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

[Modbert]

What's wrong with a balanced budget amendment? States have them.

The majority of my posts in this thread haven't even been aimed at the proposed amendment itself. It's been at McConnell's arrogant rhetoric. The only reason why McConnell doesn't think elections have worked is because things haven't gone his way.

As for the balanced budget amendment itself, the article I posted in the OP points out some very huge flaws with it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What's wrong with a balanced budget amendment? States have them.

The majority of my posts in this thread haven't even been aimed at the proposed amendment itself. It's been at McConnell's arrogant rhetoric. The only reason why McConnell doesn't think elections have worked is because things haven't gone his way.

As for the balanced budget amendment itself, the article I posted in the OP points out some very huge flaws with it.

Things haven't gone most of our ways. Who'd a thunk we'd be sitting under $14,000,000,000,000 in debt and have our President demanding even more debt after campaigning against debt and fiscal irresponsibility and calling raising debt ceiling a "failure of leadership"?

Arrogant? How about demanding that we double down on all he campaigned against and then threatening to cutoff SS if we don't give him what he wants?

 

[Trajan]

you have once again,let Think Progress program you, to tell you what to think and slant, hey once bitten...you know?

Wrong. I know exactly what the quote says. I put the whole quote in my OP or did you just decide to ignore it?

McConnell thinks that elections have failed so therefore we need to amend the Constitution to put in a balanced budget amendment. Though said amendment has already been pointed out to be flawed and allow Congress itself many loopholes.

you are focusing on one line among many, well , becasue it appears, appears you have been told to because Think Progress wants a "wedge" its one among his many comments...


here one more time read what I wrote please;

no I am just not looking for a wedge to mischaracterize or whats more, I am looking at context, I think its pretty clear that the message of the electorate ala elections , from McDonnell to Brown then November, has not sent the message that is at least imho pretty easy to fathom since there was one all consuming over arching message; spending, which needs to be heard and apparently hasn't, we need to cut and get our house in order.......hence a balanced budget amend..

and frankly you wanted honesty there it is, its protect themselves from themselves as well, I forget who said a few years ago but they said it straight out, you send us money we are going to spend it......*shrugs*

this is the quote in context;

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.

 

[Kuros]

McConnell: "Elections haven't worked."

Because you refuse to raise taxes!!!

*tears hair out*

How much are you willing to have yours increased?

You mean now or when the Baby Boomers are dead?

Timing is more decisive than amount. I would rather pay more now than later.

But as to amount: restore the Clinton-era tax rates OR adopt Bowles-Simpson (slightly less taxes slightly more cuts) OR adopt a Fair Tax OR some combination of the above.

 

[Modbert]

you are focusing on one line among many, well , becasue it appears, appears you have been told to because Think Progress wants a "wedge" its one among his many comments...


this is the quote in context;

Are you deciding to ignore where in the OP I put the whole quote? I don't need the quote "in context", I read the whole thing.

I'm focusing on the part where he says that we need to change the constitution because elections didn't give him the result he wanted. Imagine if politicians said that about every issue?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

you are focusing on one line among many, well , becasue it appears, appears you have been told to because Think Progress wants a "wedge" its one among his many comments...


this is the quote in context;

Are you deciding to ignore where in the OP I put the whole quote? I don't need the quote "in context", I read the whole thing.

I'm focusing on the part where he says that we need to change the constitution because elections didn't give him the result he wanted. Imagine if politicians said that about every issue?

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

 

[Kuros]

you are focusing on one line among many, well , becasue it appears, appears you have been told to because Think Progress wants a "wedge" its one among his many comments...


this is the quote in context;

Are you deciding to ignore where in the OP I put the whole quote? I don't need the quote "in context", I read the whole thing.

I'm focusing on the part where he says that we need to change the constitution because elections didn't give him the result he wanted. Imagine if politicians said that about every issue?

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

^ The way you word it implies he has a choice (he does; but it would mean ignoring the debt ceiling).

Its Congress' decision.

 

[Modbert]

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

Do you understand what would happen with SS if we don't raise the debt ceiling? If you did, you would understand why your question doesn't make sense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Are you deciding to ignore where in the OP I put the whole quote? I don't need the quote "in context", I read the whole thing.

I'm focusing on the part where he says that we need to change the constitution because elections didn't give him the result he wanted. Imagine if politicians said that about every issue?

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

^ The way you word it implies he has a choice (he does; but it would mean ignoring the debt ceiling).

Its Congress' decision.

Sure... then why'd he say it? Anyway, it will never happen because it is unnecessary. Nowgovernment services may be scaled back.. and I have no problem with that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

Do you understand what would happen with SS if we don't raise the debt ceiling? If you did, you would understand why your question doesn't make sense.

I do, and it's a bullshit scare tactic. SS wil lbe paid.

