That fix makes the bill even more broken! DOA is where this fix will end up.

Stupid is as stupid does!!

After they pass this bill, they should take up a bill to name a few national cemeteries, then they'll have a place to send it.

Yesterday they named a few post offices while at the same time the US Postal Service announces they'll be closing a few thousand of them.

Again, I say WTF!!!

Yeah... because a balanced budget ammendment is a HORRIBLE freakin' thing. I mean... how the heck are we supposed to spend ourselves into oblivion if we have to balance the budget every year?

this is just DUMB.... you move completely away from the middle to appease the tea party.... how's that for compromise? republican reps are just too dumb in my view.... shheshshhhsss

And now for today's Constitutional Quiz Question:

Q. If Congress is really the one under the Constitution that has all the authority for spending and borrowing, then why does the President need to "request" a debt ceiling increase? Why doesn't Congress just do it?

A. Because Congress, which keeps wanting to appoint committees and commissions to avoid making tough choices, can't do ANYTHING for itself.

And here we are.

Boehner lost this debate the first time he caved to the Tea Party. They now own him.

A toxic bill just now became radioactive as well. This will just go down the toilet faster and prove once and for all that these AINOS folk are a real joke on the country and the Debt Ceiling Is in no way what their Agenda was.

IT WAS THE TOTAL COLLAPSE OF THE GOVERNMENT AS THEIR GOAL. PERIOD

What do you do when your Party shots itself in the foot? Answer, you shoot the other foot.

Yesterday the House passed the Duck, Dodge and Dismantle Bill (the phony Budget Amendment Bill that is really nothing more than a remake of the Ryan Bill except it is on Steroids) by a vote of 234 Yea to 190 Nay. As expected this was pretty much along party lines.

What the GOP/TP has done is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are the Party that wants to repeal/privatize or even destroy Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They want to gut just about every middle class social safety net including Education, Medical Research, FEMA, FDA, Food and Product Safety, Food Stamps, Law Enforcement etc etc. They want to reduce regulations on Wall Street and Big Business in a society that wants more regulations not less. They want to guarantee that the top 2% will get record tax cuts that cannot ever be increased unless via a 2/3 vote which makes it very unlikely. This will increase the economic divide to a new record.

Not only are the GOP/TP on record for voting for this DRACONIAN ideology once, but now they are on the record for voting for the same thing only worse again. What the GOP/TP has done is slap America on the other side of our face.

I have written several pieces on why the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is a very bad plan for this country and now there is another article by CBPP: Nobel Laureates and Leading Economists Oppose Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment - http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-19-11bud-pr-sig.pdf

This is a short article but sums up how bad this Bill is for our Country; read it takes only a minute or two.

Just about every economist of note from both side of the aisle has been saying from the beginning that any meaningful “Debt Ceiling Bill” must include spending cuts AND increased revenues, period. Nothing less will work for the long term and in fact one without the other would be a sure path to economic collapse. 80% of the American people say that the Debt Ceiling talks need to include increasing revenues as well and so say the economists, CEO’S of Major Corporations and even Wall Street. Why is the GOP/TP not listening to the people? Even the majority of their own constituents believe that the GOP/TP is on the wrong side of this argument and that any serious Debt Ceiling Bill must include Spending Cuts and Increased Revenues. Just look at the recent NCB/WSJ Report released yesterday. The American People support President Obama on this overwhelmingly and do not support the GOP/TP.

Examples of how drastic and bad this proposal is for America: http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6-11bud.pdf

1. “It cuts total funding for non-defense discretionary programs by approximately 70 percent in 2021, and by more than $3 trillion over the next ten years, relative to the already reduced funding levels that Congress recently approved for fiscal year 2011 (adjusted for inflation).

This is the part of the budget that includes veterans’ medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI. It also includes education, environmental protection, protecting the nation’s food and water supply, and medical research, as well as services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities”.

2. “The budget slashes Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years; Medicaid funding would be cut by 54 percent in 2021. (This is on top of the more than $600 billion in Medicaid cuts it would impose by repealing the Affordable Care Act and its coverage expansions.) It cuts SNAP by a remarkable $350 billion — or 50 percent — over ten years. And it cuts Supplemental Security Income, which provides poor people who are elderly or severely disabled with benefits that raise them to about 75 percent of the poverty line, by $238 billion over ten years; SSI would be cut in half in 2021”.

3. “It cuts at least $86 billion over ten years from Pell Grants, which help low-income students afford college. Other cuts include $84 billion in farm programs”.

The CBPP had a follow up report released on July 16th: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-15-11bud-stmt.pdf

“Talking points that the legislation’s proponents circulated on July 15 seek to foster an impression that the measure would protect Social Security and Medicare. Such an impression would not be accurate. The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions”.

“The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled”.

“Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big Cuts in these programs would be inevitable”.

“Moreover, because taxes — including payroll taxes — would be virtually impossible to raise as a result of the new constitutional barrier, Social Security solvency would have to be restored entirely through benefit cuts. Balanced Social Security packages that include measures to raise Social Security’s $106,000 payroll tax cap, so that higher-income Americans do not escape the tax on much of their earnings, would effectively be ruled out”.

This new CC&B is so bad for America in that even the Ryan Bill would not be passed under this new Bill. Reason – the Ryan Bill would not be DRACONIAN enough, it would be to tame.

Yeah... because a balanced budget ammendment is a HORRIBLE freakin' thing. I mean... how the heck are we supposed to spend ourselves into oblivion if we have to balance the budget every year?

...and just what, do you think, are the chances BBA will pass with the super-majority required?

So, Boehner's plan...a temporary solution and we can play this game again in 2012. I believe that's called "Kicking The Can Down The Road".

Joe Walsh says a balanced budget is an absolute necessity. We have a spending problem he says, and the first thing that needs to be cut is those damned courts that order child support payments.

It did.

It was down 153 points shortly after it opened and settled in at about -90 until the President spoke and then it gained about 80 points, almost back to even before sliding back slightly.

Good thing Obama spoke and SAVED THE DAY!

LOL!

The ball's in the Senates court. Backhand, or forehand?

Dennis,

Thank you for keeping the truth in the forefront. Don't be fooled by these RWNJ's. They know not what they speak.

