"Cut, Cap, and Balance" Constitutional Amendment

Puppycow · 18th July 2011, 09:12 PM

Republicans want to make a constitutional amendment a condition for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. This constitutional amendment would cap government spending at 18% of GDP (which has never been done since 1966, and even Paul Ryan's "radical right-wing social engineering" wouldn't qualify). It would also require a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of congress to raise taxes.

There's even a website for this proposed amendment sponsored by a long list of conservative and Tea Party type groups.

Personally, I think that if this were to actually become part of the constitution, it would be a disaster for the US.

This is not your father's Balanced Budget Amendment. In the past, most proposed balanced budget amendments have been just that: a requirement that government revenues equal government expenditures. This one goes much further to the right, by capping government spending and making it near impossible to raise taxes.

Here's what USA Today says:

Quote:

Reading between the lines, it's clear that many supporters care less about cutting the deficit than about rewriting the Constitution to embrace an economic theory that shrinks government and makes it almost impossible to raise taxes.

Certainly, balancing the budget is a sound goal. We've been supporting it in this space for more than 20 years. Congress and successive presidents have demonstrated an inability to match revenue and spending. Something has to be done to change the incentives.

But the fatal flaw in virtually any balanced budget amendment is that it ties the government's hands in times of economic distress. When those sorts of crises hit, the government needs to be able to move quickly to rescue major financial institutions and deploy "automatic stabilizers," such as unemployment benefits and food stamps that steady the economy until private-sector forces can create a recovery. Failure to intervene caused the Great Depression of the 1930s, and had a balanced budget amendment been in place when the financial crisis struck in 2008, there's no doubt at all that we'd be living through another one now.

The Don · 19th July 2011, 02:34 AM

Making the offer safe in the knowledge that there isn't a hope that it'll be approved. Then they can say something like:

Quote:

We were perfectly willing to compromise to avoid partisan brinkmanship and rescue the US economy but instead those nasty liberals refused to curtail their out of control spending

If it wasn't for the fact that the amendment would IMO be very damaging to the US economy, the Democrats should call their bluff, say "sure" and put the Republicans in charge of making the cuts (reminding the US electorate of how (spectacularly un)successful Republican spend cutting and budget balancing has been in the past).

I have male pattern baldness. Passing this amendment would be as successful in its aim as me wishing I had a full head of hair would be at addressing that issue.

leftysergeant · 19th July 2011, 04:13 AM

By the time an amendment could even clear both houses of congtress, the teatards who are holding up the process now will have had to run for re-election at least once. What makes those worthless jerks think they will be around to call the shots again?

Two thirds super-majority to raise taxes? What are they doing? Hitting each other over the head with the the Speaker's empties? Goofy idea. It would be just about impossible to insure that we do not have, at any time thirty dimbulbs in the Senate willing to let the country go to hell rather than raise taxes.

Dumb idea.

Alferd_Packer · 19th July 2011, 05:20 AM

Everyone seems to forget that an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 (or 38) states as well.

Almo · 19th July 2011, 05:28 AM

Is there an agreed way to measure GDP?

This has no place in the constitution.

Alt+F4 · 19th July 2011, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Republicans want to make a constitutional amendment a condition for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling.

I guess this will be the thirty-first amendment to the constitution, passed after the amendments to ban flag burning, gay marriage and abortion.

lomiller · 19th July 2011, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Making the offer safe in the knowledge that there isn't a hope that it'll be approved. Then they can say something like:

For a long time now Republicans have campaigned on the idea that they can still provide all the services (mainly Military, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) people want but not have them pay the taxes required to fund those services. In support of this they have floated all kinds of nutty ideas on how these things would actually be paid for but really they just fell back to borrowing.

The problem they now face is that they have been pushing these nutty ideas for so long they have a generation that grew up on them and drank the cool-aid. Now these people have been elected themselves and the older crowed needs to pull them aside and explain “these are just things we say for elections, actually doing them would be a bad idea”.

In the meantime they need to find away to vote for these ideas without actually having any of them pass, or vote against then things they know need to happen without having them killed. Thus you get things like the McConnell plan which amounts to let’s give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling then pass a bill voting it down, but that bill will then get vetoed by the President.

JoeTheJuggler · 19th July 2011, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

Everyone seems to forget that an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 (or 38) states as well.