You're argument implies that SS is flat broke and there is not enough revenue flow to even make these payments. It's a red herring and frankly, nonsense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

SS will be paid, other non-essential things will be cut back, payments to vendors etc. will be delayed, etc.

Stopping SS payments is unnecessary and would be a death blow to Obama or any ppolitician for that matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

Do you understand what would happen with SS if we don't raise the debt ceiling? If you did, you would understand why your question doesn't make sense.

Please tell us what would happen...I thought there was a Trust Fund that funded Social Security.

Enlighten me.

 

[Kuros]

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

^ The way you word it implies he has a choice (he does; but it would mean ignoring the debt ceiling).

Its Congress' decision.

Sure... then why'd he say it? Anyway, it will never happen because it is unnecessary. Nowgovernment services may be scaled back.. and I have no problem with that.

Why did he say it? He didn't say it. He answered a question, asking if SS was in danger, and he admitted it was in danger.

 

[Jack Fate]

When does BO want to begin paying down the debt? He's supposed to be a leader. He's supposed to be the smartest President in history and he's obviously the smartest man in the room. What the hell is taking him so long to figure this out?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

^ The way you word it implies he has a choice (he does; but it would mean ignoring the debt ceiling).

Its Congress' decision.

Sure... then why'd he say it? Anyway, it will never happen because it is unnecessary. Nowgovernment services may be scaled back.. and I have no problem with that.

Why did he say it? He didn't say it. He answered a question, asking if SS was in danger, and he admitted it was in danger.

That;s funny, they've been telling us It is fine. Now they need to borrow $1,000,000,000,000 MORE just to meet current obligations?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Isn't Obama threatening to cutoff SS payments if we don't let him run up more debt?

Do you understand what would happen with SS if we don't raise the debt ceiling? If you did, you would understand why your question doesn't make sense.

Please tell us what would happen...I thought there was a Trust Fund that funded Social Security.

Enlighten me.

Keep it up Frank.... their heads will explode.

 

[Kuros]

When does BO want to begin paying down the debt? He's supposed to be a leader. He's supposed to be the smartest President in history and he's obviously the smartest man in the room. What the hell is taking him so long to figure this out?

Actually, I agree. He pissed away the Bowles-Simpson Commission's findings, and he's been, no, the COUNTRY has been paying for it ever since.

 

[Trajan]

you are focusing on one line among many, well , becasue it appears, appears you have been told to because Think Progress wants a "wedge" its one among his many comments...


this is the quote in context;

Are you deciding to ignore where in the OP I put the whole quote? I don't need the quote "in context", I read the whole thing.

I'm focusing on the part where he says that we need to change the constitution because elections didn't give him the result he wanted. Imagine if politicians said that about every issue?

I'm focusing on the part where he says that we need to change the constitution because elections didn't give him the result he wanted. Imagine if politicians said that about every issue?

below is what he said, you can read into it what you like, your explanation above does not frame what he said honestly, look at the emphasis I have added, HE too is among those that lose the privileges that the lack of a balanced budget confirms as well as it comes to spending.

And I am sure you knew that back in the 90's Tom Daschle supported a balanced budget amend too...right? why do you suppose he did that?


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.

 

[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:



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



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

Coming from you, that's absolutely meaningless, especially considering your latest post where you suggested that Obama would want to support a constitutional amendment outlawing private property. When you make ridiculous statements like that, you can't help but look ridiculous yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An Explanation So Simple even a Liberal Can Understand how Fucked Social Security Really is.

Here's what happened yesterday with Obama's Admission that Social Security is Bankrupt and there is no Trust Fund. Instead of using Treasury bonds to fund the Non-Existent "Trust Fund", lets say that the currency is cigarettes.

We paid taxes to the government and the government told us they were depositing a pack of cigarettes in the Trust Fund and when we got older and wanted to have a smoke on the porch the cigarettes would always be there.

In 2000, Gore and the Democrats criticized President Bush's idea to let us hold 2 Cigarettes in a bank vault as a "Ricky scheme!" And a "Payoff to his Cronies that operate bank vaults" So the Dems won the day and the Cigarettes stayed with the Government.

Yesterday, Obama told people expecting to get their cigarettes that they might not be coming after all.

Some said, "Um wait, what happened to the Cigarettes that you told me you've been depositing in my account all these years"?

"We smoked them," Obama and the Dems tell us.

"You smoked my retirement Cigarettes?", we said

"Yeah, we had to. See we have a cigarette deficit" Obama said

"So you lied to me about putting cigarettes in my account?" we said

"Did you hear about Rupert Murdoch and Casey Anthony?", Obama said, "But, yeah, I need to make more Cigarettes and I can will send them to you"

"I have a better idea," we said, "from now on, I'm going to fund my own cigarette account and you can go **** yourself"

Well OK we didn't actually say that...but maybe we should