ANSWERS: 17
  • While under normal circumstances it sounds pretty good, but in a case of wartime we would have to run deficit spending, as we did in WWII, and the cold war against the bolshevik Russians. Therefore I might be in favor of the amendment as long as there was some stipulations regarding times of war.
  • absolouty, but you know what woould happen, RAISE TAXES
  • Absolutely and good luck with that
  • Only in a perfect World:):)LOL:P..It is the deficit..we will always have it:) We should work on keeping it lower the a quadrillion:) And that should be with inflation:)
  • it's not a good decision under current situation. there should be some exemption criteria should be built into this amendment.
  • Yes! Then I hope a Republican president declares a tax holiday the last year of his term.
  • This Liberal says yes. But as pointed out before my answer- there'd so many Congressmen poking their thumbs into it in such a way to insure that it's intentions would be subverted. Signing statements anyone?
  • That would be a responsible act, never going to happen.
  • hmmm well the concept is good but in the end the government would only find more ways to generate more revenue; taxes, fines, fees, etc.
  • How do you think you would cope if you were only allowed to spend money yu had made in the same year? No mortgages allowed - how are you going to make enough in one year to afford a house. And if you get ill, no borrowing money to pay for treatment so you can get back to work - if you don't have cash in your pocket, suffer. The calendar year is a very artificial period. Governments should have the long view - spending in the bad times and saving in the good. Why do you pick the year as the time period? Why not the decade - or the month? How about making it the week: the army don't get paid until the taxes roll in?
  • YES, I WOULD!!!!!!!!!
  • WE need to do soemthing like this. I'm very reluctant to amend the Constitution, but this may be the only way to force the Congressional pigs to act responsibly.
  • absolutely not, as it would go against other sections in article one not only that but sometimes you must take out a loan or establish some amount of debt. ill use the economy as an example. say you break your arm in real life, well you only make so much money and cannot afford the $20,000 its going to cost to fix your arm. so do you go without fixing your arm? no, you take out a loan in the form of a credit card and pay back the bills over time what we need is reform, not complete elimination of the barrowing process
  • There's no way we democrats could stay in power being fiscally responsible so NO WAY! We've got to keep our voting base happy and unemployed.
  • Yes but Americans no longer control America others do.
  • No -- I think it would be unduly restrictive. (Put it this way, the flexibility of carrying over a balance on your credit card in any particular month isn't something that you'd want to give up. Sometimes you need it.) On the other hand, I'm also strongly in favor of your continuing to aggressively make the point that you make in this question. I think the ability to deficit spend is important, but if you're making the point that it's drastically overused as a means of avoiding hard choices, I am totally with you on that.
  • I think a better would be to require that it balance out just like your checkbook has to balance.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy