 |
I am dreading the implementation of the new Super Congress being seated. Technically, then we don't need the House or Senate as they would be superfulous in making ANY laws as Congress initiates any new laws.
What are your thoughts on this? Good for America? Or the Worse possible scenerio?
If this goes through I personally think America as we know it today will be buried. Why not just appoint Obammy as Life Dictator and get it over with? Seems we're headed more in that direciton now anyway.
I think that's the Intent of the Democrats currently in office. Create an emergency, suspend the constitution, Declare martial law, and appoint their messiah as supreme ruler with no term expiration.
Its all in line with all the other illegal and unconstitutional things they have been doing thus far.
You have that backwards - that's a neocon tactic called "the shock doctrine". Google it.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
They have already essentially suspended the constitution in essence. Now all they have to do is declare martial law.
Coming soon to a city or county near you!!
The Republican Governors are doing a fine job of that in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida. Destroying local governments, and making their states a tyranny.
Can't you conservatives survive a few years of democrats? After all we Dem's and independents, and yes other repubs survived 8 years of Bush.
The dems didn't create the super congress, CONGRESS did.
That's pretty lame... You don't listen to Obamas goons, like a good democrat?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Don't Let a Crisis Go to Waste - Continuations
Don't let a crisis go to waste is Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel's quote... when he was Chief of Staff for Obama...
Since you only believe what the DNC tells you to believe... here is Rahm saying himself on video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow
And it isn't a neocon tactic... its right out of the lefties handbook written by Saul Alinsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
But Emanuel is one man and is no longer there. What I referred to is decades old.
The Alinsky link you posted has nothing to do with creating a crisis/shock and capitalizing on it for one's benefit.
It's a committee, not aa super congress, an effort to get a bi partisan bill, the whole congress still has to vote on it, and the Prez still has to sign it.Quote:
QUOTE by twinkiedooter;
I am dreading the implementation of the new Super Congress being seated. Technically, then we don't need the House or Senate as they would be superfulous in making ANY laws as Congress initiates any new laws.
Considering the partisan wrangling, the gridlock, and the debt debacle, maybe it could work and congress always forms committee to craft a bill.Quote:
What are your thoughts on this? Good for America? Or the Worse possible scenerio?
As I said, this is really nothing new as congress has sitting committees already, and has formed bi partisan committees before. Usually the are confined to either the HOUSE, or the SENATE, but this one is a combination of both. If they can indeed get a bill from this that addresses the problem, and can pass, it's a great thing. If not, automatic budget cuts are triggered.Quote:
If this goes through I personally think America as we know it today will be buried.
Don't know where that came from but I suspect it was straight out of RIGHT field. I mean who has the power to appoint a dictator for the US?Quote:
Why not just appoint Obammy as Life Dictator and get it over with? Seems we're headed more in that direciton now anyway
But if it came down to a republican dictator, or the current president, I vote for the President.
Who are you for, Perry, or Palin?? Yeah we get to vote on the next dictator. You do know about the election coming up in 2012 don't you??
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Interesting isn't it?
The left waits for a crisis while the right manufactures one.
Amounts too much the same don't you think?
Tut
I have no problem with a bi-partisan committee that recommends legislation. What I don't like is the automatic triggers and cuts that happen if Congress and the President don't pass their legislative ideas or if the committee doesn't come to a consensus.
In my view the super committee is constitutional ;but the automatic triggers are not.
Article I, Section 5 allows Congress to make whatever rules they please for conducting business. As long as they hold a vote at the end of it all.'
Also I would insist they meet in public.
I like the idea of triggers, they add a deadline to things and great incentive to get something done.
Again ;as currently constructed they are probably unconstitutional. The closest comparison I can come up with is BRAC. That was subject to extensive public hearing and comment before a final decision was made... and even that was subject to a final congressional vote.
Tom is correct. Triggers (in my humble opinion) are attempts by a current Congress to impose their will on a future Congress (or Administration). In other words, a guy/gal could be voted out next year and have more impact on the future, than the new guy/gal I just voted in. I need to study up further about what the triggers actually say--but that's my first impression about them.
The triggers are about spending cuts and revenue raising, not elections. I was reminded by my conservative friend that congress can give, and take away anything they decide on.
My opinion is that the government should be flexible to meet the times situation, and not be stuck by ideology that makes new ideas impossible to implement.
Sometimes it makes sense to raise taxes, and sometimes it makes sense to lower them. Sometimes a combination of cuts and taxes hikes makes sense also.
But if we are stuck in our thinking, we will never get the right solutions for the right problems. We get what we have now gridlock, because we are stuck on a position, ALL of us, so we cannot forge ahead and do what's needed collectively.
