NationStates

Vassenor wrote:A balanced budget is one of those things that sounds good on paper but is effectively electoral suicide to actually implement just because of what that entails.

Valgora wrote:

Vassenor wrote:A balanced budget is one of those things that sounds good on paper but is effectively electoral suicide to actually implement just because of what that entails.

We did have a president actually create a budget surplus.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Valgora wrote:
We did have a president actually create a budget surplus.

Godspeed, Coolidge. The nation still mourns.

Valgora wrote:

Vassenor wrote:A balanced budget is one of those things that sounds good on paper but is effectively electoral suicide to actually implement just because of what that entails.

We did have a president actually create a budget surplus.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Godspeed, Coolidge. The nation still mourns.

Coolidge was a gud boi and gets unfair criticism from liberals tbh.

Vassenor wrote:

Valgora wrote:
We did have a president actually create a budget surplus.

The U.S. hasn't had a budget surplus since Bush 43 came to power.

Sovaal wrote:

Triassica wrote:.
Regardless, the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity says it favors a balanced budget convention. Such an austerity amendment would drastically cut the size of the federal government, threatening critical programs like Social Security and Medicare and eviscerating the government’s ability to respond to economic downturns, major disasters and the climate crisis.

The Kochs, in essence, want to kill the country we know, love, and want to improve, and turn what remains into a dystopian shithole by neutering the ability of the government to do anything to "promote the general Welfare" of the country and instead making it about the general welfare of businessowners who want to treat their employees like expendable slaves, which we are already dead close to becoming under the fist of the GOP.

Yah, big government, worked out so well for the Natives.

Vassenor wrote:

Valgora wrote:
We did have a president actually create a budget surplus.

The U.S. hasn't had a budget surplus since Bush 43 came to power.

Valgora wrote:

Triassica wrote:.
Regardless, the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity says it favors a balanced budget convention. Such an austerity amendment would drastically cut the size of the federal government, threatening critical programs like Social Security and Medicare and eviscerating the government’s ability to respond to economic downturns, major disasters and the climate crisis.

The Kochs, in essence, want to kill the country we know, love, and want to improve, and turn what remains into a dystopian shithole by neutering the ability of the government to do anything to "promote the general Welfare" of the country and instead making it about the general welfare of businessowners who want to treat their employees like expendable slaves, which we are already dead close to becoming under the fist of the GOP.

It was already a government promoting the welfare of big businesses.
The size of the government hasn't really had an effect on it.

And there's no problem with a balanced budget but I don't trust either party to have control of such a convention.

New haven america wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Dystopias don't work like that.

You're right, what they're describing is the current Corporate Autocracy we're living in.

Uiiop wrote:

Sovaal wrote:Yah, big government, worked out so well for the Natives.

Isolationism ain't incompatible with big government.
Besides ain't that oversimplifying thing just a tad?

Puldania wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
The U.S. hasn't had a budget surplus since Bush 43 came to power.

Clinton had a budget surplus too iirc.

Sovaal wrote:

Uiiop wrote:Isolationism ain't incompatible with big government.
Besides ain't that oversimplifying thing just a tad?

1:The US has pretty much never been isolationist, nor does being isolationist make me favor an overly big government anymore.
2: A little bit sure, but for the msot part much of the actions that oushed the native Aericans off of their land where spear headed by the Federal governemnt.

Triassica wrote:

New haven america wrote:You're right, what they're describing is the current Corporate Autocracy we're living in.

Many republicans aksi want to get rid of the 17th amendment. The direct election of Senators was created to stop cronyism and the influence of big money in the selection of senators. It should be no surprise then that the Koch Brothers are behind this. They want to determine who are Senators are by depositing huge amounts of money into the campaign coffers of the Governors and Legislatures who will pick the Senators. This is fucking bad.

Sick Jumps wrote:

Valgora wrote:
It was already a government promoting the welfare of big businesses.
The size of the government hasn't really had an effect on it.

