House Rejects Balanced Budget Proposal

By: Jim Abrams, Associated Press
By: Jim Abrams, Associated Press

Washington, D.C. (AP) - The House has rejected a proposed
constitutional amendment that would have forced Congress to balance its budget every year as a way to reverse years of deficit
spending.

A majority of House members supported the balanced budget
measure, but supporters fell short of achieving the two-thirds
majority needed to amend the Constitution.

Republicans who backed the amendment said it was the only way to
get Congress to put its fiscal house in order. Democratic critics
said a balanced budget requirement would result in drastic cuts in
Medicare and other social programs when economic downturns put the budget out of balance.

It was the first House vote on a balanced budget amendment since
1995, when the House approved it but the bill fell one vote short
in the Senate.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Mc on Nov 22, 2011 at 03:13 AM
    @Gerry still dodging the questions .inoticed you suggesting that gv was wasting employers time by posting on the job so you are paying attention to others times. Your posting is all hours of the day and night so do you even work? Hpw much of your living are we the working people paying for? I'm having fun at this I love debate, so before you stroke out go take a blood pressure pill no one with this kind of vitriol can be a a healthy level. Answer me back I know you will.
    • reply
      by Gerry on Nov 22, 2011 at 05:44 AM in reply to Mc
      You're still trying to put words in my mouth. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the American Nazi Party? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Are you still dodging questions?
  • by Jack Location: Tallahassee on Nov 20, 2011 at 06:29 PM
    Gerry - You do a great job of policing other comments. However, would be beneficial if you would advise on YOUR position as to a balanced budget. I am wholeheartedly for a balanced budget. I also watched 60 Minutes tonite and saw the interview with Grover Norquist concerning NO NEW TAXES. While I support closing tax loopholes / deductions, I am against simply raising tax rates. Steve Kroft, the 60 Minutes reporter, was concerned about how we expect to fund all the Social programs that we know support. Grover's response was not blunt enough. My response is - get the government out of the Social programs. We (the taxpayer) cannot afford to continue paying for these programs. Maybe if we scale them back, but it needs to be WAY back. But don't attack me as a 'low credibility poster'. Tell us where you stand and why?
    • reply
      by mc on Nov 21, 2011 at 02:59 AM in reply to Jack
      Jack, Gerry has never came out and admitted what posistion He/she has. And never would answer directly if he/she was a socialist. But instead acts like a community organizer and a Acorn operative. Gerry must have a lot of time to research information and correct others I wonder if Gerry even works anywhere.Gerry is critical of anyone with a differing oppinion and seeks to destroy any opposing thought .So if Gerry works anywhere it must be as a member of the local reelect Obama campain. amd is like Obama all words and no real life substance.
      • reply
        by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:47 AM in reply to mc
        Your big problem is that you aren't very smart and don't read quickly. In another thread, the one about Dems rejecting the Republican offer, I said I thought the BBA was a gimmick, or I think I implied I agreed with those who think it is. I have never said I was a socialist. You have never said you are an ignorant, white Tea Party cracker. You know nothing about me except my opinions and waste your time in idle speculation.
        • reply
          by mc on Nov 21, 2011 at 06:41 AM in reply to Gerry
          I'm a proud tea party member. You're the one bringing race into this. You've never admited to being a socialst but you've always been in favour of socialistic ideals, ie. class warfare . You must not have read all of my posts I've never hid the fact that I'm a conservative and a tea party member. Have the confindence of your convictions and admit where you stand. Attacking others who have taken a stand on the right while not even telling anyone where you stand is cowardace. Again how long have you worked for Acorn I've asked but you have not denied it. My agenda is plain for all to see I'm voting for those who will advance the American dream not stifle it with redistribution of wealth. You may continue to attack without making your position plain to all, but we don't need your approval of our posts.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 08:16 AM in reply to Gerry
          @mc You won't admit to being an ignorant white Tea Party cracker, but you are. Have the confidence of your convictions. I have neither admitted nor denied anything about myself other than my opinions.
