Would you support a balanced budget?

Question

Would you support a bill that required a balanced budget without increasing the national debt and required the national debt to be paid off within 50 years at the rate of 2% of the highest point per year?

Why or why not?

Answer 1

We HAD a bill like that.  Gramm/Ruddman/Hollings.  Look it up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Rudma...

The bill required the government to cut spending each year for either 5 or 10 years, I forget which.  If there was an 'emergency' that required more spending, Congress could vote to suspend the bill for that year.  What happened was that Congress voted to suspend the bill for each year it was in effect, until it timed out.

The question is not -whether- but -how-.  Ask people if they want a balanced budget and you should get at least 90% to say 'yes'.  And the other 10% probably misheard the question. 8^)  But ask them if they're willing to pay 10% more in taxes to accomplish this and support will melt away like butter in h**l.  Ask them if they think government should spend less money and everyone nods vigorously.  But line up a set of government programs you want to eliminate and you'll find surprising resistance.

It's much easier to sell snake-oil.  Like Reagan promising that we could balance the budget by spending MORE and taxing LESS.  Then blaming the deficits on Democrats. 8^)

Answer 2

Both republican goals. A balanced budget is something I want my government to work towards. The National debt seems like a longer term goal, but again I want my government to work on it. Not just talk, but actual progress.What exact plan I, as an average citizen , can't answer with any expertise.

Answer 3

Damned right!

That is the only thing that would keep the government from going bankrupt.

     \|||/

      (@@)

ooO_(_ )_Ooo________________________________

_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__...

___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____...

Democrats offer welfare

Republicans offer warfare

Democrats offer higher taxes

Republicans offer deficit spending

Libertarians offer none of the above

       \|||/

      (@@)

ooO_(_ )_Ooo________________________________

_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__...

___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____...

Answer 4

No.  It would be pointless, silly, and accomplish nothing.

And, being from California, I have to take exception to Harry K's assertion......

Answer 5

Economic growth, which means “escape from poverty." HUH? In Webster's?

I think a real budget surplus would be the goal. I don't believe you can really enforce a timeline. What happens if we must go to war again? Iran, N. Korea, Russia???

It would be nice if this country were bankrolling the world the way Japan, China and Russia currently are.

Answer 6

In theory Yes.  We have to stop spending on pork.  We should also give the President Line Item veto power.  

Answer 7

Not exactly

For my liberal friends, from my favorite demand-side economist, the late Robert Eisner (a so-called Keynesian):

Almost everybody talks about budget deficits.  Almost everybody seems in principle to be against them.  And almost no one, literally, knows what he is talking about. [The Misunderstood Economy, p.90]

For my conservative friends, from my favorite supply-side economics advocate, George Gilder:

In an economy with an overweening public sector, deficit spending, even in substantial amounts, is decidedly preferable to tax increases. [Wealth & Poverty, p.239]

There.  I just wanted you to know that this is nonpartisan.  Now let’s get started.

Economic growth, which means “escape from poverty,” is not only the best way to mitigate any given debt burden, it can also be a direct result of borrowing money to finance good investments.  (For example, national security—“destruction prevention”—is a good investment, and as every experienced capitalist knows, borrowing money to help fund good investments is perfectly sound financial practice.)  

The financial benefits of economic growth will exactly offset the financial costs of debt growth, if both the economy and the debt are growing at exactly the same rate.  Robert Eisner, in fact, suggested defining a “balanced budget” as the level of deficit spending which would result in no increase and no decrease in the ratio of debt-to-GDP.  

But don’t expect to hear any of that from our mainstream media friends.  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœEconomic growth” gets near-zero air time, compared to scary words like “debt” and “deficit.”  Reason: Fear sells newspapers, attracts talk-radio listeners, rivets cable-TV viewers, and gets more hits for political blogs.  Conversely, the term “economic growth” makes people’s eyes glaze over (...trust me, I’ve watched it happen many, many times).  

edit;

Economic growth is the increase in value of the goods and services produced by an economy.  If what you have is worthless or you dont produce anything of value then you are in poverty.  Its called standard of living and the more value you have the farther away you are from poverty.  its not complicated to anyone that doesnt have an agenda.

"It would be nice if this country were bankrolling the world the way Japan, China and Russia currently are."

why would that be good.  you would be taking more money from your own populace to finance other countries.  why not let your own populace use their money to expand their own wealth to make your own country a greater nation.  your argument has no basis in economic theory.

Answer 8

Since Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 are responsible for over 75% of the national debt, I would support a bill that prevents any future Republican presidents from running up debt without a way to pay for it.

Answer 9

No.  They're already taxing us too much.

Answer 10

Yes, every state in the Union has to balance it's budget, the Federal gov't should have to balance theirs.

However, I'm not for a time table for abolishing the debt (practically it's meaningless). All debt isn't bad.