From CNBC:
U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner told fellow Republicans on Sunday that he is considering a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution as part of a bill that would raise the debt ceiling, a source who heard his message said.
That could be a sign that the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate remain far apart in tense negotiations to avoid an Aug. 2 default.
A balanced-budget amendment is popular with conservatives and was a central element of a bill that failed in the Senate after passing the House last week…
The bottom line here is that Boehner must bring home something in the nature of genuine cuts and/or a reform in spending which promises to balance the budget in a realistic amount of time. Failure to carry at least this minimum risks a wipe out of the GOP in 2012 – not that GOPers would vote Democrat, but it would almost ensure a third party emerging to carry the fiscally conservative banner in to 2012. This is key – this is central; this is the non-negotiable thing.
On the other side are the Democrats. For them it is a matter of preserving the spending they enacted 2009-10. This must become the “new normal”. They know full well that they won’t regain the House in 2012 and stand to lose control of the Senate – the loss of the White House must also be envisioned but for the Democrats this is a secondary thing. Keeping the spending is vital – because it is only via government spending that they retain any power. Only, that is, if they can keep dispensing lavish amounts of taxpayer dollars on favored groups can the Democrat coalition sustain itself. Even if they lose in 2012, if they can retain the 2010 level of spending, Democrats feel confident that by 2014 or 2016 they can regain power…and then expand their power via spending from today’s current levels. Whatever Democrats do, they won’t agree to any substantial cuts in spending. Not for real – promises of trillions in cuts over the years they’ll give with wild abandon…counting on never having to actually produce the cuts. We can debate whether they don’t care we’re going broke, or don’t realize it – but the effect is the same: come what may, they are determined to preserve their spending (my view is that they don’t care – if we do eventually default, they’ll have no problem with that, figuring it would just allow them to go on another borrowed money spending spree once the dust settles…and, of course, a default would be a strong argument for higher taxes).
So, how do we get past the impasse? Mostly, we put it off until 2013 – hoping that in 2012 we win so big that we’ll have sufficient political power to impose a fiscally conservative settlement of the issue. The way to get from here to there is, at the end of the day, agree to an increase in the debt ceiling (a totally un-necessary and, indeed, regressive thing to do…but Democrats have their heart set on it and as they control the White House and the Senate, we really can’t get ’round it). But if we are to agree to increase the debt ceiling, we need something concrete out of it – some sort of real cut to spending next year, along with some real budgetary reform. A balanced budget amendment, sent to the States, would be ideal.
We’ll see now if it can be done. Democrats have hyped up the August 2nd deadline as if it means something…but when powerfull people start talking like that, the sheep who man the financial markets start to take it seriously. Thus we’ve seen the tremors roiling through the global markets. They should be worried about the fact that the global economy is heading in to recession…but what they are worried about is whether the government will approve the ability to go further in to debt (ie, further on the road to economic ruin). Still, in all this, Democrats might have shot themselves in the foot…it is fake crisis, but even a fake crisis can become real if enough people are suckered by it (see Global Warming for a prime example). Democrats are behind the 8 ball – having said that something must be done by August 2nd to avoid catastrophe, they’d better come up with some thing by August 2nd. If Boehner can craft a good bill and get it through the House, Democrats may be forced to go along with it.
It could be a very interesting week.
Blogs For Victory 
Mostly, we put it off until 2013 – hoping that in 2012 we win so big that we’ll have sufficient political power to impose a fiscally conservative settlement of the issue.
And that is my hope. I think we should make these two visions of government a referendum in 2012 and let the voters decide. Should we become a nation governed by a large central bureaucracy that regulates nearly every aspect of life in the name of social justice? Or do we begin to scale back the size and scope of the federal government and put more power into the hands of the states, counties and the people, that allows people more individual liberties but which also demands more personal responsibility?
cluster
that allows people more individual liberties but which also demands more personal responsibility?
when 50% of the population pay NO federal tax yet siphon hundreds of BILLIONS of OPM the outlook for any fiscal change is bleak.
The system will have to collapse which I believe this marxist regime is attempting to do.Both sides have an eye on what we will become afterwords.
The biggest problem with Boehner Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment is this:
U.S. Constitution
Article. V.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution”
He doesn’t have two thirds of the House much less the Senate.
Casper is making progress. Here, he is half right.
Of course he is also half wrong, and should consider having someone else take over his classes on the American Constitution.
He is completely ignoring—or is, perhaps, unaware of—the other means of amending the Constitution: A Constitutional Convention called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
Amazona,
I know what is in the rest of Article 5. However, since the thread is about Boehner Considering Balanced Budget Amendment, and he isn’t a member of any of the state legislatures I didn’t think it was relative.
