Balanced Budget amendment...your Thoughts

I think that in general there is an inverse correlation between the strength of people's opinions about what the solution is and the strength of those people's understanding of the problem.

Balanced Budget amendment would assure that our federal govt could only spend would they take in. Simply, just like our home budgets....if we make $10k a month at our job, we can't spend more than $10k. Most states have a balanced budget amendment...Texas does. However, a balanced budget amendment is not going to solve our debt problems. Back to my $10K/mo household budget. Let's say that you decided to get a credit card and started spending way more than your $10k/mo because you could buy things on credit. Eventually, your interest payments (not payment on debt) would become so high that you ran out of money. That's where we're at with the country. That's why we need to cut spending. Not just little things but whole departments and agencies.

I hope that explains it for you!

Here is what the news is NOT touching on. Countries have credit ratings just like everyone else. There are three major companies that rate the credit of a country. Currently they are saying that the United States is spending more money and racking up more debt than they have income to cover. All three companies have said that in order to maintain an A+ credit score two things must happen; 1) Our debt ceiling must raise. and here is the stipulation that keeps being ignored....2) The U.S. must eliminate $4 Trillion in debt from their budget.

Unless our government stops spending money right now... no matter what they do in session the United States is about to get their credit rating downgraded.

One side seems to think that the answer is raising taxes on the rich. Most people say ok, I can live with that because it doesn't mean ME, I'm not among the "Rich". Well let me tell you WHO the "rich" are. They are the people who own the companies that supply your electricity, water, clothing, transportation, phones,clothing,fuel, and food. Guess what happens when THEY have to pay more money to produce a product? They raise prices of their product to cover their extra expense! When prices go up, people spend less. When Americans spend less, the economy suffers.

Another side suggested that we NOT raise taxes but cut regulations on small businesses. They suggested that if government would STOP placing so many regulations on small business, it would encourage entrepreneurs to strike out and open new businesses that would in turn create new jobs. If people have jobs, they will spend money. If they spend money, the economy will revive.

Our government needs to get off their Socialistic High Horse and start running this country like a Business! Successful businesses do NOT cut the pay of their workers when things get rough. That is like cutting off the hand that feeds you! Instead successful business owners take the hit themselves to ensure that their employees get paid. Our government needs to follow this same business model. Our President needs to STOP taking trips and vacations on OUR Dime. Senators and Reps need to take a pay-cut across the board.

Sorry for the rambling....this is just a HUGE sore spot with me.

You've asked a reasonable question, and I'd bet most people really don't fully understand all the stuff going on in D.C. today. I've believed for a long time that Congress is lacking the integrity on which this country was founded. Too many now are self-serving and greedy. Thus, we are now strapped with debt that has inched up over the years. People tend to blame whatever president they didn't support, but Congress is really responsible for pushing through legislation for unnecessary things that please people and get them re-elected. Now we have reached what Mastercard and Visa call the credit limit. Do we extend that limit so we can borrow more? Or do we say enough is enough and start trying to pay down that debt? If you are a wage earner paying taxes, you'd probably say don't raise the limit because I don't want to pay MORE taxes to pay the interest on 14 Trillion. If you collect from one of the many programs that are creating this debt, you'll probably say raise the debt limit and keep paying me. Nobody wants to feel the pain. Thirty years ago my husband was transferred to a northern state where the cost of living was outrageous. The small increase in his salary didn't come close to covering the added expenses, and I also gave up my job when we moved. We had some debt already. We could have obtained more credit cards and kept on living as we had in our former home, but we chose not to do that. We ate beans and potatoes, bought only what was absolutely necessary, rented out our former residence due to it not selling, and we rented something cheaper. It took 2 1/2 years to find a better job, but we managed to survive, something that wasn't easy with 3 teen daughters to support. I think our country is at a point where we must make some tough choices. The problem is nobody wants to feel the pinch. And the members of Congress like their plushy lifestyle and don't want to give it up.

