Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (45477)	9/1/2010 12:08:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Whereas I think that is just the LATEST GOP TRICK to poison the well to MAKE SURE that a Balanced Budget Amendment is never approved. I don't think it is. To the extent you have support for a BBA from members of either major party (for the most part its probably more from independents or people loosely affiliated with one of the major parties), its from the GOP. Moving from speculating about motives of others to my own ideas, its the only thing that keeps a BBA from creating a huge push to raise taxes. The problem with deficits is a spending problem far more than its a taxation problem, and also the high spending is a problem itself, and would be even if we were running a surplus. Constitutional amendments directly to limit spending sound like a bad idea to me. As much as I'd be behind the idea of limiting spending, I can't think of any good way to push such an amendment. Flexibility of budgeting is needed, even though it is often used in negative ways. But a BBA, combined with a super-majority on tax increases, could actually work. Its probably the only way I would support a BBA. Its certainly no trick on my part, its an honest policy preference.