B-Large Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 As self-defeating sideshows go, few compare to the Republican obsession with a balanced-budget amendment. And here we go again. As early as today, the House GOP plans to begin debate on a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, a vote Democrats agreed to as part of the August debt-ceiling deal. But, lo, they will not debate an amendment that would require a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes and cap spending eventually at 18% of GDP. Such a balanced-budget amendment would have no chance of passing, but it would at least draw a clear difference with Democrats. Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel discusses the politics of the balanced budget amendment vote on Opinion Journal. Photo: AP. .Instead, House Speaker John Boehner plans to offer a vanilla amendment that merely calls for a balanced budget, with no spending limitation or supermajority tax requirements. The Speaker seems to believe, or at least hope, that this might attract enough Democratic votes to pass the amendment (which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, plus approval in 38 state legislatures). Democratic second-in-command Steny Hoyer is actively whipping against the bill, so it may not pass the House. But even if it does, it'll never get 67 votes in Harry Reid's Senate. And even if it did become the law of the land, the amendment could easily become an engine for tax increases, as it so often has in the 50 states. Under Mr. Boehner's amendment, spending could rise to 25% or 30% or more of GDP, so long as the budget is balanced. This is a recipe for politicians to tell voters that taxes must go up because the Constitution made them do it. This phony exercise will also give politically vulnerable Democrats a chance to vote for the amendment while knowing it is sure to fail. Look for Mr. Reid to give free passes to Missouri's Claire McCaskill and other Senate Democrats running to save their careers in 2012. They'll then tell voters back home that they voted for a balanced-budget amendment—like those tea party rebels in the House. Worse for the GOP, the House vanilla amendment will put Senate Republicans who favor a tougher version in a rough political spot. Mr. Reid's Democrats will claim that even House Republicans have come around to favoring a "reasonable" version of the balanced-budget amendment, while only radicals favor one with tax and spending limitations. Does the House GOP want a Democratic Senate in 2013? Republicans have walked into this box canyon by putting political symbolism above fiscal substance. They know the balanced-budget amendment is popular because Americans instinctively like the idea that government should live within its means, never mind the details. GOP freshmen in particular have turned the amendment into a political fetish—to the point that they're now willing to endorse a version that could increase the size of government. House Republicans got off to a strong fiscal start by passing Paul Ryan's budget, but they've lost their focus as Mr. Boehner misjudged President Obama's desire for spending reductions and the budget debate has moved to the secret super committee. They were winning the debate when they were able to show that they want to cut spending while Democrats want to increase it. They lose when they endorse political gestures like constitutional amendments that many Democrats can claim to support but have no chance of reducing taxes or spending. The Federal Government is really good for laughs, at least we have that. So if I read this article correctly, they will essentially pass a Bill that does nothing for all intents and purposes? I have a solution. For every dollar the government spends, there will be a tax increase on all americans to equal it dollar for dollar. We have been spoiled in America for the last decade if not more... we have not been asked to pay for 2 Wars, Expansion to the War Department, Medicare D Prescription Plan, The Stimulus, The Bailout to Auot and Finance, Cash for Clunkers, and that is what I can remember wihtout thinking all that hard about it.... BUT, these things have happened anyway, and we have paid LESS. So no more borrowing. How long do you think the Republican "Cut Taxes and Spend Anyway" or the Democrats "Traditonal Tax and Spend" will remain a 2 Party Dominant Force? I think the biggest issue right now, is American not having to pay in cash for their Government.... we've been putting it on our tab for later...... no better way to wake people up that dollar for dollar taxes on expenditures. Paygo is a fallacy Debt Ceiling? what ceiling do you know of that consistently rises? and it all comes down to to a SuperCongress.... a super version of the representative body that 10% approve of..... classic. Americans needs to get the Bill.... we need to stop the shell games and credit expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 “Congress has demonstrated that regardless of which party is in charge, out-of-control spending is a hard habit for them to kick," said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), the Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, in a statement. "It’s become clear that a constitutional amendment is the only way to force Congress’s hand toward fiscal responsibility." I agree Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 The Federal Government is really good for laughs, at least we have that. So if I read this article correctly, they will essentially pass a Bill that does nothing for all intents and purposes? Just an FYI for you, B-Large, and all the rest of the newbies: the guy who runs this site doesn't like large tracts of copy-pasted text in the first place, much less entire sections that aren't properly attributed to their author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 Just an FYI for you, B-Large, and all the rest of the newbies: the guy who runs this site doesn't like large tracts of copy-pasted text in the first place, much less entire sections that aren't properly attributed to their author. I thought I added the site link at the bottom, I typically do in order to give credit (since we are basically vioating copyright and sharing). For the WSJ, not everybody can view the article without signing up, so I try to post the text for discussion. thank you for the heads up- Not trying to be a