Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484

    Ken Blackwell and a phony balanced budget amendment!

    .

    SEE: Tie Debt Ceiling Vote To Balanced Budget Amendment

    by Ken Blackwell


    [b][i]“Next spring, Republicans will be faced with a serious decision over whether to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

    Failing to do so could signal foreign countries that the U.S. plans to default on our debt--an act that would surely have dire economic repercussions.

    On the other hand, Tea Party activists -- and other conservatives -- might understandably view such a vote as evidence that Republicans still don’t “get itâ€

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    378
    Its all just jarmble and has no meaning. In the end we have all these projects that all require money. Passing legislation like this will just be nonsense and ignored.

    The only way really is a step by step going through every cent and cutting out waste even if its something people don't want cut.

    It doesn't help either when we have 1 massive omnibus bill or 10 seperate budget bills. Each budget bill should be up at the same timframe with debate with a total of all of them together seen. if it exceeds how much the government took in the previous full year that can be counted by more then 3% then it should be toned down until its within that margin. So for instance say 2012's budget needs to be in by June 2011, its going off the full amount taken in during 2010 so essentially 2 years behind.

    But some heavy heavy cuts need to hit. Many won't like them but its the only way.

    The costs related to illegal immigration are at least 800 billion a year between city, state, and fed and some estimates double that with ease. That isn't cost for deportation but the cost they cost for welfare, health, housing, education, prison, and judicial proceedings (not the actual bus costs). Then w/o those illegals we have more tax revenue from workers taking those jobs so its a double hitter.

    The costs related to welfare. Why give something to people who don't deserve it? Welfare was meant to be a hand up which its obviously a hand out. Dump the entire program in full and establish a new one with has a 6 month max benefit to it.

    Medicare, its the singly most expensive and highest climbing program out there. A socialized payment system does not work in a private industry. Theres a few options from dumping medicare all together, to making medicare emergency use only, to establishing public hospitals non Unionized that medicare is the only place medicare can be used.

    Medicaid, again why take care of people that don't take care of themselves. Remove the program and replace it with a new one that helps working Americans who are on the poverty line.

    Clear out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead pose a country blacklist where anyone from a country with significant amount of extremists and ant America sentiments cannot gain any access to the US.

    Militarize the southern border, it would be a tiny drop in the bucket of what illegals cost the US every year. Every other country does it.

    End earmarks and special interest programs from foreign aid packages and foreign rebuilding packages to special racial interest groups in the US getting special benefits like free education or priority for other handouts.

    SS is fine as long as they stick to the original rules. 40 working credits from the US (no freebee credits for immigrants) and no dipping for exceptions other then seveely disabled people, no SSDI for people who stubbed their toe as a child heh.

    Impose tariffs on foreign goods and remove benefits US companies get for money abroad along with lowering corporate tax rate.

    Course someone always has to oppose the big things that effect them like medicare. "ohh you can't touch my medicare!" or "what about me when I'm old?"... well in 10 years Medicare under its current form will be the entire US budget without signifcant changes.

  3. #3
    Senior Member roundabout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,445
    Syanis wrote,
    Its all just jarmble and has no meaning. In the end we have all these projects that all require money. Passing legislation like this will just be nonsense and ignored.
    You are probably right. Of course you have history on your side, as when this constitutionally mandated method was considered "nonsense" and "ignored" the results are what they are. You reap what you sow.

    Now if someone could just figure out a manner of accountability.

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    By the way, the fake balanced budget amendment which Ken Blackwell is behind is the same kind of fake balanced budget amendment proposed by Senator DeMint which had the following 16 Republican co-sponsors!

    Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
    Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
    Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
    Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
    Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
    Sen Ensign, John [NV]
    Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
    Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
    Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
    Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
    Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
    Sen McCain, John [AZ]
    Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
    Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
    Sen Vitter, David [LA]

    Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010

    S.J.RES.27 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States


    (my editorial comments are in bold)

    `Article--

    `Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

    NOTE: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled by a three-fifths vote.

    `Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

    NOTE: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the increase in the national debt.

    `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

    NOTE: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

    `Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.

    NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.


    `Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

    [b]NOTE: The flimflamery under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in each House may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“. Have we not just seen how this “crisisâ€

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    378
    I really have little hope of much changing. Tea party candidates will do what they can to knock off a few pennies. However as long as noone is willing to touch the untouchables the problem will continue.

    Defense budget, welfare budget, medicare/medicaid budget, SS budget.... those all need to be looked at very heavily in the least putting a *hold* on all until recipients all show up and provide proof again of eligibility and at the best cutting out some major parts or entirity of the program.

    These programs can all work great in a heavy socialist society. However they simply do not work in a captialist and private society. You can't go halfway such as medicare/medicaid having the public pay for private care, that is a major reason of healthcare costs.

    I'd guarantee if medicare and medicaid dropped tomarrow healthcare costs would significantly drop in the next 2 years followed with healthcare insurance. Now I'm NOT saying we need to cut medicare/medicaid but just how its run right now doesn't work with a private industry.

  6. #6
    Senior Member roundabout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,445
    Some more from Sen. Webster during the debate in the Senate on Mr. Foote's Resolution Jan. 21, 1830 (The entire speech is worth reading, just too long for here.)


