Republican Spinning Their Wheels
 

Here is the entire section from Article 5 of our Constitution:

Methods Of Ammendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Republican Party has 55% of the seats in the House. Even if they all vote for a "Balanced Budget Amendment" it won't make it to the Senate.

They are so busy complaining about higher taxes, they don't stop to think how much tax payer money they are wasting pursuing hopeless causes.

I know I am a broken record but if we all vote republican in 2012 and we will get a balanced budget amendment.

It is that simple.

There's Another Way
 

How long will it take for the states to ratify such an amendment? History says that IF Constitutional amendments are eventually adopted, it can take a very long time for state ratification to occur. Do you realize that it took 202 years for the original Article I to be ratified?

Very few of the Constitutional amendments passed by the Congress ever get ratified. Do you realize that the Equal Rights amendment, the Child Labor Law amendment, even the original Bill of Rights have never been ratified by the required number of states?

Then there's the question of whether the required three-quarters of the states would vote for such an amendment. It would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment. Only 12 states failing to ratify would make all this sturm and drang a decade-long exercise in futility. Want to start counting the states that would almost certainly fail to ratify the amendment? Start with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Florida...what's that, five already?

Wouldn't it be more effective to continue to get fiscal conservatives elected to the Congress, then nick away at the defict and debt...maybe even hack away at it...over a longer period of time, doing less damage to the economy than an ill-thought out action such as the Cut, Cap and Balance bill (which includes the requirement for a Constitutional amendment) would have?

Yes we should all vote Republican in 2012 cause you all were so fiscally conservative the last time. I remember that!!!

Everybody believed the good-looking articulate colored kid.

We goofed.

C

Where Are They Now?
 

Yeah, but remember what the alternative was.

Where are those people now? What do I hear them saying about the current fiscal crisis? Maybe they're keeping their mouths shut so as not to say something as dumb as relying on advice from Joe the Plumber.

Vowed I wouldn't post here again....but "colored kid"? I can't believe anyone even uses that racist label anymore. :(

Why is it racist?

My god, if you don't know or don't think so nothing I could ever say would enlighten you.

Why can't you just explain instead of insulting me?

So are you saying if the odds are not in your favor but you know you are in the right, that you would give up your fight and give in to your adversaries?

Not a very American point of view.

You're Either A
 

racist or a fool. Which is it?

Colored kid???? What year is this???

I guess it is not in vogue this year. Maybe next year. Hard to tell because political correctness is constantly changing it's vocabulary criteria.

Blue Heron gets upset about the word idiot and the use of this word is ok with you? We could be using another word here.

I hate to be thought of as endorsing racial language, but did everyone get really upset when Joe Biden used similar verbiage?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/j...Biden.-j7g.htm

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

Racist?
 

I think you may be agreeing with me on this one, Richie.

Biden's full quote was...

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

That's racist?

Biden wound up apologizing to his critics who asserted that his statement was racist. The critics were his political opponents, of course. Too bad he succumbed to political correctness. I wouldn't have.

Had if seen it the response would be the same....at leash from me

If you want to split hairs. Obama is not black. Obama is not white. He is in-between.
What is your definition? Just curious, that's all.

Colored probably not racist but certainly derogatory and offensive which is why you wrote it. To use the term colored conjures up images of the times when there were signs pointing out "white" areas from the "colored" areas. Without the historical background it probably is not offensive but I have a feeling you used it to be offensive.

I will explain it to you
 

It is inappropriate to use the term "colored kid". It is a mild form of segregating by race.

Now I will explain something else. The guy before Obama screwed things up so bad that we may lose Medicare.

This is one of
 

if not the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on this forum.

Please give more thought to your responses
 

Do you think that those politicians really believe in what they are voting for or are they just doing as they are told?

With an eye on 2016
 

Andrew Cuomo of New York or Jim Webb of Virginia
vs.
some corporate stooge that is pliable and dumb

Well Said
 

I just finished "The Price of Loyalty" an audio book about Paul O'Neil Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury. Your comment sums up the book perfectly.

Again
 

You criticize and mock people instead of posting anything meaningful. You sir, have some kind of deficiency that impairs you to give logical or reasonable responses. You must be real fun to live with.chilout

If any Republican refered to Obama as the 1st African American "Anything", he would have been excoriated. But THE FIRST nice looking articulate African American?

You're a bit screwy on this one VK. In fact, very screwy.

Do you mean do they believe the total concept, or are they just doing what their constituents elected them to do? If that's what you call be "told" what to do, I want lots more of that.

Yes, that is racist. It is implying that all African-Americans are not good looking and are not articulate. You cannot see that????

is that what that implied? Think of the mainstream African-Americans of the time. The good-looking and articulate Jesse Jackson? The good-looking and articulate Al Sharpton?

I don't think it was meant to be racist. I think it was meant to be complementary.

whatever length of time it takes for the states to ratify a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget will not start until the amendment is past in Congress and signed by the president.

We might as well get started.

Biden's condescending statement about Obama showed an unlaying racism that cannot be denied. What he showed was his surprise that a black man could be so articulate.

Picture Sarah Palin saying the same thing and what the reaction of the media and of other black politicians would have been. Sheila Jackson Lee is calling people racist when they just disagree with Obama; you don't think this would have been an issue if the Biden was Republican? Keep dreaming.

Your statement is a bit racist. You can't think of any "mainstream" African-American who was "good looking" and "articulate" before Obama, either? Really? How about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, etc. Think again about what you said.

a little tongue in cheek please.

I apologize if your previous post was meant in jest. The humor, if there, was not evident to me.

Ammendments passed by two thirds are veto proof
 

Take a quick look at my first post in this thread. It is directly from the Constitution. I don't think that it needs to be signed by the President since two thirds of both houses are veto proof majority.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is not the end all. If passed it will be the subject of judicial review thus providing an opportunity for judges to legislate from the bench. Also there are a number of projects off budget now Fannie, Freddie, Postal Service and the Consumer financial Protection Bureau. A Balanced Budget Amendment would encourage other projects to go off budget. It would also create incentives to mislabel budget items.

We are better off without it. Do I have an alternative...No

We are in this poistion because we have elected representatives of dubious character and by hook or crook they will not be denied their due

Judicial Review
 

You make some interesting points. Social Security is supposed to be off budget also. Many programs that got us out of the Depression required deficit spending.

The Wars
 

Heck, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were "off budget" until 2010.

Might As Well Be
 

Both Social Security and Medicare are not budgeted in the annual budgets of the U.S. because those programs are supposed to be funded separate from the annual spending budgets created by Congress. Social Security is supposed to be funded by payroll taxes paid by both employers and employees. Medicare is supposed to be funded by insurance premiums paid by participants.

That being said, both programs might as well be included as line items in the federal budget because their funding has proven inadequate for many years, the shortfall in their funding being paid by special funding bills passed by Congress each year.

your alternative is to let the Congress continue to overspend. There is no place for pessimism or lack of action in this situation.