• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

poltical ploy?

Steve

Well-known member
do some democrats now finally get it?

did they all of a sudden realize the TEA party was right?

or is this just a political ploy to get re-elected?

Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) introduced a constitutional amendment today that would require the federal government to balance its budget and restore fiscal discipline in Washington. The amendment would direct Congress to balance the federal budget each year and would require that federal spending not exceed revenues except in exceptional cases, such as when the nation is at war.

Under the amendment, the balanced budget requirement could be suspended only if three-fifths of the members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives agree.

"I truly believe that most Americans not only support a balanced federal budget — they manage their own lives with a balanced budget. It's time for the federal government to do the same," Manchin said. "Balancing our budget is simple common sense, and this constitutional amendment would ensure that we put our fiscal house in order. With our nation approaching $17 trillion in debt, and growing by the day, it's time for the federal government to start living within its means. This is the kind of positive step that the people of my state and this great nation are so eager to see from Washington."

"If Colorado's hardworking families and small businesses can maintain balanced budgets, Congress should be able to balance the federal budget," Udall said. "The national debt is one of the most serious problems facing our nation today. This constitutional amendment provides a responsible path forward to restore fiscal sanity to Washington and to prevent future Congresses from repeating the mistakes of the past."

"Requiring the President and Congress to pass a balanced budget each year is just common sense," Begich said. "This is also an important step in cracking down on Washington's out of control spending and reducing our deficit. I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get behind this effort so we can get our fiscal house in order."

"This amendment is far overdue. There is bipartisan agreement that we need to get our fiscal house in order, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move in that direction," Heitkamp said. "In North Dakota, we believe in fiscal responsibility. With our national debt sitting at more than $16 trillion, it is time for the Federal Government to follow North Dakota's lead and start budgeting responsibly."

"We can and should live within a budget — just like families and small businesses across Missouri," said McCaskill, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Financial & Contracting Oversight. "The plan I'm supporting would protect the vital programs folks rely on, like Social Security and Medicare, but would effectively prevent Congress's ability to run a deficit and drive up the national debt."

"This responsible amendment requires a balanced budget while protecting seniors, Social Security and middle-class families," Tester said. "This nation needs a balanced budget requirement because Congress was given a $236 billion surplus in 2001, then irresponsibly squandered it in a matter of months."

The amendment:

• Requires that Congress balance the federal budget each year unless three-fifths of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives vote to override this requirement.
• Requires the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress every year.
• Allows spending to exceed revenues in times of declared war or military conflicts declared by a joint resolution.
• Protects the Social Security Trust Fund by exempting it from the scope of the amendment.
• Prohibits Congress from providing income tax breaks for millionaires, unless the nation is running surpluses (those surpluses must also not be eliminated if such a tax break were enacted).
 

Steve

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:

sarcasm or satire?... I doubt it.. ironic considering many TEA party grassroots members want the fed to balance a budget.. so they can stop taxing US so much..

the new TEA party.. or Taxed Enough Already realizes the senate, president and congress can't seem to even try to balance the budget so it appear the only alternative is a constitutional amendment...

but to see some scared democrats proposing it.. looks rather suspicious...

either way I would at least read their proposal..

check out the link....

http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=bf079996-cb25-433f-b5ee-09500db67e90
 

Tam

Well-known member
What was it Oldtimer use to say :? Oh yea :wink: what makes this "COMICAL" is: Tester is involved in wanting to balance a budget when he got 15 million US tax payers dollars to build a new port at a border crossing with two people a day and the biggest problem at said crossing was officers getting bored. A Port that was slated to be closed by the Canadian Government. Great use of Tax payer money Tester!!!!! :roll:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Steve said:
iwannabeacowboy said:

sarcasm or satire?... I doubt it.. ironic considering many TEA party grassroots members want the fed to balance a budget.. so they can stop taxing US so much..

the new TEA party.. or Taxed Enough Already realizes the senate, president and congress can't seem to even try to balance the budget so it appear the only alternative is a constitutional amendment...

but to see some scared democrats proposing it.. looks rather suspicious...

either way I would at least read their proposal..

check out the link....

http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=bf079996-cb25-433f-b5ee-09500db67e90

I'll still go with Sarcasm. :wink: If SS is excluded (Is that not what is being stated by the trust being excluded?) what other major costs are there? Health care?

If Obamacare is excluded (which I'm sure it will be by the time it goes for a vote), then all you have left is national defense, duck penis studies and well-fare. Which do you think is going to get cut to balance the "budget"?


