Jeb Bush calls for balanced budget amendment, line-item veto

[dudeabides]

Another reason why I am supporting Governor Bush.

Thoughts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://postonpolitics.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2015/07/20/bush-wants-to-bring-spending-scrutiny-budget-balancing-to-washington/

[Mehmentum]

It's funny how he's trying to paint himself as a Washington outsider.  As if the Bushs haven't been a part of the DC establishment for decades.

[Senator Cris]

Thoughts?

Yes. Please stop campaigning on the board.

[SteveRogers]

Both of those are dumb ideas.

[Free Bird]

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.

[SteveRogers]

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 didn't say balancing the budget was a dumb idea. Clinton managed to balance the budget without enshrining a spending limit in our Constitution that would utterly cripple the nation's ability to flexibly respond to changing economic realities.

[Blair]

I agree, Presidents who spend too much and expand the Federal Government are awful right?

[Mehmentum]

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 firmly believe that there are certain times when where running a budget deficit is necessary.  During a war major spending may be needed to defend the country.  During an economic crisis major spending may be needed to stabilize the economy.

[Gass3268]

Both ideas are stupid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[ag]

Thoughts?

It is another Bush.

Third printing.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

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.   

[RI]

Budget deficits, unless extreme, are good for the US. Bush is diminishing in my eyes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

FF!

[Simfan34]

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.

[The Other Castro]

FF!

On which part? The nonsensical amendment or the unconstitutional power?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

FF!

On which part? The nonsensical amendment or the unconstitutional power?

Both.

[Mercenary]

Line item veto is interesting in that it would probably make it a lot harder to pass various legislation. No more getting people to vote for a bill by adding something to it since that could just be vetoed out. I'm not sure if it'd produce a positive or negative result but overall I think it gives the president too much power. Still it'd be nice to always have the risk of some item being thrown out of a bill to avoid giving someone something for their vote.

And while a balanced budget is good, as mentioned there are times where one needs to have freedom to run deficits like some major recession hits or a war or something.

I don't think they are horrible ideas, but I don't support them.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

obviously a balanced budget and a balanced budget amendment are two enormously different things.

a big problem with balanced budget amendments is that the large faction of norquistite fanatics in the u.s. generally make it impossible to balance the budget in a reasonable way.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Is he trying to make himself unelectable?

[Free Bird]

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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, ironically the balanced budget amendment would have most strongly hit Dubya's plans more than any other president. It would definitely harm the supply-spiders as well.

(It should be passed, but with a waiver in recessionary times. It should also automatically ban large surpluses as well.)

[Simfan34]

Yes, ironically the balanced budget amendment would have most strongly hit Dubya's plans more than any other president. It would definitely harm the supply-spiders as well.

(It should be passed, but with a waiver in recessionary times. It should also automatically ban large surpluses as well.)

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.

obviously a balanced budget and a balanced budget amendment are two enormously different things.

a big problem with balanced budget amendments is that the large faction of norquistite fanatics in the u.s. generally make it impossible to balance the budget in a reasonable way.

I don't disagree with either of these posts. Surpluses would also ideally be tied to GDP growth in some way, to manage debt levels. But overall I don't see why a reasonable balanced-budget amendment would be a bad idea.

[Free Bird]

Yes, ironically the balanced budget amendment would have most strongly hit Dubya's plans more than any other president. It would definitely harm the supply-spiders as well.

(It should be passed, but with a waiver in recessionary times. It should also automatically ban large surpluses as well.)

See, this is a good compromise. I don't really see how you ban surpluses though