Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Balanced budget amendment.

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 6:58:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I understand that it would take a lot for us to change our spending ways, and it would take a lot for us to change our expectations from government, but we have reached a time when our 'wants' are exceeding all reasonable ability to pay for them. I also know that there is no politician on either side of the isle that will openly admit that they are okay with massive deficit spending, and yet they all do it. 'We the people' may need to make changes to the way things are done by having it the law of the land that the federal government will not exceed its given authority in spending. The ensuing problem will be massive tax increases, and this too would need to be addressed in the amendment, but we are dealing with this anyway. Yes there are some problems that would need to be worked out, but there are states that operate with this provision, so i think it can be done, in some format of flexibility.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 10:22:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
We have enough resources to support our population with a huge surplus to spare. The only thing that needs to be "balanced" is where the resources are distributed. It doesn't matter what kind of spening laws we have; we will always be bogged down with the poor (and their problems) if we maintain a huge income gap.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:03:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, it's not a bad idea, but it needs to be flexible. I mean, sometimes there will be situations where no matter what you do, you'll end up going in the red. It's just the nature of spending for either government, corporations or individuals. Situations just come up which totally screw you over.

I think its pretty reasonable to say, the government should be expected to run in the black, and only go into the red when every other option for covering and cutting costs has been exhausted, or when emergency funds need to be allocated. Being too strict could simply end up hurting the government's mandate, more than saving it.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:07:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:03:56 AM, Volkov wrote:
Well, it's not a bad idea, but it needs to be flexible. I mean, sometimes there will be situations where no matter what you do, you'll end up going in the red. It's just the nature of spending for either government, corporations or individuals. Situations just come up which totally screw you over.

I think its pretty reasonable to say, the government should be expected to run in the black, and only go into the red when every other option for covering and cutting costs has been exhausted, or when emergency funds need to be allocated. Being too strict could simply end up hurting the government's mandate, more than saving it.

I agree, and there would probably need to be a period of phasing into it, sort of like detoxing a drug addict. Probably some specific parameters around what is an emergency that would allow the red, because i could see every possible situation being turned into an emergency - they are lawyers down there after all.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:11:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:07:34 AM, innomen wrote:
I agree, and there would probably need to be a period of phasing into it, sort of like detoxing a drug addict. Probably some specific parameters around what is an emergency that would allow the red, because i could see every possible situation being turned into an emergency - they are lawyers down there after all.

Haha, thats it exactly. They will try to bend the rules. I mean, just a quick cursory search on Google nets you stories about governments throwing them out for various concocted reasons, some good and some stupid. But so long as you stake out some parameters it can work to both our (the taxpayers) and their advantage.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:14:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:11:24 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/16/2010 11:07:34 AM, innomen wrote:
I agree, and there would probably need to be a period of phasing into it, sort of like detoxing a drug addict. Probably some specific parameters around what is an emergency that would allow the red, because i could see every possible situation being turned into an emergency - they are lawyers down there after all.

Haha, thats it exactly. They will try to bend the rules. I mean, just a quick cursory search on Google nets you stories about governments throwing them out for various concocted reasons, some good and some stupid. But so long as you stake out some parameters it can work to both our (the taxpayers) and their advantage.

We had a problem with our water for a couple days where you had to boil it for a little while before you could drink it. They declared that an "emergency" - come on...really?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:18:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:14:27 AM, innomen wrote:
We had a problem with our water for a couple days where you had to boil it for a little while before you could drink it. They declared that an "emergency" - come on...really?

Well, I would consider that an emergency, especially since it is a water supply issue. Water is essential to life, and if people either don't get the news or the situation isn't fixed or treated ASAP, then you've got some big problems. Look up the Walkerton Tragedy to see what I mean.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:21:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:18:50 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/16/2010 11:14:27 AM, innomen wrote:
We had a problem with our water for a couple days where you had to boil it for a little while before you could drink it. They declared that an "emergency" - come on...really?

Well, I would consider that an emergency, especially since it is a water supply issue. Water is essential to life, and if people either don't get the news or the situation isn't fixed or treated ASAP, then you've got some big problems. Look up the Walkerton Tragedy to see what I mean.

It's not like there wasn't any water, there was, you just had to boil it *Oh the horror* it was fixed and i think the whole thing went for about 2-3 days, Nags can confirm. We need to get out of that way of thinking.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 11:27:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:21:46 AM, innomen wrote:
It's not like there wasn't any water, there was, you just had to boil it *Oh the horror* it was fixed and i think the whole thing went for about 2-3 days, Nags can confirm. We need to get out of that way of thinking.

But what happens if this didn't last 2-3 days. What if it was lethal diseases like e.coli or others? What if lives ended up being taken because of inaction on the part of authorities who didn't have the resources allocated to them that they would in an emergency situation?

It's these kind of questions that need to be thought of, not in the benefit of hindsight, but as foresight. Governments, who are charged with public safety above all else, need to take steps to ascertain that what they have here isn't going to kill off half of their town's population.

If its a small, just-take-caution thing, then yes, I can see that its quite silly to call an emergency. But if its a full-blown, confirmed and communicable disease, an emergency call is justified.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:03:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 11:27:23 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/16/2010 11:21:46 AM, innomen wrote:
It's not like there wasn't any water, there was, you just had to boil it *Oh the horror* it was fixed and i think the whole thing went for about 2-3 days, Nags can confirm. We need to get out of that way of thinking.

But what happens if this didn't last 2-3 days. What if it was lethal diseases like e.coli or others? What if lives ended up being taken because of inaction on the part of authorities who didn't have the resources allocated to them that they would in an emergency situation?

It's these kind of questions that need to be thought of, not in the benefit of hindsight, but as foresight. Governments, who are charged with public safety above all else, need to take steps to ascertain that what they have here isn't going to kill off half of their town's population.

If its a small, just-take-caution thing, then yes, I can see that its quite silly to call an emergency. But if its a full-blown, confirmed and communicable disease, an emergency call is justified.

That would be different, but this clearly wasn't that. There was a problem with a reservoir so they had to go to the back up system and as a precaution we had the boil order - that was it. Earlier we had flooding in the spring, yes you heard me right, floods in the spring, and you know what? There were some basements that got wet, a lot of basements got wet, so....it too was declared an emergency. Now keep in mind the real purpose of this is to get revenue from the feds to the states. This is the problem, emergencies that really aren't emergencies, but truly inconveniences are deemed differently for political reasons. THAT NEEDS TO STOP.