Constitutional Convention in Process by 20 States Already

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

This from ABC News Tampa, FL. The FL legislature passed a resolution demanding the Federal government present a balanced budget every year. It was reported that already 20 states are in the process of passing such a measure and to call for a Constitutional amendment to that effect by Constitutional Convention - thus forcing Congress by Amendment law to live within our means just as states must do. 34 states must act for it to become a reality.

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

That's funny, why didn't the Florida republicans do this when the dipshit was in office for 8 years?
Oh that's right they're 'typical' hypocrites:

Quote:

State GOP leaders call for US balanced budget amendment
By Jim Ash â€¢ Florida Capital Bureau Chief â€¢ March 1, 2010

TALLAHASSEE â€“ After accepting more than $12 billion in federal stimulus dollars to balance the state budget, Floridaâ€™s Republican legislative leaders called today for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, said Democrats and Republicans in Congress are both to blame for runaway spending that has pushed the national debt to an all-time high. Unlike the Legislature, Congress does not have to pass a balanced budget every year.
â€œI cannot pretend that itâ€™s OK that Floridaâ€™s future generations will be burdened with a debt that they did not consent to,â€ Atwater said.
Atwater, who is running for chief financial officer, denied that there was any contradiction. Florida taxpayers still send more money every year to Washington than they get back in services, Atwater said.

â€œEvery year, Florida has been provided with revenue-sharing dollars,â€ he said. â€œFlorida is a donor state.â€

Atwater was joined by House Speaker Larry Cretul, R-Ocala and other members of his Senate leadership team, including Sens. Don Gaetz of Niceville, Thad Altman of Melbourne and Mike Haridopolos of Merritt Island.

Democrats were critical of the move.

â€œItâ€™s a gaping inconsistency to take that money happily to fill giant holes in our budget and then turn around and criticize the very people who give you the cash,â€ said Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, a Sarasota Democrat.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

edge540 wrote:

That's funny, why didn't the Florida republicans do this when the dipshit was in office for 8 years?
Oh that's right they're 'typical' hypocrites:

This is in response because obama is fukkking with every enclave that didn't side with him and his bullshit socialist agenda by rewarding the ones who do with huge piles of taxpayer money and punishing those who vote against him by denying everything...

read it again you ass hole....forcing Congress by Amendment law to live within our means just as states must do

So FY...If you think for one minute that pos represents all Americans and will ''reach across the aisle'' you're fullofshit and sadly mistaken.

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

edge540 wrote:

That's funny, why didn't the Florida republicans do this when the dipshit was in office for 8 years?
Oh that's right they're 'typical' hypocrites:

Quote:

State GOP leaders call for US balanced budget amendment
By Jim Ash â€¢ Florida Capital Bureau Chief â€¢ March 1, 2010

TALLAHASSEE â€“ After accepting more than $12 billion in federal stimulus dollars to balance the state budget, Floridaâ€™s Republican legislative leaders called today for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, said Democrats and Republicans in Congress are both to blame for runaway spending that has pushed the national debt to an all-time high. Unlike the Legislature, Congress does not have to pass a balanced budget every year.
â€œI cannot pretend that itâ€™s OK that Floridaâ€™s future generations will be burdened with a debt that they did not consent to,â€ Atwater said.
Atwater, who is running for chief financial officer, denied that there was any contradiction. Florida taxpayers still send more money every year to Washington than they get back in services, Atwater said.

â€œEvery year, Florida has been provided with revenue-sharing dollars,â€ he said. â€œFlorida is a donor state.â€

Atwater was joined by House Speaker Larry Cretul, R-Ocala and other members of his Senate leadership team, including Sens. Don Gaetz of Niceville, Thad Altman of Melbourne and Mike Haridopolos of Merritt Island.

Democrats were critical of the move.

â€œItâ€™s a gaping inconsistency to take that money happily to fill giant holes in our budget and then turn around and criticize the very people who give you the cash,â€ said Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, a Sarasota Democrat.

Because Obama wasn't here yet to spend $trillions more that we can't afford.

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

Moby Grape wrote:

edge540 wrote:

That's funny, why didn't the Florida republicans do this when the dipshit was in office for 8 years?
Oh that's right they're 'typical' hypocrites:

This is in response because obama is fukkking with every enclave that didn't side with him and his bullshit socialist agenda by rewarding the ones who do with huge piles of taxpayer money and punishing those who vote against him by denying everything...

read it again you ass hole....forcing Congress by Amendment law to live within our means just as states must do

So FY...If you think for one minute that pos represents all Americans and will ''reach across the aisle'' you're fullofshit and sadly mistaken.