There are no tax increases in the triggers... just spending cuts. From an ideological point of view I should hope that the trigger is pulled .But I think the means has to comply with the Constitution.
I think the triggers are unconstitutional for the same reason I think the War Power's Act is ;because Congress cannot vote away their responsibilities under the Constitution.
Hello twink:Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
I vote for worst possible scenario..
We always do the exact WRONG thing. Cutting spending now, is the exact WRONG thing. That's not to say that our growing deficit isn't a problem. It IS. It's just not the IMMEDIATE problem. The IMMEDIATE problem is mass unemployment, which is eating away at the foundations of our nation.
Speaking of foundations, we should be improving ours... I heard a Republican say that it does no good make schools LOOK PRETTY! He doesn't get it! No, dumbkoff, it's NOT to make schools look pretty, it's to make OUR bridges SAFE! Plus, it'll put people to work.
Cutting spending is eating our seed corn. It's the WORST possible scenario for my beloved nation. I fear for my country.
excon
Seed corn ? Our silos are bare . We are feeding on borrowed feed corn.We are eating the seed corn of our children. And you want to do what ? Feast on more if it ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You want to know what a businessman does when his awnings are shabby and there are holes in the carpet?? First off, he doesn't FIRE the awning and the carpet guy. Second off, he INVESTS in new awnings and fixes the holes.. You HAVE heard of the word, INVEST?? That's what BUSINESS'S DO. If we're smart, our investment will pay off. But, NOT investing will turn us into a third world country.
excon
Hi ex have you seen some of the third world countries these days, they might have something to teach you. They have taken the investing in the future to new levels of extravagance. Truth is you have lost your way because of greed and that same thinking still pervades so you can't get out of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Naw, I want to invest that money the rich fat guys ain't investing. May not pay ALL the bills, but we could eat while we go broke.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If the job creators haven't done their job because they were scared, shouldn't we FIRE them anyway? Try telling your boss that you were scared to come to work, and do your job, and see how that works out for you!
Tal you are a one trick pony.
Here's a hint... business owners are not in business to create jobs. Jobs are the residuals. Business owners take the risks of owning a business to make money. And yes they should own the risk just like they should own the profit . You continue to think they owe you a living . The more government piles on them the less likely they are to take the risks... that's the facts Jack .
Time after time this nonsense of pump priming has failed to bring desired results and yet the lefts answer is to double down on failure . Where did the almost $ trillion in stimulus go ? Why should we believe a failed policy in 2009-10 will work any better in 2012 ?
There is only one tax discussion worthy of having ,and that's a total reform of the tax code ,to simplify it ,reduce rates and eliminate loop holes. Raising and lowering of rates is nonsense because the rates are warped . I guarantee a reform of the tax code is the stimulus everyone is looking for.
Then lets stop calling business men the job creators, (Republicans words not mine) and put the money where the people get something for it. Fat cat taxes get nothing, and having certainty is a crock of crap because there is no guarantees to THEM making money, so they can lose some tax loopholes and pay taxes.
Last I checked, businesses wanted cheap labor, and tax breaks. Well wages haven't gone up, in 30 years, and they have had tax breaks for a decade. No Tom, that formula ain't worked for us either. Then you talk of government being in the way of them making money, since when did having rules to curb their greediness (a watered down Dodd/Frank bill), or clean air, and water stopping them from making money? How I ask is government in the way? That's a load of bull because they can't do what they want. Even the crap about the Boeing lawsuit is a load of hooey, since they built the thing already and are going to make money off it, for years.
No Tom, I ain't buying none of those talking points because truth be told, big business can make more than they ever made before, and there is absolutely nothing stopping them from expanding, creating demand, and circulating the money so the economy can grow. NOTHING but their own greed.
And I expect nothing free from anyone since I make mine the old fashion honest way, by earning it, and blame no one but myself when I don't. Why can't big business do the same? Why do they have to have slaves to make a buck?
Heck, they don't want you going to a doctor without making a profit off you. You are right though, I am a one trick pony, and I don't like to be cheated, and lied too. Don't try it.
EDITED/
Reforming the tax code is cool, as long as simple means FAIR.
You don't want fair taxes... you want Robin Hood. Not much to debate when the terminology equates profits with greed.
I just don't see common ground..
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Because it didn't fail.. It just wasn't big enough. In the first place HALF of it was made up of tax cuts, so they didn't stimulate anything... The other half turned around the tremendous job loss that was happening when Obama took office...
Then the Republican onslaught against organized labor resulted in million of teachers, firemen, and other public service workers losing their jobs. They destroyed whatever progress we were making.
excon
Ex you are just describing history repeating itself. I heard the same argument by Keynesians who say Roosevelt's New Deal failed because it wasn't big enough .
