Me too, but I'm not picky as most {bet you thought I was going to say ana what nice weather we are having } voices say time clean the knifes and and sharpen the guns

only slightly faster than a sloth, more powerful than the constitution, able to leap over the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government in a single bound.

Super Congress awaaaaay!

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman/221-1.jpg

Well maybe not :D


.

Reportedly the Super Congress would have powers not present in the Constitution.The fact the only states represented in the drafting/debate of a law would be those who's Senator/Rep happen to be in this "Super Congress."The Constitution set up our government the way it is so all states were represented.Sure they will claim "well they still get to vote etc" but essentially only 12 people would have any say in whats in a law etc it's just pure crap.That much power is not supposed to be in the hands of so few.This is not represenative government.

I am not surprised a deranged little fool like Harry Reid would come up with this.I am somewhat surprised McConnell would sign on to this.I think McConnell is an idiot but never saw him as a bad guy or a threat in the way the Pelosi, Obama, Reid, etc are but now it is very apparent what a danger he is.


This in a way reminds me of Roosevelt's attempted court packing plan in the 30's.Roosevelt could not get his way via legit means because the court found many of his new deal policies to be unconstitutional(they were) so he tried to alter the court.The plan failed because it was crap.Sadly, he was able to intimidate some of the justices(JusticeOwen roberts for example) to ignore their constitutional principles and rule in favor of his garbage.Same thing here, they can't get their debt BS through because of principled people who were elected in November.People like Rubio and Rand Paul and the freshman Reps in the house who won't settle for a ridiculous tax hike or bs spending cuts "over the long term" so they are trying to bypass the constitution and set their own rules.

I will be shocked if they are actually able to do this but with people like Obama, Reid and McConnell up there, who knows.Perhaps SCOTUS will be the savior of the Republic, we shall see.

Way too much concentrated power. I don't like this idea at all.

Time to stockpile some more ammo and can goods.

Don't forget the water, you are dead in less than 10 days without it. I find, rice an kippers with coconut milk is a mighty fine ration, when your out revolutioning, and don't forget your rubbers. Why is it I get the feeling that I'm not in the land of the free anymore. Why is it I feel the Stalinistic boot stepping down on my neck. Why hasn't anybody called back these repersenitves, to their district offices and hold their feet to the fire till they decide to repersent us, I think standing around those offices with pitch forks an torches, with buckets of tar an bags of feathers would send a good messeage to these no accounts.

I agree, but unfortunately the Constitution does not specify how the job is to be done. They're pretty much free to do what they want in that regard. They already have many committees who arrange things that are tacitly voted on. The States are hardly ever all represented. I do agree there is a problem with it, and I'm hoping someone will come up with a way to keep it from happening, but I'm not hopeful.

You bring up Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and again you are mistaken. Not wrong, but mistaken. Reread the Constitution if you must (and I think you should). There is nothing there concerning the number of justices, and they are appointed by the President, subject to the approval of Congress. That's it. I agree Roosevelt was wrong, but his move was not Unconstitutional.

Nor do I, but all we lowly serfs can do is wait and hope, and see what happens next.

I'm waaaay ahead of you.

Seriously, we the free people of America have nowhere left to go unless the South succeeds again.

Personally, barring the whole slavery thing, I wish the South would've won in the first place.

To Alabama?

it's sad we even have to consider this because nobody can compromise. Everyone says i finger point...so I might as well do it here.

why is a compromise not happening? Taxes. The whole "no new revenue" business as far as i know. So even though democrats are are giving in the form of cuts, republicans still don't want to give up things like the bush tax cuts to help balance the budget. Something i think is the main problem and is wrong

And you know why they don't want to compromise, the more chaos they create the more money that gets shoved into their pockets and the more closer they get to this disaster, the more the money will fly, and more regulation and more power they will exsert. I'm sittin next to the space center if they can shut that down I think they can cut some more pork it's all about redistrabution of our wealth, how much of it, do you think is heading to Africa in the next couple of days, while they got this going on, and you won't even notice it happen, until it's all done and over with.

One of the main problems is that something like 60% of people don't pay taxes. That needs to change. Now. And the democrats won't let that happen.

Also, there is no more right to completely fail. Welfare needs to be drastically cut. We have to stop making it so easy to live off government money. If you're on welfare or unemployment, you should have to be either presenting a check stub or applying for a job every week.

And social security - it has failed. I pay into it, and I know there is no way in hell I'm going to get anything out of it. FDR set the entire thing up as a ponzi scheme anyhow. Back when it was created, the average life expectancy was early 60's.

