[AlphaNeo36]

TITLE III—BALANCE
6 SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET
7 AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury
9 shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority pro-
10 vided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the
11 United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the
12 form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form
13 introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the
14 form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget
15 amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment
16 if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts,
17 that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of
18 GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a
19 two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratifi-
20 cation.
21 (b) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31.—Effective on the
22 date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the
23 States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in 10
•HR 2560 EH
1 the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form intro-
2 duced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,
3 or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays
4 not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation
5 as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be
6 approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress
7 for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United
8 States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation
9 contained in such subsection and inserting
10 $16,700,000,000,000.
Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2011.

However convoluted, it is straight forward.

Still think they can get it done in 10 days?

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

However convoluted, it is straight forward.

Still think they can get it done in 10 days?

this is just like your foresee hindsight comment, something convoluted can't be straight forward. They are near perfect opposites. So, is it convoluted or straight forward?

[AlphaNeo36]

complex yet concise

[Bill Watterson]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

says the guy who posts heritage and cato articles, lulz

Equivocating Cato and Heritage, eh?

Nice to know you think Soros is a useless, biased, overly right-wing source. Yano, cuz cato is biased.

lrnmrthntxtbk

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

However convoluted, it is straight forward.

Still think they can get it done in 10 days?

We don't default in 10 days. I was wrong though about the amendment part.

[AlphaNeo36]

So, what will it be called when the federal government doesn't have the necessary funds to fulfill current obligations?

[Bill Watterson]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

So, what will it be called when the federal government doesn't have the necessary funds to fulfill current obligations?

It will even without the ceiling rising.

This is why these debates are hilarious.

http://blog.independent.org/2011/07/...nt-big-issues/

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

So, what will it be called when the federal government doesn't have the necessary funds to fulfill current obligations?

liberal fear-mongering

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

So, what will it be called when the federal government doesn't have the necessary funds to fulfill current obligations?

I already busted this myth earlier in this thread or some other one. Stop believing everything Ed Schultz tells you while panting.

[AlphaNeo36]

Do please quote your proof so I can tip the AP.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

Do please quote your proof so I can tip the AP.

Do much math?

We take in over 100 billion a month. Our obligations to avoid default are somewhere around 30 billion. We are constitutionally required to pay those first. We can also print money if need be (not that we should, but we've been printing it for pretty much anything lately anyway and it would do us more good to print to avoid default than for "easing").

Some people wouldn't get paid and a lot of bureaucracies would have to do some streamlining (start at the EPA), and then life would continue on as normal.

EDIT: Oh and lol at thinking it's not true because the AP didn't say it.

[Bill Watterson]

Swerve the post I linked essentially supports that to the tee. You'd enjoy it.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by Bill Watterson

Swerve the post I linked essentially supports that to the tee. You'd enjoy it.

Saw that, good read

[Bill Watterson]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo...prv33n4-1.html

Today, paper money limits governments' ability to physically trim the edges of metal coins. But by printing money to pay off debts, governments debase the currency and ultimately erode its purchasing power. Simply put, they are using a slight variation of the same "juggling trick" to achieve their ends: by pushing the debt problem into the future, they hide the full cost of repayment to the public.

As a result, the symptoms of debasement are not always easy to recognize. Yet several recent indicators have been revealing. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet, for instance, has expanded from its long-established level of $8 trillion to $23 trillion. This expansion in the money supply helped fuel a bond market rally that resulted in artificially low Treasury yields. The Fed's direct interventions into the mortgage-backed security market have held mortgage rates at record lows as well. By purchasing toxic assets private investors weren't interested in, the Fed artificially expanded the money supply. As more money entered the system, prices rose and each dollar lost some of its value.

Inflation is always and everywhere the result of monetary expansions, and its pernicious effects are becoming palpable. Commodity prices are all nearly twice as high as they were in 2008. Prices for education and health care continue to rise rapidly. Consumer price increases, when food and energy are included, are well above levels a central bank would normally be comfortable with. And prices for technologies like cell phones, personal computers, and televisions are not falling as rapidly as they should be. The distortions in these prices indicate that debasement is already taking place — and it stems from problems that economists have been warning about for decades.

Historically, the public accepted deficits and debts only in response to major wars and huge economic crises. During World War II, for example, public debt increased to nearly 109 percent of GDP. Yet after the war, the government made a concerted effort to pay down the debt, reducing it to 50 percent of GDP by 1956 and 24 percent by 1974.

The experience of the last 30 years, however, shows that deficit spending is no longer an emergency response to catastrophe. In 1980, America's total national debt stood at $1 trillion. Over the next three decades, it grew 14- fold — without a major depression or world war. Deficit spending has become business as usual, and we're quickly approaching the point where repayment is impossible.

[AlphaNeo36]

There's something like $340 billion worth of bills due next month and the federal government will only make about $170 billion. There's also a $23 billion social security payment that is scheduled, but may be pushed back, on the 3rd. Keep in mind, these bills are for services already used so you can't simply say you're going to cut federal spending in half and not pay. The EPA gets less than 1% of the monthly federal budget so slashing their expenditures, let alone getting rid of the department, is borderline pointless.

Anyway, they will rush a basic bill through Congress temporarily raising the debt ceiling. The only question is how long it will take.

[Not2FFU]

No it is not pointless, the excessive regulation implemented by the epa is causing businesses to sit on the sidelines when it comes to investing capital.

[AlphaNeo36]

That has little to do with the budget issue.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

There's something like $340 billion worth of bills due next month and the federal government will only make about $170 billion. There's also a $23 billion social security payment that is scheduled, but may be pushed back, on the 3rd. Keep in mind, these bills are for services already used so you can't simply say you're going to cut federal spending in half and not pay. The EPA gets less than 1% of the monthly federal budget so slashing their expenditures, let alone getting rid of the department, is borderline pointless.

Anyway, they will rush a basic bill through Congress temporarily raising the debt ceiling. The only question is how long it will take.

waitaminute!! I thought the social security trust fund was supposed to have a few tril in the "lock box" or whatever. You tellin' me they're lying about that?

[AlphaNeo36]

Disingenuous much?

[Swerve22]

I guess they were lying. I see Obama here saying there's not enough cash in the coffers to pay up. Wonder what they used the trust fun for?

[AlphaNeo36]

Probably tax cuts.