The Contract From America

[LibocalypseNow]

If a piece of legislation doesn't match up or make sense according to the Constitution,it will most likely be detrimental to our nation. This has already been proven over & over again. This Contract would at least encourage our politicians to only create legislation that makes sense under our Constitution. I'm definitely all for that. This Contract is a good start to bringing some sanity back to Washington. The Socialists/Democrats and the GOP are gonna spin it any way they like but in the end it's up to you. Don't listen to either one's spin. Just read it yourself and then decide for yourself. I have and i definitely support it. Lets hope the politicians jump on board as well.

 

[rightwinger]

So would you not include a balanced budget among your choice of 10 items to emphasize? Would you agree that a balanced budget isn't necessarily a good thing if Congress is unhindered in any way of making it as big as it wants and raising whatever taxes it wants to cover it?

I don't see a tax cut as being as much of a problem because if in fact less revenues did come in, they would have to reduce the budget accordingly.

Absolutely..

A balanced budget means you keep your expenditures in line with your income. Cutting taxes means a reduction in your income. It should also be subjected to 2/3 vote

Why? If they are required to balance a budget, I can see why they should need a 2/3 vote to raise taxes to prevent them from just growing and growing and growing the budget and we have to pay for it.

I can't see why they would need a 2/3 majority to cut taxes though, because they would still have to balance the budget while we would have more of our own assets to use.

I guess it all comes down to whether you see the people as working for the government or the government working for the people.

No...It goes both ways..The issue is BALACING THE BUDGET

You balance a budget by increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures. If an initiative either raises revenue or decreases expenditures, it should not be subjected to a 2/3 vote because it results in a balanced budget.

However.......cutting taxes causes an unbalanced budget due to a decrease in revenue

 

[rightwinger]

PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

Pure nonsense, trying to lock in the scope of Government to what it was in 1782.

Flintstones logic

So what's the alternative, discard the constitution?

The alternative is to allow the Constitution to work as designed. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution not right wing posters on a message board. If you believe a piece of legislation is un-Constitutional...the courts have been established to make the decision

 

[Meister]

Absolutely..

A balanced budget means you keep your expenditures in line with your income. Cutting taxes means a reduction in your income. It should also be subjected to 2/3 vote

Why? If they are required to balance a budget, I can see why they should need a 2/3 vote to raise taxes to prevent them from just growing and growing and growing the budget and we have to pay for it.

I can't see why they would need a 2/3 majority to cut taxes though, because they would still have to balance the budget while we would have more of our own assets to use.

I guess it all comes down to whether you see the people as working for the government or the government working for the people.

No...It goes both ways..The issue is BALACING THE BUDGET

You balance a budget by increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures. If an initiative either raises revenue or decreases expenditures, it should not be subjected to a 2/3 vote because it results in a balanced budget.

However.......cutting taxes causes an unbalanced budget due to a decrease in revenue

Really?
Or, is this another one of your "It's 80 in Sydney Australia and it's Feb"?

 

[Meister]

Pure nonsense, trying to lock in the scope of Government to what it was in 1782.

Flintstones logic

So what's the alternative, discard the constitution?

The alternative is to allow the Constitution to work as designed. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution not right wing posters on a message board. If you believe a piece of legislation is un-Constitutional...the courts have been established to make the decision

The Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution? They are legislating from the bench.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Too bad conservative talking points are not conservative action points.

So take action. Tell me how to help (no don't tell me to send yuo money) and I might.

 

[MIPS]

Pure nonsense, trying to lock in the scope of Government to what it was in 1782.

Flintstones logic

So what's the alternative, discard the constitution?

The alternative is to allow the Constitution to work as designed. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution not right wing posters on a message board. If you believe a piece of legislation is un-Constitutional...the courts have been established to make the decision

So Congress has no responsibility to examine the constitutionality of legislation before proposing or passing it?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If the Legislation doesn't match up or make sense according to our Constitution,it's probably bad for our nation. Like declaring Wars and such. The more you stick to our Constitution,the better off we all are. The further you stray from our Constitution,the worse off we all are. I think this is being proven to be true more & more everyday. Our Government has simply strayed too far away from our Constitution and that's where all of our problems stem from. Today's politicians are just too busy looking for angles to get around our Constitution rather than trying to follow it. That really has created quite a mess. This new Contract addresses this pretty well in my opinion. Hey just my opinion though. Read it and decide for yourself.

 

[American Horse]

The one point I most wanted isn't there.

I wanted a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from dispensing any form of benevolence or charity to any individual, group, entity, or special interest.

Too hard to enforce, and because of that problem it would actually weaken the constitution. Thanks for posting the up-to-date proposals for the Contract.

Highest on my list are these, which would make a really good but do-able start, and ABOUT all responsible elected officials either now see the need for these, or will after the next election.
1. DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET
2. STOP THE TAX HIKES
3. COMMIT TO REAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
4. PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
5. PASS REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM
6. END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING
7. GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN
8. PASS AN 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' ENERGY POLICY
9. STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER
10. SUNSET REGULATIONS


Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

 

[rdean]

The only thing that will really help this country is to "invest".

Education - stop the screwy "magical creation" and create some interest in "real" science. Make "elitist" education affordable so people that have the ability to become "elites" can.

Rebuild Americas infrastructure - it creates jobs and gets money moving which creates a tax base which is used to create more jobs. (When the money is flowing, taxes aren't such an issue. Remember, in the 50s and 60s, the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 75 to 90 percent. Only they loved this country. Now you get broke ass Republicans squabbling over pennies. Make some REAL money).

Stop these wars. Close some of these overseas military bases.