Navy,

I was thinking Boner's re-write was done in a bathroom stall on "Tea-paper", and the "passing" was referring to the toilets drain piping, when this re-write goes down!

And now for today's Constitutional Quiz Question:

Q. If Congress is really the one under the Constitution that has all the authority for spending and borrowing, then why does the President need to "request" a debt ceiling increase? Why doesn't Congress just do it?

_____________________________

Real A: AM: You really surprise me with your statement "If Congress is really the one under the Constitution that has all the authority for spending and borrowing". Even an amateur judge like me (Remember, I was appointed by YOU) knows that no spending or borrowing bill can become law without the Presidents signature. He doesn't have to ask for an increase as long as he is willing to govern within the limits of the deficit ceiling already in place. If he wants to spend more than the one in place, he has to go, hat in hand, to Congress and ask for an increase, just as Barry is now doing.

"Please, sir, I want some more."

IMHO, the market slightly recovered because of the news of this bill's ability to pass in the House. It is now tanking again from the wonderful news from Moody's.

We just need to have a clean bill.then in 2012 let's have a vote everybody knows were our elected official stand if the American voter want dems that will fight for the people let's vote them in,if the American voters want more tax breaks for the rich and throw the middle class what's left of it off the cliff so be it.Hopefully the dems can take back the house and then grow some balls and do what is right.

NavyBoy, how many times will you rehash this post? It is getting old.

By the way, do you care to share with the community about your disability?

Could the balanced budget amendment be Boehner's all-in bet?

From my First thoughts post this morning:

Back a ways the Nasty Redhead touted that Barry was playing chess on the debt ceiling issue while the Republican’s were playing tic-tac-toe. The debt ceiling is actually a high stakes poker game and what if Boehner is slow-playing the Dem rubes? What would put him in a stronger position on the final round of betting with the Dems than the credible ability to say he can’t get anything passed in the House without more concessions from them because of those “crazy tea partiers”?? Would Harry and Barry call him after he goes all-in?? Not likely.

BTW, it looks like the FR lefty liberal collapse clowns are back in full force. Two of my posts were collapsed on Thursday and then restored by the FR monitors, indicating the FR lefty liberal collapser's were out of line. Now, one of my posts on today's First Thoughts is collapsed by the same lefty liberal collapse clowns. I thought lefty liberals were "tolerant"?? Guess not.

Hey, Mark Murray...

President Obama is today at 40%...yeah, that's right...40% job approval in the Gallup daily tracking poll.

That's even lower than the President's job approval at Rasmussen.

It's a new Gallup low, in fact.

So tell us all...yet again... about how President Obama is winning the public opinion war on the debt ceiling issue.

So tell us all...yet again... about how President Obama is winning the public opinion war on the debt ceiling issue.

Maybe you should check Boehner and McConnell's approval in the same poll?

Someone has to explain this to me:

"They have basically given the right wing even more than they have before," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters. "What is being done in the House is not a compromise."

Then he added about his own legislation, “The only compromise that there is, is mine.”

Something smacks of arrogance to me in Harry's words. They gave the right wing more? More what? and more importantly, who are they to be doing the giving? Harry acts like he holds all the cookies and he's handing them out one by one.

Hey Harry - if the house passes their legislation and you fail to pass it, with or without any twist, it's all on you buddy. The house is doing their job and regardless of what any liberal may think of the house's plan, it's put together. Haven't seen hide nor hair of an accepted plan by the senate yet.

I got it... Harry looks down on the congress like they are lowly schlupps. School children playing in the sandbox. From Harry's lofty perch, while looking down, he totally misses the B-52(the people) dialing in his coordinates.

Obama Rates Higher Than Boehner, Reid on Debt Situation

Americans are more likely to approve of the way President Obama is handling the negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling than they are to approve of the handling of the situation by Speaker of the House John Boehner or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, although opinions about all three are more negative than positive.

www.gallup.com/poll/148718/Obama-Rates-Higher-Boehner-Reid-Debt-Situation.aspx

Budget Amendment.......another RED meat thrown at Teapublicants. These guys are just not ready to govern. Boehner, take a lesson or two from Pelosi and the job will be done. This could have been a bipartisan vote in the congress but he's simply narrow minded.

Da Noid-

President Obama's GOP opponent in 2012 won't be Boehner...or, McConnell.

He'll also be running against his record on the economy.

He's in trouble.

Judge Joe:

He doesn't have to ask for an increase as long as he is willing to govern within the limits of the deficit ceiling already in place. If he wants to spend more than the one in place, he has to go, hat in hand, to Congress and ask for an increase, just as Barry is now doing.

Your honor, I read your post over at FT, gave it some thought, and have already conceded that I agree with your source that the President's authority under the 14th Amendment may be limited to incurring additional debt only to avoid default on the interest on our current debt. Because that's really what I thought all along. I just said it very badly.

So, if you were just trying to get me to say it where more people could see it, consider it done.

My advice: Take your victory and run. ;-)

p.s. If I didn't surprise you every day, what good would it be?

MB-

We are all in trouble...and the speaker's action has ensured that the republican nominee has at least some of that "blood" on them whoever they are.

What we are seeing is a loss of faith in our system, not just the current knuckleheads in office. The tail wags the dog, and everything is a partisan 11th hour crisis. No one person can lead us out of the current malaise.

After electing a "uniter, not a divider" then a man who's very presence was to bring us together as a nation we seem to be further apart than ever...There is shame for all and blame enough to go around-twice...

President Obama's GOP opponent in 2012 won't be Boehner...or, McConnell.

He'll also be running against his record on the economy.

He's in trouble.

He'd be in trouble if he were running against a "Generic Republican Candidate"...he's currently trailing in that matchup. Too bad for you he won't be running against a "Generic Republican Candidate". That candidate will have a name and a face and right now President Obama is leading over every single one.

Obama vs. "Generic Republican" = "Generic Republican" +2.5

Obama vs. Romney = Obama +4.3

Obama vs. Paul = Obama +9.8

Obama vs. Perry = Obama +11.6

Obama vs. Pawlenty = Obama +12.3

Obama vs. Bachmann = Obama +12.4

Obama vs. Huntsman = Obama +14.0

Obama vs. Gingrich = Obama +14.7

Obama vs. Cain = Obama +14.7

Obama vs. Palin = Obama +20.0

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Joe Walsh says a balanced budget is an absolute necessity. We have a spending problem he says, and the first thing that needs to be cut is those damned courts that order child support payments

Joe's is a real piece of work isn't he?

You mean $174,000 a year of taxpayer money isn't enough to cover his child support? Yeah right!

His ex-wife has petitioned the court to have his IL drivers license suspended for non-payment!

I want to know why he's not sitting in the 'pokey' in day-glow orange?

I'm very familiar with his district (even though I don't reside there) TRUST me - this guy is TOAST in 2012!

Most people don't take kindly to dead beat dads!

Whistling past the graveyard, Da Noid.

Just like before last November...

Remember?

Remind us all of your predictions for last year's midterm elections.

Remember what you said?

C'mon, Da Noid...

You remember...

DaNoid posted this from a gallop site:

Obama Rates Higher Than Boehner, Reid on Debt Situation

Americans are more likely to approve of the way President Obama is handling the negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling than they are to approve of the handling of the situation by Speaker of the House John Boehner or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, although opinions about all three are more negative than positive.

Da Noid - did you actually read this or did you just post it out of habitual Obama praise? Let me show you where your headline errs.

Americans are more likely to approve

This is an opinion from a polster. It's not actual polling data. There is no more validity in this statement than there is in me saying Obama is going to be a one term president.

Da Noid - did you actually read this or did you just post it out of habitual Obama praise? Let me show you where your headline errs.

Americans are more likely to approve

This is an opinion from a polster. It's not actual polling data. There is no more validity in this statement than there is in me saying Obama is going to be a one term president.

Hey, Brian, maybe you could go check out the link I provided which will take you to the polling data. Enjoy.

"To hold out and say we won't agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution. It's unfair, it's bizarre," McCain railed on the Senate floor, "And maybe some people have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that. Others know better."

McCain called this "amazing," foolish" and "deceiving" that some members believe that this can happen, now with only [5] days left until the nation defaults on its debts with the August 2 deadline for action looming.

"To somehow think or tell our citizens that if we have enough debate and amendment here in the Senate in the short term in the next six days that we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is unfair to our constituents," McCain said.

And then there was a little mocking from the Senator – who has held elected office in the Congress since 1982– for his young counterparts who say that if this plays out like they'd like it to the blame would be put squarely on President Obama and the Democrats, insinuating their theory would not work out as planned.

McCain is being attacked the way Gingrich was for speaking the truth from Sean "The Twit" Hannity. However, though McCain said he would vote for Boehner's bill, that was before it was tied to unrealistic passage of Duck, Dodge and Dismantle. Duck, Dodge and Dismantle, which is Paul Ryan's plan on steroids and already rejected by the people (NY election), will NEVER happen.

1. Propose An Amendment
Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.

• Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

2. Ratify An Admendment
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).

Is there a timelinefor ratification? The US Supreme Court has held that ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Since the 18th Amendment, Congress has set a term of seven years for ratification.

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.

The debt ceiling will be raised one way or another, probably a few sane members in the Republican Party will join Democrats in some last minute approval if only by a clean vote.

And then, as we head toward the 2012 election, more and more of the 80 Tea Party Orcs who have no interest in eliminating the debt, rather they want to eliminate our government, and who have tried to do so by circumventing democracy with terrorist tactics will be exposed (starting with Joe Walsh) and sent back to Middle Earth along with Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle.

Approval ratings? Poor economy? These things won't matter. The president could kill a puppy on live TV and still win re-election in 2012 because the GOP/TP sucks that bad.

Your honor, I read your post over at FT, gave it some thought, and have already conceded that I agree with your source that the President's authority under the 14th Amendment may be limited to incurring additional debt only to avoid default on the interest on our current debt. Because that's really what I thought all along. I just said it very badly.

So, if you were just trying to get me to say it where more people could see it, consider it done.

My advice: Take your victory and run. ;-)

p.s. If I didn't surprise you every day, what good would it be?

_______________________________________

AM: I hadn't checked today's FT before I posted above. It's not a "victory". Unlike most posts on FR (many of mine and a lot of others) my posts to you are mostly a search for some reasonable version of the actual truth, from the varying points of view we have (although I do love to be a bit snarky at times with the lawyer jabs. LOL!!!). The reason I post on a lefty liberal blog like MSDNC's FR and watch their Three Stooges in their prime time line-up, is that it challenges me to reconsider and research the generally conservative views I have on issues. I already know what Rush/FOX News is likely to think (but, I don't listen to it/watch it). I want to know what people like you think.

BTW, I couldn't care less about what Nasty Redhead's think, ("think" which is the ultimate oxymoron for a Nasty Redhead)

Feisty:

I'm very familiar with his district (even though I don't reside there) TRUST me - this guy is TOAST in 2012!

Most people don't take kindly to dead beat dads!

Not that I disagree with this or even think it's a bad thing, but isn't it ironic that voters might choose this to hang him on when they apparently don't care two beans about his being a complete jerk in Congress?

Just goes to show how little we expect of politicians.

Just goes to show how little we expect of politicians.

Scary isn't it?

He's in a swing district and only won by 291 votes.

Although, if you listen to him, you would think he was crowned King!

What a completely asinine contingency!

These morons can't even pass a single line item bill that has been passed over 100 times in our previous history without LOADING it up like a baby's diaper,...and they want President Obama to sign this piece of crap?

Who's the dream weaver now?

I don't get it. We are balancing our budget to prevent default right? So we better balance our budget to prevent default in the coming decades or the Republicans will default us next week? Inception!

Whats better about defaulting in 6 months when the balanced budget amendment doesn't pass than now? Whats better about setting a balance budget amendment that makes it impossible to defend ourselves should a world war break out than defaulting?

Really, is defaulting really so bad if the GOP wants to try it out next week? If it isn't, then whats the point of cutting everything at all? My kids should be uneducated and my grandmother should starve to death to prevent a default the Republicans created on Tuesday?

What the hell are their real objectives? If they aren't worried about defaulting, then what is the point of the cuts?

The point of the cuts is to undermine the economic recovery to destroy Obama's chance at reelection. I thought this was common knowledge.

