Huge Majority Support Balanced Budget Amendment

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/

Including a plurality of Democrats...

65 percent of the public supports the amendment with 27 percent opposed; 8 percent are undecided.

81 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of independents support the amendment. Even a plurality of Democrats, the party that typically resists spending cuts, back the amendment by a 45 percent to 44 percent margin.

Keep doing nothing, Barry. You're going bye bye in 2012!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

People may support it, until it comes time to make the cuts and it affects them. Unfortunately this is the problem and any politician that votes for the cuts gets it used against them in the next election.

[ugonow]

People may support it, until it comes time to make the cuts and it affects them.

I think the politicians are evidence of that.Everything is on the tableother than the programs we want..Whether it is Ethonal subsidies,farm subsidies,foreign aid, NASCAR,NASA,airplane engines the military doesn't want,...increased military budget,......

[Bluerobin]

PBP, Barry is gonna win again. The pubs still have no viable candidate.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Yup, that's the truth. A majority are also against cuts to SSI or Medicare. You're not going to balance the budget by cutting foreign aid......

Social security is not part of the general budget. It has it's own revenue stream. Same with medicare. Both though do have problems, but neither have anything to do with the fed budget gap.

[Bluerobin]

Cutting foreign aid would be a start. Next stop, Congressional Salaries. They haven't earned them for years and should learn to lead by example.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 31, 2011 8:17:07 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Cutting foreign aid would be a start. Next stop, Congressional Salaries. They haven't earned them for years and should learn to lead by example.

I suggested on one thread a while back that maybe we should tie congressional and Presidential salaries to budget surpluses. For every billion dollars of real surplus the government has, each congressional rep and the President all get $100k salary. The rest of the surplus gets directed toward paying down the deficit. There would of course need to be some rules in place to make sure that some of the government accounting tricks don't come into play and all of a sudden there is a $100 billion surplus (if you don't count any interest toward the debt, military expenditures, etc). NO SURPLUS TO PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT = NO PAY. I wonder how long it would take them to come up with a balanced budget then? Of course the down side to this plan is that those who are already wealthy will use that a bargaining tool to get what they want since they may not really need the money anyway...in which case, only the wealthy will run and nothing will change. Maybe add some stipulation that if a balanced budget isn't reached, then all the districts have to run a new election and those currently elected can not run again. It makes it more expensive on all the states to have the additional elections, but threatening Representative jobs, on top of their salary may make them a little more likely to compromise on the issue.

[fairlycrazy23]

I don't think tying there salaries would effect most of them, you would have to effect there budgets, what they get to spend on staff and travel and what not.

But I think we need to get a balanced budget amendment first then we can finally cut spending in a big way, only if the politicians can show there hands where tied will they make any big cuts.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Voters basically say the same thing to their reps, "We want the government to control spending, but you better bring home the bacon to our district of you'll be the one being fried in the next election."

[floridayankee]

May 31, 2011 9:36:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Voters basically say the same thing to their reps, "We want the government to control spending, but you better bring home the bacon to our district of you'll be the one being fried in the next election."

If the fed would quit trying to spread the wealth, perhaps the states could avoid sending so much bacon to DC to begin with.

[fairlycrazy23]

May 31, 2011 9:40:50 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

May 31, 2011 9:36:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Voters basically say the same thing to their reps, "We want the government to control spending, but you better bring home the bacon to our district of you'll be the one being fried in the next election."

If the fed would quit trying to spread the wealth, perhaps the states could avoid sending so much bacon to DC to begin with.

Yes, but nobody wants to be the first one to say no to federal pork, or if they are, they are usually gone quick, so if a balanced budget amendment could be passed then the cuts would be forced on them and they could have political cover.

[Bluerobin]

I just keep emailing my rep to resign. He is such an idiot, he always replies by snail mail. Email is too complicated for him.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 31, 2011 6:48:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

May 31, 2011 0:08:36 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

People may support it, until it comes time to make the cuts and it affects them. Unfortunately this is the problem and any politician that votes for the cuts gets it used against them in the next election.

Yup, that's the truth. A majority are also against cuts to SSI or Medicare. You're not going to balance the budget by cutting foreign aid......

Are you implying-- and you may be right if youare-- that people that say they support an Amendment to the Constitution do not fully understand the implications of that Amendment?

I do not support it- and have not supported it for a long time because I think-- and I'm almost certainly right-- that it would lead to the Supreme Court-- judges 'ordering' Congress to balance the budget in compliance-- and it would mean "mandatory" tax increases-- every politicians wet dream: "It wasn't me. I had no choice. It's the law."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 31, 2011 9:36:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Voters basically say the same thing to their reps, "We want the government to control spending, but you better bring home the bacon to our district of you'll be the one being fried in the next election."

Polls bear this out-- in November 2010, "bringing home the bacon" was a political liability. I don't know if that'll hold, but it was true for a half minute-- and it was a glimmer of hope in American politics.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 31, 2011 7:33:53 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PBP, Barry is gonna win again. The pubs still have no viable candidate.

They don't need one. It'll be a referrendum on Barry- and Barry will lose.