You know his comment was no more than a deflection so in general terms I supposed you're right. What does this have to do with today's legislatures saying enough is enough? If you're going back 8 years I'm pretty sure the Dems had at least 1 house in FL alone. And of the 20 states onboard so far I'm sure not all are all totally Republican legislatures & governors, so what's his actual point? :?:

While I wish legislatures would have stepped up back in the Contract for America days you will remember that movement petered out after the hardcore freshmen were told by senior leadership and the White House to give it up. But they were willing to keep the government shut down until an agreement on a balanced budget could be reached. So actually the Republicans in Congress DID try to effect a balanced budget years ago! And see how much worse off we are now because the public & the legislatures didn't step up to the plate then and demand action. Snow closed down DC last month for a while and we survived! Maybe we need to shut the thing down a little more often. Perhaps we should put bureaucrats on an unpaid occasional day off to help trim payroll costs. lol

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Quote:

So actually the Republicans in Congress DID try to effect a balanced budget years ago!

bullshit
FACT is Geoerge Bush & his rubber stamp republicans in congress gave billion dollar oil companies billions in tax breaks, gave millionaires & billionaires over a trillion in tax breaks, started two wars without paying for them & passed the Medicare Part D drug bill without paying for it.
So NO, the Republicans in Congress DID NOT try to effect a balanced budget.
During this time Florida republican hypocrites had their heads in the sand, why is that?

Claiming so is yet another conservative, revisionist history, flat out, bald faced, blatant lie.
'typical'

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

Want to hear something really funny....?

Hussein Obama voted in favor of every single spending bill put forth by the Bush Administration.

(except the spending bill that provided funding for the troops in harm's way. Go figure.. :roll:

)

That is correct.

Ali bin Obama helped President Bush by voting YES on every single spending bill that hatemonger540 is whining and crying about.

:smt005

mrbsmom · **Joined:** Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:32 pm **Posts:** 813

USMarine wrote:

Want to hear something really funny....?

Hussein Obama voted in favor of every single spending bill put forth by the Bush Administration.

That is correct.

Ali bin Obama helped President Bush by voting YES on every single spending bill that hatemonger540 is whining and crying about.

:smt005

LOL! Hey edge whats Obamas answer to balancing HIS budget? I mean, do you really think him taxing the over $250,000 is going to cover it ? :smt005

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Quote:

I mean, do you really think him taxing the over $250,000 is going to cover it ?

No, nobody has claimed that it will, but it will be a good start:

Quote:

Bush era: $11.5 trillion
The outgoing administration has presided over 8 years of disasters and crises with some of the biggest price tags the nation has ever seen.

By John Dyer, MSN Money

George W. Bush's presidency cost the country about $11.5 trillion, if we estimate liberally.

Of course, it's debatable how much blame the president should bear.

$150 billion surplus disappears

Over the past eight years, we've suffered calamities that were bound to damage the nation deeply: two recessions, the most lethal terrorist attacks ever on U.S. soil, the invasion of Iraq on dubious grounds, the near destruction of one of our most storied cities and, finally, the Wall Street meltdown.

Quiz: What cost the most?

Because the median U.S. household income is about $50,000, readers may have trouble grasping the concept of spending trillions.

For context, let's compare two cases of extraordinary spending under Bush.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington pledged $22 billion to help rebuild in lower Manhattan. At the time, that sum sounded enormous. It was more than one-fourth of the $80 billion budget that New York state had adopted a month before. Though some called for even more aid, the country at large was satisfied that this response was adequate to cope with calamity on a colossal scale.

Oh, how far we've come.

In early October of 2008, Congress appropriated $700 billion to rescue Wall Street's financial institutions. Once that was done, the sky was the limit, and the numbers became dizzying.

And the spending won't stop after Bush leaves office Jan. 20.

Debt for future generations

In hopes of "breaking the momentum" of the current recession, President-elect Barack Obama is reportedly drafting a stimulus package that would cost the government as much $850 billion. If past is precedent, it's unlikely Obama will stop there.

Talk back: Where should we cut future U.S. spending?

The new administration is already expected to inherit a $1.2 trillion deficit from Bush. The stimulus package would add to that record-breaking number.

What should Obama do?

Picture an avalanche of cash disappearing into the Potomac.

Where has all the money gone? Here are five areas where Bush has approved massive outlays of taxpayer money...

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

hatemonger540 wrote:

Quote:

I mean, do you really think him taxing the over $250,000 is going to cover it ?

No, nobody has claimed that it will, but it will be a good start:

LMFAO..>!!!!!!!!!!!

A start indeed. Then it will be $1500,000 then it will be $100,000 and then Hussein Obama's blue ribbon panel is going to come out and suggest a VAT tax.

Hatemonger540 and his ilk (all 25% of 'em) will claim that it means Hussein Obama kept his promise not to raise taxes and it just cracks me up..!!!!!!!

Someone axe hatemonger540 how he likes the 40% tax that will be slapped on his healthcare.

:smt005

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Limbiciles have no clue as to the damage that moron inflicted on this country:

Quote:

Before the Bush Recession
Supply Side Tax Cuts Failed to Deliver Jobs and Growth Between 2001 and 2007

By Joshua Picker | February 23, 2009

In his final days in office, President George W. Bush told the American Enterprise Institute:

The benefits of the tax cuts have been obscured by the recent economic crisis, no question about it. But when they finally take a look back at whether or not tax cuts were effective or not, itâ€™s hard to argue against 52 uninterrupted months of job growth as a result of tax policy. And so my hope is, is that after this crisis passesâ€”and it willâ€”that people continue to write about and articulate a public policy of low taxes.

This and other efforts of the â€œBush Legacy Projectâ€ to rehabilitate the last administrationâ€™s job creation image and defend its tax cuts ignore the stark reality that the Bush administrationâ€™s tax policies fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades, and ignored alarming labor market trends in minority communities. This record of anemic job creation was accompanied by sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth that characterized the period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went into effect.

Yet conservatives continue to argue for another round of permanent tax cuts similar to those of the Bush administration. Even if all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the projected cost of the Bush tax cuts to the federal budget over the next ten years is $3.9 trillion, an average of 1.4 percent of the countryâ€™s total economic activity (GDP) per year. Those asking for more permanent tax cuts continue to justify the cost, claiming tax cuts create jobs.

But their analysis ignores what actually happened during the economic cycle that began in March 2001 and ended in December of 2007â€”which almost exactly coincides with the Bush presidency and the implementation of the Bush tax cuts. This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.

Given this incredibly weak record, it is astounding that some conservative members of Congress held upâ€”and eventually voted againstâ€”the Obama administrationâ€™s economic stimulus and recovery package because it did not contain additional permanent tax cuts. The anemic Bush economic cycle directly contradicts the idea that those tax cuts delivered broad-based economic growth and job creationâ€”never mind the promise of long-term economic growth so quickly squelched by the onset of the recession beginning in December 2007.

This paper will examine the jobs, income and poverty legacy wrought by supply-side ideology over the course of the Bush presidency. This review is important not least because conservatives continue to pitch supply-side remedies as valid alternatives to the Obama recovery package amid a worsening recession. And beyond the economic recovery, the upcoming fiscal 2010 and 2011 federal budget debates will prominently feature questions about whether to extend some or all of the Bush tax cuts. The evidence in this paper demonstrates that conservative rhetoric about the job creation potential of supply-side tax cuts does not match up to the anemic Bush-era record.

What is really astonishing is that stupid cons want more of the same tax cuts that got us into this mess in the first place.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

EGADS..!!!!!!!!!

I'm being stalked by hatemonger540.

:shock:

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Quote:

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48
trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

Nonsense.

Just more left-wing kook, blatant lies, revisionist history, BS from typical blah blah blah.

Some funny stuff, hatemonger540.

Saaaaaaayyyyyyy.......ya got $25,000 I'll come over and weatherstrip your house.

:smt006

mrbsmom · **Joined:** Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:32 pm **Posts:** 813

SO OBAMA SAYS THE DEFICIT PROBLEM IS BUSH'S FAULT....THINK AGAIN !

At every opportunity Barack Obama has placed the blame for the massive federal deficit on former President George Bush. Still claiming after more than one year in office that he, "inherited," the deficit problem and that he through his massive spending saved American from a depression.

Take a close look at the graph above, (hat tip to Mike's America). While Bush and Republicans were not good stewards of our money the deficits were in the process of declining through fiscal year 2007 while the government was still operating on GOP budgets.

Notice fiscal year 2008 the first complete year with a budget approved by a Democrat controlled Congress. The deficit jumped from less than 200 billion in fiscal 2007, the last year of a GOP approved budget , doubling to more than 400 billion in the first year of a Democrat approved budget. While Bush as President presented the budget Congress approved it and added greatly to the Bush budget but because he was President he was given all the blame.

Now closely look at the first year under Obama who worked with a total Democrat majority passing the stimulus bill as well as other massive spending bills. Fiscal year 2009 skyrocketed to 1.4 TRILLION, with 2010 nearly 1.6 TRILLION. Bush had NOTHING to do with either of these. In fact even with a Democrat controlled Congress Bush passed on a deficit around 400 billion which Obama more than quadrupled.

Projected budget deficits from the Obama administration all the way up until fiscal 2020 shows deficits at the least more than double any Bush and GOP deficits. In fact in fiscal 2010 the budget deficit EACH MONTH is more than any YEARLY deficit during the Bush administration and GOP majority in Congress. I am not defending the huge spending and government growth under Bush, I totally disagreed with it but facts are facts. While Bush and Republicans were not good fiscal stewards, Obama and clan make Bush and the GOP look like spend thrifts !

When Obama introduced his 2011 budget he had the gall to again blame Bush by claiming that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the cause for the deficits. Notice again in the graph that during the final four Bush years with the wars taking place, the budget deficits were not even close to Obama's. So the blame Bush garbage is not only not acceptable but not true.

Spending and deficits have exploded with the total liberal rule of Barack Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress. When Mr. Deficit, Barack Obama points his accusing finger at George Bush he not only is deceiving the American people but needs to seriously look in the mirror and point at the true culprit for our fiscal madness, Barack Hussein Obama !

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Constitutional Convention in Process by 20 States Already

Who is online