I think the motive of those taking the pledge is just to have an excuse not to agree to any compromise at least until the 2012 elections.

daredelvis · 19th July 2011, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I guess this will be the thirty-first amendment to the constitution, passed after the amendments to ban flag burning, gay marriage and abortion.

But before the ERA.

Daredelvis

TheNooch · 19th July 2011, 09:57 AM

Does the amendment have a clause that says, "Having elected a Republican president, and after ensuring he was born in the United States and is of 99% anglo heritage, it shall be deemed, "just peachy", to start foreign wars and just keep them off the budget".

C_Felix · 19th July 2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Thanks to prior deficit-reduction deals and a strong economy, the federal government ran a surplus in 1998 and for the next three years. Then an economic downturn, huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded expansion of Medicare plunged the budget back into the red, where it has been ever since.

The moral is, Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It just needs the will to do it and the willingness to compromise over how.

Don't really need an amendment, now do we?

Now, this just seems to be a balanced budget amendment in disguise.

Tmy · 19th July 2011, 03:55 PM

Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law?

By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack?

leftysergeant · 19th July 2011, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law?

By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack?

If the Republicons have the majority in congress, we're screwed.

JoeTheJuggler · 19th July 2011, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law?

By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack?

Wasn't it Cantor who said we shouldn't allocate any emergency spending (Joplin, MO after the tornado devastation) without cutting spending elsewhere to offset it. So I guess the answer is no.

I think this calls for a Constitutional amendment to strike the two occurrences each of "general welfare" and "common defence" from the Constitution if the GOP gets its way.

Puppycow · 19th July 2011, 06:29 PM

Well, the bill has passed the House, by a vote of 234 to 190.

Michele Bachmann was one of 9 republicans to vote against it, while 5 democrats voted for it. The reason why she voted against it is because she had earlier pledged not to vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

Puppycow · 19th July 2011, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law?

By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack?

The reason for making anything a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law is because an amendment is much harder to undo or nullify. The constitution overrides mere laws, and judges are required to uphold the constitution.

JoeTheJuggler · 19th July 2011, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The reason for making anything a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law is because an amendment is much harder to undo or nullify. The constitution overrides mere laws, and judges are required to uphold the constitution.

I disagree. The reason for most amendments is that mere legislation would otherwise be unconstitutional. The point was that an amendment is not necessary (or especially helpful) in achieving the goal of a balanced budget.

In a way, it's just stating a goal. Why not pass a constitutional amendment requiring the unemployment rate be less than 5%? It's certainly something we'd all like.

KoihimeNakamura · 19th July 2011, 08:53 PM

I imagine the majority of people would vote for it because it "sounds" good,.

Darth Rotor · 19th July 2011, 08:55 PM

I am currently watching a guy named Jeff Flake on CSPAN in the comments in the House replay.

Been a lot of noise.

The only rep who got the serious gavel for staying over her time was, from Texas (bless her heart) the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

Even saw Chris Van Hollen (D Maryland) invoke the name of Ronald Reagan.

It's been most entertaining.

Puppycow · 20th July 2011, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I disagree. The reason for most amendments is that mere legislation would otherwise be unconstitutional. The point was that an amendment is not necessary (or especially helpful) in achieving the goal of a balanced budget.

In a way, it's just stating a goal. Why not pass a constitutional amendment requiring the unemployment rate be less than 5%? It's certainly something we'd all like.

Well there's that too. Often laws get undone by meddlesome judges who declare them to be unconstitutional. I think we actually agree, but emphasized different aspects.

JoeTheJuggler · 20th July 2011, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am currently watching a guy named Jeff Flake on CSPAN in the comments in the House replay.

Been a lot of noise.

The only rep who got the serious gavel for staying over her time was, from Texas (bless her heart) the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

Even saw Chris Van Hollen (D Maryland) invoke the name of Ronald Reagan.

It's been most entertaining.

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y/#more-167974

leftysergeant · 20th July 2011, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y/#more-167974

She accused the torture monkey of doing a crappy job of representing the people of his district.

Screw him. If he can't take criticism, he should just run away like he did from the court martial that he should have gotten in Iraq.

Frank Newgent · 20th July 2011, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y/#more-167974

From your link:

Quote:

West fired back in his message, challenging the four-term Democrat.

"If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!" he railed.

Stating "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face" in an email is some funny stuff.

JoeTheJuggler · 20th July 2011, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Newgent

Stating "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face" in an email is some funny stuff.