And there's no problem with a balanced budget but I don't trust either party to have control of such a convention.

It could reduce the flexibility of government to respond to economic crises. It really depends on how they write the amendment, though. You could come up with a reasonable balanced budget amendment. I'm definitely not in favor of a never ending debt-fueled gravy train of low taxes and fiscally unsound pension/health systems, which is how our current government seems to intend on running things.

The biggest thing the government could do to help slow down the growth of the national debt in the long term would be to solve the healthcare crisis. That, and actually raise taxes enough to pay for the services that everyone seems to want. The US spends like a high-income developed country and taxes like a middle-income developing country.

Uiiop wrote:

Sovaal wrote:1:The US has pretty much never been isolationist, nor does being isolationist make me favor an overly big government anymore.
2: A little bit sure, but for the msot part much of the actions that oushed the native Aericans off of their land where spear headed by the Federal governemnt.

1. That doesn't necessarily mean it could be or that even if it isn't that the behaviors would be exactly like the natives.

2. Even before there was a untied states huh?

Valgora wrote:

Sick Jumps wrote:It could reduce the flexibility of government to respond to economic crises. It really depends on how they write the amendment, though. You could come up with a reasonable balanced budget amendment. I'm definitely not in favor of a never ending debt-fueled gravy train of low taxes and fiscally unsound pension/health systems, which is how our current government seems to intend on running things.

The biggest thing the government could do to help slow down the growth of the national debt in the long term would be to solve the healthcare crisis. That, and actually raise taxes enough to pay for the services that everyone seems to want. The US spends like a high-income developed country and taxes like a middle-income developing country.

The government could also decrease the amount we spend on the military.

Triassica wrote:

New haven america wrote:You're right, what they're describing is the current Corporate Autocracy we're living in.

Many republicans aksi want to get rid of the 17th amendment. The direct election of Senators was created to stop cronyism and the influence of big money in the selection of senators. It should be no surprise then that the Koch Brothers are behind this. They want to determine who are Senators are by depositing huge amounts of money into the campaign coffers of the Governors and Legislatures who will pick the Senators. This is fucking bad.

Valgora wrote:

Sick Jumps wrote:It could reduce the flexibility of government to respond to economic crises. It really depends on how they write the amendment, though. You could come up with a reasonable balanced budget amendment. I'm definitely not in favor of a never ending debt-fueled gravy train of low taxes and fiscally unsound pension/health systems, which is how our current government seems to intend on running things.

The biggest thing the government could do to help slow down the growth of the national debt in the long term would be to solve the healthcare crisis. That, and actually raise taxes enough to pay for the services that everyone seems to want. The US spends like a high-income developed country and taxes like a middle-income developing country.

The government could also decrease the amount we spend on the military.

Sovaal wrote:

Uiiop wrote:1. That doesn't necessarily mean it could be or that even if it isn't that the behaviors would be exactly like the natives.

I have no idea what you're going on here tbh. Sure the US could be isolationist, pretty much all nations could be, but most, especially those with power, aren't.

2. Even before there was a untied states huh?

You realise that most of the colonization of the landmass that makes up the US happened after independence right?

New haven america wrote:

Valgora wrote:
The government could also decrease the amount we spend on the military.

*Cue the people complaining on how that's a bad idea and that we should actually be giving them more money*

Triassica wrote:Nonetheless, the reason why I believe a rogue constituonal convention would lead to Civil War is precisely because of how divided we are and how insane the modern GOP has become. I can't see Conservative Republicans and Liberal democrats working together in good faith to amend the Constituon. Thus, if you want to change the constitution into your own image, especially if your image is right wing insanity, and you aren't willing to work with over half the country to find a compromise, then you've already decided you want war.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:A new constitutional convention would certainly be an ugly prospect in this day and age, maybe not civil war worthy, but certainly ugly nonetheless.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:A new constitutional convention would certainly be an ugly prospect in this day and age, maybe not civil war worthy, but certainly ugly nonetheless.

There would certainly be violence.