See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:40 pm, T-Bone said:

   Obama, Reid, and Pelosi don’t do anything that is not politically motivated. It is never about the good or bad for the country, its about the politics of winning elections.

   Once they get full power, they will double down on ideas they like but it will still be done only to keep them in power. Every move Obama makes here is for an election. Keep that in mind Weepy and you will be able to formulate a better counter strategy. Right now, he is bargaining in good faith but Obama is not. That will lead to bad ends for Weepy. Get a clue.

2. #102
   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:48 pm, Paratus said:

   Sicot: Stay strong bro. Prayers are on there way.

3. #103
   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:49 pm, dtestard said:

   I think this debacle will prove to most [thinking] people that the Republicans have to go the way of the Whigs…. There is no difference between Boehner, Obama, and Reid.

   …and a third party vote is just the thing to do it.

   Here’s hoping the Republican establishment fails in a spectacular way, the way they have already spectacularly failed America.

4. #104
   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:53 pm, txvet2 said:

   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:06 pm, Hiraghm said:

   On July 28th, 2011 at 8:33 pm, txvet2 said:

   I’m still not getting your point. We have, and have had, a number of independents in Congress. So?

   Then it should be an easy question to answer. That you can’t answer it means that you haven’t thought about it, which is strange if you’re talking about actually voting 3rd party.

   What happens is, they walk in the door and get sworn in, after which they will do one of three things: decide to caucus with the Democrats (if they would allow it, which they won’t); caucus with the Republicans; or go play golf for two years. The reason for that is simple. The parties control committee assignments and what legislation gets taken up by the committees. Your “independent” either plays ball, or gets to go sit in the corner for two years until his constituents throw him out for being ineffective.

   There are two independents in the Senate – they both caucus with the Democrats, they don’t go off and sit in a room by themselves (as if they even would – Bernie Sanders is way, way to the left of Lieberman and probably wouldn’t be caught dead alone in a room with him).

5. #105
   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:57 pm, bodfish said:

   Hey, y’all,

   Cut and Cap, sure. Can be voted on and then the veto can be shown to the public, and blame assigned. Even these things will need another election victory to get closer to _actual_ passage into law.

   But, please, an Amendment [for budget balance] to the Constitution has to be a separate Bill in both Houses; does NOT involve the President, and must be 2/3s majority in _each_ house. As today’s kerfuffle surely shows, the non-Democrats in the House do not have 2/3s — & on some matters, not even 50% if all Dems vote as a block against fractured Republican groups. In the Senate it is 68-32 for passage of an Amendment. I am pretty sure that Senate rules of filibuster and cloture do NOT apply. Just 68 votes, straight up. Before the next election? we have a minority plus maybe a few Dems, but no where near 2/3s.

   THEN and only then it goes out to the State legislatures for majority vote by each State until 3/4s of them agree. That is 38 of 50 States. They get up to 10 years! (I think the law is) to ratify or not, and a State can go back and change if before the 38th says yes. I do not predict, practical politics of procedure at issue not my personal wishes, that the 2 Houses can be so voted BEFORE the next election. And the States? a real crapshoot.

   And, the Amendment had better be very carefully drawn. Unambiguously written, because if it becomes part of Supreme law of the land, so it shall be.
   [Yul Brynner as Ramses II: "So it is written; so it shall be done."] [Or in the words of a great American, E. Fudd: "We're wabbit hunting, we must be werry, werry caaarwful." or qwiet, whatever the original cartoon]

   Absurdly, some Dems are talking up relying on the 4th section of the 14th Amendment to let Nobama weasel through this borrowing cap mess. I mean, that part that was about debts from the Civil War. The US would not be held to account for Rebel debts or the losses on paper of former owners of slaves, or what Sherman did to houses and fields, etc. Civil War? and even if one can swallow that part, only debts are mentioned not borrowing authority, cleary written in the bulk of the Constitution as the province of House with Senate concurrence (and signed by the executive). If Obama does this he can be Impeached and possibly be Convicted for violating his oath!

   Egads, what a mess with no quick conclusion before another watershed election.

6. #106
   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:58 pm, eCurmudgeon said:

   On July 28th, 2011 at 6:44 pm, Hiraghm said:

   I would support raising the debt ceiling (a little) if they would immediately make two changes (both of which require amendment, unfortunately)…

   Term limits of 1 term for Senators and 3 terms for Congressmen, no terms consecutively.

   And, from now on, Congressmen and Senators are paid by their respective States, not from the federal treasury.

   Some minor revisions:

   1. Members of Congress would be limited to no more than two two-year terms.

   2. Anyone who has held office previously in either the House or Senate would be ineligible to hold any other office (i.e. Members of Congress would be ineligible to serve in the Senate).

   3. The 17th Amendment must be repealed post-haste. Selection (and recall) of Senators must go back to state legislatures.

   4. A pre-requisite for the office of President would be to have previously held office as a State executive (i.e. Governor or Lt. Governor). Let’s require some experience for the job.

7. #107
   On July 28th, 2011 at 10:09 pm, AmericaFirst said:

   I hope the Tea Party congressional members hold their ground. Boehner is a disaster. He doesn’t care about the debt. Under his plan, we will pay trillions more. We don’t need more spending. I don’t care what the main stream media on tv, print and online will say about Republicans. The fight is on in all local online media markets. We are voicing our call for “cut, cap and balance” in the local news online comment sections. We are teaching the uninformed about the Democrats intentional subversion of our economy. How they refuse to balance the budget. The Democrats and RINO’s have been pushing this down the road for far too long. Enough. Fight back and fight for America’s future. The Messiah’s poll numbers continue to fall. No one trusts him. We’ve had financial markets drop hundreds of times and come right back. The crisis sky is falling line has been overused and overplayed.

8. #108
   On July 28th, 2011 at 10:11 pm, txvet2 said:

   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:21 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   These are the guys txvet and Regulus are going to be browbeating us to hold our noses for next year? Put these idiots back in power?

   As usual, you have to lie to try to make a point. I’ve been doing nothing of the kind. If anybody’s been trying to “browbeat” anybody, it’s you, with your condescending pronouncements from on high, your silly theories of presidential electoral politics and your temper tantrums when somebody challenges your witless rants.

   I, and Regulus from what I’ve seen, have been urging people to stay the course and vote for conservatives. There’s no way to get rid of McConnell and Boehner until the conservative/tea party caucus gets big enough to throw them out. You’ve done nothing but try to get people to vote splinter party, which can only result in putting the Democrats back in power, or at best leaving the same weak Republican leadership in place. I’ve made the point many times that this isn’t about one or two elections, it’s about continuing to fight until we have a conservative majority, and then monitoring them closely to make sure they stay that way and culling out the ones who don’t.

9. #109
   On July 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm, txvet2 said:

   On July 28th, 2011 at 9:57 pm, bodfish said:

   There you go, trying to make sense. All that will do is get you attacked as a quitter by the pie-in-the-sky splinter party fanatics.

10. #110
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:17 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    This is what happens when you allow a corporation (The Fed) to print The People’s cash (The Treasury).

    Other thing, without debt ceiling increase, ObamaCare initial funding will either have to be tabled or other entitlements will have to be cut.

11. #111
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:19 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm, txvet2 said:

    Levin addressed this tonight. (sic) He said that it is the TEA Party & Conservatives that will make the Republican come back in line to avoid a split.

12. #112
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm, txvet2 said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:09 pm, AmericaFirst said:

    I hope the Tea Party congressional members hold their ground

    So do I, but there’s going to be a lot of pressure on them. West has already folded, and although his reasons are unique, it’s still not a good sign.

13. #113
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:30 pm, BK said:

    This is what happens when you allow a corporation (The Fed) to print The People’s cash (The Treasury).

    Hello? The Treasury is not the people. It is a government agency (a corporation) that’s part of the Federal Government (which is the largest corporation in the USA) – and the government has never worked for the people since….who knows when.

    The people who print the people’s cash are those who create alternative currency like Ithaca hours. THAT is the people’s cash.

    Also the Treasury does the actual printing of money. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The Fed just distributes it.

14. #114
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:31 pm, BK said:

    The 17th Amendment must be repealed post-haste. Selection (and recall) of Senators must go back to state legislatures.

    So Marxist dominated legislatures will elect more Marxists into the Senate? How will that be an improvement?

15. #115
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:32 pm, txvet2 said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:17 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    Other thing, without debt ceiling increase, ObamaCare initial funding will either have to be tabled or other entitlements will have to be cut.