And of course this leads me to believe that West said his piece and then left the chamber before Wasserman Shultz spoke. Seems to me if you choose not to listen to your opponent's rebuttal, you don't get to complain that your opponent rebutted other than "to your face"! [ETA: I mean how "cowardly" could it be to make remarks on the House floor in a nationally televised debate?]

And yeah. . . making that complaint in an e-mail is rich.

DeathDart · 20th July 2011, 08:22 AM

Cut, Cap, and Balance

A Constitutional Amendment will save the rich a lot of money on purchasing Senators and Representatives

With a 2/3 majority in both houses, they only need to buy a little over 1/3 of them to stop them from raising taxes. Right now, they need to buy over half.

Cut, cap, and balance, running the government just like a business, with democracy in the closeout bin.

leftysergeant · 20th July 2011, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And of course this leads me to believe that West said his piece and then left the chamber before Wasserman Shultz spoke. Seems to me if you choose not to listen to your opponent's rebuttal, you don't get to complain that your opponent rebutted other than "to your face"!

The torture monkey does have a record of making absurd statements and then running away from any accountability.

Snide · 21st July 2011, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And yeah. . . making that complaint in an e-mail is rich.

I think you mean, "Making that complaint in an e-mail is job creator."

Bri · 21st July 2011, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

Here's what Wasserman Schultz said:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-schultz-vile/

“The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a member from South Florida,” Ms. Schultz said in a speech on the House floor.

Mr. West apparently took issue with the fact that Ms. Schultz made the comments just after he left the House chamber.

You can see the full video at that link. Pretty innocuous, really.

-Bri

Bri · 21st July 2011, 09:14 AM

Allen West: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Apology 'Not Happening'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_905658.html

During an appearance on Fox Business Network on Thursday, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) signaled he has no intention of apologizing to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), who chairs the Democratic National Committee, for using strong language to criticize her in an email.

Oddly, the day before he claimed to Huffington Post's Jen Bendery that he had already apologized.

On Wednesday, however, West suggested to HuffPost's Jen Bendery that he had said he was sorry to Wasserman Shultz for the message in question. (Click here to listen to audio of what the Republican lawmaker had to say.)

Shortly after, a spokesman for Wasserman Schultz indicated that the congresswoman never received an apology from West. A spokesman for the congressman clarified that it's "absolutely false" that West said he was sorry.

-Bri

JoeTheJuggler · 21st July 2011, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bri

Oddly, the day before he claimed to Huffington Post's Jen Bendery that he had already apologized.

On Wednesday, however, West suggested to HuffPost's Jen Bendery that he had said he was sorry to Wasserman Shultz for the message in question. (Click here to listen to audio of what the Republican lawmaker had to say.)

Shortly after, a spokesman for Wasserman Schultz indicated that the congresswoman never received an apology from West. A spokesman for the congressman clarified that it's "absolutely false" that West said he was sorry.

I'd be curious to see West's apology. If it's sincere, it certainly shouldn't come with a demand for an apology from Wasserman Schultz.

It also should be done publicly--we're talking specifically about the behavior of elected representatives in the chamber of the House. I think after the debt crisis is sorted out (at least temporarily) there should be talk of censure of West. We really shouldn't have to tolerate such childish behavior at that level of government.

Bri · 21st July 2011, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I'd be curious to see West's apology. If it's sincere, it certainly shouldn't come with a demand for an apology from Wasserman Schultz.

Listening to the audio linked to in that article, he does seem to say "and I just apologized" but it's not entirely clear. Given that the following day he said he wouldn't apologize, Wasserman Schultz spokesperson said that he didn't apologize, and his own spokesperson said that he didn't apologize, it's probably safe to assume he didn't apologize.

Quote:

I think after the debt crisis is sorted out (at least temporarily) there should be talk of censure of West. We really shouldn't have to tolerate such childish behavior at that level of government.

I'm not sure if he can be censured for a private e-mail. He's taking a lot of flak for it since Wasserman Schultz made it public, and rightly so. I suspect he's going to have to apologize for real, in public, at some point.

But let's remember that this is the same guy who claimed to have a higher security clearance than the president of the United States.

-Bri

JoeTheJuggler · 21st July 2011, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Bri

I'm not sure if he can be censured for a private e-mail.

Was it private? I gathered that it was sent to many members of the House.

Even so, his rhetoric comes close to "fighting words". I think communication to another party becomes that person's property, so Wasserman Shultz had every to make it public if it wasn't already.

