Five Alive: Constitutional Convention being explored by states

[JoeB131]

Wow (face palm) did you fail simple math in school? I appreciate you want to talk numbers, its probably just a dumb ass liberal deflection but then you go on to prove to me you have no math skills so how would we have this numbers discussion exactly? For example you failed to first subtract the enormous cut the government takes out of that $18 trillion GDP didn't you. You failed to subtract the hefty percent of GPD that is re-invested in growing the business e.g. generating new jobs. You failed to subtract the percent of GDP that is already allocated to providing employees with a benefits package. In summary you failed. Its dumb asses like you voting who are part of the problem in this country.

Guy, you are still deflecting.

One more time, how many Americansdo you really think are sitting on their asses collecting welfare as a lifestyle choice. (ie, not people who would happily take a job if one was offered.) Please put a number on that.

Government spends about 4 Trillion of that 18 trillion, so that's not a huge cut, and most of it gets re-invested in goods and labor.

so really, while you are happy subsidizing hte Koch and Walton families, I'm really not.

 

[JoeB131]

Confused between "wealth" and "income"

No confusion at all. The rich have more than they need and they don't pay their fair share on it.

Period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Confused between "wealth" and "income"

No confusion at all. The rich have more than they need and they don't pay their fair share on it.

Period.

It isnt up to you to decide what people "need."
With high income people paying more than 100% of income taxes, how much more would you like them to pay? What about the bottom 47% of wage earners who get more than they pay in? They are the true freeloaders in this economy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Confused between "wealth" and "income"

No confusion at all. The rich have more than they need and they don't pay their fair share on it.

Period.

It isnt up to you to decide what people "need."
With high income people paying more than 100% of income taxes, how much more would you like them to pay? What about the bottom 47% of wage earners who get more than they pay in? They are the true freeloaders in this economy.

How can you pay more than 100% of anything? 100% is all there is.

 

[JoeB131]

It isnt up to you to decide what people "need."
With high income people paying more than 100% of income taxes, how much more would you like them to pay? What about the bottom 47% of wage earners who get more than they pay in? They are the true freeloaders in this economy.

Uh, guy, how can they pay more than 100% of something when there's ONLY 100% of something? If you are working with this kind of bizarre math, I'm not sure there's much I can do for you.

 

[JoeB131]

Confused between "wealth" and "income"

No confusion at all. The rich have more than they need and they don't pay their fair share on it.

Period.

It isnt up to you to decide what people "need."
With high income people paying more than 100% of income taxes, how much more would you like them to pay? What about the bottom 47% of wage earners who get more than they pay in? They are the true freeloaders in this economy.

How can you pay more than 100% of anything? 100% is all there is.

yeah, he keeps missing that point, but he went to a special school where they talked about Talking Snakes in Science Class.

 

[BluesLegend]

Wow (face palm) did you fail simple math in school? I appreciate you want to talk numbers, its probably just a dumb ass liberal deflection but then you go on to prove to me you have no math skills so how would we have this numbers discussion exactly? For example you failed to first subtract the enormous cut the government takes out of that $18 trillion GDP didn't you. You failed to subtract the hefty percent of GPD that is re-invested in growing the business e.g. generating new jobs. You failed to subtract the percent of GDP that is already allocated to providing employees with a benefits package. In summary you failed. Its dumb asses like you voting who are part of the problem in this country.

Guy, you are still deflecting.

One more time, how many Americansdo you really think are sitting on their asses collecting welfare as a lifestyle choice. (ie, not people who would happily take a job if one was offered.) Please put a number on that.

Government spends about 4 Trillion of that 18 trillion, so that's not a huge cut, and most of it gets re-invested in goods and labor.

so really, while you are happy subsidizing hte Koch and Walton families, I'm really not.

I destroyed your nonsense post and you, there's no reason to destroy it or you again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

The Constitution is ignored today. Placing another amendment to it, won't fix anything.

The political class is nearly entirely owned by the elites...and the elites always get their way.

They do?

They do.

Well then. Please tell me who they are and what they want. I will invest my money accordingly. You must be filthy rich!!

Damn....

How could you not know? Are you blind?

The power elite are the top .1% and they want world domination, which most see as a Marxist political command and control structure, centralized into the hands of a select few leaders they have complete control of.

The power elite in America are Marxists?

 

[SwimExpert]

But the number of states required to call Congress into a convention is 33, or three fourths of the states according to Article V of the US Constitution, meaning there would need to be 5 more states who must agrees

I believe you mean two thirds of the states must call for a convention. However, your math is still correct, it will require a total of 33 states.

 

[dblack]

.

I'd sure love to see a BBA, but it would force the liars in DC to directly justify their taxing & spending initiatives on both sides.

Imagine for a moment how much political influence would be lost.

Probably wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

.

We the People don't need a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The process for doing that already exists.

This push for a convention is an attempt to undermine the existing constitution and "legitimize" the failed libertarian dogma of the Koch bros.

Yeah! Let's talk about "We the People". It doesn't meant mob rule, numbnuts!

 

[SwimExpert]

We the People don't need a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The process for doing that already exists.

