America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by DrafterX. 85 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Balanced Budget Amendment,,, Yay or Nay...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#51 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2011, 11:05 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
last time the republicans wanted a constitutional amendment was when
arnold s. became the governor of california.

the same group recently called birthers wanted to amend the constitution to allow
non native born americans to run for and hold office as the president.

why are such a stupid group of people allowed any influence in the government,

this group has most of it's heads up it's collective asses.

perry, who has not announced he is running, is now the leading republican running
for the office of president of the usa, the country he wanted to succeed from.
no wonder the base puts these people in office. the base is dumber then the
office holders.

on the other hand, obama needs some balls. elizabeth warren was the best qualified person to run the consumer protection agency, that she worked hard to form, and mr pres throwed her under the bus..

clinton might have copped a feel, but he wouldn't dump her like obama did.

good luck on perry, remember what the last governor of texas did to this country.
jackconrad Offline
#52 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 12:21 AM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
And lets not forget LBJ
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#53 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 12:49 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
jackconrad

jumped ship when he saw a little water instead of staying and fixing what he had done.

might have been involved in JFK assassination.
ZRX1200 Offline
#54 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 1:04 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Rick....which tea party members wanted Arnold for POTUS? you talk out your azz sometimes you know that. And where did tea party memers ask for a constitutional amendment to elect foreign born people?

The so called "birthers" you may recall were the ones that were wanting a US born canidate.......
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#55 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 6:38 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ZRX1200

the amendment to allow arnold to run for president was long befoe the tea party
group so it has nothing to do with that group

the tea party group is no more then a group of idiots, who have one track minds. cut
spending. let the country fall apart. something good will happen later. the good fairy
will pay for edumacation and bridges that are so old they are not safe to drive on. doesn't
matter they will be out of office in 2 or 6 years and they will have been nothing and have
done nothing and return to the nothing they were and still are.

my way or the highway means they will soon be on the highway.

the way out of the financial crisis and the no jobs is for the government to stimulate the economy
until we have increased GDP, tax the rich who have stolen their money from the rest of us, special deductions for corporate jets my asss, not until every child goes to bed with a warm full belly.

the country is back to 1920 again. the rich want to eliminate child labor laws. do you approve?
rfenst Offline
#56 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 6:59 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
HockeyDad wrote:
Just imagine the temptation of being able to borrow an unlimited amount of money at 2.9% interest that someone else will have to pay back later.



Why pay 2.9% when you can get it cheaper?
HockeyDad Offline
#57 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 6:59 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
ZRX1200

tax the rich who have stolen their money from the rest of us, special deductions for corporate jets my asss, not until every child goes to bed with a warm full belly.

the country is back to 1920 again. the rich want to eliminate child labor laws. do you approve?



You do realize that if everyone just gave in to Obama's plan for taxing the rich and cutting corporate tax breaks, it would raise $160 billion per year. The current Federal budget year is 1.4 trillion in deficit. That means Obama's solution is to cover the deficit with 10% new revenue, 90% new borrowing. ....and that is a great plan for America?

Obama's 10 year budget projections taken exactly as is forecasts a trillion dollar deficit every year and a doubling of the USA national debt during his 8 years in office. The IMF and credit agencies are the ones that slammed that and called for 4 trillion in debt reduction across that plan, not the Republicans. That is what started this whole mess.

While pretending to be worried about child labor laws and children going to bed with a full belly, do you really believe that doubling the national debt that those children will one day have to repay through years of austerity so that we can spend the money now on ourselves is good stewardship?
rfenst Offline
#58 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
FuzzNJ wrote:
'Strict Constitutionalists' again wanting to change the Constitution for political reasons.

Irony that right wingers can't see.


Never mind the irony. No one even answered the question!
HockeyDad Offline
#59 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:05 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
What question?

I did in post 46.
rfenst Offline
#60 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:13 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
HockeyDad wrote:
While pretending to be worried about child labor laws and children going to bed with a full belly, do you really believe that doubling the national debt that those children will one day have to repay through years of austerity so that we can spend the money now on ourselves is good stewardship?



No one is ever going to repay much, if any at all. Instead, we will keep overspending and then hyper inflate the economy and nominally repay debt with worthless "money". A few years later on down the road, lenders will forget what happened and will start pumping money into the U.S. again. Works like a charm for the rest of the world. Will work for the U.S. too. It is only just a matter of time- many years out...
HockeyDad Offline
#61 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:17 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
rfenst wrote:
No one is ever going to repay much, if any at all. Instead, we will keep overspending and then hyper inflate the economy and nominally repay debt with worthless "money". A few years later on down the road, lenders will forget what happened and will start pumping money into the U.S. again. Works like a charm for the rest of the world. Will work for the U.S. too. It is only just a matter of time- many years out...




