McConnell on BB Amendment: Amend the Constitution, Elections haven't worked

[Modbert]

The original article from ThinkProgress that includes the video and link to the article below:

Mitch McConnell: We Must Rewrite The Constitution Because ‘Elections’ Haven’t ‘Worked’ | ThinkProgress


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPCYT8A96g&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪McConnell Hates Democracy‬‏[/ame]

Text of the video:

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.

Of course, McConnell wants to pass a "balanced budget amendment" which would require a 2/3 majority in order to raise taxes. But that's not all:

The worst idea in Washington - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Bruce Bartlett takes a look at the Balanced Budget Amendment all 47 Republicans signed their names to and pronounces it “quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.”

I think “stupid” is the wrong word. “Dangerous” is more like it. And maybe “radical.” This isn’t just a Balanced Budget Amendment. It also includes a provision saying that tax increases would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress — so, it includes a provision making it harder to balance the budget — and another saying that total spending couldn’t exceed 18 percent of GDP. No allowances are made for recessions, though allowances are made for wars. Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration would’ve had exactly two years in which it wasn’t in violation.

Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That’s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if President Obama said we need to amend the constitution to change gun laws because elections haven't worked? Or President Obama saying we need to amend the constitution because elections haven't worked about anything?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Great idea.

Also criminal prosecution for raiding the Social Security "Trust Fund"

 

[Modbert]

Great idea.

Can't imagine you would be saying the same thing if the President said elections have failed on ____ and therefore we need to amend the constitution.

 

[Sallow]

This takes the cake.

Nothing in the Constitution was meant to restrict the collection of revenue for the government.

This whole Norquist "Starve the Beast" bullshit has gone way to far.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This will become law eventually, stock up on your klenex's and deal with it.

Ps. How many threads do you need to bash one member of congress? If we all pointed out legislators that we deemed kooks their wouldnt be and serious discussion going on.... just sayin

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Great idea.

Can't imagine you would be saying the same thing if the President said elections have failed on ____ and therefore we need to amend the constitution.

See, this is an Amendment that benefits the American People and hampers the growth and reach of Government, that's why it's a good thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This takes the cake.

Nothing in the Constitution was meant to restrict the collection of revenue for the government.

This whole Norquist "Starve the Beast" bullshit has gone way to far.

You used to be sane and had some passing familiarity with the US Constitution. Did you mean some other Constitution? Progressives amended the Constitution to get the result you described and that's why we're in the world of hurt we're in today

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Great idea.

Can't imagine you would be saying the same thing if the President said elections have failed on ____ and therefore we need to amend the constitution.

If McCain had done the absurdly stupid shit that Obama has done, yes I would.

 

[Mustang]

The original article from ThinkProgress that includes the video and link to the article below:

Mitch McConnell: We Must Rewrite The Constitution Because ‘Elections’ Haven’t ‘Worked’ | ThinkProgress


YouTube - ‪McConnell Hates Democracy‬‏

Text of the video:

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.

Of course, McConnell wants to pass a "balanced budget amendment" which would require a 2/3 majority in order to raise taxes. But that's not all:

The worst idea in Washington - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Bruce Bartlett takes a look at the Balanced Budget Amendment all 47 Republicans signed their names to and pronounces it “quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.”

I think “stupid” is the wrong word. “Dangerous” is more like it. And maybe “radical.” This isn’t just a Balanced Budget Amendment. It also includes a provision saying that tax increases would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress — so, it includes a provision making it harder to balance the budget — and another saying that total spending couldn’t exceed 18 percent of GDP. No allowances are made for recessions, though allowances are made for wars. Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration would’ve had exactly two years in which it wasn’t in violation.

Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That’s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if President Obama said we need to amend the constitution to change gun laws because elections haven't worked? Or President Obama saying we need to amend the constitution because elections haven't worked about anything?

This is little more than a tacit admission that McConnell and other leaders in the Senate and the House are incapable of doing their job. It's actually a justification for new leadership.

Sadly, they're considerably more concerned with their own jobs then they are concerned about the welfare of the country. They're afraid to make modest changes on taxes to help balance the budget. Democrats are afraid to cut entitlements. So, they take negotiating positions that almost insure failure. If they were more concerned about the country than they were about their own legislative careers, they would do the right thing for the county and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Modbert]

This will become law eventually, stock up on your klenex's and deal with it.

Ps. How many threads do you need to bash one member of congress? If we all pointed out legislators that we deemed kooks their wouldnt be and serious discussion going on.... just sayin

So instead of actually addressing what was said, you decide to go with the whole "SUCK IT" route.

Furthermore, how many threads do you need to bash the President? If a member of congress or President says something newsworthy, there will be likely a thread about it.

 

[Modbert]

Great idea.

Can't imagine you would be saying the same thing if the President said elections have failed on ____ and therefore we need to amend the constitution.

If McCain had done the absurdly stupid shit that Obama has done, yes I would.

You don't seem to have understood what I said.