Medicare needs a total overhaul.

All government assistance programs need a total overhaul - period.

And the tax gap needs to change. The fact that the top 1% of income earners pay something like 50% of all taxes has got to change.

The entire tax code needs revamping.

Anthony, you know how many times in my short little life I've heard those exact same words?

Here's the problem as I see it:












See it? I don't either. That's because I don't know what makes this country, or any other country, run. Slash social security and you get new problems. Slash Medicare, and you get new problems. Dump the Bush tax cuts, you get new problems. The list could go on and on and on. A good question to ask from here might be:

Who in the heck can we trust to get the job done without playing silly games just short of the end zone? A person like that would have almost superhuman qualities for a politician. And I don't think that would be impossible. Just... highly improbable.


My two bits.

And you could well be right. I don't know any more than KrashKart does, and neither do Bubblehead1980, Anthony W. or Yubba. That they think they do know the answers is likely part of the problem.

Steve, I never said the court packing plan was unconstitutional.I said the the new deal was unconstitutional and many parts of it were so Roosevelt decided to to try and pack the court, manipulating the process so he could get his radical legislation through.The packing plan was low even for Roosevelt and intimidated the court, namely Owen Roberts into being more friendly to the new deal.Judges who knew and felt legislation was unconstitutional began to vote in favor in order to save the court.I used the court packing plan to show when in the past the kind of crap like the super congress proposal has happened.The constitutionality of the plan was not part of the example, just the intention to circumvent the process to achieve an agenda.

Now, the difference is the super congress would actually be unconstitutional.Passing legislation that sets up a second congress is not constitutional because only one congress, consisting of both the house and senate, is mentioned in the constitution.There is no power to set up another "super congress" with the powers they would have. Removing everyone but twelve members from the legislative process("regular" members would not be able to amend legilslation nor debate it openly on floor of house or senate) except for the vote is not exactly constitutional.Sure they have committees now BUT the full congress are allowed to amend ,debate, and then vote on the laws that emerge from the committees.Twelve people only representing the states and districts from which they are elected would be drafting, debating, and amending legislation that affects the entire country denying other states full representation in congress.Bottom line, they do not have the power to create a congress within the congress, draft, debate, amend laws and then only allow the actual congress to vote up or down.The committee process is different as explained.

I can tell now the lame argument from the supporters of this would be : The Super Congress is actually a committee and would still allow for a vote with from both houses of congress so it is constitutional.Pure crap, this is first term con law material.Same thing with healthcare mandate at the federal level, those with legal training who try to say it's constitutional, they know better and are just being intellectually dishonest.Not going off on a side show, just same old crap, usually from the lefties and neo cons.They know damn well what is and is not constitutional but they really could care less so they lie and try to twist it, hope it sticks.


Good news is we agree this is a bad idea.

compromising is not a viable option right now.The US does not have a revenue problem, contrary to what the Dems claim.The US has a spending problem that both parties...Dems and well the establishment Republicans are guilty of creating.

Raising taxes on ANYONE is a bad idea right now, ANYONE.The class warfare being played in tough economic times is just outrageous.The cuts Dems have promised are long term stuff that will never actually go into effect, they just want money to spend as does some Republicans in the neo con side of things.The new guys in Senate like Paul and Rubio and other principled people in the house like Ron Paul in addition to the freshman Reps from the conservative wing of party are standing on principle as they vowed to do.REAL cuts with no new taxes is the solution to this, then we could raise the ceiling one more time and work toward a balanced budget and paying off our debt.

I don't want us to default but the time has come to draw a line in the sand, we are over 14 trillion in debt, we must deal with this.Let's not forget we are in a recession and never a good idea to raise taxes in a recession, esp so the government can spend more.

How much those in Congress really represent States and Districts instead of only their party and campaing contributors? How many think themselves instead of just doing as told to do?

depends on how you look at it. glass is half empty situation. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. especially when we ave a tax code full of loopholes and corporations paying 0% taxes. At least close the loopholes. We all know even though the super rich "have the highest tax rates" with all the loopholes they don't pay nearly that.

No it doesn't. The top 1% have captured more and more of the wealth in this country over the past 20, 30 years at the expense of the middle and lower class. Their tax status should reflect that.

All this whining about raising taxes on the rich sounds to me like a strawman argument. This isn't a one time only deal folks. Budgets are voted on every year.

What is stopping the Democrats from passing a spending cut bill without increasing taxes for now then raising them in a separate bill later on?

The only thing I can think of it that their refusal is purely political. They are willing to have the county go into default because they don't want to be reigned in by the GoP.