So you actually believe in free money now followed by hyperinflation destroying the economy and a national bankruptcy.

Do we want to go with that plan and call it good stewardship?
rfenst Offline
#62 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:17 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
HockeyDad wrote:
What question?

I did in post 46.


See #8, which wasn't directed towards you.
Now quit f'ing around with the children and get your lazy french azz to work like the rest of us peons!
HockeyDad Offline
#63 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:20 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
I answered that one in #11!

I don't feel like going to work. Maybe I will, maybe not. Right now I'm going to have a cigar and head for the hot tub.
DrafterX Offline
#64 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 7:56 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
If only Bush hadn't blown all that surplus on wars and stuff...... Sad
jpotts Offline
#65 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
I say: nay.

All a balanced budget requirement does is to simply offer justification to politicians to raise taxes because of their unseemly spending habits.

It is easy to "balance" a budget with other people's money.

Plus, as in WWII, the US may need to go into debt to pay for...well...it's very existence.

It would probably be much easier and wiser to round up all of the socialists, Marxists, Keynseans, and hardcore modern liberals and toss them into the middle of the Pacific.

Problem solved.
jpotts Offline
#66 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
ZRX1200
the way out of the financial crisis and the no jobs is for the government to stimulate the economy
until we have increased GDP, tax the rich who have stolen their money from the rest of us, special deductions for corporate jets my asss, not until every child goes to bed with a warm full belly.


Many of the kids who are dangerously obese are on any number of government-funded nutrition programs.

I'll never forget the Nickelodian special I watched with my sons where they profiled some kid whose mom was a diabetic, on disability, and was receving free school lunches, foodstamps, and the like.

They pointed out that sometimes he only got two meals a day, and he had to go "hungry."

The only problem with this little view into desperate lives of poor people in this county is that the kid was something like 40 lbs overweight.



Your point being, Rick?
jpotts Offline
#67 Posted: Thu, Jul 28 2011, 4:59 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Oh yeah, that special tax-break that people got for private jets? Well, that was rammed-through by Democrats in 2009, I believe, when they had total control of the House, Senate, and the White House.

So...um...are you really sure you want to pick that scab there Rick?
rfenst Offline
#68 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 7:03 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
HockeyDad wrote:
I answered that one in #11!

I don't feel like going to work. Maybe I will, maybe not. Right now I'm going to have a cigar and head for the hot tub.



Cigar: Yes!
Hot Tub: Too f'n hot!
rfenst Offline
#69 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 7:21 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
HockeyDad wrote:
So you actually believe in free money now followed by hyperinflation destroying the economy and a national bankruptcy.

Do we want to go with that plan and call it good stewardship?



No, I don't believe in free money now. And, this is not a plan. If it were, I would not consider it good stewardship. It is just what I inevitably believe will occur in the future.
HockeyDad Offline
#70 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 7:34 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
I can work with that.

I do not believe Americans or American politicians have what it takes to make hard choices to establish fiscal responsibility. What is going on right now is just an act for the cameras. The IMF and the bond credit rating agencies are hinting at that as well. The EU, China, and Japan are also now chiming in on the debate.

Ultimately we will have to have forced austerity from outside (probably foreign) creditors to force us to live within our means. I do think when we reach that point national bankruptcy and a breakup of the Union will need to be up for discussion.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#71 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 7:47 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
HockeyDad wrote:
I can work with that.

I do not believe Americans or American politicians have what it takes to make hard choices to establish fiscal responsibility. What is going on right now is just an act for the cameras. The IMF and the bond credit rating agencies are hinting at that as well. The EU, China, and Japan are also now chiming in on the debate.

Ultimately we will have to have forced austerity from outside (probably foreign) creditors to force us to live within our means. I do think when we reach that point national bankruptcy and a breakup of the Union will need to be up for discussion.



Kabuki Theater!
Frying pan
pgje51 Offline
#72 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2006
Posts: 5,013
Hope and spare change.
ZRX1200 Offline
#73 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 4:45 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
RICKMAVEN, BONER JUST CALLEDTHE KENYAN KING OUT AND CALLED HIM A WHINNEY LITTLE BÏTCH......
Mathen Offline
#74 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
I'm not normally pedantic about spelling. Honest. The word, however, is 'secede', not "succeed".

