GOP RINOs set vote for phony balanced budget amendment (H.J.RES.2)!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by johnwk, Nov 17, 2011.

  1. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    .

    SEE: House GOP sets vote on balanced-budget amendment

    “House GOP leaders have scheduled a vote next week on a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced federal budget.”


    Now, let us take a look at what the GOP offers to restrain our Congress which has brought our nation to the brink of financial suicide and a national debt of over $15 TRILLION which represents our nation‘s entire gross domestic product for one year!.


    SEE H.J.RES.2, THE GOP BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT and particularly note alleged “conservatives” who have put their name to this fraud!


    `Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.


    Translation: Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires when a mere 261 House members and 60 Senators agree to continue down its path of destroying America from within.


    `Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.


    Another provision to break the chains requiring a balanced budget, and one which cleverly omits a requirement for specific increases in taxes to equal any proposed increase in the national debt!


    `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.


    This provision is totally meaningless and mere window dressing to confuse the people, especially when figures can be made to mean whatever our folks in government want them to project as we have learned with Obamacare


    Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.


    Well, I guess we call all relax under this provision as a mere 217 votes in the House and 51 in the Senate is all that is needed by Congress to squeeze more blood out of the America People and continue down a path to financial suicide. This particular provision makes one wonder why “conservatives” have put their name on this supposed “balanced budget amendment”


    `Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.


    After the words “declaration of war is in effect” the weasel wording which follows would be laughable if America’s national debt were not so grave, not to mention a mere majority vote is needed to give the finger to balancing the budget.. The flimflamery under this section is disgusting. Each House may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP? How it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions? Has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks, and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension? Why have “conservatives“ put their name to this crap?!


    `Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.


    Estimates of outlays and receipts? This is an in-your-face, screw the America People, we do what we want and what we want is to use mathematical illusions to enforce balancing the budget!


    `Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.


    And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?


    `Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.'.


    Now, let us take a look at our founding father’s no-nonsense method to balancing the annual budget


    The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


    “SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


    NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!


    "SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


    NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


    "SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


    NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:


    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

    Total U.S. Population


    This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!



    "SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


    NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


    "SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after its ratification.


    Now, why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, etc.,] give thumbs up to GOP RINO talk about a balanced budget amendment and neglect to ever mention our founding father's intended method to deal with deficits which is already part of our Constitution and simply being ignored?



    JWK


    "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson
     
  2. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    I was pleasantly surprised to hear Mark Levin, on his Friday show, express his rejection of the phony balanced budget amendment and giving his support to the four Republicans who voted against it. My only disappointment with Mark on this issue is his failure to associate our founder’s expressed intentions to have the rule of apportionment applied when dealing with deficits should they occur, and how the rule of apportionment would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable if Congress spent more than is brought in from its normal means of raising a federal revenue, which would trigger the apportioned tax among the States to extinguish the shortfall:


    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE IN EXTINGUISHIN DEFICIT

    Total U.S. Population



    This rule of apportionment for any general tax among the States was intended to cure an evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. It was also intended to create a very real moment of accountability if Congress spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.


    It would be music to my ears and every “constitutional conservative” to hear Mark Levin use his God given verbal skills to articulate the threat and consequences each State’s Congressional Delegation would be working under while in Washington, D.C., and spending federal revenue, if the rule of apportionment were once again applied ___ especially the threat of each State’s very own Treasury hanging in the balance and would be depleted whenever a State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit.

    And I’m sure Mark Levin would be able to articulate far better than I can how States with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who now pretty much control spending from the federal treasury and are quite happy to vote for every progressive giveaway program because there are no consequences in the process, would suddenly have their Congressional Delegation returning home with a bill in hand for their State’s Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the pork their Congressional Delegation purchased while in Washington.

    I would also love to hear Mark Levin use his God given gift to articulate the consequences if a State’s Legislature refused to pay their State‘s apportioned fair share to extinguish a deficit or were delinquent in paying it on time, under which circumstances Congress would be required to enter the State and collect the amount due with (for example) a direct tax upon the real and personal property within the State. And if the owners of said property did not pay the tax due, then their property would be put up for a tax sale and the good news is, our California limousine riding, tofu-eating liberals will quickly come to their senses!

    Put this rule of apportionment back into operation and the evil of democracy under which our nation now suffers (representation without proportional financial obligation) will be corrected, and Congress will once again be the servants of the people and not their masters which is what our founding fathers intended!

    Mark Levin, please don’t let us down! Rise to the occasion and use your God given talent, and defend the clear thinking of our founding fathers!