Seriously though, the debt limit has been raised ceremoniously 74 times in the past. But all of a sudden, under this president and TeaBagging House, it is unconscionable. The truth is staring us in the face - Brass Knuckle Power Politics. Plain and simple.

Excuse me? They are destroying my future on purpose so I'll vote for them? Are you kidding me? On purpose?

Do they have any idea how people like me will react to that? You think the Tea-whatever rallies about birth certificates and death panels and unicorn abuse were bad. Wait until you see what happens.

If that's what you really believe. Join me. I'm dead serious. I'll start it right now. This is something more than worth fighting tooth and nail for.

Sing it high, and sing it low:

Ding dong, the bill is dead,

which old bill,

The Boehner's bill.

Ding, dong, the Boehner's bill is dead.

Hi-ho, the derry-o

Sing it high, sing it low ....

It's gone where those goblins go .... below, below, below ....

Yo ho ....

(fade)

And now if you look out the windows of our downtown D.C. tour bus, you will see that we are leaving Munchkin Land and entering the New Republic of Wonderland, home of the Tea Party.

The next sound you hear will be a Pack of Cards ... shuffling.

Somebody please, call their bluff.

Anna--love your song!!! Wonderland, though, sounds an awful lot like hell.

Wheres the Spankster?

[Wheres the Spankster?]

...having his colon cleansed...

Rick, the Spankster doesn't come around much when things go bump in the night for conservatives. No doubt he'll show up later after the House passes its DOA legislation.

Anna Molly..

Anna Molly's song was brought to you by the letters T and P and the number 216.

LoL Ira ... I've done what I can for now. If you need help getting those votes, I'll be in the garden with the Mad Hatter painting the roses red.

And now, back to the tour:

... if you listen carefully, you'll hear the winsome sound of a Cheshire cat, smiling.

...having his colon cleansed...

That's gonna take awhile - it's packed pretty tight... lol

...having his colon cleansed...

[That's gonna take awhile - it's packed pretty tight... lol]

...he's securing his dynamite permit as we speak...

Is that your opinion or a fact? If it's a fact, post the link.

Paul,

Prove it isn't true what Amy said, where is your link?

Really "Me First"? You 5 years old? I don't know if it's true, that's the reason why I asked. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

Angellight,

Great post. Keep em coming.

If they would re-name the cut, cap,and balance plan, to stall, crash, and burn they would gain alot of credability with me!

the truth is in the last 20 some years we only need a balance budget for repb presidents....because clinton had a 500billion surplus and obama wouldn't had to spend all the moneys to clean up georges 7 trillion dollar total debt...

Hey marc...

How does spending another $4.5T clean up George's "7 trillion dollar total debt..."?

You see... that's the problem with you libbies... you think that the way to get rid of the debt is to spend MORE! Just keep spending money you don't have... just keep borrowing and spending... Yeah... that's how we get rid of debt!

I would just love to see your personal check book!

LOL!!!!

You got it, marc huff! Repeat again, where was the Tea Party outrage as the Bush & GOP Congress passed trillions in spending without paying a cent to pay for it?

Sick, Bush doubled the National debt by using the credit card, he paid for absolutely nothing--there's no excuse for that. $4.3 trillion goes a long way to clean up the mess Bush and the GOPers left.

Sotb--the best way to get rid of the debt is to have more people working and paying (I know it's a dirty work) taxes. The best way to create jobs in a down economy is NOT 'no taxing the rich'--it's stimulus (and yes, I know the last one didn't work---It didn't work because the republicans gutted it and diluted it and made it ineffective)

marc...

come on now... answer the question...

How does spending another $4.5T clean up George's "7 trillion dollar total debt..."?

or does it just add another $4.5T to an already huge number? Come on buddy... talk to me.

Ah nevermind... you must be looking for some more check.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Sue...

I hate to tell you but the republicans didn't 'gut and dilute' the last stimulus... if you remember... when that stimulous was passed the dems had control of BOTH the House and the Senate... if anyone 'gutted' anything it was your buddies!

BTW... glad to hear a libby FINALLY admint that the stimulus did not work! Maybe we ARE moving in the correct direction.

Jody,

I think regardless of how the voters vote, there should be an exam before an elected official can be sworn in. If they fail the seat goes up for special election immediately until the elected candidate passes the exam. Great idea.

Great idea Bryan...

I can see it now...

Question 1: Will you vow to blindly accept and pass ALL legislation proposed by the liberal left?

Answer: No...

WRONG! THAT'S IT! YOU'RE OUT!

No thank you, sir. The election is enough of a test.

Jody,

They all took the "crash the government course"!

SotB-You're right that the democrats controlled the house. Enough bluedog dems sided with the republicans that they managed to dilute the package. That was compromise...not a good one; but compromise nonetheless. And the reason I say it didn't work is that it didn't create the jobs it was supposed to, there's no denying that; but, it did still manage to keep us out of depression...although with the current crisis, it may all be a moot point.

p.s. thanks for engaging in discussion; I don't agree with you; but, I can see that you are fighting for what you believe in. There's too much blindly shouting and insulting each other.

Agreed Sue...

It is refreshing to discuss this with someone that is not screaming personal attacks at me just because I don't happen to agree with his/her point of view.

Have a nice weekend!

You know we probably don't need a balanced budget agreement for our country. We should do away with ALL tax loopholes. I wonder how many of you that want to do away with all the tax loopholes for corporations are also willing to do away with ALL tax loopholes. Lets start with the earned income tax credit, mortgage tax credits, etc. NO ONE gets any tax credits. Why are giving tax credits to people for their children's day care? That would be some shared sacrifice.

Its time for a flat tax, lets exempt the first 40,000 of everyone's salary, (maybe 70,000 for married couples) then 10% on everything after that. If we exempt 40,000 (70,000 for married) no one can scream it unfairly targets the poor. But no one gets any credits or deductions at ALL. I haven't put a lot of research into my proposal, but at least everyone would pay the same. I'll be waiting for someone to tell me I'm a bigot for my ideas.

So Janet are you saying 10% for everyone that makes 70K (married)? That sounds like a very good idea!

