The super congress. What do you all think.

[Lovebears65]

I think its wrong . All the voted members in congress should be there for the debate not just a selected few. ‪Is Super Congress Constitutional?‬‏ - YouTube

 

[zzzz]

It is a very interesting concept that borders on being unconstitutional. Tax bills have to be originated in the House, that cannot be delegated to the group. What I find likely is that nothing will get agreed on and automatic cuts to Social security, Medicare and entitlement programs take effect that have already been agreed to. The Repubs have the winning hand here and do not have to do anything. I wonder how many of the 6 seats the Repubs have will be T party. And why did they pick an even number?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The unconstitutional train rolls on. No, nothing could ever go wrong here.

 

[Meister]

It is a very interesting concept that borders on being unconstitutional. Tax bills have to be originated in the House, that cannot be delegated to the group. What I find likely is that nothing will get agreed on and automatic cuts to Social security, Medicare and entitlement programs take effect that have already been agreed to. The Repubs have the winning hand here and do not have to do anything. I wonder how many of the 6 seats the Repubs have will be T party. And why did they pick an even number?

Really? Defense spending will be hit the hardest if there is no action. Doesn't sound like the GOP won to me.

 

[Liability]

This "deal" is NOT a win for the Tea Party, it is NOT a "win" for the BOP and it is absolutely NOT a "win" for the American people.

The super committee compromise has some intriguing "triggers" but when push comes to shove, there are too many "off" switches which the President will be able to take advantage of.

The whole membership of the House WILL have to vote on whatever the "superduperpooperscooper" committee proposes, though.

 

[Meister]

These are very strange days in politics. Super Congress? Lobbyists just need to focus on 12....sounds like a recipe for corruption to me. But....I'm just a nut for even thinking that way, huh?

 

[Liability]

These are very strange days in politics. Super Congress? Lobbyists just need to focus on 12....sounds like a recipe for corruption to me. But....I'm just a nut for even thinking that way, huh?

It does seem like it would be easier to corrupt one or more of 12 than it would be to corrupt enough of 435 to make a difference...

 

[zzzz]

If the committee was just advisory and anything agreed to was put to the chambers then it would be constitutional. However the triggers and other powers they are delegating to the committee circumvent the essence of the Constitution and therefore makes those things unconstitutional. I suspect there will be legal action taken challenging the constitutionality of those powers, derived or otherwise delegated.

 

[Liability]

If the committee was just advisory and anything agreed to was put to the chambers then it would be constitutional. However the triggers and other powers they are delegating to the committee circumvent the essence of the Constitution and therefore makes those things unconstitutional. I suspect there will be legal action taken challenging the constitutionality of those powers, derived or otherwise delegated.

I am not sure that any proposals from the SuperDuperPooperScooper Committee have any impact on what will happen OTHER THAN that they make the proposals to the entire House.

If that's wrong, and if you're right, though, then this is an egregious and cowardly effort to delegate non-delegable responsibilities.

My understanding is that the Super Committee makes proposals that the Congress then has a deadline to enact (or not). If the Congress fails to enact the proposals, then the triggers theoretically kick in "automatically."

 

[zzzz]

If the committee was just advisory and anything agreed to was put to the chambers then it would be constitutional. However the triggers and other powers they are delegating to the committee circumvent the essence of the Constitution and therefore makes those things unconstitutional. I suspect there will be legal action taken challenging the constitutionality of those powers, derived or otherwise delegated.

I am not sure that any proposals from the SuperDuperPooperScooper Committee have any impact on what will happen OTHER THAN that they make the proposals to the entire House.

If that's wrong, and if you're right, though, then this is an egregious and cowardly effort to delegate non-delegable responsibilities.

My understanding is that the Super Committee makes proposals that the Congress then has a deadline to enact (or not). If the Congress fails to enact the proposals, then the triggers theoretically kick in "automatically."

Then lack of a proposal gives the the committee derived powers to enact those cuts. I have been hearing rumors of other powers but yet to see anything concrete. To me the whole thing is cowardly way to get out of doing what we sent them for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is a very interesting concept that borders on being unconstitutional. Tax bills have to be originated in the House, that cannot be delegated to the group. What I find likely is that nothing will get agreed on and automatic cuts to Social security, Medicare and entitlement programs take effect that have already been agreed to. The Repubs have the winning hand here and do not have to do anything. I wonder how many of the 6 seats the Repubs have will be T party. And why did they pick an even number?