    JWK

    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
     
  3. ShaklesOfBigGov
    Offline

    ShaklesOfBigGov Restore the Republic

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,231
    Thanks Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Near Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +1,314
    The issue being raised here, that no one on the left seems to want to address is the need to CUT SPENDING. We can not simply look at raising taxes as a means to cover up Washington D.C.'s fiscal incompetence. So a Balance Budget Amendment which FORCES Congress and the current administration to deal with the issue of spending, and not simply use the "band-aid" approach of raising taxes is long overdue, if we don't want to see our own economy collapse under it's own financial weight burden like we see in Greece.

    Nothing in the 16th Ammendment, left by our Founding Fathers, addresses the importance of reduced spending, and simply the Left's DEFAULT of increasing taxes is NOT an excuse for the Federal Government to freely spend! If we are to follow the foundation that's left as a means for how the government is to function financially, then according to SECTION 2 of the 16th Amendment we ought to not be using China to cover our inability to sustain our OWN debts. If we are to follow what the Founders have outlined in the US Constitution, we ought not to have Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, or Medicade either (as there are no provisions clearly outlined that allot for such government entitlements).

    As far as the Balanced Budget Amendment requiring a 2/3 majority before any further taxes are raised, or an increase in the debt ceiling is allowed, I'm in 100% total agreement. The Federal Government wastes too much of our taxpayers money, to easily, without ANY concern or regard to the fiancial outcome. This is precisely the Obama administration has spent in almost 4 YEARS what it took the previous administration 8 YEARS. If that doesn't raise a concern as to the out of control spending this nation already has, then get ready to see further reductions in our AAA currency rating and the suffering of inflation that is sure to follow.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  4. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    And that is why our RINOs offered a phony balanced budget amendment rather than our founding father’s solution requiring Congress to lay and collect the apportioned tax whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

    JWK




    Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very beginning.

     
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    According what authority? You?

    I don’t recall ‘ShaklesOfBigGov’ mentioned in Marbury v. Madison.

    What the right fails to understand is that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, per the doctrine of judicial review.

    That ignorant revisionists on the right disagree with those rulings or reject the doctrine of judicial review is thankfully irrelevant.
     
  6. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377

    I take it you do not know what judicial tyranny is, nor the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which requires the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted to be observed and enforced:

    “The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

    You may also want to check in with Jefferson who wrote:

    "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.




    JWK

    The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the constitution, is absolutely null and void.”(my emphasis) Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Pure rightist idiocy; playing politics with the Constitution is very dangerous.

    It is perfectly appropriate and expected for modern, industrialized, 21st Century governments to cycle between deficit and surplus and back to deficit again.

    The Constitution shouldn’t be cluttered with inane partisan garbage such as a BBA.
     
  8. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,621
    Thanks Received:
    6,684
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,497
    What you don't understand is that is patently false. The Constitution does not mean what ever nine people in robes say it means on any given day. It is not their job to decree what the Constitution says, though plenty of them have certainly made it their privilege. The Constitution is very explicit in its meaning and is clarified more so in the Federalist Papers. The job of the SCOTUS is to determine if a law falls within those boundaries as written at the time they were written. It is not their job to suddenly say the document means something it never has in order to reset those boundaries to push force their own personal ideology on people.

    And you have the nerve to call someone else ignorant.

    I know you like to pretend you're real smart citing all of your little court cases that any one of us can find with a five second Google search, but it's pretty clear by your constant uninformed remarks that you don't know jack shit about Constitutional law or this nation's legal history or how we ended up where we are today.

    You remind me of that douche bag at the bar in Good Will Hunting whose face Matt Damon got in.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s][Great Movie Scenes] Good Will Hunting - Bar Scene - YouTube[/ame]
     
  9. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    SEE: Mark Levin on the phony balanced budget amendment:


    ``On Friday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that he's happy the balanced budget amendment didn't pass the House because it was a fraud. If you actually read the bill, it didn't do what many phony Republicans said it would do - and it would only increase spending and further put us into debt. Speaker Boehner has abandoned his pledge to cut, cap and balance. And because of this, the American people will continue to suffer. Also, some politicians believe that they have the power to seize whatever funds they want from you to fund it's insatiable appetite. Finally, Rick Santorum calls in and talks about his Republican presidential bid.``


    And let us not forget that Boehner was all in favor of, and at the singing of, the unconstitutional No Child Left Behind Act, the funding of which is now used by the federal government to blackmail the States into submission! Take a look at John, cry-baby-face Boehner with a BIG FAT GRIN ON HIS FACE when he joined hands with progressives and RINOs in the adoption of this usurpation of power.


    JWK




    Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very beginning.

     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011

Share This Page