|
|
Post by nickiknack on Nov 15, 2011 17:41:22 GMT -5
I would like to support it, but I'm willing to bet that a good chuck of the people on board with it are the whole let's not raise $$$ with taxing the rich, but let's gut the fuck out of the social saftey net instead type
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 17, 2011 17:46:47 GMT -5
If a government runs a budget deficit lower than the GDP growth rate, the debt decreases. This is because government debts are measured as a percentage of GDP. So the debt/GDP ratio decreased steadily from 1945-1960 even though the US ran budget deficits, because the GDP growth rate was higher. What congress is saying is that this is an unacceptable strategy- the US has to run budget surplusses even though the debt would be reducing anyway (and the public have to assume way higher mortgages) because..... well, because. Responsibility! *I say did with advisement. The US has run a continuous federal budget deficit from 1930-2011. While I very much prefer a lower debt/GDP ratio to a higher one, I don't think you can just disregard the absolute debt. The GDP represents the potential to pay debt back, not the actualization of that potential. At least as far as I understand it. I would like to support it, but I'm willing to bet that a good chuck of the people on board with it are the whole let's not raise $$$ with taxing the rich, but let's gut the fuck out of the social saftey net instead type Wouldn't it be more appropriate to judge the amendment on its own merits? The supporters are reason to take a very good second look at these merits, granted, but... |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 17, 2011 20:10:26 GMT -5
While I very much prefer a lower debt/GDP ratio to a higher one, I don't think you can just disregard the absolute debt. The GDP represents the potential to pay debt back, not the actualization of that potential. At least as far as I understand it. Say you're Kenya. You've got 3 trillion dollars of debt. That's outrageously bad. But if you're the US, 3 trillion is only a moderate amount. So you've got to compare it to something; the total economy is the accepted measure of repayability. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 21, 2011 2:50:14 GMT -5
Whoopsie. Guess things didn't quite pan out the way I thought they would. I really expected this to be a lot more popular than I thought.
House DEFEATS Balanced Budget Amendment 261 in favor, 165 against. 23 additional votes were needed for passage.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 21, 2011 6:55:26 GMT -5
Fantastic. Best news I've heard all day.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Nov 21, 2011 19:02:27 GMT -5
Doesn't mean they won't dust it off next year, or in a couple years, or whenever things look favorable for passage. I doubt the several states will allow its ratification even if it passed the legislature, but for the time being that's neither here nor there.
|
|