    Or the Fed will keep printing money so the Dems can keep spending it. These are not people to be dissuaded by mere legalities. OTOH, I don’t expect the Dems to allow the funding of Obamacare to be disrupted just to pay Social Security or veterans benefits. Not when they can blame it on the Republicans/conservatives/tea party.

16. #116
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:33 pm, Mister P said:

    Interesting seeing Hannity giving it to Colter. She is also not really as conservative as many here. I am guessing Colter and Ingraham are more social conservatives than fiscal conservatives.

    Me I am more libertarian frankly. Thank guad in my opinion were are having a fiscal crises, because without it Obama and Liberals from BOTH parties would have taken all our freedoms away by now.

17. #117
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:33 pm, BK said:

    THEN and only then it goes out to the State legislatures for majority vote by each State until 3/4s of them agree. That is 38 of 50 States. They get up to 10 years! (

    10 years? Since when? There was an amendment which took like 150 years to ratify and it made it.

18. #118
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:36 pm, Blackstone said:

    Regarding Cut Cap and Balance, I have a question about the proposed amendment that they want to attach to it. I don’t have a problem with the balanced budget requirement, and I definitely don’t have a problem with the requirement of a supermajority before raising taxes, but I’m a little uneasy about the whole thing about spending “as a percentage of GDP”.

    For the first time ever, that would mean GDP becomes constitutionalized. Is that really a wise idea? That means there will be all kinds of legal wrangling like never before about what the “real” GDP is. You think the politics over the census is bad?

    Sharply limiting debt and taxes is enough. That cuts it off at the source. No need to start a completely new constitutional experiment that’s loaded with all kinds of potential unintended consequences.

19. #119
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:39 pm, txvet2 said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:19 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    I hope you’re right, but I’m not that optimistic.

20. #120
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm, Blackstone said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:31 pm, BK said:

    So Marxist dominated legislatures will elect more Marxists into the Senate? How will that be an improvement?

    It will make them less Marxist. 2 things will happen:

    1. More voters will start to pay attention to how they vote at the state level. Marxists thrive when pretty much only government employees vote in those elections and everyone else just ignores them.

    2. The state legislatures will start to develop an interest in their own autonomy vis a vis the federal government, now that they have a direct way of enforcing it.

21. #121
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:30 pm, BK said:

    Hello? The Treasury is not the people. It is a government agency (a corporation) that’s part of the Federal Government (which is the largest corporation in the USA) – and the government has never worked for the people since….who knows when.

    “We The People” is supposed to be the government.

    Since 1913 to answer your question.

    Also the Treasury does the actual printing of money. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The Fed just distributes it.

    At a price to “We The People”

22. #122
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm, txvet2 said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:36 pm, Blackstone said:

    I’m a little uneasy about the whole thing about spending “as a percentage of GDP”.

    An extraordinarily bad idea, depending of course on the specific wording (it would be more acceptable if it said “no greater than x% of GDP” but completely unacceptable if it said “spending shall be x% of GDP”).

    For the first time ever, that would mean GDP becomes constitutionalized. Is that really a wise idea? That means there will be all kinds of legal wrangling like never before about what the “real” GDP is. You think the politics over the census is bad?

    Aye, there’s the rub.

    Sharply limiting debt and taxes is enough. That cuts it off at the source. No need to start a completely new constitutional experiment that’s loaded with all kinds of potential unintended consequences.

    Yeah, but you are still going to have some yardstick to measure taxes and debt by, and and it seems more than likely it’s going to be the GDP (unless I misunderstood where you were going with this.

23. #123
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:58 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    The word is that there will be no vote tonight. That is a Tea Party victory. Now re-submit CC&B tomorrow and take the weekend off.

24. #124
    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:59 pm, bodfish said:

    Thanks, txvet2, [109]

    I think steely-eyed focus on the prize is most important. Think long term, i.e. more than one election ahead A splintering now will bring back Speaker Pelosi right quick and keep the Cowboy Poet in the corner chair. Oh, send him home, [to] where the buffalo roam …

    And even worse if splintered … Obamanure will continue to be spread freely. Talk about shovel-ready projects!

    I will vote brutally in the primaries. I vote in Florida where a vote can actually matter. But in the presidential General Election? Obama against who? “Who” is looking pretty good 18+ months out.

