F*cking liberal cowards.

What was the vote on the floor?

(03-18-2011 07:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What was the vote on the floor?

McConnell said to Mike Lee that the amendment will not see the light of day in the Senate until every single GOP Senator privately endorses it.

What a f*cktard.

(03-18-2011 07:53 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-18-2011 07:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What was the vote on the floor?

McConnell said to Mike Lee that the amendment will not see the light of day in the Senate until every single GOP Senator privately endorses it.

What a f*cktard.

McConnell makes Trent Lott look brave.

Isn't there more than one proposed BBA floating aruond out there? What I'm hearing is that McConnell wants the GOP caucus to unite around a common proposal before confronting the Reid/Schumer/Durbin types. Politically, I think that makes sense, and since this is a political gesture first and foremost, I think McConnell is right to evaluate the strategy from a political standpoint.

(03-18-2011 08:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Isn't there more than one proposed BBA floating aruond out there?

Sure there are multiples. It's just that the CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is the only one that has BITE to it. If they simply make it a procedural rule ... then of course they'll just suspend the rules and pass unbalanced budgets.

Constitution or bust. Constitution or GTFO.

McConnell is a douchebag. He should have stood up to Shrub. If he had, republicans might never have lost control of congress in 2006, and we might have been spared Obama in 2008. But that didn't happen.

(03-18-2011 08:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that McConnell wants the GOP caucus to unite around a common proposal before confronting the Reid/Schumer/Durbin types.

Or cover up the big government RINOs who don't want to cut.

(03-18-2011 08:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McConnell is a *********. He should have stood up to Shrub. If he had, republicans might never have lost control of congress in 2006, and we might have been spared Obama in 2008. But that didn't happen.

McConnell did not become the GOP's Senate leader until after the '06 elections. Bill Frist of Tennessee was the leader for the 4 years leading up to that (December '02-November '06)

(03-18-2011 08:32 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-18-2011 08:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McConnell is a *********. He should have stood up to Shrub. If he had, republicans might never have lost control of congress in 2006, and we might have been spared Obama in 2008. But that didn't happen.

McConnell did not become the GOP's Senate leader until after the '06 elections. Bill Frist of Tennessee was the leader for the 4 years leading up to that (December '02-November '06)

I was referring to the whole republican leadership, and I think he was part of that leadership. I'd put Frist and Denny Hastert and Boehner, and probably a few more if I think about it, in the same class. And oh yeah, obviously the Sugar Land rat man, Tom DeLay.

Looks like we are going to have to put on another pot of tea.

A balanced budget amendment for the federal government is one of those things that sounds great on a paper but it reality it would severely cripple the United States.

The prime example, during the 18th century France and Great Britain fought a series of wars in which France boasted a higher population, more natural resources, larger colonies, and larger armies. Great Britain won of all them, why? There were several factors, but historians agree that a big one was the way the two countries financed the wars. The British Government had worked out a system of national debt that allowed it run a deficit during times of war to provide for their armies. France on the other hand had to raise taxes every time fighting broke out. This made the wars extremely unpopular in France and sapped morale among the French people which was reflected in the battles themselves.

National debt can be a great tool for a country not only in times of war but also in times of recession if done properly(unlike the Obama stimulus). The real issue has been, that in order for it to work, you have to have a disciplined government that is going to pay down its national debt during times of peace and prosperity. We have not had that government in a long time and our politicians continue to increase spending in all situations because the public has not held them accountable for it. With the debt being what it is now, if you have a rep in your district that isn't willing to significantly cut spending then vote them out of office. But a Constitutional amendment forcing a balanced budget would not be the right move(nor would it have any chance of passing).

(03-19-2011 11:12 AM)Know Nothing Wrote:  A balanced budget amendment for the federal government is one of those things that sounds great on a paper but it reality it would severely cripple the United States.

The prime example, during the 18th century France and Great Britain fought a series of wars in which France boasted a higher population, more natural resources, larger colonies, and larger armies. Great Britain won of all them, why? There were several factors, but historians agree that a big one was the way the two countries financed the wars. The British Government had worked out a system of national debt that allowed it run a deficit during times of war to provide for their armies. France on the other hand had to raise taxes every time fighting broke out. This made the wars extremely unpopular in France and sapped morale among the French people which was reflected in the battles themselves.

National debt can be a great tool for a country not only in times of war but also in times of recession if done properly(unlike the Obama stimulus). The real issue has been, that in order for it to work, you have to have a disciplined government that is going to pay down its national debt during times of peace and prosperity. We have not had that government in a long time and our politicians continue to increase spending in all situations because the public has not held them accountable for it. With the debt being what it is now, if you have a rep in your district that isn't willing to significantly cut spending then vote them out of office. But a Constitutional amendment forcing a balanced budget would not be the right move(nor would it have any chance of passing).

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Yea, I can see why you support Newt. You have just as much fiscal backbone as he did.

Add a clause saying the balanced budget amendment does not apply during times of war, with war being defined as a declaration of war BY TWO THIRDS of Congress. That way you can't spend us into oblivion over pointless undeclared "wars" like Iraq.

(03-19-2011 11:49 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-19-2011 11:12 AM)Know Nothing Wrote:  A balanced budget amendment for the federal government is one of those things that sounds great on a paper but it reality it would severely cripple the United States.

The prime example, during the 18th century France and Great Britain fought a series of wars in which France boasted a higher population, more natural resources, larger colonies, and larger armies. Great Britain won of all them, why? There were several factors, but historians agree that a big one was the way the two countries financed the wars. The British Government had worked out a system of national debt that allowed it run a deficit during times of war to provide for their armies. France on the other hand had to raise taxes every time fighting broke out. This made the wars extremely unpopular in France and sapped morale among the French people which was reflected in the battles themselves.

National debt can be a great tool for a country not only in times of war but also in times of recession if done properly(unlike the Obama stimulus). The real issue has been, that in order for it to work, you have to have a disciplined government that is going to pay down its national debt during times of peace and prosperity. We have not had that government in a long time and our politicians continue to increase spending in all situations because the public has not held them accountable for it. With the debt being what it is now, if you have a rep in your district that isn't willing to significantly cut spending then vote them out of office. But a Constitutional amendment forcing a balanced budget would not be the right move(nor would it have any chance of passing).

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Yea, I can see why you support Newt. You have just as much fiscal backbone as he did.

Add a clause saying the balanced budget amendment does not apply during times of war, with war being defined as a declaration of war BY TWO THIRDS of Congress. That way you can't spend us into oblivion over pointless undeclared "wars" like Iraq.

We are agreement that the solution to our country's debt problem is a balanced budget, we just don't agree with the method of doing it. I don't think we should hamstring future generations with a balanced budget amendment. There are times when running a deficit is a valid option and it is impossible for us to know what all of those potential situations are. Lets help future Americans by paying off the debt we currently have while at the same to leaving them the flexibility to handle their own budgets.

Plus there is the practical matter of there being absolutely no way that this constitutional amendment could get through 2/3 of both the House and Senate and be ratified by 3/4ths of the States that have become so dependent on Federal funds.

Political capital is not an unlimited treasury either, it would be better spent on reforming the entitlement programs that are the real cause of our out of control spending.

Until somebody has the guts to put forth a budget that is actually balanced, all this talk about a balanced budget amendment is so much BS.

We don't need a balanced budget amendment, we need a balanced budget. THEN talk about an amendment to keep it that way.

(03-19-2011 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Until somebody has the guts to put forth a budget that is actually balanced, all this talk about a balanced budget amendment is so much BS.

We don't need a balanced budget amendment, we need a balanced budget. THEN talk about an amendment to keep it that way.

+1

I fear that everyone is there to make a point. As we see, point making only gets you sheets of paper that will never make it into law and are thus pointless moments in history. "Practicing what you Preach" is a lot better preaching before you practice it.

(03-19-2011 12:15 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  I don't think we should hamstring future generations

What ... in ... the ... WORLD ... do you think we're doing right now?

(03-19-2011 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We don't need a balanced budget amendment, we need a balanced budget. THEN talk about an amendment to keep it that way.

Insert massive crying by everybody that their baby project got cut. Instead force them to balance it and let the chips fall where they may.

I guess the title of this thread should be updated now.

(04-05-2011 08:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I guess the title of this thread should be updated now.

Care to explain?

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=492001

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42644