News National Debt. :surprised (1 Viewer)

Does there need to be a mandate to address the national Debt?

• No

• Total voters
13
• Poll closed .
A

Amp1

Guest
National Debt.

To get a general idea of the importance of the national debt to a small sample of citizens - from PF as well as veiws of some foreign members.

Recently, the US gov't went bankrupt...for about a day I think. It was just before congress raised the ceiling on the national debt. This was addressed in these articles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/12/MNG2S8NOI21.DTL

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F16FB3A550C758DDDAA0894DE404482

there are more including comments from economists.

heres a few more:

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Ldebtclock.htm [Broken]

http://www.sennholz.com/debt.html

Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
I don't understand what you are asking. A mandate? Are you asking if people should care? Are you asking if they do care?

A

Amp1

Guest
Actually, I'm really asking both. I would like to know if international members see this as something they may need to be concerned about also.

SOS2008

Gold Member
Amp, this is why I and others have lost interest in starting new threads, and participating in PF in general, and which I suspect is the goal anyway. So in an attempt to contribute something meaningful...

This has been debated for some time, particularly since the HR 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997. There are many arguments pro and con. For example, here are some excerpts from Chris Dodd's site when this was being debated:

In the likely event that we adopt a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget , particularly one that includes a requirement that three-fifths of the Congress approve new tax increases, we will be imposing a huge mandate on States and localities. It may not be a de jure mandate, but it will be a de facto mandate.

...Many of our constituents are telling us, too, that they support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget . ...But what happens when people are presented with various spending cut options? ...if you then say, You understand, of course, that may include some cuts in Social Security.' They say, Well, now, wait a minute, you did not tell me that.' You say, How about Medicare?' They say, Wait, you are getting a little far afield here. I said I want the budget in balance. That is what I want. I did not say I wanted Social Security or Medicare cut.' You say, How about education?' They say, That is not what I meant either. Just balance that budget .' Then you start talking about how you get there from here, and you start to get what you always get. It is like the old saying that `Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but no one wants to die.' So we all want a balanced budget but we are all very nervous about how you get there.
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3274&pr=press/Speeches/104_95/0123b.htm [Broken]

Of course that was before Dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy and the trillions we needlessly spend on the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. These are clear areas where spending can be cut, or where taxes should be raised.

In any event, the argument that a mandate at the federal level will just shift the burden to the states and cities is legitimate. Also, for example, it is claimed that in times of a balanced budget, national security and infrastructure begins to deteriorate, and eventually the spending must be renewed. I haven't seen data to support that though.

Also, I wonder if mandates even work, because as you say it seems Congress simply finds a way around it (such as raising the cap). Social Security is a good example too. The government "borrows" these funds, though it may be impossible to pay it back. So my questions is, how is an amendment enforced even if it is passed?

Last edited by a moderator:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
SOS2008 said:
Amp, this is why I and others have lost interest in starting new threads, and participating in PF in general, and which I suspect is the goal anyway.
SOS, would you elaborate on this; perhaps by PM or in another thread. The staff, especially Moonbear, put a great deal of effort into making this forum fair, balanced, and respectable.

Manchot

No, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, and are all about keeping the national debt low.

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Manchot said:
No, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, and are all about keeping the national debt low.
Which is why, even ignoring the war, the current admin and congress are the biggest spenders in history.

Manchot

Which is why, even ignoring the war, the current admin and congress are the biggest spenders in history.
I was being facetious.

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Oh; I haven't read enough of your posts to know that.

A

Amp1

Guest
Ivan, SOS (BTW-your mailbox is full, I've registered @ CTT)

Ivan, I've read a few of Manchot's posts. He was being extremely facetious. BOT, thanks for replying SOS - sometimes I get suspicious these forums have been infiltrated :rofl: by elements of the current admins party, oops... I let the cat out of the bag. :rofl: Nah, but seriously, SOS your quote, shows me and hopefully us some of the shallow excuses congress uses to delay, procrastinate and or obfuscate what I believe is much needed legislation. I'm sure there could be bipartisan agreement on programs and/or entitlements that for the society could be classed as essential. There are also many, very many places where funding at the federal level is not that important or needed.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1150 [Broken] visit site theres plenty.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1703.cfm [Broken]

http://porkbusters.org/listpork.php [Broken]

Couldn't help putting in a bashn' http://www.reason.com/links/links101905.shtml [Broken]

Not to sound to trite, I realize that quite a few congresspersons use pet spending projects to make it seem to their constituents they have their best interests at heart and not that they are really just pulling a fast one, psycho-propagandicly speaking; however, these are often the very ones building bridges to nowhere or having money allocated to build a childrens park in a wasteland.:grumpy:

Before, the tax cuts the country appeared to be on the right track. Then, certain people saw a way to rob (thats the way it looks to me) Joe and Jane Citizen blind.o

Last edited by a moderator:

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving