Entropic one?  Should I ask? 

Anyway... remember, Republicans tried to get this amendment passed during the Clinton Administration, when Clinton and Republicans actually did get a balanced budget passed (yes, I give credit to both parties, specifically because each one checked against the other going crazy with spending).  Anyway, the original argument against it was sensible enough... "if we want to have a balanced budget... we just need to pass a balanced budget!"  The idea was that deficit spending was necessary for non-war issues.

Personally, I would like the amendment slightly more if it included national-scale ecological crises as justification for deficit spending (not thinking a global warming debate... I'm talking more about a disease spread, Katrina-level hurricane relief, asteroid impact, etc).  But that's a relatively minor issue, so I won't drag it out.

That being said, there is one problem I see.  US defense spending currently comprises 15+ % of budget spending.  During a war, legislators and lawyers could easily make the argument that the entire defense budget is considered "war funding," in addition to any sort of internal economic spending (think about a good portion of WW2 Roosevelt spending programs, ranging from rubber research to price controls).  Thus, during a war period, the entire defense budget (15% at its lowest period in the past 50 years, but as much as 49% during the 1960's) could be written off as justified deficit spending.

The other legal question would be one of defining a "war."  For example, would an unofficial war be considered a war?  Would the War on Terror justify Afghanistan and TSA funding going into deficit levels?

I think it's a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see clarification as to what's meant by the exception. 

*grabs popcorn to watch this classic debate start up again*

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> And about the whole debate about raising the allowed debt you have nowadays. I don't get it. It's a whole problem now, but Reagan did it time after time in his two legislatures..

It's a magnitude issue.  Total debt is over 100% of GDP, which it wasn't during Reagan.  Add to that the sheer velocity of the deficit increases right now (although it actually could have been as high under Reagan, I admit) and there's a unique situation which puts the debt ceiling into question.

To whit, Obama has in 2 years spent more than the first President (Washington) to a more recent (Clinton) in 2 years.

Thats the problem.

Flat tax is a separate issue. I can address that later, this load needs to go down the road.

I'm not against a balanced budget. Over here in the EU, every country can only spend 103% of their GDP. Exceptions can be made though, but only under circumstances.

"taxbreaks for the rich" might stimulate investments, but they also slow down the circulation of money. And that's what keeps an economy going.
But the true trouble with the flattax is that the government wants/needs to keep its budget. That means that when you get the flattax going, you put a percentage that maintains that budget, wich automaticly means that the economic weaker population, will be taxed more than before the flattax. I just think that's criminally insane.

Why would the man's money suddenly drop after the introduction of the flattax?

I just don't understand why the hypothetical man would suddenly earn more with a flattax. Or perhaps we're talking about a different form of taxation..

Problem is, the rich loby against obama won't pay more taxes if he got rid of the cuts, but other rich people will. Its a power game, no clash of idees/ideals. You really think his power investors will ever pay more taxes?

"tax cuts for the rich" is a populist phrase for something that is more complicated as that.

edit for Libya, lol

War funding for what? The "war" on drugs? The "war" on illegal immigrants? The "class-war"? The "war" on whomever they decide to invade that month?

Simple fact is: with that exception, the government can borrow as much money as it likes against whatever 'defence-related' topic it chooses and only has to make the part related to "non-defence" funding balance...

I forsee a lot of gov't agencies being sequestered to the Dep't of Homeland Security's control....

Some countries do it have it set-up that a federal/government deficit cannot exceed say 2% GDP or whatever. Smart economics says to save during the good times so there's money for the bad. Too many countries spend during the good times and now have nothing more to spend during the bad (so are racking up huge debt burdens).

On the benefit to a flat tax, it makes tax revenue collection a lot more efficient. Let's say you want government spending to be around 25% of GDP. Then you need a flat tax of around 25% of GDP (for fairness's sake, actually higher as you should set tax collecting at some base level... personally I believe this should be the minimum living wage).

In the UK this would mean an instant ability to end all tax credits and complicated maths over benefit payments. In America you could say you can earn $25000 a year free of tax. Above that you get hit for 30%. As it is a flat tax, you also have to have 30% VAT (or federal sales tax) (states could still issue their own taxes). So the tax is progressive, you do not tax raw food, but do tax processed food, restaurants, etc. This means the poor can buy fruit, veg, meat, etc tax-free if they wish... or buy chocolate bars, crisps/chips, or go to Starbucks, McDs, etc and pay 30% tax on the food.

@Primo

it hasn't been proven. Unless you are going to show me some evidence.