Great public education system we've got.
FuzzNJ Offline
#75 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2011, 10:14 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
RICKMAVEN, BONER JUST CALLEDTHE KENYAN KING OUT AND CALLED HIM A WHINNEY LITTLE BÏTCH......



Sexy
robertknyc Offline
#76 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 12:50 AM EST
Joined: 07-24-2003
Posts: 5,475
HockeyDad wrote:
So you actually believe in free money now followed by hyperinflation destroying the economy and a national bankruptcy.

Do we want to go with that plan and call it good stewardship?


Since when did the HockeyDad start using RICKAMAVEN'S font?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#77 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 5:04 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
rfenst #8

ARTICLE 14 WOULD ALLOW HIM TO, BUT THE
SUPREME COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST OBAMA.

WE NEED TO IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS. PUT IN A
LIBERAL AND CHANGE THE COURT, SCALIA WILL
RETIRE ONE MORE LIBERAL AND THE COUNTRY WILL
BE SAVED


I WONDER IF ANY ONE WILL DISAGREE WITH ME
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#78 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 5:20 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
robertknyc

PERHAPS HE HAS DEVELOPED OBLIQUE DOUBLE VISION AS I HAVE.
I CAN SEE MUCH BETTER WITH A LARGER FONT.

THE RED IS BECAUSE I HAVE HAD SEVERAL RED CARS.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#79 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 5:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
robertknyc

SPEAKING OF BAD VISION, TRY DRIVING THE FREEWAY IN THE DIAMOND
LANE WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL @ 75.

ALSO I CAN'T WATCH 3D MOVIES
,
I HAVE NO DEPTH PERCEPTION.

WHEN THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME GETS VERY LARGE,
I HIT THE BRAKE AND SHUT OFF THE CRUISE CONTROL
HockeyDad Offline
#80 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 6:14 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
rfenst #8

ARTICLE 14 WOULD ALLOW HIM TO, BUT THE
SUPREME COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST OBAMA.

WE NEED TO IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS. PUT IN A
LIBERAL AND CHANGE THE COURT, SCALIA WILL
RETIRE ONE MORE LIBERAL AND THE COUNTRY WILL
BE SAVED


I WONDER IF ANY ONE WILL DISAGREE WITH ME



MORE DEBT WILL SAVE US! WE NEED TO RIG THE SUPREME COURT TO ALLOW IT.
rfenst Offline
#81 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 6:18 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
Mathen wrote:
I'm not normally pedantic about spelling. Honest. The word, however, is 'secede', not "succeed".

Great public education system we've got.




I don't know who posted "secede", but around here there are actually posters who still believe states have a right to any time they want. It wasn't a spelling or proofreading error- it was a Freudian slip!

But, if it was actually a spelling or proof-reading error, it isn't the fault of the education system. The likely, real problem is that whoever posted it DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE SPELL CHECK.








(BTW, I am among the worst spellers who post here. MACS says he is a pretty good speller and I believe him...)
snowwolf777 Offline
#82 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 9:34 AM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
rfenst #8

ARTICLE 14 WOULD ALLOW HIM TO, BUT THE
SUPREME COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST OBAMA.

WE NEED TO IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS. PUT IN A
LIBERAL AND CHANGE THE COURT, SCALIA WILL
RETIRE ONE MORE LIBERAL AND THE COUNTRY WILL
BE SAVED


I WONDER IF ANY ONE WILL DISAGREE WITH ME



Article 14 does not give him sole authority to raise the debt ceiling. Read it all, and understand it, rather than just cherry picking parts of the article to fit your agenda.

And that's why his attorneys have told him don't try it.
HockeyDad Offline
#83 Posted: Sat, Jul 30 2011, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."



US debt that was authorized by law is valid. Confederate debt is not valid. Once forced back into the Union, Confederate states can't move to invalidate the Union Civil War debt.

In the recent debate, some have taken the "Shall not be questioned" to mean the debt payments must be the first thing the government pays in a money shortfall. Others have said the Federal Budget is authorized by law so the new debt it causes is valid and a debt ceiling law is in direct conflict.

If Congress passes a budget which is totally in conflict with another law they passed, which law is valid. Neither is unconstitutional. This is a valid argument for the pro-debt camp (Democrats). The Fourteenth Amendment is not.
A J Offline
#84 Posted: Tue, Aug 2 2011, 9:47 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2008
Posts: 63
YAY
DrafterX Offline
#85 Posted: Tue, Aug 2 2011, 9:53 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
HockeyDad wrote:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."







no mule for X...... Sad
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top