    I know some lefties who for several elections past told me they thought Ralph Nader was the way to go, on principle. I clapped one on the shoulder and said Go for it!

    Bar room talk, clinking beer mugs, sounds good: Cut their pay or send them home. One can vote out a rep or senator. But cut their pay? Sorry, a leeetle thang called the Constitution prohibits it. Cannot lower emolument while in the term of person’s office. This was originally to keep a Congress from impoverishing a President or Justice, by example. Naturally not raising became also keep folks from paying themselves huge increases. At least that is mostly done in public. Clink! to a great idea, but that doesn’t make it so.

25. #125
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm, txvet2 said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:58 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    On that point we are in complete agreement.

26. #126
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:07 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm, Blackstone said:

    Regarding Cut Cap and Balance, I have a question about the proposed amendment that they want to attach to it. I don’t have a problem with the balanced budget requirement, and I definitely don’t have a problem with the requirement of a supermajority before raising taxes, but I’m a little uneasy about the whole thing about spending “as a percentage of GDP”.

    The Cut and cap portions of the bill have nothing to do with the amendment. And the GDP percentage is tied to the cap portion of the bill.

    The amendment portion of the bill is the Balance Budget. It has nothing to do with the Cut and Cap portions of the bill and would require (I believe) 38 states to ratify. Which would have to fall under these rules.

27. #127
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:11 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Looks like Boehner might be looking to have a rules change for passing a bill. I wonder what that is about?

    Conference committee meeting tomorrow at 10am too. That could get ugly if they are meeting to threaten committee chairmen with retribution if they fail to get their members behind the Boehner bill.

    The GOP leadership could really blow up the party very soon if they insist on warring on conservatives rather than focusing on Democrats. Drop the kabuki and things will get simple fast.

28. #128
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:19 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 5:36 pm, prendad said:

    Nancy Pelosi on today’s vote: “What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”

    The men in the white coats with the butterfly nets need to get her to the clinic for her overdue shock treatments!

    Quick! Someone give me the number for 911!!

29. #129
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:22 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 5:41 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Vote it down, vote on CC&B again and re-submit that to the Senate as the only plan that can win bipartisan approval in the House, the only plan that actually addresses the specific issues of debt, economic growth and the structural changes recommended by the Bernanke and credit rating agencies.

    And sneak in the repeal of Obama(yomama)care.

30. #130
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    I just hate starting in at comment #127!

31. #131
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:25 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Greta Van Sustern and Mike Lee are discussing actually resubmitting CC&B tomorrow. We might get what we want after all.

    Now let’s hope that Boehner submits it and FIGHTS to have the Senate bring it to the floor. It is an insult to voters who elected this Congress to be denied a fair hearing on the very issues they elected Congress for. And that includes a couple of dozen Democrats who will have again voted for the bill.

    Power emanates from the people in this country which is why bills are introduced in the House and not in the Senate. We are not a dictatorship. We want the CC&B. Now vote on it so we can know exactly how arrogant and corrupt our government is and who we need to boot out next year and beyond.

32. #132
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:26 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    I just hate starting in at comment #127!

    At my age, if that is all that has been before me, how bad could it be?

33. #133
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:26 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:22 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    And sneak in the repeal of Obama(yomama)care.

    I must be tired to have omitted that point!

34. #134
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:43 pm, Mister P said:

    The word is that there will be no vote tonight. That is a Tea Party victory. Now re-submit CC&B tomorrow and take the weekend off.

    Apparently 14 republicans in the Senate will not vote for any bill without the balanced budget amendment. That is the real hurdle for Boehner, not 2 votes in the House. So the only viable bill is the CCB. What I think the democrats wanted was a Bill with minimal GOP support to be passed, then they would have a coalition of liberal republicans and democrats to end up with a version of the Reid budget, which of course would have gone past the 2012 election. The Tea Party conservatives then would be demagogued by both the Democrats and the liberal Republicans as obstructionists.

    I think the Dems overplayed their hands. Some 5 Democrats voted for CCB, and Pelosi seems to have corralled them against the Boehner bill. I think she goofed. We shall see what this means tomorrow.

    I may be taking a hit on my stocks, but I think they will bounce back IF the CCB becomes the only game left in town. That is the message the market needs to see to realize that the US economy may get back into reality.

35. #135
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:46 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:26 pm,
    

    OK_Loyalist said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    I just hate starting in at comment #127!

    At my age, if that is all that has been before me, how bad could it be?

    Pretty danged sloppy!

36. #136
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:49 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:26 pm,
    

    Pasadena Phil said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:22 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    And sneak in the repeal of Obama(yomama)care.

    I must be tired to have omitted that point!

    I’ve been screaming that at the radio all day long with nary a result! I won’t call long distance on my cell phone just to get a voicemail recording.

37. #137
    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:49 pm, Ray said:

    Dear God, please watch over sicoit’s Dad. In Jesus’ Name, Amen

38. #138
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:15 am, drfredc said:

    In the perfect universe of LOSERship, the Crap sandwich would be all about getting enough tea partiers to shun the Crap Sandwich that the Dems would pick it up and carry it’s water over to and thru the Senate to the WH.

    Opps… Turns out the Dem’s are familiar with Crap Sandwiches — Their last one was called Obamacare and, while most don’t admit it, they know it’s taste is still getting crappier every day.

    The Dem’s goal appears not to be to give the LOSERship just enough rope to hang themselves. Their plan seems to be to sit around and let the GOP LOSERship hang themselves with their own necktie.

39. #139
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:18 am, OK_Loyalist said:

    THE VOTE: ‘TEA PARTY’ IN CHARGE!

    THE DRUDGE REPORT

40. #140
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:26 am, Whirled Peas said:

    Well, I’m outta here!

    Stay vigilant (or vigilante, your choice)

    Peas OUT!

41. #141
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:30 am, jrgdds said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:09 pm, AmericaFirst said:

    I hope the Tea Party congressional members hold their ground

    As of 9:30pm PST, So far, so good.

42. #142
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:32 am, jrgdds said:

    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:18 am, OK_Loyalist said:

    THE VOTE: ‘TEA PARTY’ IN CHARGE!

    THE DRUDGE REPORT

    Damn my slow fingers ad bad eyesight…

43. #143
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:34 am, OK_Loyalist said:

    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:32 am, jrgdds said:

    LOL

    Yours is better, mine will fade.

44. #144
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:35 am, OK_Loyalist said:

    And at least we on the same page

45. #145
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:44 am, jrgdds said:

    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:34 am, OK_Loyalist said:

    Yes we are. I hope they hold out. Michele Bachmann’s speech on Greta tonight pretty much summed it up

46. #146
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:58 am, Hiraghm said:

    Yea! Hooray for the handful of Tea Partiers who bought us another day.

    Don’t give up now!

47. #147
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:01 am, Hiraghm said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 11:49 pm, Ray said:

    Dear God, please watch over sicoit’s Dad. In Jesus’ Name, Amen

    Amen.

48. #148
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:13 am, jrgdds said:

    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:58 am, Hiraghm said:

    Hooray for the handful of Tea Partiers…

    I believe I heard them say…

49. #149
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:35 am, BK said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm, Blackstone said:

    The state legislatures will start to develop an interest in their own autonomy vis a vis the federal government, now that they have a direct way of enforcing it.

    And how will that make them less Marxist? “All in favor of voting for candidate X who promised us a lot of federal goodies say ‘aye’”

    Will ANY state vote to cut federal largesse to them?

    We’ve seen states vote for their own self interest at the expense of taxpayers. Time and time and time again.

    How will that change here?

    This is Marxism perfected. Use the federal government and make individuals dependent on it, and now the states dependent on it.

    Same effect, just differently implemented if the 17th is gone.

50. #150
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:39 am, BK said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    “We The People” is supposed to be the government.

    SUPPOSED TO BE is the operative word.

    Right now we have a government of the Cronies, by the Cronies and for the Cronies.

    WE THE PEOPLE are are about 2,498,285th on the list of things the federal government thinks about.

    At a price to “We The People”

    The Fed takes the money at face value and then buys the same treasury bonds to fund the debt that our out-of-control spending marxist congress keeps racking up.

    It is not the Fed that’s enslaving us. It is our Marxist Congress racking up a huge unpayable national debt.

    Remember: Personal debt enslaves the individual. Government debt enslaves the nation.

