Both of those are dumb ideas.
How dare the budget be balanced. I thought this was one of the biggest things you guys like to brag about Clinton even if it wasn't even him.
I think it's not the worst thing in the world if we have a budget deficit of $50 billion or $100 billion. The real issue is the national debt. President Obama has increased our national debt by $8 trillion in 6 years and 7 months. President Bush increased it by $5 trillion in 8 years by comparison. I also reject the idea that economic stimulus through spending works, I believe that tax cuts are the best way to stimulate economic growth - we saw it in the 1920s, 1980s, and late 1990s. Even the Bush tax cuts of 2001 helped us have the most narrow recession in history.
Unfortunately, congress sometimes is "forced" to increase spending in some bills to make deals. Giving the President a line-item veto would enable good parts of bills to be kept, while bad parts can be eliminated. The downside of course if when the President vetoes the good but keeps the bad. However, since the executive is term limited, it's easier to elect someone who will reverse course after 4-8 years.
He's a Bush. Tax cuts and wars will mean there will be no balanced budget. However, he will inflict austerity on the little people. That's the Republican plan. High deficits, and the poor and the economy still get screwed.
Under Barack Obama, incomes remain flat, poverty is at a 50 year high, fewer Americans are in the labor force, wages are barely keeping pace with inflation, business start-up rates are down, the national debt has increased by $8 trillion, the number of Americans on food stamps have doubled in a little over 6 and a half years, and we've had GDP growth averaging under 2%. That is the result of economic stimulus, more government regulation, and this health care law.
Liberal policies lead to fewer rich people and more poor people.
Budget deficits, unless extreme, are good for the US. Bush is diminishing in my eyes.
The best way to keep money away from congress is to leave it with the people, not through deficits.
SCOTUS already ruled it unconstitutional, line item veto. Feds raise debt ceiling. Not like state where they have to balance budget.
I was for the line item veto for Obama.
He'd have used it only to veto bills that didn't spend enough.
I'm confused as to what liberal orthodoxy on balanced budgets is these days. People still praise Clinton for doing so, but dismiss Republican proposals as ridiculous.
All I'll say is that if the Germans could have a balanced budget amendment-- which does leave room for stimulus-- we probably can too.
Agreed, it's the fiscally responsible thing to do.
Is he trying to make himself unelectable?
If he wanted to become less electable, he'd call people names, call Mexicans rapists, embrace a 14% wealth tax, and call for socialized medicine and protectionist trade policies that would drive up costs.
I have mixed thoughts about line item vetoes. Haven't made up my mind on that issue.
100% against balanced budget amendment. I'd like to see a balanced budget in an expanding economy such as what we saw in the 1990's. But when the economy hits a downturn and more people qualify for government assistance programs and their incomes decrease which decreases government tax revenue, a balanced budget amendment would force our country to compensate by raising taxes which will make the down turn even worse. Continue with these policies and we will see Great Depression Part 2.
I see your point, but I think we should keep in place some of the safety net. We shouldn't cut people off programs, we should work to create jobs so they no longer need those programs. We should cut things like farm subsidies, corporate welfare etc. first.
Seriously, does debt mean nothing to you? A balanced budget amendment would keep the government's compulsive spending habits in check. I know that this is a hard concept for some here to fathom, but a government can't be your friend from cradle to casket and not shoot up debt like it's candy. You yourselves say we can cut lots of military spending to keep spending in check, and then use that point against the GOP. That's the beauty of an amendment. It would be still there long after President Jeb is done. Spending should revolve around taxes, not the other way around.
Well said.
