No more spending tomorrow’s money on yesterday’s promises. Balance it or bust.

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
Contributor
iu


PROPOSED 28TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT​

Section 1. Total outlays cap.

Total outlays of the United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

Section 2. 18% GDP hard ceiling.
Total receipts shall not exceed 18% of the gross domestic product of the prior fiscal year, as calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Congress may raise this ceiling only by a three-fourths vote of the full membership of both Houses and ratification by three-fourths of the States within seven years.

Section 3. Supermajority to borrow.

Any bill authorizing net new federal debt requires a three-fifths vote of the full membership of both Houses. No debt may be issued to fund current operating expenses.

Section 4. War & verified emergency override.

Section 1 may be waived only by a declaration of war or a specific, imminent, and verifiable national emergency certified jointly by the President and two-thirds of both Houses. The waiver expires automatically after one fiscal year unless renewed by the same vote. Total waiver spending is capped at 5% of prior-year GDP.

Section 5. No off-books tricks.

All federal entities, trusts, guarantees, and contingent liabilities are included in receipts and outlays. Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions are on-budget; no more trust-fund accounting games.Section 6. Automatic sequester trigger.

If projected outlays exceed the cap at the start of any fiscal year, the President shall impound funds proportionally across all accounts (including entitlements) to comply. Congress may override specific impoundments only by a two-thirds vote of both Houses within 30 days.

Section 7. Tax hikes need supermajority.

Any bill increasing revenue requires a three-fifths vote of the full membership of both Houses.

Section 8. Enforcement & standing.

Any taxpayer has standing to sue for enforcement. Courts shall expedite; no Chevron deference to agency budget tricks.Section

9. Ratification deadline.

This article must be ratified within five years of congressional proposal or it expires.
 
The same plan the Republicans have for housing?

50 year mortgages


Making all Americans pay their entire lives paying for a house and only owning two weeks before they die


Yeah the people will love that one huh
 
Diogenes said:
iu


PROPOSED 28TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT​

Section 1. Total outlays cap.

Total outlays of the United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

Section 2. 18% GDP hard ceiling.
Total receipts shall not exceed 18% of the gross domestic product of the prior fiscal year, as calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Congress may raise this ceiling only by a three-fourths vote of the full membership of both Houses and ratification by three-fourths of the States within seven years.

Section 3. Supermajority to borrow.

Any bill authorizing net new federal debt requires a three-fifths vote of the full membership of both Houses. No debt may be issued to fund current operating expenses.

Section 4. War & verified emergency override.

Section 1 may be waived only by a declaration of war or a specific, imminent, and verifiable national emergency certified jointly by the President and two-thirds of both Houses. The waiver expires automatically after one fiscal year unless renewed by the same vote. Total waiver spending is capped at 5% of prior-year GDP.

Section 5. No off-books tricks.

All federal entities, trusts, guarantees, and contingent liabilities are included in receipts and outlays. Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions are on-budget; no more trust-fund accounting games.Section 6. Automatic sequester trigger.

If projected outlays exceed the cap at the start of any fiscal year, the President shall impound funds proportionally across all accounts (including entitlements) to comply. Congress may override specific impoundments only by a two-thirds vote of both Houses within 30 days.

Section 7. Tax hikes need supermajority.

Any bill increasing revenue requires a three-fifths vote of the full membership of both Houses.

Section 8. Enforcement & standing.

Any taxpayer has standing to sue for enforcement. Courts shall expedite; no Chevron deference to agency budget tricks.Section

9. Ratification deadline.

This article must be ratified within five years of congressional proposal or it expires.
Click to expand...
Now the Preamble is the 28th Amendment?

Comical how a full tilt MAGA is now recommending a balanced budget amendment, they got a Messiah who creates deficits and adds to the debt and an Olympian record rate and they say they want a balanced budget? Funny
 
The remoras are circling with the same tired chum: one lobs the "50-year mortgage" non-sequitur (as if long-term fiscal sanity is akin to subprime scams, a hilarious deflection from the 18% GDP cap that'd actually free future generations), and the other cackles "comical MAGA hypocrisy" with the Trump deficit dunk, ignoring how the amendment's auto-sequester would gut bipartisan pork, not just one man's tab.

Tone? Pure forum sludge: Sarcastic eye-rolls, zero math, all ad hominem.

It's like debating gravity with flat-Earthers, they mock the fall without looking down.
  • To the Mortgage Moron: This amendment? Receipts = outlays, no more $36T IOU pyramid. Own your future, not DC's tab. What's your fix? Print more funny money?
  • To the 'Comical' Clown: Trump's $8T binge? Bipartisan black hole. Democrats own half. This ain't nostalgia; it's a chainsaw to careerists: Supermajority for debt/taxes, taxpayer lawsuits to enforce. 'Messiah' or not, deficits hit 122% GDP. Laugh at the disease, or cure it?
 
Good question from @BritHume: “If we cannot as a nation decide not to continue a subsidy that was imposed, or was enacted, during a national health emergency and was designed to be temporary and that all the Democrats voted to have be temporary, if we can’t let that expire, what hope do we ever have of getting government spending under control?”


https://twitter.com/x/status/1988035597944889670
View: https://x.com/BrentHBaker/status/1988035597944889670?s=20



Based on the provided information and the context of the discussion, let's analyze whether Brit Hume is guilty of exaggerating:
  1. Context of the Statement: Brit Hume's statement, as quoted in the post, questions the ability of the nation to control government spending if temporary subsidies, originally intended to be short-term during a national health emergency, are not allowed to expire. He specifically mentions that these subsidies were designed to be temporary and that all Democrats voted for them to be temporary.
  2. Facts from Related Web Results:
    • The enhanced Premium Tax Credits (PTCs) were indeed established under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and extended in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, aiming to make health insurance more affordable during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • These credits were set to expire at the end of 2025, which aligns with Hume's claim that they were designed to be temporary.
    • However, the political landscape shows a push by Democrats to extend these credits beyond their original expiration date, which is the point of contention Hume is addressing.
  3. Analysis of Exaggeration:
    • Hume's statement that "all Democrats voted to have [the subsidies] be temporary" might be an exaggeration or oversimplification. While the initial legislation did set a temporary timeline, the political push to extend these subsidies indicates a shift in stance by some Democrats. This does not necessarily mean all Democrats initially voted for them to be strictly temporary without any intention of future extension, but rather that the legislation was structured with a sunset provision.
    • His broader point about the difficulty of controlling government spending if temporary measures become permanent is a valid concern often raised in fiscal policy debates. However, framing it as an absolute inability ("what hope do we ever have") might be seen as hyperbolic, as it suggests an irreversible trend without considering potential future policy adjustments or political shifts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top