Balanced Budget Amendment

Defending my first point: The example of the bonus does work. Yes tax revenue is constant, but with a BBA, spending will not be. If something needs to get done, but there's not enough money left, it has to wait until there is. any new program would need to be put on hold until the money is ready, and when there isn't immediately enough, nothing gets done. As we approach the end of the fiscal year, we would indeed be running out of money, and could not do anything. Also, there is a fundamental difference between a deadline and stringent economic policies. Stringent policies that you mentioned are constant, and not what we are discussing. This debate is about imposing an incredibly strict limit every year on what congress spends. As I have successfully shown, with an example more parallel to this case than yours, congress does not act efficiently when nearing a deadline. Second: A responsible loan is not always or necessarily to a debt free family. People who are in debt because they haven't finished their house payments can still get a loan for a car. Also, it's not a $5 million loan to a family $15 million in debt. I don't know any country willing to loan us a lump sump of $5 trillion. It is instead micro loans, (relative to overall size) that are being paid off successfully, and that family $15 million in debt is making $15 million a year, and paying off that debt responsibly. Third: Our debt incurred this year wasn't because of the examples I gave, but it still proves my point. Congress had the opportunity to eliminate trillions in debt and failed because of the conflicts between parties and the obstinacy of tea party members who refused to policies that would have slashed the deficit. When pressure is put on congress, they do not rise to the occasion but rather crumple under it. With a BBA, that kind of pressure would be put on congress again and again, which would cripple their barely existent competence. Japan also works as an example because regardless of their type of government, countries still lend them money despite their debt. This proves my point that our much lower debt (relative to GDP) is sustainable. On to your points. I'm in no way saying debt is good, which you seem to be refuting, but instead putting forth the idea it is acceptable if kept at a manageable level, which it is at as I have proven, thus your point is null. Your logic point is completely invalid. I don't see a mathematical equation as a parallel, but if you insist it is, then you are still wrong. An equation can be altered in so many ways that it is unrecognizable from the original, and changed on one side to force it to work. Sometimes answers aren't even real. We are currently manipulating the equation so that right now there is more on our side than theirs, but it is still the same when broken down. Also, we have been living with trade deficits since before the civil war, and most industrialized nations have deficits as well. Instead of reducing the ways the government helps people, we could achieve an even greater effect by increasing how much citizens help their government by eliminating the Bush Tax cuts which cost us more than any stimulus package. Obviously there are other solutions, so why should we choose the one that exacerbates proven consequences of actions and decreases the utility of the government?