I think this behavior toward a colleague in the House should not be tolerated.

ETA: I guess it's the sign of changing times. I can remember when political opponents would go out of their way to treat each other with the veneer of respect. There was a time when using first names, for example, was something you only did with your friends. With your enemies, it would always be as many honorifics as you could get away with using--"The esteemed honorable representative from the great state of . . . "

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st July 2011, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Well, the bill has passed the House, by a vote of 234 to 190.

Michele Bachmann was one of 9 republicans to vote against it, while 5 democrats voted for it. The reason why she voted against it is because she had earlier pledged not to vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

They proposed this because they know it has no chance of happening.

I bet if a republican wins the presidency in 2012, this bill will suddenly disappear.

JoeTheJuggler · 21st July 2011, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

They proposed this because they know it has no chance of happening.

I bet if a republican wins the presidency in 2012, this bill will suddenly disappear.

I bet it will disappear before that point! It's dead in the water now, and I bet nothing more will happen with it in this session of Congress.

Toontown · 21st July 2011, 11:03 AM

They are down to their last few days to get a viable bill written, examined, passed, and signed. A compromise bill which will make it ideologically possible for both red-ass monkeys and bue-ass monkeys to pass a credit-ceiling increase, sidestep a credit downgrade, and avoid a fiscal and economic meltdown.

So what do they do? They strike a pose, trying to make it look like they are sane and fiscally responsible, wasting days attempting to pass a bill they know has no chance to survive the Senate or the presiden'ts veto.

This is precisely the kind of doo-da parade that is causing the credit agencies to have a "negative outlook" on the future of the U.S. credit rating. At this point, it's not the debt that is giving the credit raters pause. The debt has been higher as a percent of GDP, and we came out of it smelling like a rose. It's all these crazy politikers who have swarmed all over Washington. Power-grubbers and crusaders, trying to win an academy award for best acting job.

Yeah, we sure do believe those politikers really do want to do something meaningful about our national problems. That's why they're so busy striking all those poses and making all of those hand gestures. After all, how can they ever do anything useful unless they can seize the reins of government? Compromise is, after all, out of the question. This crop of politikers doesn't do compromise. They just try to mass up and run over anyone in their path.

DrBaltar · 21st July 2011, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

If the Republicons have the majority in congress, we're screwed.

We need a republican majority in congress to unscrew the screwing that took place in Obama's first two years. I don't agree with requiring a supermajority to raise taxes though. Perhaps they added that for when they need to concede something in the interest of compromise?

JoeTheJuggler · 21st July 2011, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Toontown

They are down to their last few days to get a viable bill written, examined, passed, and signed. A compromise bill which will make it ideologically possible for both red-ass monkeys and bue-ass monkeys to pass a credit-ceiling increase, sidestep a credit downgrade, and avoid a fiscal and economic meltdown.

So what do they do?

I still think some version of the McConnell backup plan is most likely what will happen. This accomplishes the goal of raising the debt ceiling that really everyone knows has to happen (even if they'll never admit it), allowing the Tea Party House Republicans to vote against it without blocking it, and shifting the blame for failure to reach a compromise on the problems to Obama and guaranteeing that the same problems/debates will continue at least until the 2012 election.

And this is sad too, because this budget problem is one that can be resolved.

leftysergeant · 21st July 2011, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

We need a republican majority in congress to unscrew the screwing that took place in Obama's first two years. I don't agree with requiring a supermajority to raise taxes though. Perhaps they added that for when they need to concede something in the interest of compromise?

Excuse me, but, are you one of these people who think that it was Obama and not the Shrub who started two wars without bothering to find any way to pay for them and then told his rich owners that they wouldn't have to pay their share of anything else?

Toontown · 21st July 2011, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I still think some version of the McConnell backup plan is most likely what will happen. This accomplishes the goal of raising the debt ceiling that really everyone knows has to happen (even if they'll never admit it), allowing the Tea Party House Republicans to vote against it without blocking it, and shifting the blame for failure to reach a compromise on the problems to Obama and guaranteeing that the same problems/debates will continue at least until the 2012 election.

And this is sad too, because this budget problem is one that can be resolved.

Sad also because merely raising the debt ceiling is not going to prevent a credit downgrade. The ratings agencies have said there is a high probability of a credit downgrade if the underlying fiscal problems are not dealt with.

