Jack, the Paul Ryan budget would be unconstitutional under the Balanced Budget Amendment because it runs deficits
Posted by
Brian (aka trav007)
Jul 19 '11, 07:59
|
"Ryan�s plan has $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to $34.9 trillion in revenues. Obama would spend $46 trillion in the coming decade while bringing in $38.8 trillion in revenues. So Ryan's plan would still result in the government spending $5.1 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in, but that�s less than the $7.2 trillion in deficit spending that Obama has proposed."
|
Responses:
- [deleted]
-
I'm not a politicologist, but if both sides are proposing unconstitutional solutions, I have two questions:
-
TFox
Jul 19, 08:01
11
-
You have to be suspicious whenever a politician uses the word "uncostitutional."
-
con_carne
Jul 19, 08:09
- [deleted]
-
As the Constitution currently exists, I don't think any proposed "solutions" are unconstitutional. But the Paul Ryan plan, which the GOP (and media)
-
Don Homer
Jul 19, 08:04
-
the GOP is voting for a Balanced Budget Amendment. If they get their way, their own idea is instantly against the law of the land.
-
Will Hunting
Jul 19, 08:04
-
ideological consistency is never a prerequisite for scoring political points. -- nm
-
znufrii
Jul 19, 08:03
-
but the other question really is, why is it "unconstitutional" when there is no such law/amendment making it "unconstitutional" -- nm
-
tRuMaN
Jul 19, 08:02
-
isn't there a saying along the lines of "if you ra your business like the Govt you'd be bankrupt and in jail" -- nm
-
Beaker
Jul 19, 08:02
4
|