Why is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?

Th Balanced Budget Amendment by the GOP simply forces Obama to balance the budget before he gets this nation into even further debt than it already is.Why is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?He only wants to be able to spend more money and he will go to length to get his way.Keep the pens and checkbook any way from him.His idea of spending your way out of debt is insane!Why is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?
I just looked at the Constitution. I don't see any Balanced Budget Amendment. I don't think it's actually in there, as you claim.

UPDATE: You said "Please look up the word "amdend"ment [sic] and get back to me."

I know full well. When I said "Constitution," I meant all the passed amendment, too. They have numbers. Which one is the balanced budget amendment?

Oh, you're talking about something that hasn't passed! Then it's not a "Constitutional limit" since it's not part of the Constitution.Why is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?Ultimately, if passed and approved, neither he nor any other elected Chief Executive would have any choice.

That is light years from happening. Indeed, even the debt ceiling may be, if not Unconstitutional, useless.

The imperative, were it not for charlatans, would be to discuss actual issues.

However, the right wing memory is very short. All Presidents confront with such an option, Republican and Democratic, have recommended against it, for the very obvious reason that it flies in the face of real checks and balances, and of course, ultimately, Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, has "power of the purse" in any event.

The entire conversation is one of a series of ridiculous "straw men" advanced by the crackpot ultra-right for the purpose of making political points with their slower "dim bulb" automatons.

Why bother to ask?
Obama believed collectivism work







Why can't life be more fair? Why can't Americans take better care of each other? Why can't we share the tremendous wealth of our nation? Surely if enough safeguards of liberty are written into law and we elect vigorous, committed leaders...



Have another hit on the bong.



Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.



Under collectivism, powers of determination rest with the entire citizenry instead of with the specific citizens. Individual decision-making is replaced by the political process. Suddenly, the system that elected the prom queen at your high school is in c harge of your whole life. Besides, individuals are smarter than groups, as anybody who is a member of a committee or of a large Irish family after six in the evening can tell you. The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is th e difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.



Think of all the considerations that go into each decision you make: Is it ethical? Is it good in the long run? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What will it cost? Does it go with the couch? Now imagine a large group-imagine a very large group, say, 250 milli on people-trying to agree on every decision made by every person in the country. The result would be stupid, silly and hugely wasteful-in short, the result would be government.



Individuals are not only smarter than groups, they are also-and this is one of the best things about them-weaker than groups. To return to Harvard for a moment, it's the difference between picking a fight with the football team and picking a fight with Mi chael Kinsley.



Collectivism makes for a very large and, hence, very powerful group. This power is centralized in the government. Any power is open to abuse.



Government power is not necessarily abused more often than personal power, but when the abuse does come, it's a lulu. At work, power over the whole supply cabinet is concentrated in the person of the office manager. In government, power over the entire mi litary is concentrated in the person of the commander-in-chiefWhy is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?Can you please give a citation on how Obama is wasting money?
Spending has gone down by 2% this year.

As for the Balanced Budget Amendment IMO it's just political posturing for the GOP party about to cave in -- When little snow bunnies play on the Washington Beltway in August, I'll believe that thing will pass. I think if you think about that too, you'll prolly agree with me.Why is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?
A balanced budget would mean cutting spending by a third. That's a massive chunk of our operating expenses. That's equivalent to the entire budget of both Social Security and the Military (Give or take 5%). Plus, it can't include any tax increases at all, it has to be 100% spending cuts.



Tell your inflexible congressmen to compromise before we do something terrible.
You do realize that Republicans don't actually want a balanced budget amendment, don't you? If that passed, then the next time a Republican is elected President, he wouldn't be able to recklessly cut taxes, start preemptive wars all over the globe, or buy space lasers.Why is it so hard for Obama to accept a Constitutional limit on his authority to waste taxpayers money?
Compared to what President? He's not.

How soon we forget . . .

Democrats approve PAYGO
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/20…

Senate Republicans Reject Paygo 40-0
www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?22…

In May 2010, President Obama called for reducing or eliminating 121 programs for $17 billion in savings in fiscal 2010, including many defense cuts the administration already announced. You can view the terminations, reductions and savings of his 2010 budget here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/TRS…

Number of times the Debt Ceiling has been raised:

1. NUMBER OF TIMES UNDER REAGAN:
18 times or Once every 5 months: 1981, 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982, 1983, 1983, 1984, 1984, 1984, 1985, 1985, 1986, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987

2. NUMBER OF TIMES RAISED UNDER BUSH:
7 times or Once every 13 months: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2008.

3. UNDER OBAMA:
2 Times or Once every 15 months: 2009 and 2010.

4. NUMBER OF TIMES UNDER CLINTON:
4 Times or Once every 24 months: 1993, 1993, 1996 and 1997.

5. NUMBER OF TIMES PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET WILL RAISE THE DEBT CEILING:
8 times. (The average debt ceiling increase is 800-billio-n. Ryan’s budget increases the debt by $6-trillio-n)

6. NUMBER OF TIMES THE “PROGRESSI-VE” BUDGET WILL RAISE DEBT CEILING:
0 times. The Progressiv-e Budget actually balances the budget in 3 years, and creates surplus by 2021. It does this while saving Social Security and Medicare.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/guess-who…

##
It's funny how Republicans only mention the balanced budget amendment when a Democrat is in office. The idea was dead from 2001 to 2009.



Do Republicans actually believe their Presidents balance budgets? Or do they think the amendment has been drafted to apply only to Democrats?
"Th Balanced Budget Amendment by the GOP"

Sorry. There's NO such thing. Talk of that is just another example of the GOP throwing stuff out that they don't want because they KNOW it will never happen.

By the way, I'm not sure if anyone told you....but CONGRESS makes the budget. Not the President.
A proposed Balanced Budget Amendment is a check on Congressional spending and the legislative purse strings, not the executive branch.



Such an amendment would require Congress, not the President, to pass a balanced budget, subject to supramajority exceptions.
Because Obama and fellow Illiberals view the position of Dear Leader (TM) as that of a dictator...
There never was any "balanced budget amendment". Google it. You'll find that Newt Gingrich and his flying monkeys all claimed to support the BBA, yet when they took over Congress in 1995 they never even voted on the issue! What a bunch of liars!
That old thing has been around since Reagan.



Fact is that nobody wants to pass it for fear of winning the White House and having to stick to it.
balance the budget without raising taxes? just ask yourself if this can be done if the answer you find is yes get professional help
Why are you surprised? Obama said during his campaign that he said that it's depply flawed.
There is no balanced budget amendment by the GOP.
Do a little homework on how our government works. The president does not spend money, congress has total control of the taxpayers money.
There is.



Except we keep raising that limit every time we reach it.
The guy uses the Constitution for TP
Ask Palin