Kicking the can down the road and using the issue for a political football begins to look like an insanely desperate tactic under these circumstances. It's like deliberately holing a ship and then trying to take it over before it sinks.

Plus, Obama has said he will veto the short term plan unless there is broad agreement on a long term plan and the lawmakers simply need time to write it up and pass it.

JoeTheJuggler · 21st July 2011, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Toontown

Sad also because merely raising the debt ceiling is not going to prevent a credit downgrade. The ratings agencies have said there is a high probability of a credit downgrade if the underlying fiscal problems are not dealt with.

Kicking the can down the road and using the issue for a political football begins to look like an insanely desperate tactic under these circumstances. It's like deliberately holing a ship and then trying to take it over before it sinks.

Yep.

While raising the debt ceiling is a must, it's not sufficient.

Quote:

Plus, Obama has said he will veto the short term plan unless there is broad agreement on a long term plan and the lawmakers simply need time to write it up and pass it.

That "unless" sounds like a significant out for him. And I think he will not veto a plan that allows for increasing the debt ceiling if it rolls around to Aug. 1 and Congress has passed nothing else.

The Gang of Six plan sounds ambitious (and I'm skeptical that they really could have come up with a major tax overhaul that quickly), but it won't sail because of the "absolutely never" votes in the House. Sadly, I think some version of the McConnell shell game is the only thing that will get through.

I dearly hope I'm proven wrong!

18th July 2011, 09:12 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	"Cut, Cap, and Balance" Constitutional Amendment Republicans want to make a constitutional amendment a condition for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. This constitutional amendment would cap government spending at 18% of GDP (which has never been done since 1966, and even Paul Ryan's "radical right-wing social engineering" wouldn't qualify). It would also require a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of congress to raise taxes. There's even a website for this proposed amendment sponsored by a long list of conservative and Tea Party type groups. Personally, I think that if this were to actually become part of the constitution, it would be a disaster for the US. This is not your father's Balanced Budget Amendment. In the past, most proposed balanced budget amendments have been just that: a requirement that government revenues equal government expenditures. This one goes much further to the right, by capping government spending and making it near impossible to raise taxes. Here's what USA Today says: Quote: Reading between the lines, it's clear that many supporters care less about cutting the deficit than about rewriting the Constitution to embrace an economic theory that shrinks government and makes it almost impossible to raise taxes. Certainly, balancing the budget is a sound goal. We've been supporting it in this space for more than 20 years. Congress and successive presidents have demonstrated an inability to match revenue and spending. Something has to be done to change the incentives. But the fatal flaw in virtually any balanced budget amendment is that it ties the government's hands in times of economic distress. When those sorts of crises hit, the government needs to be able to move quickly to rescue major financial institutions and deploy "automatic stabilizers," such as unemployment benefits and food stamps that steady the economy until private-sector forces can create a recovery. Failure to intervene caused the Great Depression of the 1930s, and had a balanced budget amendment been in place when the financial crisis struck in 2008, there's no doubt at all that we'd be living through another one now.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th July 2011, 04:13 AM	#3
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	By the time an amendment could even clear both houses of congtress, the teatards who are holding up the process now will have had to run for re-election at least once. What makes those worthless jerks think they will be around to call the shots again? Two thirds super-majority to raise taxes? What are they doing? Hitting each other over the head with the the Speaker's empties? Goofy idea. It would be just about impossible to insure that we do not have, at any time thirty dimbulbs in the Senate willing to let the country go to hell rather than raise taxes. Dumb idea.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

19th July 2011, 05:20 AM	#4
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,191	Everyone seems to forget that an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 (or 38) states as well.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

19th July 2011, 05:28 AM	#5
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,404	Is there an agreed way to measure GDP? This has no place in the constitution.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

19th July 2011, 07:24 AM	#6
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by Puppycow Republicans want to make a constitutional amendment a condition for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. I guess this will be the thirty-first amendment to the constitution, passed after the amendments to ban flag burning, gay marriage and abortion.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

19th July 2011, 02:34 AM	#2
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,223	Making the offer safe in the knowledge that there isn't a hope that it'll be approved. Then they can say something like: Quote: We were perfectly willing to compromise to avoid partisan brinkmanship and rescue the US economy but instead those nasty liberals refused to curtail their out of control spending If it wasn't for the fact that the amendment would IMO be very damaging to the US economy, the Democrats should call their bluff, say "sure" and put the Republicans in charge of making the cuts (reminding the US electorate of how (spectacularly un)successful Republican spend cutting and budget balancing has been in the past). I have male pattern baldness. Passing this amendment would be as successful in its aim as me wishing I had a full head of hair would be at addressing that issue.