wenis, what is the issue with posted text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 thank you for the heads up- Not trying to be a wenis, what is the issue with posted text? It's the copyright thing. The guy who runs the site is just trying to cover his ass. Not that I blame him at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamCody Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) Just an FYI for you, B-Large, and all the rest of the newbies: the guy who runs this site doesn't like large tracts of copy-pasted text in the first place, much less entire sections that aren't properly attributed to their author. They prefer a simple link out with no text? In my experience, that means everybody just reacts to the thread title instead of actually taking the time to read the piece. When I post an article, I usually post the link, full text, magazine/newspaper/website title, author, and date. Still no good? What is SOP here in this regard? Edited November 17, 2011 by WilliamCody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 They prefer a simple link out with no text? In my experience, that means everybody just reacts to the thread title instead of actually taking the time to read the piece. When I post an article, I usually post the link, full text, magazine/newspaper/website title, author, and date. Still no good? What is SOP here in this regard? Typically, you can c&p a paragraph or 2 provided you cite the source and then post a link back to the original article. As previously mentioned, posting the full text is frowned upon here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 They prefer a simple link out with no text? In my experience, that means everybody just reacts to the thread title instead of actually taking the time to read the piece. When I post an article, I usually post the link, full text, magazine/newspaper/website title, author, and date. Still no good? What is SOP here in this regard? You can post a couple of paragraphs of the article. I always try to get enough to get the gist of the story and I never post anything you have to subscribe to, but there is no rule about the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 “Congress has demonstrated that regardless of which party is in charge, out-of-control spending is a hard habit for them to kick," said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), the Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, in a statement. "It’s become clear that a constitutional amendment is the only way to force Congress’s hand toward fiscal responsibility." I agree Mike. I used to be one that backed an amendment calling for a balanced budget, but I realize it's totally unnecessary because such limits are already in there, yet, they still work around it.... There are limits on debt, forcing them to vote on an increase in the size of the debt, and I'm tired of watching these soap operas they've become... Take THAT away, and call for a peoples referendum to any debt increase that includes what it is for, and what plan to repay that increase... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 It's the copyright thing. The guy who runs the site is just trying to cover his ass. Not that I blame him at all. Got it- wsj is we're I get my conservative perspective, but I understand the fine line- thanks for the FYI You can post a couple of paragraphs of the article. I always try to get enough to get the gist of the story and I never post anything you have to subscribe to, but there is no rule about the latter. Does the WSJ bust 2BillDrive's stones? I was a refugee once, I feel like I finally have a home here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 That's funny. It's all just humbug. Just today's version of the flag burning amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Does the WSJ bust 2BillDrive's stones? I was a refugee once, I feel like I finally have a home here... I believe once upon a time a discovery of copyright infringement did become an issue. Just a vague recollection. That's funny. It's all just humbug. Just today's version of the flag burning amendment Wow. Use of "humbug" in its proper original form. That's actually impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I believe once upon a time a discovery of copyright infringement did become an issue. Just a vague recollection. Yeah, it's a crime, but a much smaller crime than killing or stealing. So if someone were to condone a crime, this one would be a good one. After all, it's all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) They prefer a simple link out with no text? In my experience, that means everybody just reacts to the thread title instead of actually taking the time to read the piece. When I post an article, I usually post the link, full text, magazine/newspaper/website title, author, and date. Still no good? What is SOP here in this regard? Still no good. You can quote 1-2 paragraphs from shorter stories, or generally 5%-10% from a longer feature piece. You CANNOT post the full text. That nulls any reason for a reader here to click on the link and support the source's website... which is what allows them to stay in business and provide future news/articles. As Tom alluded to, IIRC I'm pretty sure there was a copyright incident here, which is why the mods police this. But in the interest of keeping this a place where they come for enjoyment rather than more work (mods are humans too), how hard is it to just police yourself? As previously mentioned, posting the full text is frowned upon here. Not just "frowned upon." It is against the Terms of Service. If you're a serial offender, you risk suspension or termination of your account. Does the WSJ bust 2BillDrive's stones? I was a refugee once, I feel like I finally have a home here... What does that matter? All it takes is a first time to screw over TBD in an infringement case. Just follow the accepted rules of fair usage. Edited November 18, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Yeah, it's a crime, but a much smaller crime than killing or stealing. So if someone were to condone a crime, this one would be a good one. After all, it's all relative. Or throwing a cup at Ron Artest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Or throwing a cup at Ron Artest. Or leaving pasta salad unattended on a hood of a car at a tailgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts