Balanced Budget Amendment

I understand what you're saying, but what are the implications? We just give Congress as much money as they want to prevent them from fighting? The logic behind such a claim is ridiculous. Give them enough money to prevent them from squabbling? No. Limiting Congress to a certain budget would be beneficial because it would prevent the creation of many pork programs and useless money because the budget won't allow for it. "Also, I am not fighting the idea that it is OK for congress to spend as much as it takes in, I am fighting the idea that not doing so is a crippling, unshakable affliction."You're saying that its a good idea but its a bad idea? This statement doesn't make sense. You say you're not fighting the idea but its a bad idea to practice? Your example of how to borrow money while paying down debt doesn't make sense when put into practical terms. It's an endless circle that makes no logical sense.Your example in terms of the US government:Congress spends as much as they want (i.e the fifteen dollars) and then spends every cent they take in paying down the debt that they just incurred. This example is insanity. Once again you're saying that its okay to be $5 in debt because its not that much so its not that bad. Also this only works if you can control your spending to be relatively close to what you're taking in. So why is it so hard to just spend $10 instead of $15? According to this example you'll continuously lose $5. Say now you're in debt $5, you borrow $15 more, now you're in debt $20 and you pay the $10 you take in on the debt and now you're in debt $10 leading to a steady increase of debt.Here's a simple solution: you take in $10 and you spend $10. You're argument about the gridlock in Congress is irrelevant for these reasons.* Their is gridlock in Congress without a BBA and you seem to think it can't get much worse so how can you prove that it will be worse with a BBA? * With a BBA there will be no need for debt ceiling increases meaning that even if they do disagree it will trade off, debt ceiling vs. budget. They should be fighting about a budget rather than a debt ceiling. * Our credit downgrade is irrelevant to the resolution on handAccording to the 10th Amendment the States should be helping people. If the BBA doesn't call for certain public programs then move them to the states as the Constitution intended. Tax cuts increase revenue! I already proved this with the Bush tax cuts, if you won't go back up and look at the increased revenue numbers then I urge my readers to do so. tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989 [1]With Reagans tax cuts revenue rose due to increased economic growth from tax cuts by 200 billion dollars! Your point is false and irrelevant.Also your point about income disparity is irrelevant to the resolution. Your points:- BBA would increase Congressional gridlock. Not only can you not prove this but many of the things that cause gridlock now days would disappear with the introduction of a BBA. - Revenue increases can account for the deficit spending. This is false, I've proved this twice with reliable numbers. - Congress deserves to be able to spend money because debt isn't harmful. Debt is harmful though and Congress does not have to spend in deficit spending. My points:Congress can live within its means, balance the budget and run a functioning government. If states want to continue social programs they are free to do so.Debt is bad, and if we must borrow loan payments and interest can be and must be balanced within the budget.Congress should not have unlimited borrowing power for it has proven to be reckless and dangerous. Stimulus packages, continuing deficits and a runaway debt is crippling our country. We must reel it in. This has been a long fruitful debate. Please use common sense. Congress must live within its means. Vote Pro.Thank you.[1] http://www.house.gov...