19th July 2011, 07:52 AM	#7
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,861	Originally Posted by The Don Making the offer safe in the knowledge that there isn't a hope that it'll be approved. Then they can say something like: For a long time now Republicans have campaigned on the idea that they can still provide all the services (mainly Military, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) people want but not have them pay the taxes required to fund those services. In support of this they have floated all kinds of nutty ideas on how these things would actually be paid for but really they just fell back to borrowing. The problem they now face is that they have been pushing these nutty ideas for so long they have a generation that grew up on them and drank the cool-aid. Now these people have been elected themselves and the older crowed needs to pull them aside and explain “these are just things we say for elections, actually doing them would be a bad idea”. In the meantime they need to find away to vote for these ideas without actually having any of them pass, or vote against then things they know need to happen without having them killed. Thus you get things like the McConnell plan which amounts to let’s give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling then pass a bill voting it down, but that bill will then get vetoed by the President.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,861	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

19th July 2011, 07:58 AM	#8
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer Everyone seems to forget that an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 (or 38) states as well. I think the motive of those taking the pledge is just to have an excuse not to agree to any compromise at least until the 2012 elections.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

19th July 2011, 08:15 AM	#9
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 I guess this will be the thirty-first amendment to the constitution, passed after the amendments to ban flag burning, gay marriage and abortion. But before the ERA. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

19th July 2011, 09:57 AM	#10
TheNooch Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 366	Does the amendment have a clause that says, "Having elected a Republican president, and after ensuring he was born in the United States and is of 99% anglo heritage, it shall be deemed, "just peachy", to start foreign wars and just keep them off the budget".
TheNooch Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 366

19th July 2011, 12:29 PM	#11
C_Felix Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Right outside Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,038	Quote: Thanks to prior deficit-reduction deals and a strong economy, the federal government ran a surplus in 1998 and for the next three years. Then an economic downturn, huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded expansion of Medicare plunged the budget back into the red, where it has been ever since. The moral is, Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It just needs the will to do it and the willingness to compromise over how. Don't really need an amendment, now do we? Now, this just seems to be a balanced budget amendment in disguise.
	__________________ No, his mind is not for rent To any god or government. Always hopeful, yet discontent, He knows changes aren't permanent, But change is. Last edited by C_Felix; 19th July 2011 at 12:32 PM.

19th July 2011, 03:55 PM	#12
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law? By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

19th July 2011, 04:00 PM	#13
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Tmy Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law? By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack? If the Republicons have the majority in congress, we're screwed.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

19th July 2011, 04:50 PM	#14
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Tmy Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law? By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack? Wasn't it Cantor who said we shouldn't allocate any emergency spending (Joplin, MO after the tornado devastation) without cutting spending elsewhere to offset it. So I guess the answer is no. I think this calls for a Constitutional amendment to strike the two occurrences each of "general welfare" and "common defence" from the Constitution if the GOP gets its way.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

19th July 2011, 06:29 PM	#15
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Well, the bill has passed the House, by a vote of 234 to 190. Michele Bachmann was one of 9 republicans to vote against it, while 5 democrats voted for it. The reason why she voted against it is because she had earlier pledged not to vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th July 2011, 07:18 PM	#16
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Originally Posted by Tmy Why an amendment? Why not just pass a plain old law? By the way. What happens in case of emergencies?? War, natural disaster, financial disaster, another 911, space aliens attack? The reason for making anything a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law is because an amendment is much harder to undo or nullify. The constitution overrides mere laws, and judges are required to uphold the constitution.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th July 2011, 07:57 PM	#17
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Puppycow The reason for making anything a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law is because an amendment is much harder to undo or nullify. The constitution overrides mere laws, and judges are required to uphold the constitution. I disagree. The reason for most amendments is that mere legislation would otherwise be unconstitutional. The point was that an amendment is not necessary (or especially helpful) in achieving the goal of a balanced budget. In a way, it's just stating a goal. Why not pass a constitutional amendment requiring the unemployment rate be less than 5%? It's certainly something we'd all like.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

19th July 2011, 08:53 PM	#18
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,846	I imagine the majority of people would vote for it because it "sounds" good,.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

