PDA

View Full Version : Ultimate power



ConHog
01-22-2013, 07:52 PM
if you had the ultimate power to add one amendment to the COTUS what would it be?

Your amendment can not alter any other nor can it eliminate a previous amendment.

I personlly would add a balanced budget amendment.


Or I'd outlaw Congress. It's a close call.


Balanced Budget for the win.

Kathianne
01-22-2013, 07:57 PM
Line item veto, though won't help for at least 4 years - 3 days.

aboutime
01-22-2013, 08:04 PM
Line item veto, though won't help for at least 4 years - 3 days.


I would ruin every Politician's life by creating an amendment that states. "All public statements made by elected officials of the United States of America, and their individual states, MUST BE HONEST, and present only the TRUTH".

At the present time. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that LYING is part of the 1st amendment, and is permissible. But I would change that to read PUBLIC OFFICIALS are not Permitted to Willfully, Intentionally Lie to the American people.

Missileman
01-22-2013, 08:04 PM
Can solve all of our legislative problems with an amendment that a bill can only address one issue...no more riders, no more hidden pork.

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:05 PM
Can solve all of our legislative problems with an amendment that a bill can only address one issue...no more riders, no more hidden pork.

that would be awesome wouldn''t it? Tell some of them fuckers if they want to fund a frog farm in florida, vote for that, don't add in on to a bill aimed at building a highway . etc etc

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:07 PM
I would ruin every Politician's life by creating an amendment that states. "All public statements made by elected officials of the United States of America, and their individual states, MUST BE HONEST, and present only the TRUTH".

At the present time. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that LYING is part of the 1st amendment, and is permissible. But I would change that to read PUBLIC OFFICIALS are not Permitted to Willfully, Intentionally Lie to the American people.

Alternatively titled "Politicians don't open your mouths?" lol

tailfins
01-22-2013, 08:38 PM
All laws and regulations must expire in five years and must be re-enacted to remain in force.

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:39 PM
All laws and regulations must expire in five years and must be re-enacted to remain in force.

So murder would have to be made illegal again every five years? Just as an example

tailfins
01-22-2013, 08:41 PM
So murder would have to be made illegal again every five years? Just as an example

Generally, murder is a state crime.

ConHog
01-22-2013, 08:46 PM
Generally, murder is a state crime.

Generally, but not always.

I suppose you could amend that to read all laws outside of the criminal code. I believe that is what you were getting at anyway?

fj1200
01-23-2013, 08:28 AM
Repeal the 17th and require state appointment of Senators.

We could also eliminate everything that happened in 1913, I'm sure rev would agree. :)

ConHog
01-23-2013, 09:13 AM
Repeal the 17th and require state appointment of Senators.

We could also eliminate everything that happened in 1913, I'm sure rev would agree. :)

I CLEARLY stated that you could not repeal an existing amendment. I had you and the 17th specifically in mind when I said that. I knew you'd take that route if given the chance

mundame
01-23-2013, 09:23 AM
Repeal the Income Tax.

Oh, wait, do I have to follow ConHog's rules about no repeals?

Oh, no, right, I don't.


Yeah, repeal the Income Tax, force the government to find some simple and more fair way to fund the bloated government, with financial participation of ALL, not just a few paying for the whole thing.

fj1200
01-23-2013, 09:36 AM
I CLEARLY stated that you could not repeal an existing amendment. I had you and the 17th specifically in mind when I said that. I knew you'd take that route if given the chance

Missed that. But then you've eliminated my ability to correct the chief ill. :slap:

CSM
01-23-2013, 09:36 AM
Repeal the Income Tax.

Oh, wait, do I have to follow ConHog's rules about no repeals?

Oh, no, right, I don't.


Yeah, repeal the Income Tax, force the government to find some simple and more fair way to fund the bloated government, with financial participation of ALL, not just a few paying for the whole thing.

While I am all for tax reform, I am far more interested in a remedy for that "bloated government" to mention.

mundame
01-23-2013, 09:42 AM
While I am all for tax reform, I am far more interested in a remedy for that "bloated government" to mention.


Yes, you are right, that is certainly the central part of the problem.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 09:52 AM
Missed that. But then you've eliminated my ability to correct the chief ill. :slap:

I might agree with you, but for purposes of this discussion I wanted to eliminate a few choices. For instance, didn't want someone posting repeal the 2nd, or repeal the 10th or some such. The 17th gets caught in that.

Makes the exercise more stimulating, or should. I see another poster just blatantly and proudly? Ignored the constraints of the argument, for what purpose I do not know.

fj1200
01-23-2013, 09:56 AM
Then advocating for my ascendancy to benevolent dictator status is out then too? :poke:

tailfins
01-23-2013, 09:59 AM
Then advocating for my ascendancy to benevolent dictator status is out then too? :poke:

You'll need to stage a new assault on Moncada Barracks to go down that path.

Tyr can be your sacrificial stooge:

http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/28/3ea8352dce3d9b7c2a9e671086934eb5/l.gif

mundame
01-23-2013, 10:02 AM
Makes the exercise more stimulating, or should. I see another poster just blatantly and proudly? Ignored the constraints of the argument, for what purpose I do not know.

Heh-heh. :laugh:


I guess I COULD let you be the boss.....................................





