

As for banning deficit spending, I think the idea is good in principle, but I don't think we could just suddenly do it at this point.

What we could do is reinstitute a pay-go system like the one under Clinton, in which a bill that included new spending must also include the source of revenue for that spending, whether it be cutting some other program or increasing some tax or what-have-you.

Once we get people doing that, I think we might actually be able to convince them to make an attempt to match expenditures to revenue.

As I see the US government posting a record budget deficit of over $400 Billion Dollars and planning to add over another trillion dollars to out $10 Trillion Dollar Nation Debt. I consider the following, I believe that we as a nation need to consider pressuring our governement into passing a 28th Amendment to our Constitution. The purpose of this Amendment would be simple it would ban our government from Deficit Spending, unless our Congress declares a national State of Emergency. In case of a natural disaster, war, famine, plague, ect our Congress could by legislation declare a National Emergency which would allow deficit spending until the emergency subsided. I believe this would greatly limit our governments ability to continue to excessively spend and add more tax burden on the American Taxpayer.

I believe a amendment like this would greatly counter-act waste spending sense any increase in federal spending would have to directly relate to an increase in taxes (which would make taxpayer far more interested in how their taxes are spent).

What do my fellow American's think about my fictional proposal for the 28th Amendment?
We had the Gramm-Rudman Act a few years back. As I recall, it required that cuts be made to offset expenditures in an effort to balance budgets. I don't know if it expired, was repealed, or if Congress just lost interest in fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps we need to just give more responsibility to the states. That way, states that want high services can pay high taxes, and those that don't want them can pay low taxes. Everybody's happy.

Call me crazy but a recession seems to be an economic emergency, which under my proposal would allow congress to deficit spend for a temporary period of time.

So two periods of negative growth is an emergency? I dare say a lot of things will be an emergency, but then if they are allowed to go into deficit anyway why bother making a proposal.

The problem is that, with the exception of the Clinton Administration, we do not balance our budget during times of good economic growth. This is why a amendment is need to legally force our government to comply with common sense. It is unfortunate that this has to happen but it is still not the less necessary.

Did Clinton decrease the deficit? I seem to remember that it has been increasing since just after Andrew Jackson left the position, I may be wrong of course. But yes the US doesn't have a surplus, (it should never be balancing its budget) which really just goes to show how little the US government knows what to do and neither of the candidates have a fucking clue either.

Perhaps we need to just give more responsibility to the states. That way, states that want high services can pay high taxes, and those that don't want them can pay low taxes. Everybody's happy.

^This.

The federal government was intended to be very small and to have almost no authority whatsoever within the sovereign territories of the several States. The House was to represent the people, with Representative numbers in proportion to the populations of the states and elected directly by the people of the states. the Senate was to be composed of what were effectively ambassadors from the states, selected by the state governments. Thus, the bills that were to originate in the Senate were recommended by the States, and had to be approved by the people through the respective representative houses. the Federal government was limited to little more than arbitrating disputes between the states, international relations, and national defense. As such, it required very little money for its operations and was easily supported through a tarriff on imports or other indirect taxations. there were a few direct taxes apportioned per the Constitution to cover wartime emergency expenses, such as during the War of 1812. these amounted to maybe the equivalent of a 5% income tax, and that was considered steep.

*edit* I think it's time to reconsider the wisdom of following Keynesian economics and see whether Federal market manipulation has really been beneficial. I am inclined to think that the Austrian school is more in line with what we need for a strong market. It seems that the business cycle has become much more volatile since the Federal Reserve Act went into effect and the government began trying to manipulate the economy through taxes, federal spending, and interest rate manipulation. After the act went into effect in 1913, we had this amazing boom that brought about the 'Roaring Twenties" which were followed by the great Depression. Now we all know about the market success of the 90's, and we are seeing the market collapse of the 00's. This may be a pattern, especially when you look at the continuous boom-bust cycle that has continued between the depression of the 30's and today.

Did Clinton decrease the deficit? I seem to remember that it has been increasing since just after Andrew Jackson left the position, I may be wrong of course. But yes the US doesn't have a surplus, (it should never be balancing its budget) which really just goes to show how little the US government knows what to do and neither of the candidates have a fucking clue either.

What he is referring to is that the deficit shrank as a % of the GDP.
the actual numbers were still increasing. Though they were much slower and projected to eventually cease growing by 2010.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/US_Federal_Debt(gross).JPG

not looking for the projections i'm two lazy. Though if you really want to be technical it was Bush Sr's Tax raise that made it possible. And it would have started during his term except for the recession during his second half in office.

not looking for the projections i'm two lazy. Though if you really want to be technical it was Bush Sr's Tax raise that made it possible. And it would have started during his term except for the recession during his second time in office.

Eh, it would've almost certainly evaporated in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble. That's why Bush's tax cuts produce such huge deficits; they were based on budget projections so far removed from reality (although, at that frothy time they might have seemed reasonable...) that there was basically no chance of them coming true, making the tax cuts basically money-losers from the onset.

Eh, it would've almost certainly evaporated in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble. That's why Bush's tax cuts produce such huge deficits; they were based on budget projections so far removed from reality (although, at that frothy time they might have seemed reasonable...) that there was basically no chance of them coming true, making the tax cuts basically money-losers from the onset.

wrong bush. and I understand why you thought there. Bush Senior raised Taxes. My apologizes I meant to say 2nd half of his term, not from his second term.

wrong bush. and I understand why you thought there. Bush Senior raised Taxes. My apologizes I meant to say 2nd half of his term, not from his second term.

Oh no, what I mean is that the surpluses produced by Bush Sr.'s tax increases would have evaporated regardless of the tax cuts. The surge in revenues during the 1990's was driven first and foremost by capital gains, with of course large gains in corporate and personal income taxes as well.

Oh no, what I mean is that the surpluses produced by Bush Sr.'s tax increases would have evaporated regardless of the tax cuts. The surge in revenues during the 1990's was driven first and foremost by capital gains, with of course large gains in corporate and personal income taxes as well.

yes we should just cut spending then but that's my take on things.

yes we should just cut spending then but that's my take on things.

On that I agree 100%. Of course, nobody wants to cut their pet projects, so it would be tough to ever achieve.

On that I agree 100%. Of course, nobody wants to cut their pet projects, so it would be tough to ever achieve.

We spend a third of the defense budget just to protect our shipment of oil from Saudi Arabia, and last I checked, that was a cool $333 billion. It would be nice to take a bite out of that spending.

On that I agree 100%. Of course, nobody wants to cut their pet projects, so it would be tough to ever achieve.

People are too dumb they will simply vote themselves the treasury given the chance.

The United States as a nation does, yes.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year).

And how much of that could the government reasonably get through taxation?

And how much of that could the government reasonably get through taxation?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

Budget: revenues: $2.568 trillion
expenditures: $2.73 trillion (2007 est.)

Or are you asking how much more I believe the government could get from taxation?