19th July 2011, 08:55 PM	#19
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	I am currently watching a guy named Jeff Flake on CSPAN in the comments in the House replay. Been a lot of noise. The only rep who got the serious gavel for staying over her time was, from Texas (bless her heart) the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee. Even saw Chris Van Hollen (D Maryland) invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. It's been most entertaining.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

20th July 2011, 01:49 AM	#20
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I disagree. The reason for most amendments is that mere legislation would otherwise be unconstitutional. The point was that an amendment is not necessary (or especially helpful) in achieving the goal of a balanced budget. In a way, it's just stating a goal. Why not pass a constitutional amendment requiring the unemployment rate be less than 5%? It's certainly something we'd all like. Well there's that too. Often laws get undone by meddlesome judges who declare them to be unconstitutional. I think we actually agree, but emphasized different aspects.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

20th July 2011, 05:37 AM	#21
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor I am currently watching a guy named Jeff Flake on CSPAN in the comments in the House replay. Been a lot of noise. The only rep who got the serious gavel for staying over her time was, from Texas (bless her heart) the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee. Even saw Chris Van Hollen (D Maryland) invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. It's been most entertaining. Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y/#more-167974
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

20th July 2011, 06:19 AM	#22
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y/#more-167974 She accused the torture monkey of doing a crappy job of representing the people of his district. Screw him. If he can't take criticism, he should just run away like he did from the court martial that he should have gotten in Iraq.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. Last edited by leftysergeant; 20th July 2011 at 06:27 AM.

20th July 2011, 07:41 AM	#23
Frank Newgent Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,665	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y/#more-167974 From your link: Quote: West fired back in his message, challenging the four-term Democrat. "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!" he railed. Stating "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face" in an email is some funny stuff.
	__________________ Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski

20th July 2011, 07:47 AM	#24
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Frank Newgent Stating "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face" in an email is some funny stuff. And of course this leads me to believe that West said his piece and then left the chamber before Wasserman Shultz spoke. Seems to me if you choose not to listen to your opponent's rebuttal, you don't get to complain that your opponent rebutted other than "to your face"! [ETA: I mean how "cowardly" could it be to make remarks on the House floor in a nationally televised debate?] And yeah. . . making that complaint in an e-mail is rich.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 20th July 2011 at 07:48 AM.

20th July 2011, 08:22 AM	#25
DeathDart Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: I stand between the candle and the Star. Posts: 1,150	Cut, Cap, and Balance A Constitutional Amendment will save the rich a lot of money on purchasing Senators and Representatives With a 2/3 majority in both houses, they only need to buy a little over 1/3 of them to stop them from raising taxes. Right now, they need to buy over half. Cut, cap, and balance, running the government just like a business, with democracy in the closeout bin.

20th July 2011, 11:55 AM	#26
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler And of course this leads me to believe that West said his piece and then left the chamber before Wasserman Shultz spoke. Seems to me if you choose not to listen to your opponent's rebuttal, you don't get to complain that your opponent rebutted other than "to your face"! The torture monkey does have a record of making absurd statements and then running away from any accountability.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

21st July 2011, 07:29 AM	#27
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler And yeah. . . making that complaint in an e-mail is rich. I think you mean, "Making that complaint in an e-mail is job creator."

21st July 2011, 09:09 AM	#28
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed? Here's what Wasserman Schultz said: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-schultz-vile/ “The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a member from South Florida,” Ms. Schultz said in a speech on the House floor. Mr. West apparently took issue with the fact that Ms. Schultz made the comments just after he left the House chamber. You can see the full video at that link. Pretty innocuous, really. -Bri
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310	Last edited by Bri; 21st July 2011 at 09:16 AM.

21st July 2011, 09:14 AM	#29
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310	Allen West: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Apology 'Not Happening' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_905658.html During an appearance on Fox Business Network on Thursday, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) signaled he has no intention of apologizing to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), who chairs the Democratic National Committee, for using strong language to criticize her in an email. Oddly, the day before he claimed to Huffington Post's Jen Bendery that he had already apologized. On Wednesday, however, West suggested to HuffPost's Jen Bendery that he had said he was sorry to Wasserman Shultz for the message in question. (Click here to listen to audio of what the Republican lawmaker had to say.) Shortly after, a spokesman for Wasserman Schultz indicated that the congresswoman never received an apology from West. A spokesman for the congressman clarified that it's "absolutely false" that West said he was sorry. -Bri
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310

