Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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?

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.

Originally Posted by CMANN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

Originally Posted by CMANN

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.

Originally Posted by CMANN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CMANN

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.

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

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

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.

Originally Posted by rubicon

The Balanced Budget Amendment is not the end all. ...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....

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

Originally Posted by tonyafd

...Social Security is supposed to be off budget also...

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.

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

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

Originally Posted by CMANN

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

There is a member, I think billthekid who has an ingenious quote. A pessimist is an optimist with experience. Most subscribers to TOTV are retired or close to it. so they have witnessed year after year as politician over stated, underperformed or plain out lied promise after promise after promise. My assessment is not pesstimistic but unfortunately realistic. Methaporically, we would be further ahead if we burned Washington down and started over again

PS but we will recover and we will now do a better job of voting in effective and honest leaders.

Originally Posted by rubicon

PS but we will recover and we will now do a better job of voting in effective and honest leaders.

Name me a few who are running for office. So far, I haven't seen any that meet your description.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Name me a few who are running for office. So far, I haven't seen any that meet your description.

Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum

Notwithstanding your suggestion, I still can't.

By the way, where's Rick Perry on the list? You were promoting him awhile back, weren't you?