Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are mistaken. Those who were elected in 2010 have not yet enacted a budget, and they had absolutely nothing to do with the fiasco last year when a Democrat controlled Congress failed to enact a budget for this fiscal year. Thus far 6 of the 12 appropriation bills have been passed by the House. The House has until September 30th to enact a budget for fiscal year 2012.
The debt ceiling should not be raised. Raising the debt ceiling is essentially telling the nation, and the world, that it is perfectly acceptable to spend well beyond our means like immature children unable to control our infantile urges.
Yeah I was wondering what budget the OP was referring to. There hasn't been a budget passed for going on three years now. And magically it's the tea party's fault now.
As was pointed out on NPR this morning, that could take ten years b/c a super-majority of states have to ratify it.
You got that right!
NPR is mistaken, as usual. All 50 states already have laws on the books that require them to enact a balanced budget. They are prohibited, by law, from enacting a budget that exceeds projected revenues. Why would they deny, or even debate, that same limitation on the federal government?
Should Congress ever pass a proposed constitutional amendment that requires a federal balanced budget, more than 38 State legislatures will ratify the amendment within two or three years.
NPR is mistaken, as usual. All 50 states already have laws on the books that require them to enact a balanced budget. They are prohibited, by law, from enacting a budget that exceeds projected revenues. Why would they deny, or even debate, that same limitation on the federal government?
Should Congress ever pass a proposed constitutional amendment that requires a federal balanced budget, more than 38 States legislatures will ratify the amendment within two or three years.
Who knows?
Where'd you get your crystal ball? The ERA never made it. I forget how many decades ago it was introduced. The more people analyzed it, and sensationalized it, the more states voted it down. Even if a BB amendment DID pass in two to three years, that's still a long time. Then the details have to get worked out, etc. It could be five years or more in the best case scenario before there actually WAS a balanced budget.
We're not going to change each others' minds, so I'll just agree to disagree here and nothing more. I've said what I've said, and I'm absolutely convinced that these tea partiers are nuts, and nutty people in power are very dangerous indeed.
There you go projecting about Obama/Reid again because they are the ones "in power". Democrats have the power and refuse to address the debt except to demand they get more of it. Got it yet?
Please tell me what is so "nutty" about the fiscal Conservatives demanding that $0.01 out of every dollar spent be saved/cut from the debt! One penny from every dollar spent is holding a gun to the heads of Progressives? Really?
Go ahead, justify away why Senate Progressives refuse to save one penny of every dollar spent and cut it from the debt.
Yeah I was wondering what budget the OP was referring to. There hasn't been a budget passed for going on three years now. And magically it's the tea party's fault now.
For four years we have been without a budget. The entire time the Democrats controlled Congress there has not been a single budget enacted into law. This is the primary responsibility of the House. The Senate cannot originate a budget, and the President obviously does not originate a budget. Only the House is required to originate the budget. Which makes it entirely Speaker Pelosi's fault that there has never been a budget while she was Speaker.
For four years we have been without a budget. The entire time the Democrats controlled Congress there has not been a single budget enacted into law. This is the primary responsibility of the House. The Senate cannot originate a budget, and the President obviously does not originate a budget. Only the House is required to originate the budget. Which makes it entirely Speaker Pelosi's fault that there has never been a budget while she was Speaker.
Yet the GOP majority House elected because of the fiscally Conservative Tea Party did pass a budget and Reid refuses to do same. Who's nuts? Harry Reid abandoned his debt bill when challenged by McConnell on the Senate floor to put it to a vote last night. Who's nuts?
Despite what many may think, I have always approached politics and economics with an open mind and I am prepared to admit the Tea Party is nuts when it comes to this vote.
This is not because all of the emotional, progressive talking points about default, economic terrorism, blah blah blah , but rather because the Tea Party voted for this budget that created deficit spending and is now refusing to raise the limit so the budget they voted on can be implimented.
What the Republicans should have done is the following.
Maintained a stern, but compromising outlook but eventually raising the debt limit up to the amount of the deficit they voted on.
Let the economic policies of the President and Democrats in the Senate continue to fail and watch the Democrats self destruct so that they can get the Presidency and the Senate.
Stay as far away from Obama as possible and let the ratings plummet so that no blame can be thrown to the Pubs.
Upon successful 2012 election, the Tea Party keeps the Republicans in line and leads the charge for the balanced budget amendment which has huge popular support.
You're right. The Tea Party in the past month has demonstrated it's not capable of participating in a democracy.
It is one thing to come to Washington on a mission of reform, but you have to learn to work within the system. You can't come close to achieving your goals in a democracy, if you think compromise is a dirty word. They are a bunch of zealots who won't listen to reason.