Steve, I believe dealing with a progressive is like going to the used car dealership. Good things just don't happen.

When you get a fair price for your trade-in, the not yet discussed price of the newer one just went up. When you set the price of the newer one first, your trade-in just became a piece of crap.

Either way, they may convince you that you got something for free, but in reality you just paid for the balloons, the coke and probably 1/2 of his girlfriend's new pair of surgically enhanced "confidence". In the end, this scenario will end up the same.

You're stuck with the bill and the underwater used car that the wheeler and dealer flipped on you with not only an artificially increased cost but also a future interest payment to prop up a few bubbles that he no longer gets to see because they ended up with the fat cat (surgeon) down the street who talked everyone into it and is the only one to have gained from it all.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve said:
but to see some scared democrats proposing it.. looks rather suspicious...

I just bought a used car.... I researched what the car was worth at auction,.. , and how long it sat on their lot.. I set my price... decided how much interest I would pay... (2 1/2%)

and waited for them to tell me they would not take my offer....

so for a bit of patience I walked out with a nice little SUV and even if I don't pay it off early the final cost is still below where I had set my limit...

I have been burned by a used car salesman... and I have been burned by liberals... and politicians in general..

so I realize neither has my best interest at heart.. only their own selfish interest matters to them..
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Steve said:
Steve said:
but to see some scared democrats proposing it.. looks rather suspicious...

I just bought a used car.... I researched what the car was worth at auction,.. , and how long it sat on their lot.. I set my price... decided how much interest I would pay... (2 1/2%)

and waited for them to tell me they would not take my offer....

so for a bit of patience I walked out with a nice little SUV and even if I don't pay it off early the final cost is still below where I had set my limit...

I have been burned by a used car salesman... and I have been burned by liberals... and politicians in general..

so I realize neither has my best interest at heart.. only their own selfish interest matters to them..

Well, I thought it was a pretty good comparison, except I should have just said property instead of car, taken out surgeon and tweaked it a little more. Try this.

"You're stuck with the bill and the underwater used property that the wheeler and dealer flipped on you with not only an artificially increased cost but also a future interest payment on a topped out credit card, to prop up a few bubbles that he no longer gets to see because they ended up with the fat cat down the street who talked everyone into it and is the only one to have gained from it all."

See, it fitsTARP, the housing fiasco, the great theft of GM, etc...


But in all seriousness, what are they saying when they are leaving SS out of balancing the budget? Dose that mean that they won't steal from it further because it is already drained? or is it that they won't include the cost of SS with what it takes to balance the rest?
 

Steve

Well-known member
But in all seriousness, what are they saying when they are leaving SS out of balancing the budget?

they have already robbed SS over and over again,.. so why would anyone not expect them to continue?

medicare was solvent until it was raided... and would still be if it was properly managed and not "squandered"..

even a safe low risk portfolio in goverment backed securities over time has performed better then a person's stolen SS fund..

add in that the definition of disabled as now been expanded to include about everyone.. and low income immigrants are dumped onto it so they can get welfare.. and it is bound to "go broke"..

the SS solvency issue will drag US down.. so do I think the liberals are sincere? .. NO

it is a ploy to win an election for some really scared democrats.. nothing more...
 

Steve

Well-known member
IWannaBeaCowboy said:
Well, I thought it was a pretty good comparison,

it was a great comparison.. I am just a strong believer in buyer beware..

I think you are missing my concern over this election ploy/misdirection attempt..

it is like any Trojan horse.. you had better look at it before it gets in the gate...

outside it looks great.. but once law it may not be..
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Steve said:
IWannaBeaCowboy said:
Well, I thought it was a pretty good comparison,

it was a great comparison.. I am just a strong believer in buyer beware..

I think you are missing my concern over this election ploy/misdirection attempt..

it is like any Trojan horse.. you had better look at it before it gets in the gate...

outside it looks great.. but once law it may not be..

Yeah, I'm tired. We are on the same page. I didn't follow that you were angling at the buyer beware, thought you were saying that the lepards were chaning spots. I agree completely with you. Trusting these guys is like trusting my ex-wife with my debit card pin number.

I wonder what does balancing the budget entail? If they set the spending at a high enough limit, then does that mean that by a Constitutional Amendment that they will be required to raise taxes? Like an end around to raise taxes.

I would be for a set tax rate (that is reasonable) and a set budget based on those numbers. I would still hate stupid spending, but I would hate it less if I knew it wasn't also being borrowed against. At least we might get further down the road to responsibility if people knew that we have a set dollar amount of which to wright checks from, instead of an open ended credit card.
 
Top