[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.

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[NeedKarma]

Create an emergency, suspend the constitution

You have that backwards - that's a neocon tactic called "the shock doctrine". Google it.

[twinkiedooter]

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!!

[talaniman]

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.

[smoothy]

You have that backwards - that's a neocon tactic called "the shock doctrine". Google it.

That's pretty lame... You don't listen to Obamas goons, like a good democrat?

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

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.

What are your thoughts on this? Good for America? Or the Worse possible scenerio?

Considering the partisan wrangling, the gridlock, and the debt debacle, maybe it could work and congress always forms committee to craft a bill.

If this goes through I personally think America as we know it today will be buried.

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.

Why not just appoint Obammy as Life Dictator and get it over with? Seems we're headed more in that direciton now anyway

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?

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??

[TUT317]

Its a commitee, 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.


Considering the partisan wrangling, the gridlock, and the debt debacle, maybe it could work and congress always forms committee to craft a bill.


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, its a great thing. If not, automatic budget cuts are triggered.


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??

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???

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

[tomder55]

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.

[talaniman]

I like the idea of triggers, they add a deadline to things and great incentive to get something done.

[tomder55]

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.

[smearcase]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

What are your thoughts on this? Good for America? or the Worse possible scenerio?

Hello twink:

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

[tomder55]

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 ?

[excon]

We are eating the seed corn of our children. And you want to do what ? Feast on more if it ?

Hello again, tom:

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

[paraclete]

Hello again, tom:

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.

[talaniman]

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 ?

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.

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!