a reply to: Krazysh0t
He provided a response: "Mandatory" spending isn't defined in the Constitution, therefore it is absolutely not written in stone.
Military spending is necessary, while "social" spending is not. As a Medicare/SS recipient, I have a vested interest in seeing these programs continue
- but not at the expense of our great nation. I'm willing to give anything & everything to see this nation achieve greatness once again.
BTW, the United States is about self-sufficiency, not handouts and freebies. So called "entitlements" are a bastardization of this concept, and should
be removed from the purview of the Federal Government. If someone can't get by on their own, there are plenty of charities and donors they can seek
help from. Personally, I'd recommend ditching the iPhone and other amenities before even thinking
about sucking money from my fellow citizens
against their will. Regardless, an individual's financial situation isn't the problem of the People's Government. We permit Government to exist for
the purpose of governing, not social reasons or other popular identity politics concepts.
Further, what I proposed was a constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget. In this case, zero cooperation
from Democrats would
be required as the laws would be simply challenged as unconstitutional. Since, after the amendment, they would be, removing the bloat from our budget
would be a pretty simple task. If you kindly look at the 2016 election map (county/county, state/state), you will see the sea of red that would enable
such a convention to be called and its subsequent ratification. Perhaps this will be something the President will undertake during his second term
(since the left poses no credible challenge - it is now limited to coastal areas/has been infiltrated by "progressives," communists, anarchists and
Perhaps you should reconsider which of us need to live up to the site's motto.
edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason
edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)