51. #151
    On July 29th, 2011 at 8:04 am, mondamay said:

    The 17th should be gone because it destroyed the State’s check on Federal power. Simple as that. Okay, it isn’t a magic fix, but I’d like to see someone argue that things weren’t better before it was enacted. If the States are going to be able to function as intended, they need some sort of check on Federal power.

    I have a similar problem with people wanting to impose term limits: It is nothing but a scheme intended to make up for the fact that so many voters are lazy, selfish, and uninformed. The Founders put trust in the people; perhaps that was a mistake, but the alternative is quite likely going to be congressional offices acting as puppeteers for perpetually green representatives.

    Either we trust the people and the states to do the right thing (and encourage them as much as possible), or the country falls. Term limits are a very bad idea (in the same vein as campaign finance reform), which will even further limit our options in elections.

52. #152
    On July 29th, 2011 at 8:06 am, stillontheroad said:

    Taking a short sighted view – I am watching our nation being murdered by Death by a Thousand cuts.

53. #153
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:22 am, RedDog said:

    Czechs consider banning Communist Party

    No nation on earth allows a Nazi party, they should likewise not allow Communists. We should seriously consider doing that here with the Democrat Party. They have shown little difference between themselves and the Communists.

54. #154
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:25 am, RedDog said:

    On July 29th, 2011 at 8:04 am, mondamay said:
    The 17th should be gone because it destroyed the State’s check on Federal power….
    …. The Founders put trust in the people; perhaps that was a mistake, but the alternative is quite likely going to be congressional offices acting as puppeteers for perpetually green representatives.

    Excellent observations.

55. #155
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:38 am, Gorebot said:

    Flock liberals.

56. #156
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:44 am, John Deaux said:

    Why hasn’t the Mack plan gotten any traction? It would be hard to paint a 1% cut as catastrophic.

57. #157
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am, rplat said:

    We’re about to see the worst possible scenario surface. The Tea Partiers have effectively killed their own leaders bill and have left an opening for Reid to submit his bill, which he just indicated he will do. With the support of house Democrats Reid’s bill will pass the house and Obama will sign it into law. I hope everybody is really pleased with their defense of their principles because that’s all their getting out of this deal.

58. #158
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am, rplat said:

    We’re about to see the worst possible scenario surface. The Tea Partiers have effectively killed their own leaders bill and have left an opening for Reid to submit his bill, which he just indicated he will do. With the support of house Democrats Reid’s bill will pass the house and Obama will sign it into law. I hope everybody is really pleased with their defense of their principles because that’s all their getting out of this deal.

59. #159
    On July 29th, 2011 at 9:51 am, John Deaux said:

    Why hasn’t the Mack plan gotten any traction? It would be hard to paint a 1% cut as catastrophic.

60. #160
    On July 29th, 2011 at 10:23 am, bodfish said:

    Dear BK #117
    You are right that therer is no language in the Constitution on how long the State ratification process may take. But, in most “modern” amendments it has been put in the Amendment just how long is allowed or the question is moot. For example the text [section 2] of:

    Amendment 22 – Presidential Term Limits

    1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

    Proposed 3/21/1947
    Ratified 2/27/1951

    +++
    it is up to the drafters of each Amendment, but has been thought a good idea to motivate Legislatures to act… not to vote “Present” repeatedly, in other words. Seven has been most used it seems (I misremembered 10). But true, some amendments may still be hanging around out there…

    Agree w/ PasadenaPhil in #131, except to insert word “money” in the first sentence of last paragraph when he discusses bills arising in the House. Money bills must start in the People’s House, but of course the Senate can initiate (both houses can) bills for other things.

61. #161
    On July 29th, 2011 at 11:29 am, BigRedFan said:

    Sorry, but IMO the GOP needs to pass the Boehner bill, or something close to it. We only control 1/2 of one branch of government. That, unfortunately does not put us in the position to govern. If nothing comes out of the House, Dingy Harry will put his version throught the Senate, which will be worse. Then, if it doesn’t pass the House, the media will make it appear all hell is breaking loose, and the GOP shares the blame (the biggest share of it in the media’s eyes).

    If the Boehner bill passes, at least there will be a chance that the Senate passes it. Dem Senators will not want to run next year on a vote to raise taxes, or reduce spending cuts. Make them put up or shut up. Have this “crisis” again before the 2012 elections. We need to win those elections anyway, for ANY longer-term spending restraint to happen. Everyone knows the “Trillion dollar cuts” are nearly all in the FUTURE, so unless we win in 2012, the “cuts” won’t ever happen.

