Budget talks: This is getting nasty

PS: Yankee Fan, I hope your bedroom is close to the bathroom.

 

There's your mistake.

 

MC: A balanced budget amendment, to be brief, would require tax increases and spending cuts right when the government needs to spend money the most, like depressions and wars. A requirement that government run balanced budgets in times of peace and prosperity would be OK, but trying to legally define peace and prosperity would be a tester.

 

No, unless he has 60 senators willing to back him, he can't do ANYTHING.

 

He can't pass laws Starman. But he can ignore the laws that're already on the books. Take an extreme example. Power number one of Congress is appropriations. If a President says that a national emergency means he's going to spend money in a way Congress hasn't authorized, and 34 Senators back him, Congress is essentially neutered. Congress KNEW that if it'd voted against the Iraq War, Bush would've done it anyway. Being cowardly as Congress as a body always is, it voted yes instead rather than officially deal with a Constitutional fight it knew it would lose.

 

Damn you and your lack of context. Haven't we already talked about how we were on the verge of erasing deficit in the late 90s? Wouldn't that be the time to say "OK, let's not cross that line again."

You don't do it when you are already so far in debt that being forced to balance the budget would cripple your ability to meet reasonable obligations.

It would have been interesting had that passed in 97 to see how the country would have responded to having to stay balanced following 9-11 when there was such a fervor to go into Afghanistan and later Iraq. No way you do those things on a balanced budget.

 

Yep, no way you do those wars on a balanced budget, especially when the administration in power didn't even put them ON the budget.

 

It's just the opposite.

Devil's always in the details.

 

Is that what I said? Funny. I don't see that anywhere in my post.

What I see in yours is some sort of gotcha argument based on how some pols voted in 1997.

In 1997, I would've voted for or against all manner of things I wouldn't now. Times change.

And besides, its not a poll that the president is using to put pressure on the GOP. Its Wall Street, credit agencies, nearly every reputable economist known to man, you know, people who actually know how this dance with the devil could fuck our shit up something fierce and permanent.

And then there's the majority of the American public who want a deal to be done.

I guess they should all be ignored because the Teabaggers think this is some boogeyman conspiracy theory, or equally likely, they're holding this process hostage for what they think will be their own political gain.

Whether they're idiots or fanatical idealogues matters not to me (signs point to both), I have zero respect for their intransigence through this entire process.

 

I have zero respect for people who feel the need to resort to calling names in their arguments. The American people want something done, but it would be nice to see what the President wants to do so we can see if the people agree with him. This late in the game and he still has no plan. What a leader.

 

No plan? He's been negotiating for three freaking weeks.

Who's holding the process up? It ain't Obama, it ain't the Senate. It's the Teabaggers in the House.

 

I'd say look at the however many states it is that have such amendments and see how well they're doing with them. Here's a hint: Not all that well.