21st July 2011, 09:20 AM	#30
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Bri Oddly, the day before he claimed to Huffington Post's Jen Bendery that he had already apologized. On Wednesday, however, West suggested to HuffPost's Jen Bendery that he had said he was sorry to Wasserman Shultz for the message in question. (Click here to listen to audio of what the Republican lawmaker had to say.) Shortly after, a spokesman for Wasserman Schultz indicated that the congresswoman never received an apology from West. A spokesman for the congressman clarified that it's "absolutely false" that West said he was sorry. I'd be curious to see West's apology. If it's sincere, it certainly shouldn't come with a demand for an apology from Wasserman Schultz. It also should be done publicly--we're talking specifically about the behavior of elected representatives in the chamber of the House. I think after the debt crisis is sorted out (at least temporarily) there should be talk of censure of West. We really shouldn't have to tolerate such childish behavior at that level of government.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

21st July 2011, 09:31 AM	#31
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I'd be curious to see West's apology. If it's sincere, it certainly shouldn't come with a demand for an apology from Wasserman Schultz. Listening to the audio linked to in that article, he does seem to say "and I just apologized" but it's not entirely clear. Given that the following day he said he wouldn't apologize, Wasserman Schultz spokesperson said that he didn't apologize, and his own spokesperson said that he didn't apologize, it's probably safe to assume he didn't apologize. Quote: I think after the debt crisis is sorted out (at least temporarily) there should be talk of censure of West. We really shouldn't have to tolerate such childish behavior at that level of government. I'm not sure if he can be censured for a private e-mail. He's taking a lot of flak for it since Wasserman Schultz made it public, and rightly so. I suspect he's going to have to apologize for real, in public, at some point. But let's remember that this is the same guy who claimed to have a higher security clearance than the president of the United States. -Bri
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310	Last edited by Bri; 21st July 2011 at 09:38 AM.

21st July 2011, 09:48 AM	#32
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by Bri I'm not sure if he can be censured for a private e-mail. Was it private? I gathered that it was sent to many members of the House. Even so, his rhetoric comes close to "fighting words". I think communication to another party becomes that person's property, so Wasserman Shultz had every to make it public if it wasn't already. I think this behavior toward a colleague in the House should not be tolerated. ETA: I guess it's the sign of changing times. I can remember when political opponents would go out of their way to treat each other with the veneer of respect. There was a time when using first names, for example, was something you only did with your friends. With your enemies, it would always be as many honorifics as you could get away with using--"The esteemed honorable representative from the great state of . . . "
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 21st July 2011 at 09:49 AM.

21st July 2011, 09:51 AM	#33
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,264	Originally Posted by Puppycow Well, the bill has passed the House, by a vote of 234 to 190. Michele Bachmann was one of 9 republicans to vote against it, while 5 democrats voted for it. The reason why she voted against it is because she had earlier pledged not to vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. They proposed this because they know it has no chance of happening. I bet if a republican wins the presidency in 2012, this bill will suddenly disappear.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

21st July 2011, 10:07 AM	#34
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,661	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer They proposed this because they know it has no chance of happening. I bet if a republican wins the presidency in 2012, this bill will suddenly disappear. I bet it will disappear before that point! It's dead in the water now, and I bet nothing more will happen with it in this session of Congress.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

21st July 2011, 11:03 AM	#35
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	They are down to their last few days to get a viable bill written, examined, passed, and signed. A compromise bill which will make it ideologically possible for both red-ass monkeys and bue-ass monkeys to pass a credit-ceiling increase, sidestep a credit downgrade, and avoid a fiscal and economic meltdown. So what do they do? They strike a pose, trying to make it look like they are sane and fiscally responsible, wasting days attempting to pass a bill they know has no chance to survive the Senate or the presiden'ts veto. This is precisely the kind of doo-da parade that is causing the credit agencies to have a "negative outlook" on the future of the U.S. credit rating. At this point, it's not the debt that is giving the credit raters pause. The debt has been higher as a percent of GDP, and we came out of it smelling like a rose. It's all these crazy politikers who have swarmed all over Washington. Power-grubbers and crusaders, trying to win an academy award for best acting job. Yeah, we sure do believe those politikers really do want to do something meaningful about our national problems. That's why they're so busy striking all those poses and making all of those hand gestures. After all, how can they ever do anything useful unless they can seize the reins of government? Compromise is, after all, out of the question. This crop of politikers doesn't do compromise. They just try to mass up and run over anyone in their path.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555