I'm saying that everyone that makes above 40K (70 married) pays 10% income tax on everything above 40K. BUT there are no refunds, deductions, tax credits for ANYONE. So the earned income credit is gone, all college credits gone, daycare credits gone. It should make filing taxes much easier for everyone. File income taxes just as you do now, just no one gets refunds, credits, or deductions. The numbers could easily be made lower, (actually 30 and 60K sound more fair) but the actual figure could be determined by economists.

Its ridiculous that people that pay no income taxes what so ever, somehow manage to get money back in the form of an earned income credit every year.

THat's how I see it as well, Marc.

You're right, Marc. I saw that clip--Limbaugh wasn't pleased, even he could see where this is headed and it isn't pretty for conservatives.

How inconceivably weird is it that Rush and some of the other rightwing nuts are starting to sound somewhat reasonable when compared to the republicans in the House of Representatives?

Marc, no doubt that this is the likely scenario. Kind of adds to McCain calling them Hobbits and warning them that America will NOT see this as Obama's fault.

I do believe however that they will challange the language of the 4th section of the 14th amendment and will go after him is he does invoke his powers. At least the man has the stuff to try, even it kills him politically he is making an effort.

Sueb1

how true, the RNC should have never allowed a two party GOP system. It is out of their control now and the demise of the GOP is looking like a real possibility now.

How does one jam things in a year and a half with bipartisan support and massive compromises (to create basically a 90's republican bill) to the center and with enough public support to gain vast majorities in all three law-making bodies? If that's jamming, then what would be a deliberative process? The melting of glaciers?

If one and a half years of legislative debate and 15 years of drumming up support is jamming, then what Boehner is doing approaches the destructive power of a bullet fired at light speed.

dangerfield..

My sentiments exactly.

The ball is firmly in the President's court and he controls the narrative at this point.

Tell us what you will accept and what you will veto.

Now is the time to be the Decider inf Chief.

I do believe that if the President invoked the 14th amendment and raised the debt ceiling, the people would be behind him all the way! I know, at this point, I would be!

President Obama already did tell them what he would accept and what he would not: no balanced budget amendment, no short-term increase. Both those things are in Boehner's bill. Apparently, the House GOPTPers cannot hear.

Jody..

I missed it also Jody.

What exactly did he say he would accept?

Cause first he said the deal had to be balanced and now he said he's accept Reid's plan which is just cuts.

I honestly have no clue what the President is looking for.

Ira, I've heard your argument from a lot of republicans and it's a fallacious one;because, that's called compromise. First you say what you want, then you hear what the other side wants, then you give a counterproposal, they give a counterproposal, you come back with what you hope you can get, etc, etc, etc.

Sueb1..

Sue, respectfully.

All the arguments have been given and all the proposals are going to be voted on and there is not one that will pass both the House and Senate. Not one.

There are no more compromises to be had.

You either get a clean debt ceiling bill.....never going to happen

....or you go with the McConnell-Reid parliamentary procedure to stave off default.

What is left to compromise on?

A good read...

Demonization and the Debt Ceiling Stalemate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/29/demonization_and_the_debt_ceiling_stalemate_110760.html

dangerfield..

The implosion of the GOP is happening right before our eyes...witness yesterday's non vote.

Ever wonder how this will be viewed by history?

They will have to think we have the IQ's of neanderthals.

Ira--why can't that happen. It's happened 118 times before. And this is increasing the debt, it's paying the debt. Pass a clean bill to avert the current crisis and then fight it out over the budget. I'd want the dems to fight for big cuts and moderate tax increases. Usually a debt ceiling increase is pro forma, the only reason it's not this time is McConnell's 'we have to defeat this president at all costs'. I submit to you that the cost of the United States defaulting and plunging the world into economic chaos is too high a price.

The implosion of the GOP, Ira?

The President just hit 40% job approval in Gallup's daily tracking poll...a new low.

Lower than Rasmussen.

Are you sure, my friend?

Don't kid yourself.

Everyone's blood is being spilled.

That should be 'And this is not increasing the debt, it paying old debt'

Sueb1..

It can't happen because the GOP won't pass a clean bill.....ever.

They want a Balanced Budget Amendment attached to any bill.

They want cuts only and no revenue increases.

That's what all their proposals have been about.

A let's just raise the debt ceiling and talk about everything else later and end this nonsense is not in their ideology.

Mixed..

As I see it, the GOP lost all credibility last night. A huge momentum shift.

If the President seizes the initiative today as both dangerfield and I have suggested, it may swing even more to his favor.

The American people want this settled and they saw a GOP so divided against itself that they couldn't even agree on what they want.

Polls mean nothing to me and I've never used them in a single post. Truman was losing by how much to Dewey in the polls? Talk to me about polls in 2012...after the GOP primaries.

You're beginning to sound desperate my friend.....

Oh...the implosion comment was related to the article dangerfield posted in his post about DWS.

....and yes everyone's blood is spilled but most importantly let's hope this gets resolved before the bloodbath of a default.

Ira-

and

MB-

Everyone's blood is being spilled.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

That about sums it up...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

watch them fall...

IR: The implosion of the GOP is happening right before our eyes...witness yesterday's non vote

If non-votes were an implosion, then the Senate would look like a crater.

Any word on how Harry's plan has fared in the Senate? What was the vote tally on his Big Important Idea?

JoAnnaSmith1..

Agree, non votes in both Houses JoAnna but the BIG non vote happened last night, nationally televised, the Plan to save the nation from default. Biggest non vote that I can remember.

Guessing Harry's plan passes the Senate and dies in the House.

Guessing Boehner's plan passes the House and is tabled in the Senate.

Both Bills are non starters, so what's your point?

Ira, I'm listening to the debate on the current Boehner bill as I write this. You are right. It's scary.

Sueb1

I do believe that if the President invoked the 14th amendment and raised the debt ceiling, the people would be behind him all the way! I know, at this point, I would be!

Hey why don't we appoint him dictator for life too!!

IL: Agree, non votes in both Houses JoAnna but the BIG non vote happened last night, nationally televised, the Plan to save the nation from default.

You do understand there is a Cut, Cap, and Balance bill the Senate can take up for debate, you know, just to keep them busy, give them something to do. That bill was voted on and passed in the House, and it raised the debt ceiling. If nothing else it will get the Senate back in the mode doing something. Seems right now the Democrat Senators spend their time on the Senate floor giving speeches and telling the House what it should be doing. That doesn't seem that productive.

Sueb1: Ira, I'm listening to the debate on the current Boehner bill as I write this. You are right. It's scary.

I'm certain the debate on the Senate bill will go much better. The bill I'm sure is much more sensible, moderate, balanced, and fair, you know all the things that are important to Liberals. And of course it is without any details, any numbers, and any structure, so that makes it even better and less scary.

Sueb1: I do believe that if the President invoked the 14th amendment and raised the debt ceiling, the people would be behind him all the way!

They'd would be behind him, chasing him with torches and pitchforks.

JoAnnaSmith1

You do understand there is a Cut, Cap, and Balance bill the Senate can take up for debate, you know, just to keep them busy, give them something to do.

Oh...you mean like naming Post Offices.

Cap, cut and spend is DOA and you know it.

C'mon..we can argue about real stuff...this is nonsense.

Joanna There would be enough of us to get his back. As to my comment that 'It's scary', I wasn't referring to the bill; but, to the partisanship and denseness of all the members on BOTH sides!

Sorry, Ira.

Reid's plan will pass the Senate?

Senator Reid will get 60 Senate votes for his plan?

I don't see that happening.

Reid's plan will be rejected and die in his own Senate.

It'll never reach the House.

Ira: Cap, cut and spend is DOA and you know it.

So where's the Senate 's bill? They are working on one, correct? Voting on it when?

Reid may want to shut his yap long enough to consider the House bill. Reid is so concerned that he'll get "only" a $1 trillion dollar rise in the debt ceiling that this issue will come up again before the election in 2012. Reid doesn't want his party to be accountable for the massive spending they are doing, and wants the next rise in the ceiling to come in 2013.

Accountable Reid is not.

First California's property taxes got set to only being able to increase during a sale due to proposition 13. Less revenue.

Then they passed the balance budget trap with 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes ever again.

Republicans are always pointing to California as bad economy because we are liberal there as the reason.

Think it might be the same bad ideals they got put in place in California, that they are now trying to push on the entire United States might just be why California is having such a hard time.

The rabbit hole could be fun or there could be spikes at the end.

Marc, I agree; but, that's little consolation for sending not only us, but the world into further recession if not depression. They're having protests in other countries begging us to get this done....and Boehner cowers before the tea party.

Alex--assinine is the perfect word. Could you imagine what would happen if Boehner turned around and said to the president 'let's go with the balanced 4 trillion deal-cuts and taxes. You get 109 democrats, I'll get 108 republicans and let's do what's right for the people.' He'd be a hero. Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen and he'll be remembered as what he is...an ass.

Sue - when you refer to the "ass" - you are talking about Oboma - right?

no, Lewis, I mean the soon-to-be ex-speaker of the house.

The problem is that a balanced budget works for a family not for a country. What happens if you have your budget and you've got it all figured out, everything is paid for...and then you have a Katrina, a Joplin and oh, yeah, we have the chance to kill Bin Laden or God forbid, we get hit with another 9-11...only that's not budgeted for--sure you had a discretionary fund for emergencies; but, that's been gone through. How about if oil goes through the roof and we have to replenish our strategic reserves? What do you do; I'm sorry; but, nothing is not an option.

Their balanced budget amendment is a piece of nonsense which enshrines Grover Nordquist's Pledge with a 2/3 majority to ever raise or lower taxes required including closing tax loopholes and breaks provided for those who need none; it guarantees that nothing substantial would ever be done again in this country in good times or bad. It cripples every future Congress and future President of any party. This country does not need a balanced budget. It needs legislators who compromise and work together to solve the problem NOW, not in 10 years which is the number of years allowed for states to pass it or reject it.

No Sue... The government does the same thing that you and I do. I hope you have an "Emergency fund" built into your budget. Like for when your car breaks down or your AC fails or your washing machine breaks.

Think about how much more difficult it would be for the hawkish contingent to go to war. Clearly that is a benefit.

The government doesn't have the discipline to have an open-unlimited checkbook.

As Cicero said in 55 BC...

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.

Funny how some things never change - like personal and government greed.

@Lewis: What THE PEOPLE are you talking about? You do not get to speak for THE PEOPLE. There are more people than the T-Pers. And I suspect there will be a whole lot less T-Pers after the next midterms.

As for a balanced budget amendment why do you think one has never been passed? Why do you think we need to amend the T-Pers "beloved" Constitution? They don't even know what's in the Constitution and they want to pervert it by taking away voters rights, by killing the middle class, by taking away the "common good", and on and on. The reason there has never been a balanced budget amendment is because it totally ties the hands of congress and the President to allow for disasters or anything else. Maybe if those who have accrued the greatest results from the tax cuts actually pitched in, we wouldn't have this f'ing mess that President Obama has to try to deal with. you cannot get away from it, Lewis, that the Republicans run up the deficits while the Democrats must clean up YOUR mess. You can slant it any way you want, but people with memories and some semblance of brains actually know how we got in this mess.

Sure, Lewis, but what if your car breaks down, your roof develops a leak, and Your kid need to go to the dentist. You need your car to get to work, if you don't fix your roof, you'll have bigger problems and your kid is in pain. You've exhausted your emergency stash. What do you do? Imagine, another 9-11, only bigger...no money in the emergency stash cause you've had a Katrina and an Andrew. Interest rates are way up so your mortgage payment has gone up. Sometimes a balanced budget isn't possible. But, I do agree that making it harder to go to war would be good. And maybe making it hard to raise extra money for the budget should be very hard; but, a balanced budget ties the hands of the government. And if you want to remain the greatest country on the planet, you have to be real to the costs involved.

Cathy,

I'm speaking about "We the people." The same people referenced in the beloved constitution. The same people referenced in the first and second amendments that gives us the rights to have this discussion and practice whatever religion we chose – or not practice.

The reason we didn’t need a balanced budget amendment before is that the government never thought (or acted) like it was all things to all people not that it had to solve all of the ills of our society.

Cathy, I agree with you 100% - the republicans are as much to blame as the democrats. That is clearly the issue. Both parties are self serving and NEITHER is serving us. That is precisely why there should be limits set on them.

But we digress… my point was – quit bickering over the balanced budget amendment… let the people decide. Let’s have this debate in the public arena – in the states. Let it stand or fall after the states vote on it.