If President Obama came out and said that elections have failed, therefore laws involving something that Conservatives tend to support need to be changed, I doubt Frank would be saying "great idea."

Pretty simple.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There aren't enough threads available to bash Obama.. he's that abysmal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The original article from ThinkProgress that includes the video and link to the article below:

Mitch McConnell: We Must Rewrite The Constitution Because ‘Elections’ Haven’t ‘Worked’ | ThinkProgress


YouTube - ‪McConnell Hates Democracy‬‏

Text of the video:

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.

Of course, McConnell wants to pass a "balanced budget amendment" which would require a 2/3 majority in order to raise taxes. But that's not all:

The worst idea in Washington - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Bruce Bartlett takes a look at the Balanced Budget Amendment all 47 Republicans signed their names to and pronounces it “quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.”

I think “stupid” is the wrong word. “Dangerous” is more like it. And maybe “radical.” This isn’t just a Balanced Budget Amendment. It also includes a provision saying that tax increases would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress — so, it includes a provision making it harder to balance the budget — and another saying that total spending couldn’t exceed 18 percent of GDP. No allowances are made for recessions, though allowances are made for wars. Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration would’ve had exactly two years in which it wasn’t in violation.

Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That’s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if President Obama said we need to amend the constitution to change gun laws because elections haven't worked? Or President Obama saying we need to amend the constitution because elections haven't worked about anything?

This is little more than a tacit admission that McConnell and other leaders in the Senate and the House are incapable of doing their job. It's actually a justification for new leadership.

Sadly, they're considerably more concerned with their own jobs then they are concerned about the welfare of the country. They're afraid to make modest changes on taxes to help balance the budget. Democrats are afraid to cut entitlements. So, they take negotiating positions that almost insure failure. If they were more concerned about the country than they were about their own legislative careers, they would do the right thing for the county and let the chips fall where they may.

Or you could have just said, "I don't understand what we're talking about and I refuse to read the article" and been far less ignorant

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can't imagine you would be saying the same thing if the President said elections have failed on ____ and therefore we need to amend the constitution.

If McCain had done the absurdly stupid shit that Obama has done, yes I would.

You don't seem to have understood what I said.

If President Obama came out and said that elections have failed, therefore laws involving something that Conservatives tend to support need to be changed, I doubt Frank would be saying "great idea."

Pretty simple.

Sorry, I don't speak for Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can't imagine you would be saying the same thing if the President said elections have failed on ____ and therefore we need to amend the constitution.

If McCain had done the absurdly stupid shit that Obama has done, yes I would.

You don't seem to have understood what I said.

If President Obama came out and said that elections have failed, therefore laws involving something that Conservatives tend to support need to be changed, I doubt Frank would be saying "great idea."

Pretty simple.

You support bankrupting the USA. Got it.

 

[Jack Fate]

The original article from ThinkProgress that includes the video and link to the article below:

Mitch McConnell: We Must Rewrite The Constitution Because ‘Elections’ Haven’t ‘Worked’ | ThinkProgress


YouTube - ‪McConnell Hates Democracy‬‏

Text of the video:

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.

Of course, McConnell wants to pass a "balanced budget amendment" which would require a 2/3 majority in order to raise taxes. But that's not all:

The worst idea in Washington - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Bruce Bartlett takes a look at the Balanced Budget Amendment all 47 Republicans signed their names to and pronounces it “quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.”

I think “stupid” is the wrong word. “Dangerous” is more like it. And maybe “radical.” This isn’t just a Balanced Budget Amendment. It also includes a provision saying that tax increases would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress — so, it includes a provision making it harder to balance the budget — and another saying that total spending couldn’t exceed 18 percent of GDP. No allowances are made for recessions, though allowances are made for wars. Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration would’ve had exactly two years in which it wasn’t in violation.

Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That’s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if President Obama said we need to amend the constitution to change gun laws because elections haven't worked? Or President Obama saying we need to amend the constitution because elections haven't worked about anything?

He's right, nothing has worked. We keep adding on debt. Makes good sense to me. That must be why you don't like it. It makes sense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This will become law eventually, stock up on your klenex's and deal with it.

Ps. How many threads do you need to bash one member of congress? If we all pointed out legislators that we deemed kooks their wouldnt be and serious discussion going on.... just sayin

So instead of actually addressing what was said, you decide to go with the whole "SUCK IT" route.

Furthermore, how many threads do you need to bash the President? If a member of congress or President says something newsworthy, there will be likely a thread about it.

I think the whole "suck it" routine sums up fairly well what I think of the story. It needs to be done and when it is the left will need tissues to wipe up all their tears of long lost tax increases

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unlike anything Amendment Obama would support (ending all forms of private property, required reading from Mao and Obama, 2 Minute Hate on "The Rich") this Amendment will actually pass.

 

[Modbert]

You support bankrupting the USA. Got it.

Incorrect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You support bankrupting the USA. Got it.

Incorrect.

Oh right, you support unfettered spending by the Government with no checks and balance from Congress until no one buys our debts and or Seniors don't get their Social Security because "there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it", that's different.

Right