Five Alive: Constitutional Convention being explored by states

[TemplarKormac]

Why bo

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.

So you suggest we give in? Forgive my astonishment, but don't the people have more power than the government?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Name one time it has worked. (yawn)

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

You mean the time period between 1945 and 1976, when America was an economic powerhouse, and the rich paid 70-93% top marginal rates. It was fucking awesome. We had money for schools and space programs and highways and even the occassional pointless war.

Now the rich are paying even more than they did then, the Democrats' failed "foreign policy" is getting us into more and more wars, Obama is imposing unconstitutional program after program, and we don't have a dime for the things govt. is supposed to do.

You failed. Time to let the adults handle things.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

I personally think that any solution to the debt WILL involve both cutting spending AND raising taxes.
But the raising of taxes has to come first.

And then the leftist fanatics will find excuses not to cut spending. Again.

Does liberal greed have no end?

 

[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.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The rich I assume spend more into the economy then the poor. In so doing they spend more in local sales taxes.

That is a fallacious assumption on your part. Rich people don't eat more food than poor people. They don't wear more clothes or buy more cars. They may pay more for what they buy but they don't "consume" more. In fact given the disparity in numbers between the rich and poor it is the rich who are being subsidized by the poor when it comes to sales taxes. The poor pay a far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than the rich do. The math doesn't lie. This is why sales taxes are regressive and we need higher tax rates on the rich to redress the imbalance.

While your opinion was interesting when first put out by the DNC can you at least provide a bit of fact to support you contention? You see a Lear jet and see a rich man getting away with robbing the poor. I see a host of support persons who are middle class making money from that Lear jet.

One time there was a great idea to increase the luxury taxes on high end boats. You know, make the rich pay. Problem was it almost put the companies that made boats out of business which would hurt the rich at all but not so much for the middle class.

More Libertarian Utopian Koolaid!

Trickle down has been proven to be an abject failure. The evidence that raising wages for low income workers improves the economy is well documented. Those are the hard facts and there is zero credible evidence that providing taxcuts to the wealthy has ever worked. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.

So JFK was wrong?

 

[JoeB131]

So cut the fucking spending! Why is that so hard to understand? All you're saying is that you want to raise taxes, just because you want to. Like a kid in a candy store who wants mommy to give him something.

you're never going to get them to cut spending until the taxes start to hurt. It's really fucking simple. Because when you cut spending without raising taxes, the people who are effected by tax cuts will scream loudly about lost jobs and benefits.

It's why they have to appoint commissions to close military bases.

So cut the fucking spending! We're not the ones who want the spending, you are.

I've posted it before....we could completely eliminate income taxes on 95% of people, and cut spending dramatically, and end up with a nearly half billion budgetary surplus this year, and still maintain a social safety net. So enough with your tax and spend bullshit.

Now you are being absolutely silly. Obviously, you have no idea how budgets work and I'm not sure if there's even a point in talking to you.

 

[JoeB131]

Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

Not true. In fact, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy even SLIGHTLY, he delivered balanced budgets within six years.

 

[JoeB131]

And then the leftist fanatics will find excuses not to cut spending. Again.

Does liberal greed have no end?

Guy, spending actually gets CUT when Democrats are in the White House.

It goes up when Republicans get in. Mostly because they just run up the Charge Card? Trillion Dollar War? Charge that bitch.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

Not true. In fact, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy even SLIGHTLY, he delivered balanced budgets within six years.

Bullshit.
The tech boom broguht record revenue to the treasury. The GOP Congress controlled spendiong. There's your balanced budget.

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit.
The tech boom broguht record revenue to the treasury. The GOP Congress controlled spendiong. There's your balanced budget.

they controlled spending? Really.

Federal Budget in 1992- 1.3 TRILLION
Federal Budget in 2000 - 1.8 trillion.

Some control of Spending there, slick.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit.
The tech boom broguht record revenue to the treasury. The GOP Congress controlled spendiong. There's your balanced budget.

they controlled spending? Really.

Federal Budget in 1992- 1.3 TRILLION
Federal Budget in 2000 - 1.8 trillion.

Some control of Spending there, slick.

Pulling numbers out of your ass again?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

Not true. In fact, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy even SLIGHTLY, he delivered balanced budgets within six years.

How you going to get rid of 18 trillion in debt?

 

[dblack]

To show you are serious about meeting your obligations.

That is not a reason.

Here's the thing. When Reagan cut taxes, spending wasn't cut. IN fact, spending INCREASED, because, hey, you got all these benefits and no one had to pay for them.

It's how Reagan ran up three times the debt of his 39 predecessors combined.

So then we need to cut the spending.

NO, we don't. We need to raise taxes first. Again, Reagan INCREASED spending when he cut taxes. So did Bush. Why? Because there was no demand to cut spending if you were getting all these things for free.

YOu see, this is what you guys don't get. If you are getting all the benefits from spending and none of the downside of paying taxes, you actually end up wanting MORE government, not less.

This is exactly right. The BBA won't change the debate over whether we need to raise taxes or cut spending. It will just make that debate happen, and that's a good thing regardless of how it pans out.

 

[JoeB131]

Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

Not true. In fact, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy even SLIGHTLY, he delivered balanced budgets within six years.

How you going to get rid of 18 trillion in debt?

Make the wealthy pay their fair share, just like Clinton did. get rid of the stupid policy of Free Trade and put tariffs and excises in place. Stop pissing away 900 Billion a year on a bloated military structure that intervenes all over the world.

 

[dblack]

Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

Not true. In fact, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy even SLIGHTLY, he delivered balanced budgets within six years.

How you going to get rid of 18 trillion in debt?

Make the wealthy pay their fair share, just like Clinton did. get rid of the stupid policy of Free Trade and put tariffs and excises in place. Stop pissing away 900 Billion a year on a bloated military structure that intervenes all over the world.

A BBA would promote that cause.

 

[JoeB131]

A BBA would promote that cause.

I wouldn't MIND a BBA.

 

[dblack]

A BBA would promote that cause.

I wouldn't MIND a BBA.

And the only way that's going to happen is from a populist movement outside the beltway - via states pushing for an amendment. Congress is far too enamored with the power that deficit spending gives them to ever let go of it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A BBA would promote that cause.

I wouldn't MIND a BBA.

And the only way that's going to happen is from a populist movement outside the beltway - via states pushing for an amendment. Congress is far too enamored with the power that deficit spending gives them to ever let go of it.

The ratifiers were idiots for giving Congress any part in the amendment process. Clear conflict of interest.

 

[JoeB131]

And the only way that's going to happen is from a populist movement outside the beltway - via states pushing for an amendment. Congress is far too enamored with the power that deficit spending gives them to ever let go of it.

I don't disagree. But here's the thing. The reason why we have debt is becuase the folks outside the beltway don't want to give up their favorite programs or pay more in taxes.

They all say they dislike debt, but the fact is, debt is the path of least resistance.