BRAVO Lewis! BRAVO!

BTW Cathy... there are PLENTY of Balanced Budgets Ammendments that have been passed... take a look at the individual States... THERE'S A REASON THEY REQUIRE A BALANCED BUDGET!

Sue – It SHOULD be hard for the government to raise “extra” money. It’s not “their” money anyway – it’s mine. It was my labor that was traded for the dollars in the government coffers.

I’m not saying the government should not borrow money – they should. Just like I did when my kid needed braces. But there should be limits – there MUST be controls. They act like teenagers with their parent’s charge card. Hey when I borrow money – I actually intend to pay it back. I paid back the loan for the braces. Does Washington? Do they intend to? Will they ever pay back what they “borrowed” from Social Security?

I DO want to remain the greatest country and that is precisely why I do not want to become a Greece or Portugal or Spain or Italy… They never dew a line in the sand and now they are paying the piper

Cathy,

All but one of the 50 states have some form of a balanced budget amendment in their state constitutions or state statutes.

@SOTB - Yes, and is that why they are all running deficits and cutting everything they can cut including education, help for the poor, student loans, infrastructure, jobs? Are you against having decent infrastructure, jobs, education for our children? Yes, that's why huge chunks of stimulus money was used to pay down states' deficits rather than what it was supposed to be used for, and why governors who criticized the stimulus held out their hands and took the money and bragged about what all they were doing for their states. We are the United States of America, not state by state by state. Maybe we should become Europe where you can't go anywhere without your passport, and each little jurisdiction is governed by its own quirky rules.

Here is the problem with a balanced budget amendment. If we pass one, I suggest for China invade right away while we wait for Congress to pass another amendment to be able to fund our defense.

Oh and another problem. Cutting 12% of GDP in six months is worse than the Great Depression. Understand that a balanced budget amendment would cause a spiraling situation where the recession and decreased revenue would be just ahead of the cuts until we are exactly Zimbabwe.

Not to mention that we would immediately see 14% unemployment in the first wave of the race to the bottom.

I don't get it. We are balancing our budget to prevent default right? So we better balance our budget to prevent default in the future or the Republicans will default us next week? Inception!

Whoa Cathy… It may be time for you to hit the books and bone up on US history. I’m not sure where you are getting your information from but it is not based on the facts… Contrary to popular belief – we NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. The founding fathers were actually terrified of the Federal government becoming too strong and drowning out the will of the states. I encourage you to read the federalist papers and understand the principles our country was founded on.

In a way – we ARE like Europe today – each state has its own laws and its own tax structure. That would explain why California is drowning in an ocean of debt and Texas is flourishing (Interestingly Texas has no income taxes and California has one of the highest tax rates). Oh and – Texas has a constitutional balanced budget requirement – I believe California just passed it this year – hope it’s not too late for them.

Lewis. YOU have no sense of history. Do you know what the Federalist party is? No? Did you know that Georgia Washington supported a strong federal government? No? How about our second president STARTING the Federalists? No?

Because you are uneducated. Don't throw the founders at me. Thomas Jefferson was not the only human being to create America.

Balance the budget constitutionally, end our ability to react to anything or invest in anything. End of story. Of course that doesn't take into account the 12% instant drop in GDP and the depression to follow. In any case, leave your populist nonsense out of the equation, the rest of us want a job and an economy 6 months from now.

And the thing is - what T-PARTY is demanding - drastic cuts in spending - can send our recovery back into a recession. We need to cut spending, but now is not the time for huge cuts. That's why the democrats want at least SOME deficit cuts in the form of closing some tax loopholes on the rich.

I don't have a problem with low corporate taxes, but GE paying nothing? and subsidizing big oil? Please.

I find it interesting that the TEA party is taking the blame for this. Lets not forget that the democratic-controlled Senate has said NO plenty of times too... as has the president. The TEA party is doing EXACTLY what they were elected to do. Anything else would be a betrayal of those who voted for them.

And don't be fooled... there are plenty of people who are happy to see them stand on their principles. I also find it interesting that it is only EVIL to do such a thing when a conservative does it. They become the party of NO. But when a liberal does it he/she is hailed as a hero! (somewhat hypocritical don't you think?)

And by the way... while you are doing everything you possibly can to make sure every one fo the TEA partiers is defeated... I will be doing everything I can to see them reelected. :-P

Take care buddy! :-)

I'm with you, BillC. I just called Paul Gosar, my Teahadist representative and he thinks he did such a wonderful thing by supporting Boener's revised bill. What part of compromise does he understand? Apparantly absolutely NONE of it! I hastened to remind him that the compromise we want is with the democrats, not with his own party!

SOB,

Doesn't this remind you of Obamacare? Just different players. The democrats were able to justify all the backroom deals, the strong arm tactics that Pelosi and Reid used to get the votes. And the majority of the country who didn't want it passed, sat on the sideline, helpless.

thetotas, what majority of the country are you talking about, most of what I saw, heard and read showed the US majority wanted it, only the south majority did not you know the edjicated ones

Tis the Season...

I didn't want it. I may not be a majority... but my vote counts as much as any one else's. Unless they are form Chicago... ;-)

And Yes, theTotas... it does remind me of the HCR bill... except this time Nasty Pelosi can't strongarm the American public into something that "we have to pass to find out what's in it." (That crooked bi#$@!@#$t%$#ch). It sure would have been nice if we would have had a split congress when they were debating that crap.

The T-Party most definitely IS to blame for this!

1. The president wanted a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling, but TP wanted to tie budget cuts to it; Even though this is about paying debt we've already incurred, and cuts should be dealt with in budget negotiations, he agreed to it.
2. There needs to be additional revenue to seriously address the deficit AND to make it fair for everyone, but the TP wants the middle class to take the entire hit, with the richest people in the country sacrificing NOTHING; Democrats gave in on that too.
3. TP NOW wants to go thru all this AGAIN before Christmas; Consider:

• it creates uncertainty in the market and damages the economy
• hits during the Christmas shopping season to further damage the economy
• we've already been warned it will likely affect our credit rating for obvious reasons

Not only is everything they are wanting to do wrong, but the democrats have given in on just about every one of them to prevent them from causing an even more disastrous default on our credit.