        • reply
          by mc on Nov 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM in reply to Gerry
          I admit to being a tea party member, never have denied this. My color doesn't matter. What makes you think I'm white? Because I believe in individual accountability, and know that anyone from any background can make something of themselves without govt. aid That makes me white? Because I want govt. to get out of the way of buisness so people can succeed makes me white? You have just insulted all of persons of color. If you say that only white people can make it with out the liberal ideals of govt. redistribution and diversity then you think less of the minorities than I do. I know that people can do as good as anyone without someone holding their hands .There are people from all backgrounds and economic backgrounds that make it well. There are people from all walks of life in the tea party. So stop saying minorities are not as capable as white people are. And deflecting questions about your self shows no strength of character.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM in reply to Gerry
          @mc Are you ashamed of being an ignorant white cracker? If so, why? Have you noticed you have a fondness for putting words in somebody else's mouth? Are you aware that being a socialist, much like being an ignorant white Tea Party cracker, is not against the law? Spamming the board with questions about me shows no strength of character.
      • reply
        by mc on Nov 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM in reply to mc
        Gerry you are still afraid to answer any question about yourself but demand answers from everyone else.Being a socialist isn't against the law it just shows bad judgment. It must be lonely in your world.Putting trust in socialistic ideals are a folly . You stated that social security works, it has been an abismal failure. I know several people trying to live on it and they can't. Like other social programs from the left it keeps people poor. It was designed to keep people dependant on govt, for their needs and hopeing they will keep voteing democrat so their benefits wont stop. That was the main ideal in the minds of the politicians who came up with it. People have grown complacent and not set aside for their retirements because of SS. I can sleep at night being who I am ,while you just seem to be bitter, so sad.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 12:17 PM in reply to mc
          @mc You still won't affirm that you are an ignorant white cracker. Will you affirm that you are a Klansman? If not, how about a Klan sympathizer? When you can't spell simple words like abysmal, dependent, hoping, whining, etc., it is so sad.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 01:55 PM in reply to mc
          @mc I'm not sure how this happened, but in your little mind my unwillingness to allow you to put words in my mouth metamorphosed into me asking questions of everybody or anybody else. Don't you think I have the right to put words in your mouth the same as you have the right to put words in my mouth? Please answer: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the American Nazi Party? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Ku Klux Klan?
    • reply
      by tom on Nov 21, 2011 at 04:30 AM in reply to Jack
      We have a division in this country with no middle ground. Half want less government, less interference with free markets, which means less taxes which leaves us more money and we the individual decide where to spend our money and plan our own health, own retirement, education, charities.... if we had more money in our paycheck we could accomplish all our goals. The other half wants a larger government which means more taxes which leaves us with a smaller paycheck. They want the government to plan industry, take care of their health, education, retirement, and social programs. Their is no middle ground and somewhere seems like a divorce is in the cards.
      • reply
        by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 06:03 AM in reply to tom
        Some say much of what the federal government is is an insurance company with an army. Nobody is keeping you from planning your retirement. The government is taxing you for Social Security which guarantees all seniors who have worked, including you, a subsistence income in their retirement. You have less at your own disposal, but you have insurance which will pay you if your other plans don't work out. Insurance which can't be stolen by thieving banksters, for instance, and not subject to market fluctuations.
        • reply
          by tom on Nov 21, 2011 at 07:57 AM in reply to Gerry
          like your insurance with an army quote....also like without risk comes no rewards.....i am planning for my own retirement with gold silver and tangible wealth that cannot be diluted. i am guaranteed to get paper dollars in the future the trouble is what will they be worth....my guess is not much so I don't count on social security at all. would rather keep all my money though and make all my decisions and yes i would have no guarantee but that would by my free will....prosper or wither i would have no one to point a finger at and i like that
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 08:31 AM in reply to Gerry
          @ tom You are going to have some income and some health coverage in your old age whether you like it or not. It's hard for me to believe that EVERYBODY who thinks the way you do about their own ability to provide for themselves in their old age would be successful. The problem of destitute old people has been solved by SS. The problem was solved so long ago that practically nobody remembers the problem.
        • reply
          by GV on Nov 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM in reply to Gerry
          gerry,you say the problem with destitute old has been solved??and with SS????Did you read that in wiki pedia?YOU just lost all credibility.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 21, 2011 at 01:57 PM in reply to Gerry
          @GV You only post during work hours when you are on somebody else's dime/time. Is that correct?
        • reply
          by GV on Nov 22, 2011 at 06:46 AM in reply to Gerry
          Gerry,you post at all times of the day.Why don't you go out and get a job and quit being and leach who lives off the government?
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM in reply to Gerry
          @GV Your post is spam. You don't know anything about me. Why don't you learn to spell "leech"?