More lame ideas from TeaParty activists. Please stop using this site to promote your political views. I personally have always been a person who wants to redistribute the wealth of this country widely in the population. The Koch brothers are a threat to our democracy and dangerous just like Murdoch. These men want us to return to the feudal system that existed in the 1600's in Russia and before that in the rest of Europe.
ONLY ONE NATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. DENMARK. Will you give us universal health care, a well off middle class, care for the disabled from birth to the end of life, a country that does not go to war, no starvation for any citizen, six months paid maternity leave and then six months for the father, universal education from preschool to the Phd and for apprentices learning a trade .
Of course they have a high tax rate. And, the rich pay a full share of what they earn instead of having big tax breaks. That is what Denmark has.
And, if anyone wants to comment on what L. said don't say it in the answer column. This site is not Facebook. First learn 5 languages so you can read what goes on in other countries and talk to the people first hand and travel. Oh you don't have money to travel. Even bank tellers in Europe earn 3K per month and have the money to travel all over. And, all of Europe has a minimum of five weeks paid vacation per year.

Whether you agree or disagree with how Obama handled the debt crisis when he first took office, he did exactly what every leading economist told him had had to do for the nation. Most experts agreed that if that money hadn't been borrowed and allocated as it was, this nation would be in an economic depression (some say even more devastating than the Great Depression).

While countries and families both have to work with budgets, the realities of running a nation (security, social services, education, etc) often require countries to take on debt. Sometimes there are crisis, sometimes basic needs have to be met. I simply comparison (ie, we have to live withing our means, and the country should, too) really isn't accurate or helpful. In order to have a nation survive and thrive, you cannot just take money from social security and give it to hurricane relief.

It seems many people believe in the "trickle down theory" that says if we keep giving tax breaks to wealthy business owners, they will in turn use that money to benefit their employees. The reality of the past 30 years has shown that this does not happen. Businesses keep running exactly as they are. During good economic times, the extra money gets reinvested. During poor economic times, less money is invested. The financial state of the worker does not change.

I'm a fan of getting rid of many of the tax breaks for the very wealthy. I have no doubt that some of them work very hard, but most of them did not work 1000 times as hard as the majority of society. Why should they earn 1000 more money than most people? "To whom much is given, much is expected." The rich can afford to pay a little more. They won't even notice the difference. All this squabbling so billionaires can be $100,000 less in taxes. That's pennies to them.

I like this question. As I can see, most of us do understand the situation in Washington, D.C. I believe we should have a balanced amendment. Most states have them why shouldn't the federal government? Really, what makes the federal government so almighty important? Their job is to ensure our safety. Really that should be it. States should do most of the other stuff. The United States is not Europe and lets just say Europe is imploding.

As for lame ideas from TeaParty, well, at least we have ideas. This spread the wealth idea is anti American. I work hard, I get to keep the money. You don't, too bad!

In my house we balance our budget. I think it's only responsible that we spend only what we bring in. I don't want Government health care. With a family of 6 we barely fit into the middle class definition. I don't believe in sharing the wealth. I believe in earning it. I think that our politician should earn theirs as well and I would have to give them a pay cut for poor job performance right now.

To me it shouldn't be a law or a bill - it SHOULD BE COMMON SENSE...

You cannot spend more than you take in. PERIOD.

There is so much more to this question...I'm sorry that there are some on here who believe that "this isn't a site for politics", not it's NOT a political forum, however, politics AFFECTS YOUR LIFE EVERY DAY..PERIOD...

This is a VERY valid question....unfortunately, it has become about sides instead of common sense...there are those who advocate nationalized or socialized programs (health care, welfare, etc.) and there are those who advocate taking the stance of our founding fathers and saying "I am responsible for myself and my family and it's not the government's responsibility to care for me." How does this translate into the debt ceiling, balanced budget debate? Because in order to balance the budget, things that are near and dear to some (it keeps them in office cuz it gets them the vote) need to be cut.....and they won't do it...because it will piss too many supporters off and they will be back at home after the next election....any way - this is hard all the way around...there are programs that I don't necessarily support but I know they are "necessary" (gasp) in SOME cases...as a TEMPORARY measure..NOT a permanent one.....

What programs are you willing to do without?
What programs do you consider unnecessary?
This is what it boils down to. What people will be willing to do without and what they consider necessary...and in that - there aren't many that can compromise or even debate it without heated passion.

Our country needs new representatives...one said it best a few days ago - one who wants to support our country and LEAD instead of ear-marking and glad-handing...we don't need a life-time career politician - we need AMERICAN PEOPLE who give a damn about our country and not themselves...

Here you go. In 5 minutes, Bruce Bartlett (who was President Reagan's economic policy adviser, and George Bush's Deputy Secretary of the Treasury) explains it all, and far more eloquently than I ever could:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999759/-Hardball...

.

Well, then we better hope that we never get attacked again. There is no way we have enough income to support another war. Bush proved that one for us.