Hear hear!

Godwined, or Godwinned. No apostrophe.

Now it's been Grammar-Godwined. :O:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...ammar-nazi.jpg

:O: (from one GN to another)

Hey, a guy's gotta have a hobby. :D

Relevant:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-cont...8/The-Duel.png

Short term fix...due to be revisited early next year at the latest.

Band-aid on the Titanic

If you read the fine print it does not reduce the debt, does not reduce the growth of the debt, but reduces the rate of growth of the debt.

It is a step in the right direction, but I hope there will be many more bigger steps in the future.

A lot of the rhetoric over the past several weeks has been over the concept of a balanced budget amendment. The far right conservatives have been touting this idea as a virtual panacea for the budget ills of the U.S. for many, many years; curiously whenever the GOP is in control of the Congress, the idea seems to fade away. I like the idea of a Constutional amendment to call for a balanced budget, but I think, if we are going to do this, we should do it right (no far right). First, I think the gist of Frau Kaleun's posting above with the "minimum wage" idea is sound; there has to be some penalty for the violation of the amendment in order to make it effective and it has to be directed at Congress; they are the ones ultimately responsible for the final budget. Second, the amendment should also include the provision of a line item veto of expenditures in the budget and require a 3/4ths (super-majority) vote to override any veto of a line item. Lastly, although this may be rather difficult to achieve, a provision should be made to require that any funding bill be restricted to a single funding matter and not allow the so-called riders and other pork that gets attached to bills having no realtion to the rider itself. If something is worth spend tax money on, it should be voted on separatelt and openly, no hidden in the tag-along amendments of a general spending bill.

Fortunately the Line Item Veto has been declared unconstitutional.

the LIV may appear to be a good solution but would be a terrible solution.

Giving one person (POTUS) that much power over legislation is not a good thing.

The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive Branch carries out the laws. The President signing laws is supposed to be more an acknowledgment and a commitment to carry out the law and less an approval of the law. The only legitimate reason for the president to veto a law is if there is a conflict with existing laws or regulations that would prevent the president from following the law.

A president should not be able to veto a law just because he/she does not like it or because it is not in agreement with the POTUS' party agenda.

I would actually prefer moving to the other direction and removing the veto entirely from the Presidency. I don't like the idea of a president being able to veto a law just because the opposing party, which may be in the majority, approved it.

But I also think that some legislation needs a simple majority and other types of legislation needs a super majority vote from congress.

Although technically the US President does not have true veto power, he has the authority to return the proposed law back to the congress for changes. An actual veto is the power to kill a law and if congress wants it, they have to restart the entire legislative process.

But that's a picky nit. :D:D

China's central bank governor 'welcomes' US debt deal
 

China's central bank governor has welcomed measures taken by the US to avoid a default on government debt obligations.

The comments come after the US took measures to raise the debt ceiling.

Zhou Xiaochuan said the People's Bank of China (PBC) would "closely observe its implementation", in a statement on the PBC website.

Separately, Chinese rating agency Dagong downgraded the US credit rating, according to Xinhua news agency.

Mr Zhou said China, which is the largest holder of US debt, hopes that the US takes responsible policy measures to handle its debt issues, while keeping the interests of the rest of the world in mind.

But he reaffirmed that China would continue to diversify its reserve assets to minimize the negative impact of fluctuations in the international financial markets on the Chinese economy.
Rating downgrade

In a separate move, the little known Chinese ratings agency, Dagong, has lowered the credit rating of the United States from A+ to A, with a negative outlook.

Dagong, said in a statement that the decision to lift the debt ceiling will not change the fact that the US national debt growth has outpaced that of its overall economy and fiscal revenue, which will lead to a decline in its debt-paying ability, according to Xinhua.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14383570

Note: Update Record, 3 August 2011 Last updated at 02:10 GMT

Laws have been vetoed by president's because of a president's dislike of a bill on purely philosophical or politaical reasons since almost the birth of our nation. The rationale may be couched in double-speak legalese, but the botom line is the bill was vetoed purely because the president at the time, either due to party loyalties, a wish to avoid a "wrong" public perception, or philosophical opposition to the subject matter of the bill. The Congress is no stranger to the "poison pill" strategy in passing bills they know won't be signed, particularly if the occupant of the White House is from the opposing party. You have only to look at the FAA shutdown to see the gamesmanship at work; the Republican leadership made a deliberate target of rural airports, in mainly Democratic districts, and attached language to roll back union rights to proposed legislation to extend the ability of the FAA to function:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...e-faa-shutdown

For the sake of political one-upmanship, the nation's air transport is put at risk and thousands of people are laid-off. The simple solution would have been a bare bones bill to just keep the Agency operating; instead the GOP leadership decided it was more important to stick it to the Dems and the unions and pssibly score brownie points with the Tea Party and the conservatie right of their party.

You are correct: "A president should not be able to veto a law just because he/she does not like it...", but let's be realistic, it ahs happened before, is happenning now, and will happen in the future. As I said, I like the idea of a "balanced budget amendment", but simply saying "You gotta balance the budget" alone is not going to accomplish anything. It needs teeth and should cut both ways against the Congress and POTUS. In California, an state constitutional amendment initiative was passed requiring a balanced budget on a certain deadline; failure to pass a balanced budget results in the suspension of all salary, per diems, and perks for the state assembly until such time as the budget, balanced is passed. Several years ago, another initiative was passed barring the "piggy-backing" of any matter/amedment not relevant to the main topic of an initiative or referendum. The line item veto is already a feature of the California budget process. It was fairly recently upheld:

http://www.calchamber.com/headlines/...vetopower.aspx

Over forty states have line item veto provisions; President Reagan asked Congress, in his 1986 State of the Union address to give the president the authority and power of the line item veto. It seems the only place where accountability is sorely lacking is in the halls of Congress...

A side-note: Until Andrew Jackson no president vetoed any bills because he didn't like them or disagreed with them. Presidents Washington, Madison and Monroe only vetoed bills on strict constitutional grounds. Adams, Jefferson and Quincy Adams didn't use the veto at all.