The truth is that it's never big enough; because it's fundamentally flawed ;because it presumes that government is the job creator. Order more asphalt.. that'll turn it around. Good thing there are infrastructure repairs needed with all these hurricanes. Yeah that's the ticket.
Fair as in my 33% regular contribution on my wages should be matched by HIS 33% regular contribution on his wages, or I guess that's not fair huh, since he doesn't contribute as regularly as I do, or at the same rate. Why do you equate taxes with Robin Hood, it ain't Robin Hood when I pay mine??Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's YOUR objective.. Mine would be to grow the economy and when that happens, we can pay off the debt.. Who, in their right minds lays off teachers when the education of our youth is plummeting??
excon
The way to get out of debt is to EARN more money, and have a reasonable plan to pay bills. Or file for bankruptcy, and start all over with a lower credit leverage.Quote:
Who in their right mind actually believes that the way to get out of debt is to spend more money?
If your car broke down and you couldn't get to work you wouldn't quit would you? No, you would borrow the money to fix it, and pay it back. Its not easy, but do able.
Repubs say cut poor people to pay the debt, I say raise taxes to pay it. But then again a poor guy deserves nothing and rich guys deserve all they can make.
They didn't pay slaves either.
Bridges have been crumbling for decades and the bill to fix them was fillibustered, and is till in the Senate. And the new deal didn't fail, and it wasn't big enough. Repubs watered that down and blocked it too. History repeats itself, and since you learned nothing from it, we get the same results, a stunted half arse recovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
For once can't you guys get out of the way with the no we can't gloom and doom?
No wonder guys like Slick Rick, and his $7.50 job creation impresses you guys.
Show me one example where Keynesian pump priming was big enough. That is doesn't work because it wasn't big enough is the constant complaint of the left. They won't admit their assumption is wrong.
Tal as you know I would be very happy with a flat rate. But that isn't the lib argument. They say the rich don't pay their fair share when they already pay by far the vast majority of Federal Revenues.
The rich have lawyers, accountants, lobbyist, and all kinds of resources, why are you defending them? Let them defend themselves why don't you, as I don't understand why hard working repubs such as yourself worry so much about what rich guys make, I don't get it.
I understand the lib philosophy perfectly. Rob Peter to pay Paul because there are more Pauls than Peters. The problem is there is no sating that attitude. The President has already redefined downward what it is to be rich because he knows the rich don't have enough to pay for his ambitions.
Even then there would be a thin case for it if anyone could demonstrate a Keynesian success.
You didn't answer my question, Why defend the rich when they have the resources to defend themselves?
After every depression or recession, they still are rich, so what's with this robbing somebody stuff? They screw themselves with messing up the economy we suffer, so how are they getting robbed? Forget Keynes, he didn't rob anybody either.
What we got to beg the rich to have a few bucks or what?
How about blaming this on the half of the population who are leaches... they pay no taxes yet are quick to line up to suck at the puplic tit.
Make them pay their fair share... (which is the SAME percentage anyone else has to pay of their income). Take away the handouts for the terminally lazy... and see if deficits disappear in a hurry.
Hello again:
Smoothy laid out the Republican position perfectly... Don't tax the rich. Tax the poor.
No wonder we're going to hell.
excon
Yes going to hell in a handcartQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
We are going to hell in a hurry because HALF the population don't think they should contribute at all... and they think half that does isn't paying enough (talk about hypocrits)... and the half that actually IS footing the bills are sick and fed up with it... and THAT is why the economy is where it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Welfare states never work... thats why California is so much worse off than many other states... in fact Socialism hasn't worked anyplace in history.
Why bust your butt if your money goes to pay the lazy bum next door to sit on his butt and breed the neighborhood welfare queens.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I'm not into giving people a free lunch either, and certainly there are SOME of those...
But, as I have corrected you before, what you're saying is just NOT SO! The BULK of the 47% of the people you're talking about, DO contribute just like YOU and I do. True, the don't pay income taxes, but they pay PLENTY of federal taxes where most of the federal budget is derived... Just to list a few taxes they pay: Payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, Medicare taxes, federal telephone taxes, federal gasoline taxes, federal excise taxes, and they pay plenty of state taxes too, like sales tax, cigarette tax, beer tax, highway tax, car tab fees, drivers license fees, and I could go on and on... Yup. Looks like they contribute to ME.
So, if you want to repeat right wing talking points, be prepared to BACK them up...
excon
Okay I'll bite, how much should a $19,000 (The per capita income of TEXAS), family of FOUR, be expected pay in income taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You guys have a 50% employment rate??Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM. |