You are an idiot. A convention is the process that exists for "we the people" to amend the constitution.

This push for a convention is an attempt to undermine the existing constitution

Employing an amendment procedure that is explicitly stipulated in the constitution is an attempt to undermine it?

and "legitimize" the failed libertarian dogma of the Koch bros.

Are you saying that a balanced budget constitutes Libertarian dogma? I rescind my previous criticism. You're too stupid to be an idiot, you're a fanatic.

 

[dblack]

The federal budget is nothing like your personal checkbook, dummy.

A balanced budget amendment is a dog whistle to people who cannot think through issues. Once you get beyond the "common sense" bumper sticker slogans, the reality hits you in the face....and nutter dummies can't handle it. "But.....but....but....it's common sense!!!!!!"

5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea Brookings Institution

A BBA is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

It's a solution reactionaries will uniformly reject.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We do have a cure to debt. It's called 'Making the rich pay their fair share".

Works every time it's tried.

Name one time it has worked. (yawn)

BTW, the top 1% of earners paid 38% of all income taxes in 2012.

And the top 10% paid 70%.

And you still want them to pay more, and more?

Does liberal greed have no end?

Calculate Your Share of the Tax Burden-Kiplinger

 

[SwimExpert]

Why bother? If you had cancer and the cure was sitting in front of you, would you refuse to take it?

We do have a cure to debt. It's called 'Making the rich pay their fair share".

Works every time it's tried.

Yes, getting someone else to pay off debt certainly would be an effective way to continue spending money that you don't have. But the responsible thing to do would be to stop spending money you don't have.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, you all know that a Constitutional Convention can't change the Constitution, don't you?

All it can do, is propose changes. Just like Congress does when it passes an amendment with 2/3 vote of each house.

Anything a Constitutional Convention passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Or else it goes in the trash can.

 

[Dana7360]

.

I'd sure love to see a BBA, but it would force the liars in DC to directly justify their taxing & spending initiatives on both sides.

Imagine for a moment how much political influence would be lost.

Probably wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

.

We the People don't need a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The process for doing that already exists.

This push for a convention is an attempt to undermine the existing constitution and "legitimize" the failed libertarian dogma of the Koch bros.

They need two thirds of the states to vote for a constitutional convention. It's only been done once and that was in 1787.

There is already a way to amend the constitution but it looks like the gop doesn't want to do it that way.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that two thirds of the states of America are going to vote to do this.

 

[dblack]

Why bother? If you had cancer and the cure was sitting in front of you, would you refuse to take it?

We do have a cure to debt. It's called 'Making the rich pay their fair share".

Works every time it's tried.

If that's true, a BBA is your best friend.

 

[SwimExpert]

A BBA is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

You don't think our ever ballooning debt is a problem?

Advocating for such an 'amendment' is idiocy; it's perfectly appropriate for the government of a modern industrialized nation to cycle from surplus to deficit then back to surplus again – particularly during a recession when government spending is needed.

I'll agree with that. The governments of modern industrialized nations who cycle back and forth certainly are being reasonable. After all, sometimes times are good, sometimes times are bad.

But we're talking about America here. Here in the United States of America, we don't have cycling back and forth from surplus to debt and back again. We have debt. And more debt. And more debt. And more debt. And more debt. And more debt. And more debt. And then some cherry pie that the neighbor made. And then more debt.

We haven't had a President retire part of the debt since Coolidge. And negative interest will only maintain us so well for so long. A balanced budget amendment does not have to mean a perpetually balanced budget every year. But restraints and limitations on long term deficits and perpetually increasing debt would be a very good thing.

Advocates of such an 'amendment' have no interest in 'smaller government' or 'fiscal responsibility,' they see it as a weapon to use against necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, and as a means to destroy social programs that run counter to subjective, errant conservative dogma.

No.....it's about smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

 

[dblack]

Advocates of such an 'amendment' have no interest in 'smaller government' or 'fiscal responsibility,' they see it as a weapon to use against necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, and as a means to destroy social programs that run counter to subjective, errant conservative dogma.

No.....it's about smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

For me it not really about either of those. It's about an honest assessment of how much people value government, how much government they really want. As it is, we're not really paying for the government we're getting so the process isn't honest. Send folks the bill, and we'll find out how much it's really worth to them.

 

[Iceweasel]

.

I'd sure love to see a BBA, but it would force the liars in DC to directly justify their taxing & spending initiatives on both sides.

Imagine for a moment how much political influence would be lost.

Probably wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

.

Might be wishful thinking, but, the seeds are being sewn. When the states speak, Washington will be forced to listen. Just watch and see what happens.

You're incredibly naive.

The right always thinks bigger government is the answer.

That's why the Right engineered Dodd-Frank,Obamacare, and other huge programs? Dummy.

The right squandered a budget surplus, started two failed, illegal wars, and expanded the size and authority of the Federal government creating a massive deficit – all to the tune of billions of wasted dollars.

The last thing we need is conservative 'fiscal responsibility.'

blah blah blah, same retarded shit for a decade. 30 years from no they'll be chanting exactly the same mindless juvenile song.