The TP has compromised NOTHING. Further, they won't even vote for Boehner's bill.

They also should be forced to resign for putting their oath to Grover Norquist before the oath they took as a US Congressman.

So, yes.... IT IS the T-PARTY'S FAULT.

We need additional revenue to seriously address the budget deficit if

Also, The T-Party is refusing to compromise while they are the minority, with a Democratically controlled Senate and White House.

As far as I can tell from the news, Senate republicans will not meet with Senate democrats until Boehner is done with this bill. As DOA as it is, better to have the House vote and pass it so the Senate can move forward.

Jody, yeah I know your right but common sense not Left or Right, common sense says if it can't pass get help from the other side to make it something that will work. I know I am simplifying it but it's like taking your kids on a play date and the kids don't like each other, you have to find common ground so they can at least try and enjoy their time...

Funny how they always finish these things late on a Friday afternoon, maybe so they can get the heck out of Washington and have a nice weekend?

That's the way the system works. The House crafts a bill, Then votes on the bill and, if it passes, they send it on to the Senate.

The Senate, in their infinite wisdom, discusses the bill and makes what changes it deems necessary. Then the Senate has its little vote. If it passes, it is then sent back to the House for a re-vote on the ammendments the Senate has added. If, and when, the come to an agreement, it is then sent up the ladder to the President for his signature.

This is our system. Not perfect, but this is how it works.

Harry Reid is just one Senator. He does not vote an entire bill up or down all by himself, much as he would like to.

The House has worked diligently on this bill and on the last one. They are doing their job. Time for the Senate to get more involved.

The senate too can sign on to the destruction of the United States. This balanced budget amendment is nothing but protection for the rich never having their taxes raised again.

Let's all agree to that. The rich are more important than America. Just because they pay the least percentage amount of taxes in the history of the United States it is better to die as a country than ask more of our rich.

Don't hide this crap behind caring for our country or you want a small government. Small government is so the rich can rape at will and no one to stop them.

Think about it, never raise taxes on the rich again, no government in the way. Robber barons dream.

SS, in theory this does sound good except when it comes to the super majority 3/5th portion. Our government was set up on the principle of majority rule, anything over 50% not 60 or 70%. Next keep in mind the President who ever always sends a budget to the house and senate, they not the president are responsible for passing or not passing the budgets so why do we need another amendment to get the house and senate to do their job in the first place. Would it not be better to simply vote out a member who does not work for the betterment of the country. We already have enough laws on the books that they ignor now. Do this amendment and you just add another one they will pass over when they want to.

Bravo Sig. Thanks for adding some sanity back into this discussion. By taking the time to read this – we just became more knowledgeable on the topic than most of congress 98% of the media and most of the posters on this site (both pro and con).

Sounds pretty reasonable to me… what is all of the furor about?

The congress is responsible for passing a budget. The President is responsible for submitting a budget or at least that was true until Obama.

TS, I would disagree. We have a majority and we have a super-majority. In order to pass an amendment in both congress and the senate, they need a super-majority and in order for it to become an amendment to the constitution, a super-majority of states have to ratify it. Then we do have a majority like one of the senate rules where they only need 51 votes to pass it but that is "supposed" to be used for fiscal issues and not things like "ObamaCare".

Then we have the question of why do we need a balanced buget amendment? Why not, there is no way we can keep up all of this spending and think this will be ok in the near future. Sooner or later, just paying to service this debt will cost more then we take in in taxes which means there will always be higher taxes in our future and no end until we get to the point where they are taxing us at 100% and we still can't pay to service the dept. Sooner or later we have to start to balance the budget.

49 states have a balanced budget amanendment to thier constitutions, why not the us government? This will tie the hands of both congress and the president to start to live within it's means. Not sure, but I would guess that the state without a balanced budget amendment is CA.

I seen nothing wrong with a Balance Budget Amendment. Watching our government in action for the last couple of weeks makes the argument stronger to have one.

There is not a chance that anything involving a balanced budget amendment will pass right now. NONE. And frankly that is no way to run a country. This is not a single family household. This is the fricken USA. I have no problem bringing down the spending AND raising more revenue, but to go off with a cockamamie amendment like this (during a severe recession, no less) is just asinine.

Sonmanvb, Granted on passing an amendment requires higher majority, but that is not what was stated in SS comment. Once the amendment is past it still states a super majority to pass legislation which means the party in majority controls the action vs a simply 51% (up down vote). The problem is the super majority factor, look at the states that have that and the issues it has caused in those states, now look at the issues we have today on the congress due to 60% being used as a whip by both sides. What happens when it moves to elections and starts taking 60% to elect someone. It goes back to the guy with the biggest stick wins. BS. Also there is a slight difference between a state have balance budget amendments and the US Governmnet. States take care of states while the Government takes care of states and allies. Different economics than small boarders, but again we do need to live closer to our means but I do not see an amendment doing that any better than what we have now. Politician will do as they damn well please as suites their needs not ours.

I also agree with LIB50 I also have no issue with reducing spending but we also have to increase revenue to an equal footing not by class as it is today, but you also can not just suddenly reduce spending in big amounts without some effect on the economy. So do this is a balance fashion, start reducing the spending in small steps and use the two best ways to increase revenue, put people back to work and remove tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Anyone disagreeing with that makes more than 250k a year or owns a corporation.

Heh heh, I am sure you already know the answer to this question.

I just wonder if they claim overtime dollars when they work late to get nothing done, day after day...

I think this is something all of us agree on. Can we get up a petition to stop them from getting paid if we default? I'll be the first to sign:

Susan Burke

Sueb1,

here is the start of a petition.

We the undersigned demand that if the US defaults on it debts that the first Government program to NOT receive any payment and be laid off are the US Congressmen and Senators until such time as the debt limit is raised for a period longer than 24 months but not to exceed 5 yrs.

Signed:

not only will the Tea Party exist after the elections, they will be even stronger, the Republicans will have the Senate and Obama will be Ogonna LOL

if it wasn't for the Tea Party Obama would have just raised the Debt Limit (Limit?? Hahahahah) another 1.9 trillion and continued to tax and spend (.....for a guy who ran on hope and change yikes same old same old Liberal failed policies) and we wouldn't even be having the debate

Go Tea Party!