Really? Defense spending will be hit the hardest if there is no action. Doesn't sound like the GOP won to me.

Why would the GOP have lost if defense spending is cut? The implication in your post is the GOP benefits from defense contractors earning billions and sharing the governments largess with the Republican Party.

We spend more on defense than any other country; we have two large oceans and a solid ally to our North, and enough nuclear weapons to annihilate any nation on earth. Yet 19 Saudis set in motion the economic destruction of our country.

Lets bring most of our troops home, let the world know we will no longer police the world.

Fair trade yes, free trade under unfair conditions, NO longer!

Pay down our debt, but first reduce deficit spending. Job one, cut the pay and benefits of each member of Congress, and impose merit pay. The way they are acting suggests merit pay for this Congress is ZERO.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

If the committee was just advisory and anything agreed to was put to the chambers then it would be constitutional. However the triggers and other powers they are delegating to the committee circumvent the essence of the Constitution and therefore makes those things unconstitutional. I suspect there will be legal action taken challenging the constitutionality of those powers, derived or otherwise delegated.

I am not sure that any proposals from the SuperDuperPooperScooper Committee have any impact on what will happen OTHER THAN that they make the proposals to the entire House.

If that's wrong, and if you're right, though, then this is an egregious and cowardly effort to delegate non-delegable responsibilities.

My understanding is that the Super Committee makes proposals that the Congress then has a deadline to enact (or not). If the Congress fails to enact the proposals, then the triggers theoretically kick in "automatically."

Then lack of a proposal gives the the committee derived powers to enact those cuts. I have been hearing rumors of other powers but yet to see anything concrete. To me the whole thing is cowardly way to get out of doing what we sent them for.

I am not clear on the post vote process should the House vote no. No amendments to the proposal once submitted to the House, which to me implies 'take it or leave it.' Lets say the House says 'leave it.' Thats it? Proposal is dead or do the dirty dozen go back to a drawing board?

 

[Meister]

It is a very interesting concept that borders on being unconstitutional. Tax bills have to be originated in the House, that cannot be delegated to the group. What I find likely is that nothing will get agreed on and automatic cuts to Social security, Medicare and entitlement programs take effect that have already been agreed to. The Repubs have the winning hand here and do not have to do anything. I wonder how many of the 6 seats the Repubs have will be T party. And why did they pick an even number?

Really? Defense spending will be hit the hardest if there is no action. Doesn't sound like the GOP won to me.

Why would the GOP have lost if defense spending is cut? The implication in your post is the GOP benefits from defense contractors earning billions and sharing the governments largess with the Republican Party.

We spend more on defense than any other country; we have two large oceans and a solid ally to our North, and enough nuclear weapons to annihilate any nation on earth. Yet 19 Saudis set in motion the economic destruction of our country.

Lets bring most of our troops home, let the world know we will no longer police the world.

Fair trade yes, free trade under unfair conditions, NO longer!

Pay down our debt, but first reduce deficit spending. Job one, cut the pay and benefits of each member of Congress, and impose merit pay. The way they are acting suggests merit pay for this Congress is ZERO.

Not my implication, just your projecting, wry. The GOP doesn't want deep cuts in defense spending...please show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Really? Defense spending will be hit the hardest if there is no action. Doesn't sound like the GOP won to me.

Why would the GOP have lost if defense spending is cut? The implication in your post is the GOP benefits from defense contractors earning billions and sharing the governments largess with the Republican Party.

We spend more on defense than any other country; we have two large oceans and a solid ally to our North, and enough nuclear weapons to annihilate any nation on earth. Yet 19 Saudis set in motion the economic destruction of our country.

Lets bring most of our troops home, let the world know we will no longer police the world.

Fair trade yes, free trade under unfair conditions, NO longer!

Pay down our debt, but first reduce deficit spending. Job one, cut the pay and benefits of each member of Congress, and impose merit pay. The way they are acting suggests merit pay for this Congress is ZERO.

