What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Just think if balanced budget amendment passed in 1980 or 1996. would we have gone into this much debt? I would assume in emergency (war etc..) we'll go over but not to the tune of 14trillion and running $1trillon+ deficits.

I don't know where all the balanced budget guys have disappeared to... maybe if everyone voted for BBA regardless of party we might actually get our budget under control. After that you can go back to voting for your party.

In the 1980s, a balanced budget amendment passed the Senate but failed in the House. In 1996, it passed the House but failed in the Senate by one vote.
Click to expand...

And our last amendment other than congress salary was voting age.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years

The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to those over twenty-one.

The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which itself is enforcement legislation based on prior suffrage amendments) that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. Oregon objected to the 18-year-old limit, as well as other provisions of the 1970 Act (it also objected to a prohibition on literacy tests for the franchise). In Oregon v Mitchell (400 U.S. 112), a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to lower the voting age to 18 for national elections, but not for state and local elections.

In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc6f8058" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=44079837^262120.99999999997^582149&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc6f8058" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=44079837^262120.99999999997^582149&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
MSNBC is stupid. Figures it would apply to their video embedding package.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/dylan-ratigan-angrily-tells-it-like-it-is
Click to expand...

I love it. Instead of screaming, "BOO CONGRESS!!! VOTE 'EM OUT!!!" he actually puts forth a plan. A call to action with some substance behind it.

Of course, our eunuch of a president won't even acknowledge this and we're going to keep on kicking the can down the road.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Plante26 said:
That had crossed my mind. Just gonna a lil' game of "What If":

What if states simply ordered businesses to stop sending federal income taxes to the government? No need for federal funding then--along with a large boost in revenue for the states. Aside from the military, diplomats and the executive/legislative/judicial branches of government, there's not a whole lot that the states couldn't handle themselves.
Click to expand...

I'd assume that the still funded military would then be ordered to enforce taxation laws. Not sure about the constitutionality of that, but the states would technically be defying the constitution because of whatever amendment allowed for the collection of income tax.

Tundra: A balanced budget amendment does nothing useful for us unless there are two things.

1. An exception for emergencies. That would undoubtedly include war and other uses of the military in addition to natural disasters

2. Some kind of language that forces Congress to actually declare war and end the state of conflict that defines when deficit spending is allowed.

Without 1, the law can't pass because it will hamstring us and without 2, the law is useless because we've been in "states of conflict" with all sorts of stuff for most of the post-WW2 period.

If we had passed the amendment in 1996, it wouldn't have changed much because we've been in an "authorized use of military force" since September 2001 and given that there isn't anyone to capitulate on the other side, will technically remain in that state for all eternity. Thus, deficit spending would have been A-OK this entire time,
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Plante26 said:
That had crossed my mind. Just gonna a lil' game of "What If":

What if states simply ordered businesses to stop sending federal income taxes to the government?
Click to expand...

We repeat 1860 all over again? Are you suggesting that your derp of a plan could actually work in reality? Or are you throwing out wild hypotheticals? I can throw those out there too. What if I farked your mother every night from here to eternity? Wouldn't that be swell?
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

How would the world markets and the US economy react if tomorrow's newspapers all had the same headline:

Obama Resigns
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

bronconick said:
I'd assume that the still funded military would then be ordered to enforce taxation laws. Not sure about the constitutionality of that, but the states would technically be defying the constitution because of whatever amendment allowed for the collection of income tax.

Tundra: A balanced budget amendment does nothing useful for us unless there are two things.

1. An exception for emergencies. That would undoubtedly include war and other uses of the military in addition to natural disasters

2. Some kind of language that forces Congress to actually declare war and end the state of conflict that defines when deficit spending is allowed.

Without 1, the law can't pass because it will hamstring us and without 2, the law is useless because we've been in "states of conflict" with all sorts of stuff for most of the post-WW2 period.

If we had passed the amendment in 1996, it wouldn't have changed much because we've been in an "authorized use of military force" since September 2001 and given that there isn't anyone to capitulate on the other side, will technically remain in that state for all eternity. Thus, deficit spending would have been A-OK this entire time,
Click to expand...