62. #162
    On July 29th, 2011 at 11:46 am, hawkeye54 said:

    gThe 17th Amendment must be repealed post-haste. Selection (and recall) of Senators must go back to state legislatures.

    I thought that too, but,historically, hostilities between opposing party members of the legislatures in various states resulted in vacant Senate seats for up to two years. There were other problems that led to the movement for implemeting the 17th amendment transferring election of senators to public vote.

    In California, we’d still end up with the marxist twins if it was left up to the legislature, or years of squabling with no senatorial representation, which in comparison, wouldn’t likely be as bad as the damage done by the presence and voting record of our senators.

63. #163
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:20 pm, Blackstone said:

    On July 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm, txvet2 said:

    Yeah, but you are still going to have some yardstick to measure taxes and debt by, and and it seems more than likely it’s going to be the GDP (unless I misunderstood where you were going with this.

    You wouldn’t need to bring GDP into the equation there. Just say that raising taxes requires a 2/3 majority, as does authorizing any new debt. That cuts off all sources of spending money, so it really would be overkill to start putting an artificial limit on spending on top of that.

    But closer to the topic, I think John Lott has the best answer to all this nonsense:

    “Using the White House’s own numbers, the revenue for the 2012 budget year would cover 96.3 percent of all Federal government expenditures in 2007. That is a lot of government to fund. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth that level of expenditures would be 16 percent greater than what was spent by Bill Clinton’s last budget as president.”

    (more here)

64. #164
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:37 pm, RobM1981 said:

    With the Amendment clause, I’m in. This still isn’t what I want, but it’s now a strong enough platform to compromise from.

    And by “compromise,” I mean “Senator Reid, not only should we claim the $ from ending the Afghan War, I think we should claim $2T more from not invading North Korea…”

65. #165
    On July 29th, 2011 at 12:48 pm, cheapseat said:

    Forget the amendment, Boehner should be passing a bill to END Baseline budgeting. In 2008 we spent 400b more than the 2.4T we were taking in in taxes, and every check went out. THEN WE PASSED TARP, PORKULUS 1, CASH FOR CLUNKERS, WEATHERIZATION FREEBIES, AND RAN THE DEFICIT UP TO 1.4T FOR A TOTAL BUDGET OF 3.8t. ARE WE TO PAY FOR PORKULUS AND CASH FOR CLUNKERS EVERY YEAR FROM NOW ON? The budget is only raised 1t dollars because those funds fall under the “baseline Budget” but if they were like wars “a one time event” then our budget could drop THIS YEAR by 1t dollars.
    It’s time to end this accounting farce before it destroys our entire economy.

66. #166
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:09 pm, longbow said:

    We MUST not raise the debt limit, and we MUST spend no more than we take in. Failure to do both will just mean more and more spending and will result in the death of our economy and our country.

    I don’t want to hear the dirty word “compromise” out of any Republican’s mouth, unless it is to say he won’t do it.

67. #167
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:16 pm, old goat said:

    Hey what is with the new proposal? Putting the CC&B back in? Do any of you know any specifics?

68. #168
    On July 29th, 2011 at 1:47 pm, thejim said:

    I maintain that it is not Republican versus Democrat, which is becoming clearer each day, but Ruling Class politicians versus Citizens. So, my question is; How does Boehner’s district see it? They ready to fire his ax?

69. #169
    On July 29th, 2011 at 2:35 pm, Collateral Damage said:

    Shut the damn government down, and get it over with! All of the moronic programs mentioned above only delayed this inevitable moment. Maybe when these snot-nosed polititions don’t get their paychecks, maybe, just maybe they might get the picture.

70. #170
    On July 29th, 2011 at 2:36 pm, Collateral Damage said:

    Shut the damn government down, and get it over with! All of the moronic programs mentioned above only delayed this inevitable moment. Maybe when these snot-nosed polititions don’t get their paychecks, maybe, just maybe they might get the picture.

71. #171
    On July 29th, 2011 at 2:37 pm, Collateral Damage said:

    Shut the damn government down, and get it over with! All of the moronic programs mentioned above only delayed this inevitable moment. Maybe when these snot-nosed polititions don’t get their paychecks, maybe, just maybe they might get the picture.