  • by Max Location: Tallahassee on Nov 20, 2011 at 05:10 PM
    Go Newt, you say? Here's the thing about Newt. As a news writer said today, he is the "classic rental politician". Newt is in the game to sell his books and videos. He will never be elected president, thankfully. Newt needs publicity the same a tapeworm needs a large intestine.
  • by if Location: fl on Nov 20, 2011 at 04:58 AM
    why would they vote for a balance budget ,when they have not passed a budget in 3 years.they need to go home and stay home for workers they suck!!!
  • by Fairydust on Nov 19, 2011 at 05:15 AM
    Thanks for nothing tea party people, you stink.
    • reply
      by Reagan Republican on Nov 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM in reply to Fairydust
      @ Fairydust Obviously, you did not read the article. All of the Repub., except FOR 4, voted FOR the bill and the majority of the Democrats voted AGAINST the bill. I assume you wanted the bill to pass, so, why are you supporting the Democrats who spend, spend, spend our money?
      • reply
        by Fairydust on Nov 19, 2011 at 11:57 AM in reply to Reagan Republican
        You are assuming that the bill is a good thing. I disagree. Forcing politicians to argue over the creation of a budget is the least they can do and still claim to be contributing anything of value to society. Automatic laws such as the proposed bill remove what little skin the people still have in the game and hand it whole-sale to corporations in the name of strengthening the "process" of democracy. Next thing you know republican monkeys will be running for office.
        • reply
          by Reagan Republican on Nov 19, 2011 at 11:47 PM in reply to Fairydust
          @ Fairydust What does your comment "Republican monkeys" mean? Why is it a bad thing to have a Federal balanced budget admendment which forces ALL politicians to spend an amount equal of the revenues of the Federal Govt. every fiscal year. Check out the recent poll on this website and you will find the majority of the local voters want this admendment to the Constitution. I guess you approve of the 15 Trillion national debt that we are currently facing and trying to cut in last minute deals up against a deadline? I guess you approve of the downgrade by Standard and Poor? and on and on.....
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Nov 20, 2011 at 09:08 AM in reply to Fairydust
          How many oil companies got bailed out? Just like a liberal to whine when companies get bailed out and then whine when companies make money. ROFL
      • reply
        by conservative democrat on Nov 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM in reply to Reagan Republican
        why are you supporting, big buisness and oil and the tea party republicans who give,give, give monies to big cooperations in tax loop holes and bailouts????
        • reply
          by Reagan Republican on Nov 20, 2011 at 12:08 AM in reply to conservative democrat
          @ conservative d. Where are you getting your facts about the direct link between the Tea Party and donations to big business and oil?? Prove it! No, we DON'T support any past or future Govt. bailouts for the banks, financial institutions, companies (GMotors), Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac etc. Corporations (correct spelling) should all pay the same amount under the federal tax code with no loopholes. Did you know Pres. Obama's favorite Corpt. GE pays $0 in Corpt. taxes and Obama still invited the CEO to sit next to M. Obama during one of his speeches to Congress. In case you forgot, the Democrats were the majority party who voted for most of the bailouts in 2009 under Pres. Obama. Also, major crony capitalism has happened under the Energy Dept. under Pres. Obama to pay back his major campaign supports. Also, Pres. Obama has accepted more campaign money from Wall Street than any other Pres. in the last twenty years, according to the Sunlight Foundation. I could go on but you get the point!
        • reply
          by Moishe on Nov 20, 2011 at 05:52 AM in reply to conservative democrat
          Of course we do not need a balanced budget amendment. The current modus operendi has worked so well. After all, each American only owes$160,545 of the Federal Debt. The fantasy land that libs live in really does contain fairy dust.
        • reply
          by tom on Nov 20, 2011 at 06:47 AM in reply to conservative democrat
          both parties......you have obviously not checked the millions Obama is raking in from businesses..... Republicans take millions and it is bad and Obama does it and it is good????? Please use facts instead of rhetoric in the future but no more fudging please!
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 20, 2011 at 08:02 AM in reply to conservative democrat
          @Moishe How much is 300 million (the number of Americans) times $160,000 (the debt per capita, according to Moishe) ? How much is the national debt? Yours is a very low credibility post, as befits a low credibility poster.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Nov 20, 2011 at 08:38 AM in reply to conservative democrat
          Gerry Gerry Gerry, again you miss the bigger point that we are 15 trillion in debt and that's about 150,000 per American family. So busy arguing about the tree bark you missed the forest again.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 20, 2011 at 08:54 AM in reply to conservative democrat
          @Anonymous Good post. $150,000 per person is essentially the same as $150,000 per family. Thanks for clearing that up. It' hard to believe somebody would take the time to post that and leave a name. Do you belong to the Klan? They did a lot of anonymous nightriding for similar reasons.
    • reply
      by mc on Nov 21, 2011 at 03:01 AM in reply to Fairydust
      Fairydust , quit whineing was you govt. support check late? The ones paying your way want to know. aka. the tea party.
    • reply
      by God Bless America on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:10 PM in reply to Fairydust
      Get you nose out of my axxxxxe. No free entitlements in there.
  • by Johnny Location: Hwy on Nov 19, 2011 at 04:47 AM
    TERM LIMITS and no Benifets after leaving office
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Nov 19, 2011 at 02:28 PM in reply to Johnny
      HEAR HEAR!..that's a good thing. Term limits. No benefits after leaving office. That should save us lots of money, I mean tons of money. And it would stop creeps from running for office like they do now.
  • by OnABudgetMyself on Nov 18, 2011 at 05:17 PM
    Newt 2012.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Nov 19, 2011 at 07:56 AM in reply to OnABudgetMyself
      Go Newt!
  • by Anonymous on Nov 18, 2011 at 04:54 PM
    Why? I have to balance my checkbook. States have to balance their budgets. How come congressmen can do INSIDER TRADING..and they DON'T HAVE TO BALANCE A BUDGET? How come they only serve 1 term and get retirement for life? Why is that? Free medical care from the best doctors. Why does Biden charge the government rent for his secret service detail? They are all crooks if you ask me. How did we let it get to this point!
    • reply
      by Gerry on Nov 18, 2011 at 09:46 PM in reply to Anonymous
      I can see you have thought carefully about the differences between you and your family on one hand and the US government on the other. Things the US gov can do that you can't: tax; control the currency, its value and amount; live forever. The differences between you and the US government are quite obvious.
      • reply
        by tom on Nov 19, 2011 at 03:16 AM in reply to Gerry
        all the more reason for the government to set a high standard and behave.......federal reserve has blown 96% of the federal reserve note and sinking even faster
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 19, 2011 at 07:48 AM in reply to tom
          Your post is incoherent.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Nov 20, 2011 at 06:52 AM in reply to tom
          Gerry Gerry Gerry, obviously you can only quote facts posted somewhere in cyber space, but you have no logical ability to connect the dots and draw a correct conclusion. Anyone can regurgitate facts but a truly learned person can take pieces of apparently unrelated information and draw a correct conclusion. Printing too much money causes the money to lose value. Makes sense to me and without a balanced budget we have to print more money to cover the shortage just as the Austrian economists predicted.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 20, 2011 at 08:09 AM in reply to tom
          @ Anonymous Good straw man argument. You are arguing in favor of a balanced budget, which supposedly nobody opposes. I believe the topic here is a balanced budget amendment.
      • reply
        by mc on Nov 19, 2011 at 05:04 AM in reply to Gerry
        Yes there are differences between us and the government. we are told to live with in our means and the government constantly goes abouve it's means. We need a balanced budget amendent to the constitution. The government is supposed to be of the people nad for the people. They have become elitists and think they are entitled to the wealth of the people. It has become from the government to the government from the people. It is no longer in the intrest of the people but in the intrest of the government. President Obama tells us how to eat , what he wants to drive and how to spend on energy all the while taking expensive vacations on the public dime. I don't fault any president from traveling but when they tell us to get used to tightening our belts and calling us lazy and doing the opposite of what we are told to do thats the elitist showing through.Some mat hate the tea party but we will hold those in office accountable as long as there is free voting, and we will have a government with accoutability and a balanced budget because we are noy going away.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Nov 19, 2011 at 07:52 AM in reply to Gerry
        They put on their pants one leg at a time, just like everybody else. In fact they were "everybody else" until they got elected. Somehow they got put in the upper stratsphere and now they breathe different air - is that what you are saying? They are us - they work for us. They should be no different from us. I'm like Perry in this instance, we should only have them meet every other year and if they don't do their jobs, cut their salary. We in Fla used to have the legislature meet only every other year. My God, we have plenty of laws now - so many we can't keep up with them. No they are no diffeent than us, Gerry.
    • reply
      by Gerry on Nov 19, 2011 at 05:06 AM in reply to Anonymous
      There is a report available on the US Senate's website that says members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed 5 years of service, at age 50 if 20 years of service, and at any age if 25 years of service. Of course Representatives need to be 25 when their service begins and Senators 30. The pension may not exceed 80% of the final salary and depends upon both the average of the 3 highest annual salaries and years of service.
      • reply
        by conservative democrat on Nov 20, 2011 at 03:37 PM in reply to Gerry
        to Reagan Republican, the original tea aprty was for less governemnt, but this new tea party this is what the originator of the tea party calls it. T-taxed, E- enough A- already but they are talking about big business and the wealthy being taxed enough already, by the way the original tea party has joined up with OWS we the 99% will have our say at the voting booth!!
        • reply
          by Jack on Nov 20, 2011 at 06:10 PM in reply to conservative democrat
          Yea for the vote. hope everyone gets their say.
    • reply
      by conservative democrat on Nov 19, 2011 at 05:27 AM in reply to Anonymous
      That is called the tea party republican way!!
      • reply
        by Reagan Republican on Nov 19, 2011 at 11:24 AM in reply to conservative democrat
        @ conservative D. I have come to the conclusion that you will post the same sentence no matter if it is truthful or not. Why? It just makes you appear to not have an intellectual grasp of the important issues of today.
        • reply
          by conservative democrat on Nov 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM in reply to Reagan Republican
          the issue of today is the republican tea party has ruined this country, I can't help the truth hurts ya'll party of no!!
        • reply
          by Reagan Republican on Nov 20, 2011 at 12:17 AM in reply to Reagan Republican
          @ conservative democrat Tell me how you imagine that the Tea Party has ruined this country? Tea is an acronym for "taxed enough already." I guess you are one of the few who believes the Federal Govt. has a revenue problem more prevalent than a spending problem? Is $15 Trillion not enough spending to satisfy you? The Repub. have put forth tax revenues on the table for a compromise to the Super committee. The party of "no?" You like hyperboles.
  • by Reagan Republican on Nov 18, 2011 at 04:36 PM
    The proposed constitutional admendment to ONLY balance the fy budgets and demand the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every year had the support of the majority of Republicans (all but 4 votes) and some Democrats (25). Unfortunately, the liberals are winning. In the mid 90's a similar bill passed the House and was voted down in the Senate by 1 vote. Imagine how everyone's future would be different today, if the admendment had been passed.... A vote for America's elected leaders is VERY important in every local, state, federal elections.
  • by Gerry Location: Tallahassee on Nov 18, 2011 at 03:38 PM
    The vote was 261 to 165. 261/426 = 61.27% voted in favor. A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 = 66.67%. This is House roll call #858 and you can see how each of the 434 voted (8 didn't vote) on the House website.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Nov 19, 2011 at 03:16 AM in reply to Gerry
      Both parties talk big and do nothing
      • reply
        by Moishe on Nov 20, 2011 at 05:59 AM in reply to
        Unfortunately anon, you are right. They all seem to get hooked on the gravy train once in office. This insider trading debacle gives real insight into how they think. They pass legislation that has impact on everyone but Congress. You libs may rail against the Tea Party but at least they want to curtail the government to what the founders intended.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Nov 20, 2011 at 08:29 AM in reply to Moishe
          I believe without question that Moishe knows what the founders intended. If anybody knows how the founders would govern a nation of 300 million people, it is Moishe.
    • reply
      by Jack on Nov 20, 2011 at 06:15 PM in reply to Gerry
      Thanks Gerry. Was able to look it up and see that my Representative, Steve Southerland, voted. He voted Yea. That's why I voted for him.
      • reply
        by Gerry on Nov 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM in reply to Jack
        What has Southerland accomplished in his year as part of the majority party in the House? Except he must get some applause for the downgrade of the US's credit rating. Southerland didn't want to increase the US debt ceiling. He was only too glad to cause a worldwide depression. Other than that, surely he has accomplished nothing. He is an extremist, a jihadist. He is a show horse, not a work horse.
WCTV 1801 Halstead Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32309
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 134145373 - wctv.tv/a?a=134145373
Gray Television, Inc.