Not my implication, just your projecting, wry. The GOP doesn't want deep cuts in defense spending...please show me where I'm wrong.

You ought not use words you don't undestand; projection it is not, suggesting it was my inference would have been an approprite response, if and only if you had an explanation for why I was incorrect.

If it was not your intention what was? Suggesting Democrats don't care about national defense is bullshit, which is one other inference you might offer. Why did the GOP lose in your opinion? We both know, but you're too dishonest to acknowledge it.

 

[Meister]

Why would the GOP have lost if defense spending is cut? The implication in your post is the GOP benefits from defense contractors earning billions and sharing the governments largess with the Republican Party.

We spend more on defense than any other country; we have two large oceans and a solid ally to our North, and enough nuclear weapons to annihilate any nation on earth. Yet 19 Saudis set in motion the economic destruction of our country.

Lets bring most of our troops home, let the world know we will no longer police the world.

Fair trade yes, free trade under unfair conditions, NO longer!

Pay down our debt, but first reduce deficit spending. Job one, cut the pay and benefits of each member of Congress, and impose merit pay. The way they are acting suggests merit pay for this Congress is ZERO.

Not my implication, just your projecting, wry. The GOP doesn't want deep cuts in defense spending...please show me where I'm wrong.

You ought not use words you don't undestand; projection it is not, suggesting it was my inference would have been an approprite response, if and only if you had an explanation for why I was incorrect.

If it was not your intention what was? Suggesting Democrats don't care about national defense is bullshit, which is one other inference you might offer. Why did the GOP lose in your opinion? We both know, but you're too dishonest to acknowledge it.

I have no idea what your spewing, wry. The democrats do want major cuts in our defense. I think we can have cuts across the board....there is enough waste to cut in several areas.
Just a side note....if your going to chastise me on the use of words....why don't you try and spell appropriate right, okay? You come off like a buffoon when you fail.

 

[midcan5]

Napolitano is normally full of crap, no change here. The tax bit piqued my interest though, should we welcome fox and others to constitutional democracy's biggest shortcoming, the power of corporations to control all of government for their narrow interests. Readers of history will get a sense of deja vu all over again and again. Been there done that and there wasn't even Mountain Dew then.


"Candidates appealed to voters mostly by appealing to their ethnic and social identities, “waving the bloody shirt” to remind their audiences of the treasonable crimes the other side had committed during the bitter culture wars of the Sixties—the 1860s, that is. No matter who won, the local and federal governments were understood—with good reason—to be the wholly owned creatures of corporate entities whose enormous wealth dwarfed that of the governments themselves. When offices changed hands, the new group of political professionals and their sponsors were the only people likely to benefit. Any and all appeals to the court system were useless. Just thirty years after it had supported a federal income tax to fund the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the very practice unconstitutional, an “assault upon capital” and the start of “a war of the poor against the rich.” In 1886, the Court wielded the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the rights of freed slaves, as a shield against the regulation of big business, ruling that corporations were now somehow the same as people." the depository: The Vanishing Liberal by Kevin Baker

 

[Sallow]

The unconstitutional train rolls on. No, nothing could ever go wrong here.

Never heard of anything so idiotic.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The unconstitutional train rolls on. No, nothing could ever go wrong here.

Never heard of anything so idiotic.

If a group of 12 are making decisions on federal legislation without the full vote of the house and senate then its unconstitutional. I haven't seen the actual process that this group must utilize.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The unconstitutional train rolls on. No, nothing could ever go wrong here.

Never heard of anything so idiotic.

I never heard of anything as utterly terrifying as the so called super congress.

It is just one more step to absolute government control.

 

[Octoldit]

The Israeli's/zionist planned, financed, and carried out the 9-11 disaster/treason to help get us to this point were the super-government they talk about in the "protocols of zion" would take place.

Also the two wars that no one seems to recognize as government spending has pushed debt to a level, which in the minds of the terrorist/zionist that America forfeits the Government based on debt much the same way debtors forfeit their merchandise in some seedy pawnshop if they can't repay the loan.

The bulk of these greedy bastards have never been true Americans. It's their beastly greed that has brought about pogroms throughout the centuries...and they have not learned a damn thing.

They remain unrepentant; and only get worst.