Two-thirds? Since when did modern day congresspeople let a little thing like the constitution stop them….Simply DEEM AS PASSED BY TWO-THIRDS in a majority bill. Deeming as passed hasn’t managed yet to get a court challenge, maybe if it did that would put an end to the practice.
the prisoners have the keys to the jail…exactly what make anyone think that the prison is really a prison…the name?
boehner has shown before how he allowed this issue on the debt ceiling to be resolved…just this year…
showboating is not going to get the job done…nobody in thier right mind can anticipate a balanced budget amendment before a major change in the political landscape…
the only reasonable chance that would have…would be through a constitutional convention…and that also doesnt seem to be on the horizon
i would guess this whole thing is about the upcomming election…positioning and issues…and the good of the nation is not the most important thing in the lives of these leaders
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin
Mr. Negativity here again. “Mostly, we put it off until 2013 – hoping” Is not this the gop D.C. establishments mantra? We put things off and hope. Act? Not so much. Yes things will get better tommorrow. Well there is free beer down at the local tavern “tommorrow”.
green,
a balanced budget amendment won’t pass the house most likely, and it won’t pass the senate for sure. Even so, the President will veto it.
you would rather see the nation go into partial default, then to make a deal and avert financial disaster?
seriously.
Tommy,
You’re looking at this through a very short-sighted prism.
Thomas, You obviosly have not been here as long as I have. If you had you would have known the answer to that question. Let the fire rage, add some gas,watch it burn. The survivors can rebuild the house.
green,
so let me get this straight.
you want the nation to collapse and “burn” down, and then you want to rebuild it in your image? damn all those who don’t have your image, let them burn as well? is that about right?
you’re quite the negotiator. to bad the GOP will cave, and if they don’t the majority will put the blame on them and they will be wiped out next election.
thomas,
It is a FAKE emergency. Haven’t you been watching the economists. They are predicting doom and gloom – – do you know why? Because the consensus is that if the U.S. defaults, interest rates might go up by 1/2 to 3/4 a percent. Big F’ing deal. The Fed has dropped interest rates 5 full points in the last 5 years.
doug,
that’s not the concensus.
if the US were to default on its sovereign debt, the interest rates would probably go up to about 7 or 8%.
right now we are at 3 for our bonds issued on the global market.
are you a tea partier by any chance? not everything is a conspiracy theory.
I am done negotiating. You will take everything I have in the end to support your money habit. “Damn all those…..” Damn no. I and my family and small circle of relatives and friends are prepared as much as we can be for a collapse of society. We have what we need. Are you prepared to live life without electricity? I highly doubt it. You should be. If you are not I suspect that you would use deadly force to take what you want from others.
Good Luck.
Thomas, I think you are taking it to the extreme. Your results are if the U.S. actually defaults completely on it’s debt rather than skips some payments on part of it’s debt. If the U.S. just decides not to pay off it’s $14 trillion debt and choose instead to spend it on govt. union employees, yeah, there could be a problem.
However, it appears the plan would be to just not pay off about $1 trillion of the interest expense anytime soon (just pay it later), so that the Feds can keep pumping money to the govt. workers.
They would have to take a positive action to choose not to pay off debt, otherwise they will most likely have to take action to pick and choose which debt would be subordinate and not recieve interest payments and for how long. That would be the most likely result and the ‘how long’ would most likely be less than a year until they can pass some type of debt deal, and the result would be a temporary interest rate increase of 1/2 to 3/4 percent.
Destroy the country?? That is a funny one. When was the last time conservatives held a riot over some imagined offense. Sorry monty, destroying things is the hallmark of the left. You.
There will never be enough money to sastify people like you and Thomas. Never. It will always be mome…more..more…gimme…gimmee…gimmee.
Sooner or later there will be no money for you people to take. What do you do then?
Care to tell me?
what are you blabbering about?
it must suck to be you, living in fear all the time. seriously, get a grip, this isn’t some alternate universe where people want your money.
if you want to live in a taxless society, move to afghanistan. I am sure you would enjoy it.
let the civilized people live in the USA.
let me ask you, since you say the left is the only people that destroy things….do you think the Norwegian mass killer was a leftist as well?
Ahhh, I knew this would come up. You finally might have your right wing bogeyman. I will give you a small lesson here. If you take everone that this man killed in an hour of rampaging then killed the same amount every hour, how long do you think it would take to kill all the people that stalin and mao killed. Conservative estimates place the amout if deaths under stalin and mao at 94 million people.
That man may have held some right wing views but he was no conservative or a christian. He will rot in hell along will stalin, mao, fidel, pol, nikoli, hugo, he will have some good company.
Thomas, when I studied political science we always learned that political ideology wasn’t a straight line from left to right, but rather a circle. That always meant that nazi’s (or in the norwegian’s case, someone nearly a neo-nazi) were so far around the curve that they were just a notch past marxist. Some people can be so far to the right that they could also be considered too far to the left. Hitler was there, so is this Norwegian.
True conservatives, those who are hard right, are for complete freedom of all types of people. Those who are hard left have a mindset of the marxists, some people are destined to be better than other classes….yes, he really is so far right that he is a leftist.
And there you have it ladies and gents.
according to conservatives, they don’t have any violence. Doug is trying to convince us that this loon in Norway was so far RIGHT…that he was actually LEFT! ha! imagine that. First it was Hitler, then McVeigh, and now this guy.
Let me ask you doug, is there anything you are going to take responsibility for? Or is all acts of violence that you don’t like attributed to the left?
Let’s see how public sentiment in Europe changes after this event.
Let me guess, Murdoch is so far right in his actions with NewsCorp…that he is actually left right?
Ha. what a joke.
If it makes you feel any better thomas I culd take responsibility for the Norway thing……won’t be true but you might feel better.
I’m just trying to educate you a bit. The political spectrum is NOT a straight line – it is a circle. Right and Left meet on one side of it.
As for your obsession with far right people committing crimes…yes the Inquisition was nasty, but they were acting under orders of a dictator – – hardly a conservative principal. Religion, whether it is Christianity or Islam, does NOT make one a right winger or left winger. Religion can influence political ideology in civilization over time. Fascism, Nazism, etc. those are more similar to Marxism and Communism than they are to the American form of Republican democracy.
Hence, when you look at political ideology, you can put an American Moderate at the top of your circle and as you go around to the left you will get to socialism, then communism and Marxism right at the bottom. If you go around to the right you will end up with facsim, right there at the bottom.
That bottom is where the state has excess control of the people and their lives…the separation between the right and left as you see it, is who and how that control is handled.
That bottom is where the state has excess control of the people and their lives…the separation between the right and left as you see it, is who and how that control is handled.
Doug, excellent explanation, only about the 4th or 5th one that has been offered to Thomas in the last couple months. His mindset is so rigid that he can’t comprehend what your saying.
Meanwhile, across the pond the preview of where we’re headed continues unabated.
Spook,
we are not headed to where Greece is. We have a reserve currency. our debt problem as a percentage of GDP is not close to being as bad as greece was, and we don’t have a population of less than 10 million.
give it a rest you fear monger.
give it a rest you fear monger.
why dont you give it a rest you Moron?
Has any body done any research on how long it will take, at the current rate of borrrowing, it will take for every single tax dollar taken in by the federal government to go to paying interest on the debt?
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
five great talking points! worthy of any right wing conservative kook site!
hip hip hooray!
Thomas,
Which of the 5 points do you disagree with, and why?
Spook,
where to begin.
point by point.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
nobody is legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. This is a classical straw man argument. Just because there are laws in place to help the needy and less fortunate, doesn’t mean the wealthy are being legislated out of prosperity. Nobody in this nation has ever done this.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
Another false statement. This isn’t a zero sum game. If my tax dollars go to helping someone who isn’t employed, then so be it. It’s part of being socially responsible, part of being in a modern society, where the haves help out the have nots in case they need it. THis is a classical argument for the selfish ideology you call conservatism.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
again, let me take out my violin and play a sad song for neo. Its called taxation, we all vote in this nation, so we have a say in our own affairs. The government takes our tax dollars and spends it according to OUR vote. They take our dollars because we VOTED for the people in office. Neo is just a sourpuss.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
I don’t know of anyone that has made this assertion. EVER.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
again, FALSE. EVERYONE in this country pays sales tax, gas tax, school tax, state sales tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, etc. The assertion that our resident idiot neo makes is that half the country doesn’t pay income tax….federal income tax, and then in the next breath he claims that they are looters. Little does he know that the social security check he is getting is taken from people’s first 80k in income, which comes out to the middle class and poor paying MOST of it.
So essentially, neo is an idiot, but I assume you already knew that.
tommygasbagger
So essentially, tommy is an idiot, but I assume you already knew that.
We did
the rest of your post is a steaming pile of BS and refuted nothing.
Just more of your ignorant and ridiculous talking points.
tommygasbag
Update: The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,
the top 10% pay 71%,
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
***The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.
OOPS tommy caught lying again
hey doofus,
income taxes don’t have anything to do with other taxes that EVERYONE pays regardless of their income.
or how about the social security tax that is more heavily levied on people making less than 80k?
you’re an idiot and a half. I bet the Norwegian guy is yours and Jeremiah’s cousin.
tommygasbagger
I bet the Norwegian guy is yours and Jeremiah’s cousin.
and bin laden your daddy.
NEXT??
or how about the social security tax that is more heavily levied on people making less than 80k?
Thomas, so you’re saying that someone who makes, say $75,000/year pays a higher percentage that someone making, say, $100,000/year? Could you explain exactly how that works?
How is a person on tanf paying any taxes? all the money they recieve is tax dollars. How can tax dollars be taxed? I honestly don’t expect you to get it Thomas.
If thomas had even an ounce of common sense, or better yet honesty, he’d admit that gas taxes, sales taxes, etc, are ancillary taxes, and voluntary. Not to mention the fact that if these “poor” people are driving a car and shopping at walmart, I might question their “poor” status. And what is “school taxes”, or does he mean property taxes? Of which most poor people do not pay. Furthermore, through EIC’s most of the poor receive all of those taxes back, plus some.
Case in point, I know of friend whose daughter, is living with her boyfriend, who is an electrician and making fairly decent money. They are not married and have two kids, he drives a 2003 pick up and she drives a 2009 Chevrolet. They also receive welfare, food stamps and free health care for her and the kids. Thanks thomas. Question: Can I withdraw my taxes from paying for them? How about if just thomas and mitch pay those folks, because Lord knows they care about poor people.
Does payroll tax count or is it voluntary?
or how about the social security tax that is more heavily levied on people making less than 80k? – thomas
It’s all levied the same thomas.
It’s all levied the same thomas.
ha ha ha ha……tommy still thinks Pee Wee’s bike in in the Alamo’s basement, what a tardo!!
Interesting……hey lil tommietardo
Among the Tax-takers
By Earl Wright
I worked for the IRS and survived. I learned about taxpayers, but the really interesting part of it was learning about tax-takers.
We all have this vague notion of people who don’t pay taxes but receive money from Uncle Sam in what euphemistically is called a tax refund. That’s what I had, a vague notion, until I was forced to close my business in 2010. I took a seasonal job with the Internal Revenue Service to get some household cash flow going. We “Timmy Geithner warriors” were appalled by what we learned.
We generally knew that 47 percent of our population pays no income taxes whatsoever. However, we didn’t know, and I suspect that very few of you know, how much of your tax money is actually given to non-taxpayers — in a lump sum, to do with as they please. Over lunch we joked that half the tattoo parlors in America would go under without Uncle Sam’s largesse. Only later I learned that was closer to the truth than a joke.
Like most anti-poverty programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit when enacted in 1975 was supposed to be temporary. It was visualized as a tool to lift the working poor out of poverty. It was quickly made permanent and has been modified numerous times over the ensuing 36 years. In 2004, 20 million families received $36 billion. The flower children assume that was $36 billion spent on food, shelter, and health care. We who live in the real world know it was spent on big-screen television sets, 22-inch chrome wheels, and colorful tattoos.
It was widely noted last week that those living below the poverty level in the U.S. tend to own cars, TVs, computers, cells phones, enjoy air-conditioning, and own video game consoles. The free money these folks receive from you and me is not counted for poverty level calculations.
In addition, the feds estimate that between 22 and 30 percent of taxpayers claiming EITC do not actually qualify so we spend an additional $8 billion to $10 billion trying to straighten that out.
I can’t talk specifics about my time at the IRS, but here are some generalities. Those claiming EITC also qualify for other so-called refundable credits (how can something be refundable when nothing is paid in the first place?). The typical 1040 would show an income of between $12,000 to $18,000 for the year. It was usually accompanied by one W-2 with the income earned almost always by a female. With other refundable credits listed, a “refund” would be claimed of between $6,000 and $9,000.
And these people believe that is their money; they have a right to it.
rest here
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/among_the_tax-takers.html
NATIONS cannot be the banking system…and visa versa…it is private NGO’s that run and profit from them…and no government has any right to use taxpayers money to stop banks from collapsing…nor wall street or the auto industry…thats what free market does…it corrects its self through the collapse of inept industries and opens the door for innovation…without which no government can survive….so when governments move to interfer with the free market…the only outcome tends to damage the society that governement has the duty to preserve