    "While the gentleman deals us this blow, he professes an ardent desire to see the debt speedily extinguished. He must excuse me, however for feeling some distrust on that subject until I find this disposition manifested by something stronger than professions. I shall look for acts, decided and unequivocal acts; for the performance of which an opportunity will very soon (if I am not greatly mistaken) be afforded. Sir, if I were at liberty to judge of the course which that gentleman would pursue, from the principles which he has laid down in relation to this matter, I should be bound to conclude that he will be found acting with those whom it is a darling object to prevent the payment of the public debt. He tells us he is desirous of paying the debt, "because we are under an obligation to discharge it." Now, sir, suppose it should happen that the public creditors, with whom we have contracted the obligation, should release us from it, so far as to declare their willingness to wait for payment for fifty years, provided only the interest shall be punctually discharged. The gentleman from Massachusetts will then be released from the obligation which now makes him desirous of paying the debt; and, let me tell the gentleman, the holders of the stock will not only release us from this obligation, but they will implore, nay, they will even pay us not to pay them. But, adds the gentleman, so far as the debt may have an effect in binding the debtors to the country, and thereby serving as a link to hold the states together, he would be glad that it should exist forever. Surely then, sir, on the gentleman's own principles, he must be opposed to the payment of the debt.

  7. #7
    Senior Member roundabout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,445
    A continuation from where it was left off, last post.

    Sir, let me tell that gentleman, that the South repudiates the idea that a pecuniary dependence on the federal government is one of the legitimate means of holding the states together. A moneyed interest in the government is essentially a base interest; and just so far as it operates to bind the feelings of those who are subjected to it to the government--just so far as it operates in creating sympathies and interests that would not otherwise exist,--is it opposed to all the principles of free government, and at war with virtue and patriotism. Sir, the link which binds the public creditors, as such, to their country, binds them all equally to all governments, whether arbitrary or free. In a free government, this principle of abject dependence, if extended through all the ramifications of society, must be fatal to liberty.

  8. #8
    Senior Member roundabout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,445
    By the way, the fake balanced budget amendment which Ken Blackwell is behind is the same kind of fake balanced budget amendment proposed by Senator DeMint which had the following 16 Republican co-sponsors!

    Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
    Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
    Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
    Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
    Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
    Sen Ensign, John [NV]
    Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
    Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
    Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
    Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
    Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
    Sen McCain, John [AZ]
    Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
    Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
    Sen Vitter, David [LA]

    Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010
    This is a rather interesting list of supporters.

  9. #9
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by roundabout
    By the way, the fake balanced budget amendment which Ken Blackwell is behind is the same kind of fake balanced budget amendment proposed by Senator DeMint which had the following 16 Republican co-sponsors!

    Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
    Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
    Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
    Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
    Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
    Sen Ensign, John [NV]
    Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
    Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
    Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
    Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
    Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
    Sen McCain, John [AZ]
    Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
    Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
    Sen Vitter, David [LA]

    Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010
    This is a rather interesting list of supporters.

    You bet it is, and so, the question remains: So why does the leadership of the Republican Party not support our founding father's apportioned tax to extinguish an annual deficit?

    And the above question is one which every concerned and patriotic American ought to be asking of every member of the 112th Congress, and especially asking of every member elected to the 112th Congress in consequence of Tea Party Activists!

    Are we not sick and tired of the status quo which recklessly increases our national debt year after year, and particularly are we not sick and tired of the fake balanced budget amendments members of Congress have been concocting since the 1980’s which neither compel an annually balanced budget, nor increase taxes to equal borrowing [that pay and go thing] during the course of a fiscal year.

    Do we not want fiscal accountability when imposts, duties and excise taxes are found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures during the course of a fiscal year, and Congress decides to continue spending by borrowing to feed its appetite ? And, is it not a fact that the fiscal accountability desired is found in the wisdom of our founding father’s original tax plan, and in particularly it is found in the apportioned tax among the states intended to be laid by Congress should imposts, duties and excise taxes be found insufficient to meet federal expenditures and Congress borrows to continue spending?

    The simple truth is, abiding by the intended use of the direct tax would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable when Congress borrows to meet its expenses, which in turn would require the imposition of the direct tax at the close of the fiscal year. And under our founder’s plan, each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to then return home with a bill for their State’s Governor and Legislature to pay. Would this not encourage them to demand an explanation as to why imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were insufficient to meet Congress’ expenses?

    If the Republican Party leadership of the 112th Congress were sincere about creating real fiscal accountability, as opposed to offering fake balanced budget amendments, they would send to the states a constitutional amendment which states in effect:



    SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

    "SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

    "SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall immediately calculate each State's apportioned share of the direct tax based upon its number of Representatives as allotted by the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

    "SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


    Aside from the above, I have another important question. Among those elected to our 112th Congress and those in our beloved media, who is promoting a return to our founding father’s remedy as stated above? Is Glenn Beck? How about Senator DeMint? Or, have any of the following even mentioned our founding father’s original tax plan and how it was intended to operate? Neal Boortz; Mike Huckabee; Neil Cavuto, Bill O’Reilly… who?


    JWK


    [b][i]“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soilâ€

  10. #10
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    I listened to Glenn Beck yesterday talk about the deficit. And once again he made no mention of our founding father`s method for extinguishing deficits.


    JWK

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •