jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (24 posts)

Voters not trusted to vote on balanced budget amendment

  1. profile image69
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Why does this president not trust the American voter to vote appropriately on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?
    Apparently he knows what's best for us better than we do.
    If the majority of voters do not want it, it will not pass.  If they do, then why shouldn't we have one?
    Every state except Vermont has some kind of balanced budget requirement.  Why should the Federal budget be any different?
    Some states that have stringent requirements have surpluses.
    Despite what the president says, we cannot trust the politicians to do the right thing, so we need some kind of 'stick' to keep them from straying from the correct path.
    I have contacted my Senator to urge him to push for the balanced budget amendment and he agrees.  Just need a few more to come to their senses and do the right thing.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course we're not trusted. The Federal Reserve and the Politicians have WA~~~AY too much at stake.

      Politicians get to keep promising us the moon, and delivering it (through inflated money supply. We all just go around thinking "back in MY day, milk used to cost $1... but now it costs $3!")

      The Federal Reserve Bank gets to own the money supply of the world.

      You think they'd let something like "the public" vote on this?

      Hell, Ron Paul will be lucky to get out of politics without being assassinated.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can we look at the falsehood imbedded in the caption and post?

      American voters have NEVER voted on a constitutional amendment. That's because the constitution leaves the process to the Congress and the States.

      So the suggestion that Obama doesnt trust the voter to decide on any Constitutional amendment is pure fantasy from Rush Limbaugh's crackpot mind or crack pipe.

      1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image83
        wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes but congress does vote on it and they are more closely accountable to the poeple in thier local areas than the president.

    3. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

      http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe … cle-v.html

      Do you see anything about a popular vote? I don't see anything about a popular vote.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see anything about a popular vote,but I do see this.

        "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments"

        How about an amendment for popular votes?

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, you could do that, but the Founders made constitutional amendment difficult for a reason. Constitutional amendment by majority popular vote would leave things a mess in pretty short order - just look at California.

          If a 2/3 or 3/4 majority was required, it might work better, but I really don't have a problem with the current system of constitutional amendment myself, so as far as I'm concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  2. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Are we not trusted or do they not want one?

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    BBA is STUPID and DESTRUCTIVE for this huge country!

    ALL it means is cuts to programs that help people in need, and cuts to wealthy people's taxes. PERIOD.

    That is what they are masquerading under their "fiscally responsible" BS.

    Repubs are the WORST at fiscal responsibility. They don't care how much is spent on their pet issues.....they bankrupted America for tax cuts for billionaires, for god's sakes!

    Bush did not even put the cost of 2 wars, his tax cuts and a precription drug bill ON THE BUDGET.

    He left it for Obama to do...which he did.

    I would not trust voters in America to vote on anything complex...they are too easily swayed by LIES.

    They still think Bin-Laden was the big boogey-man.

    The American voters after all- gave us the Cult of Baggers.
    Go back and google people at Sarah Palin rallies....
    I would not trust them to watch my dog.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "I would not trust voters in America to vote on anything complex...they are too easily swayed by LIES."

      Do tell.

    2. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LMC,

      Why are you so against a BBA? Do you not operate your personal finances that way?  I am sure you do. Balancing the budget does not mean it has to come on the backs of entitlement programs. First, the need to eliminate the stupid spending like the shrimp on the tread mill. That has been funded for 10 years now. Bridges for turtles, money given to congressman to use for payment to get their names on things, eliminate tax loopholes, better tax code, look at Washington itself and all the waste and double jobs there are. Merge them, why have 2 or more people doing the same job?  Then go to the entitlements are cut the waste, not the benefits. If they did that they could balance the budget, not raise taxes, and not cut benefits.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It makes the Bush tax cuts permanent.

        More highway robbery we don't need.

        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          LMC,

          I said", eliminate tax loopholes, better tax code" and cuts and a balanced budget will eliminate waste and "robbery" so again, why are you so against it. It will take cars of both your concerns.

          1. Moderndayslave profile image60
            Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Let's do corporate welfare first.
            http://www.ombwatch.org/node/341

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting link.

            2. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Modern,

              I agree. Thats part of the loopholes and better tax code action. ALL the freebies need to end

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Friday, July 22nd, 2011

    "Phone hacking, bribing the police, and frightening political leaders are just the tip of a very toxic iceberg
    What kind of democracy is this?

    It’s not a democracy when a realm is controlled by an unelected power broker with enforcers who run the government for another country."

    by Paul J Balles

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/22 … terrorism/
    ***

    We don't even see the forest for the trees.

  5. ThoughtSandwiches profile image85
    ThoughtSandwichesposted 5 years ago

    In these times of economic dislocation, all Americans are tightening their belts as they cast about for additional revenues.  Couponing has replaced eating out, car pooling has replaced two cars, single family wage earners have been replaced by EVERY member of the family scratching about to bring additional revenues into the family coffers, whether it be through another part time job or work from home scheme.  The point being…why don’t the Republicans understand that?

    For partisan political gain they willing allow the Tea Party to dictate terms with a gun to their heads as the Republican leadership holds a gun to the head of the national economy.  The hypocrisy of Eric Cantor is disgusting as he claims “no one understands how hard it is for a true conservative to vote for higher debt limit.”  Alas Eric, where was all the hand wrangling and self consciousness of the “true conservative” when you consistently raised the debt limit repeatedly under the orders of George W. Bush?

    The reason there can’t be a Balanced Budget Amendment is that we are (like it or not) a debtor nation.  Defaulting on the debt is a VERY bad thing and the only way out of current fix is to cut expenses AND raise revenue…a balanced budget requirement would destroy all flexibility in dealing with the problem.

  6. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Citizens have never been allowed to do what is in the best interests of themselves, so why should voters, who are people and citizens, be any different at this point in time? lol lol

    Not to mention, you'd be lucky if those who are registered voters, which is half of the Nation, would all turn out for the vote.

    Considering, 50% of the citizenry is registered to vote and barely 50% of those who are registered, even have a clue about what is going on....it makes it difficult to put a vote in the hands of the people. lol

    1. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Then we should become a dictatorship?

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Logic, what makes you think it isn't already? lol

        If all voters(citizens, not politicians) stayed home, then the remainder of voters(politicians), would still vote, because they must vote.

        The election process is tainted and has been for years. The status quo in America ensures that specific people are elected, because they have the financial means to do so. wink

        1. profile image69
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There is a lot of truth to that Cags.  However, I have not given up yet.  Perhaps we need to do as Australia does and make voting mandatory.  Won't fix all the problems but may get more citizens to think about the issues.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I haven't given up yet either. However, I don't think making voting mandatory is the way to go, because it suppress the individual's right to not vote, to withhold their vote.

            It's more important to stress an increase of awareness among citizens, about the issues and dispel the distortion/misinformation passed down from politicians.

            It's more important to get people to become more active within their own community, on an individual level and support the people who actually do what they claim to get into office, at a local level.

            It's time to change the manner, at a local level, so those who are able to be selected for higher political positions are trusted individuals, who truly want to do what is in the best interest of society(citizens).

  7. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Funny--all the Republicans EVER mention is "welfare queens" and "people sucking off the system"....they never mention corporate welfare.
    Does the bba mention corporate welfare?
    Does it address the huge increase in the deficit by the Bush Tax cuts?
    NO- it wants to make them permanent.
    This is a recipe for more of the same Repub policies....only worse! It would be written in stone.

    They want to make everyone suffer, and the quality of life in America diminish.....so only the wealthy can enjoy.
    While beefing up the police-state to protect their wealth.
    While adding to their stock-portfolios with the prison-for-profit industry.

    It's so sick and demented.

    We HAVE to get rid of them!! They will make us a third world nation...like they have done in so many other places in the world.

 
working