BAM BAM BAM 1, 2, 3

It's just that easy.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I also believe in Term Limits. Way too many career politicians & academics in our Government. That's one of my biggest problems with this current administration. There are very few people in this administration who have real-life experience. Most are career politicians and academics who never actually held real jobs or ran businesses. They just don't have a realistic perspective on real-life issues. Term limits could help in this regard. Hey just my take anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

Pure nonsense, trying to lock in the scope of Government to what it was in 1782.

Flintstones logic

So what's the alternative, discard the constitution?

The alternative is to allow the Constitution to work as designed. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution not right wing posters on a message board. If you believe a piece of legislation is un-Constitutional...the courts have been established to make the decision

Yepper and that is in the constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely..

A balanced budget means you keep your expenditures in line with your income. Cutting taxes means a reduction in your income. It should also be subjected to 2/3 vote

Why? If they are required to balance a budget, I can see why they should need a 2/3 vote to raise taxes to prevent them from just growing and growing and growing the budget and we have to pay for it.

I can't see why they would need a 2/3 majority to cut taxes though, because they would still have to balance the budget while we would have more of our own assets to use.

I guess it all comes down to whether you see the people as working for the government or the government working for the people.

No...It goes both ways..The issue is BALACING THE BUDGET

You balance a budget by increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures. If an initiative either raises revenue or decreases expenditures, it should not be subjected to a 2/3 vote because it results in a balanced budget.

However.......cutting taxes causes an unbalanced budget due to a decrease in revenue

A balanced budget is a balanced budget. So yes, if they cut taxes AND that reduces revenues, then they reduce what they spend. It is as simple as that. No 2/3rds vote should be necessary to let the people keep more of what they own. It SHOULD require a 2/3rds vote, however, to take away more of what the people own.

The principle is that the government serves the people, not the other way around.

 

[American Horse]

So what's the alternative, discard the constitution?

The alternative is to allow the Constitution to work as designed. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution not right wing posters on a message board. If you believe a piece of legislation is un-Constitutional...the courts have been established to make the decision

Yepper and that is in the constitution.

Both of you do know that it is not quite that easy; no constitutional issue is taken up for decision by the SC until a party of "Standing" brings a case before them.

EDIT: Standing before the US Supreme Court

 

[uscitizen]

Why? If they are required to balance a budget, I can see why they should need a 2/3 vote to raise taxes to prevent them from just growing and growing and growing the budget and we have to pay for it.

I can't see why they would need a 2/3 majority to cut taxes though, because they would still have to balance the budget while we would have more of our own assets to use.

I guess it all comes down to whether you see the people as working for the government or the government working for the people.

No...It goes both ways..The issue is BALACING THE BUDGET

You balance a budget by increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures. If an initiative either raises revenue or decreases expenditures, it should not be subjected to a 2/3 vote because it results in a balanced budget.

However.......cutting taxes causes an unbalanced budget due to a decrease in revenue

A balanced budget is a balanced budget. So yes, if they cut taxes AND that reduces revenues, then they reduce what they spend. It is as simple as that. No 2/3rds vote should be necessary to let the people keep more of what they own. It SHOULD require a 2/3rds vote, however, to take away more of what the people own.

The principle is that the government serves the people, not the other way around.

bollocks, we serve the govt. I am not sure what country you live in but I live in America.
That is the reality.

 

[MIPS]

I also believe in Term Limits. Way too many career politicians & academics in our Government. That's one of my biggest problems with this current administration. There are very few people in this administration who have real-life experience. Most are career politicians and academics who never actually held real jobs or ran businesses. They just don't have a realistic perspective on real-life issues. Term limits could help in this regard. Hey just my take anyway.

Unfortunately one of the major downsides to term limits is that term limited politicians have absolutely no incentive to be accountable to the people that elected them, it's basically an open door invitation to "What does it matter what I do now? I can't get re-elected anyways so I might as well empty the cookie jar while I have the chance"......

Not to mention that if people want to keep electing the same idiot over and over to represent them, then they are getting the government that they deserve which is perfectly within their rights. Personally I think what we need are solutions that degrade the advantage of incumbency not hard term limits.

 

[uscitizen]

We need smarter people voting.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The fact is that most Socialists/Democrats and Neocon Republicans will probably hate this new Contract. Even more reason to support it in my opinion. They have both destroyed our nation at this point. It's time to get back to following our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers really did have it right all those years ago. Maybe this new Contract can help in encouraging our politicians to change their ways. I guess we'll see though.

 

[MIPS]

No...It goes both ways..The issue is BALACING THE BUDGET

You balance a budget by increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures. If an initiative either raises revenue or decreases expenditures, it should not be subjected to a 2/3 vote because it results in a balanced budget.

However.......cutting taxes causes an unbalanced budget due to a decrease in revenue

A balanced budget is a balanced budget. So yes, if they cut taxes AND that reduces revenues, then they reduce what they spend. It is as simple as that. No 2/3rds vote should be necessary to let the people keep more of what they own. It SHOULD require a 2/3rds vote, however, to take away more of what the people own.

The principle is that the government serves the people, not the other way around.

bollocks, we serve the govt. I am not sure what country you live in but I live in America.
That is the reality.

I'm glad you've apparently resigned yourself to that but I have a NEWSFLASH for you, at least some of us American Citizens haven't.

I hope you find contentment in your self-imposed servitude and may the farce be with you.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That is soooooo 90s. Move on.

No, not a Contract on American any more than the Contract With America was. This one is billed a Contract FROM America, Tea Party/Tax Protest Movement inspired and driven and intended to be orders from grass roots America to what they expect of their elected leaders.

So which of the items on the list do you think should not be there? What would you include that isn't there?

This isn't grassroots America, it's neocon bullshit. Ripoff of the Contract with America..

It's a pretty tall order for the party of no to handle this time around, don't you think?

When it comes to Obama's agenda, please refer to us as the party of "HELL NO!"

Thanks.