Guest
07-26-2011, 07:51 AM
...a balanced budget amendment, what we're seeing in Washington right now, what we've seen in Washington since 2001, proves it without a shadow of a doubt.
Such Constitutional authority over what 535 people can do to damage our economy and our national reputation appears absolutely necessary. Of course, those 535 and even the President will argue and wail that such legislation isn't necessary. They'll say, "...just let Congress do its job".
Ask yourself, has Congress done its job? Is it doing its job now? Of course they don't want to be limited by the Constitution, otherwise, how could they control the pursestrings to accomplish the things the lobbyists pay them to do? Otherwise, how could they get us and keep us in wars that the majority of the country doesn't want and isn't having to pay for? How could they keep spending and spending on unneccessary projects and programs that have little purpose other than trying to earn more votes for their re-election? They've used their soundbites to make other such arguments in the past--I won't go into giving examples, but think about some of the issues argued most vociferously by both sides at the same time.
Don't be mislead, by either political party. Think about what you're hearing on this subject and what you will be hearing. Why would two political parties who disagree on almost everything agree on leaving things as they are, leaving the country's pursestrings in their hands? Why? The answer is obvious.
Generally I agree with most of what the Tea Party stands for, if not the speed and process that they're using to accomplish their objectives. But on the balance part of Cut, Cap and Balance, we can't move fast enough for me.
Such Constitutional authority over what 535 people can do to damage our economy and our national reputation appears absolutely necessary. Of course, those 535 and even the President will argue and wail that such legislation isn't necessary. They'll say, "...just let Congress do its job".
Ask yourself, has Congress done its job? Is it doing its job now? Of course they don't want to be limited by the Constitution, otherwise, how could they control the pursestrings to accomplish the things the lobbyists pay them to do? Otherwise, how could they get us and keep us in wars that the majority of the country doesn't want and isn't having to pay for? How could they keep spending and spending on unneccessary projects and programs that have little purpose other than trying to earn more votes for their re-election? They've used their soundbites to make other such arguments in the past--I won't go into giving examples, but think about some of the issues argued most vociferously by both sides at the same time.
Don't be mislead, by either political party. Think about what you're hearing on this subject and what you will be hearing. Why would two political parties who disagree on almost everything agree on leaving things as they are, leaving the country's pursestrings in their hands? Why? The answer is obvious.
Generally I agree with most of what the Tea Party stands for, if not the speed and process that they're using to accomplish their objectives. But on the balance part of Cut, Cap and Balance, we can't move fast enough for me.