And Boehner is the worst Speaker ever. Instead of teaching the rookies how to give a little to get a lot, he went along with their crazy zealotry, wasting two precious weeks in the House when he could have been helping us avoid default.
Here's a piece by conservative Kathleen Parker in today's WaPo, laying into the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is sent to spread chaos, and the best way to do this is to throw a monkey wrench in the gears. By doing this they hope to effectively make government grind to a halt, like a child having a tantrum that thinks "If I don't get my way, you'll be sorry!" At least you've realized the Tea Party is nuts, that's a good first step towards the reality based community.
I really wish liberals would stick to arguing the issues, instead of constantly resorting to schoolyard name-calling. What is it that is objected to? If a liberal argues that The Tea Party represents the Religious Right and their attempts to limit American freedom to fit their social conservative ideals, I couldn't agree more--which is why I support the Libertarian movement much more. But at least the Tea Party is trying to deal with the worst problem in America right now: Big Government under the control of Big Business.
We simply cannot continue the way we are going as a nation. We tried the Big Government spending infinite amounts of money under Obama, and on a scale of 1 to 10, how much did it succeed? I would say a 2 (worst possible), with all of the gains going to the Big Businesses that already have almost all the wealth in the nation.
Liberals say we should continue doing more of the same (which is actually built into the system now), and Obama says to "double down" and send another few trillion to Big Business. Let's just continue to be insane, doing the same things, in the hope of different results. Bigger and bigger government, ever-increasing spending, ever-increasing taxes. All the politicians owned by Big Business and Special Interests. Republican and Democrat politicians identical except for rhetoric, and both fitting the definition of liberal Democrat, giving the impression that there is actual choice in our corrupt government.
Sure, we can just keep racking up unpayable debt by paying off old credit cards with new credit cards (at least until 2012, when S&P downgrades the debt). We can keep confiscating the working class's tax dollars so Washington can send them overseas for endless wars and foreign holders of our ever-increasing debt (forget hypothetical government "multiplyer effects," that money is 100% lost to our economy). We can keep devaluing the dollar, so that even if you're the one in a hundred who still has a job or savings, you're destitute too. We can keep allowing Big Business to accumulate ALL the wealth of America (through both taxes and the economy), while outsourcing the few jobs left. We can keep increasing taxes on the few workers left with their stagnated-since-1980 wages, until each supports so many people getting welfare Medicaid and Social Security and Medicare that there's not enough left over for the worker to live on.
Even if we want to keep being insane, the world has limits--just like it is stopping Greece, Europe, and the rest of the Welfare nations, it will stop us. When the effects of dollar devaluation and other horrendous government policies hit, and it costs $10,000 to buy the same things at the grocery store you got today for $200, things will have to change. When 2.1 workers are getting paid minimum wage, but have to support one retiree, things will change.
The Tea Party is trying to pull the reserve parachute before we hit the bottom of the cliff. Instead of pointing out which policies they oppose (and I, too, don't think Social Security should be cut), Liberals instead oppose every group that tries to stop the endless downward spiral of America
It is ironic for liberals to call the Tea Party "nuts" when the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting different results.
How can there still be people who don't understand that the definition of insanity is to KEEP DOING THE SAME THING, while hoping for different results?
Where'd you get your crystal ball? The ERA never made it. I forget how many decades ago it was introduced. The more people analyzed it, and sensationalized it, the more states voted it down. Even if a BB amendment DID pass in two to three years, that's still a long time. Then the details have to get worked out, etc. It could be five years or more in the best case scenario before there actually WAS a balanced budget.
The ERA was not needed. It was introduced originally in the late 1960s, just after the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was enacted into law by the GOP, and passed Congress by 1972. The State legislatures had seven years to ratify or reject the proposed amendment. By the end of 1979 only 35 of the required 38 State legislatures ratified the proposed amendment.
It can take a minimum of two years before the State legislatures can ratify any amendment because most States do not have legislatures that stay in session 365 days of the year. In Alaska, for example, the State legislature is only in session for 90 days. Only if Congress passes a proposed amendment while Alaska's legislature is in session during that 90 day window could it be ratified in the same year. Otherwise, it would have to wait until the next session of the legislature the following year.
For example, the 26th Amendment which passed Congress in March 1971, while Alaska's legislature was in session, and Alaska ratified the proposed Amendment in April 1971. The 26th Amendment was subsequently ratified by 41 other State legislatures by October 1971. It took less than 8 months to ratify that amendment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but rather because the Tea Party voted for this budget that created deficit spending and is now refusing to raise the limit so the budget they voted on can be implimented.