A balanced budget amendment is stupid. Some debt is good (when the benefits outweigh the financing costs). Examples might include long term infrastructure projects, see the interstate system or the panama canal. What is bad is living off credit cards. There is a big difference between borrowing money to grow your small business and racking up credit card debt on every day expenses because you are unwilling to live within your means. There is also a big difference in the government borrowing for a long term project that will have huge benefit and ****ing money away screwing around in Iraq and Afghanistan, or spending ridiculous amounts of money developing new weapons that we can't afford (joint strike fighter == 52" LCD HDTV for someone with credit card debt).
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Seems the British have figured it out ...


"The barriers are political not economic, so it is up to the world’s politicians to overcome them. There are no excuses left.

Finally, the UK, like the rest of the developed world, needs a new model of growth.

Surely we have now learnt that growth cannot come from yet more debt and government spending?

Those who spent the last year telling us to follow the American example with yet more fiscal stimulus need to answer this simple question: why has the US economy grown more slowly than the UK’s so far this year?

More spending now, paid for by more government borrowing and higher debt, would lead directly to rising interest rates and falling international confidence that would kill off the recovery not support it. Instead, we’ve got to work hard to have a private sector that competes, that invests, that exports.

In today’s world, that is the only route to high quality jobs and lasting prosperity. ...

... our Plan for Growth has set out an ambitious path ...

On tax we have already cut our corporation tax by 2p, with three more cuts to come over the next 3 years." -- Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer.​


http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_chx_110811.htm
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

unofan said:
We repeat 1860 all over again? Are you suggesting that your derp of a plan could actually work in reality? Or are you throwing out wild hypotheticals? I can throw those out there too. What if I farked your mother every night from here to eternity? Wouldn't that be swell?
Click to expand...

That would make you a necrophiliac. Stay classy, uno.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Almington said:
His point, which you completely missed, is that you don't cut spending during a downturn. In 1921 and 1947 the US was not in a downturn.
Click to expand...

1921 was a downturn on par with 1929. More info The reason you don't hear more about it is because the gov't didn't make it worse.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

While I love the concept of a balanced budget, the reality is that if future politicians want to, I'm sure they can find ways of circumventing it. Look at all the funds that were set up separately for specific purposes, such as Social Security, nuclear waste, etc. that have been raided and have nothing but IOUs sitting in them. You can't fix with a new law a fundamental problem of lack of political will and character and honesty and lack of such from a public which elects such people and generally just wants the politicians to not mess with any of their own benefits, regardless of fiscal considerations. No law can fix that.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bob Gray said:
While I love the concept of a balanced budget, the reality is that if future politicians want to, I'm sure they can find ways of circumventing it. Look at all the funds that were set up separately for specific purposes, such as Social Security, nuclear waste, etc. that have been raided and have nothing but IOUs sitting in them. You can't fix with a new law a fundamental problem of lack of political will and character and honesty and lack of such from a public which elects such people and generally just wants the politicians to not mess with any of their own benefits, regardless of fiscal considerations. No law can fix that.
Click to expand...

Correct. Which is why, no matter what, Rome will burn.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

ScoobyDoo said:
Correct. Which is why, no matter what, Rome will burn.
Click to expand...

Right and that's why we need to get out in front of the problem:
Repeal the constitution, disband the federal government, and let the states fend for themselves.

In 50 years, we can see who was right.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

joecct said:
There is always the Tom Clancy solution (which could be inferred from your 9/11 reference).
Click to expand...

What is that? (I dont read Clancy)

As for your other post was it the Marshall or Roberts Court...the answer is YES :D
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The Sicatoka said:
How would the world markets and the US economy react if tomorrow's newspapers all had the same headline:

Obama Resigns
Click to expand...

Things would crash faster than you can say 1929. The world would see the resigning of the president, ANY PRESIDENT, in the midst of a crisis like this as a complete sign that the US has failed and the reaction would be bad. Investors would sell of US debt for pennies on the dollar, foreign interests would take their money out of any American business, domestic investors would sell everything they got and pull their money out of the banks...it would be mass chaos. The run on the banks alone would make the AIG fiasco look like some podunk bank in central bumphuck Missouri went under.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top