Naaaaaaah.

mundame
01-23-2013, 10:03 AM
I want to know something I don't understand:

What is this idea about repealing the Second Amendment that has been floating around? I see headlines, but I don't know what that means. Is that pro-gun or anti-gun? What's up with that?

ConHog
01-23-2013, 10:04 AM
Heh-heh. :laugh:


I guess I COULD let you be the boss.....................................





Naaaaaaah.

It has nothing to do with being the boss and everything to do with netiquette when responding to a post that asks a question that sets certain parameters.

You follow no such netiquette and are proud of it, duly noted.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 10:05 AM
I want to know something I don't understand:

What is this idea about repealing the Second Amendment that has been floating around? I see headlines, but I don't know what that means. Is that pro-gun or anti-gun? What's up with that?

wrong thread, go read my thread on repealing the second.

mundame
01-23-2013, 10:06 AM
wrong thread, go read my thread on repealing the second.


Thanx, okay, if I can find it.

tailfins
01-23-2013, 11:02 AM
Repeal the Income Tax.

Oh, wait, do I have to follow ConHog's rules about no repeals?

Oh, no, right, I don't.


Yeah, repeal the Income Tax, force the government to find some simple and more fair way to fund the bloated government, with financial participation of ALL, not just a few paying for the whole thing.

He made that specification so it doesn't become a trivial thread.

Thunderknuckles
01-23-2013, 11:21 AM
I personlly would add a balanced budget amendment.
Good idea although some exceptions would need to be made for certain circumstances like going to war.


Line item veto, though won't help for at least 4 years - 3 days.

Can solve all of our legislative problems with an amendment that a bill can only address one issue...no more riders, no more hidden pork.
Both of those ideas are cut from the same cloth and I would support them.

As for me, I would add something about Presidential terms. I don't like the current system where once elected you basically have 100 days to get something done while the rest of your term is mostly about shoring up your election for a second term. I haven't fleshed it all out yet but maybe something like 1 term spanning 6-8 years then you're out.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 11:57 AM
Good idea although some exceptions would need to be made for certain circumstances like going to war.



Both of those ideas are cut from the same cloth and I would support them.

As for me, I would add something about Presidential terms. I don't like the current system where once elected you basically have 100 days to get something done while the rest of your term is mostly about shoring up your election for a second term. I haven't fleshed it all out yet but maybe something like 1 term spanning 6-8 years then you're out.

That would likely entail repealing the 22nd unless you removed the one term limit in favor of keeping the current 2 term limit.

And I think maybe that could work. An 8 year term would probably piss enough people off that no one would win a 2nd term. No matter the POTUS

gabosaurus
01-23-2013, 12:03 PM
Definitely line item veto. Plus a clause that any bill presented for a final vote by either chamber of Congress must list any "additions" (i.e. pork) clearly and for public view. So we could see which members added them and why.
Pork is favored by congressional delegates of both parties, in case you aren't aware.

Thunderknuckles
01-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Definitely line item veto. Plus a clause that any bill presented for a final vote by either chamber of Congress must list any "additions" (i.e. pork) clearly and for public view. So we could see which members added them and why.
Pork is favored by congressional delegates of both parties, in case you aren't aware.
More than just the pork aspect, it's the action of purposely sabotaging a bill by adding an item you know the other side would never agree to that lends my support to the idea.

Abbey
01-23-2013, 12:11 PM
Good idea although some exceptions would need to be made for certain circumstances like going to war.



Both of those ideas are cut from the same cloth and I would support them.

As for me, I would add something about Presidential terms. I don't like the current system where once elected you basically have 100 days to get something done while the rest of your term is mostly about shoring up your election for a second term. I haven't fleshed it all out yet but maybe something like 1 term spanning 6-8 years then you're out.

OTOH, the need to somewhat behave in order to be re-elected, may be all that keeps some of these folks from going completely off the rails.

Thunderknuckles
01-23-2013, 12:28 PM
OTOH, the need to somewhat behave in order to be re-elected, may be all that keeps some of these folks from going completely off the rails.
Yes, I considered that as well. It is true but thought the wastefulness of the first term outweighed the issue.

On a related note, here's a list of some of the Amendments proposed by Congress since 1991:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

Little-Acorn
01-23-2013, 02:20 PM
All laws and regulations must expire in five years and must be re-enacted to remain in force.
So murder would have to be made illegal again every five years? Just as an example

Excellent idea with an excellent result.

Congress will be kept so busy re-enacting laws we actually need, they won't have time to micromanage the way they do now, passing miniscule laws to detemine toilet size, light bulb type, land zoning etc.

The Framers originally made lawmaking a very clumsy and cantankerous affair. Three very different groups (temporary citizen-legislators in the House, professional state-appointed politicians in the Senate, elector-chosen President) all had to agree, for something to become law. The reason they made it so clumsy, was beause they wanted a country governed by very few laws - the states and lower govts, and people themselves, could control all else.

Mandating a sunset date on ALL laws, would get us back toward that ideal.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 02:28 PM
Excellent idea with an excellent result.

Congress will be kept so busy re-enacting laws we actually need, they won't have time to micromanage the way they do now, passing miniscule laws to detemine toilet size, light bulb type, land zoning etc.

The Framers originally made lawmaking a very clumsy and cantankerous affair. Three very different groups (temporary citizen-legislators in the House, professional state-appointed politicians in the Senate, elector-chosen President) all had to agree, for something to become law. The reason they made it so clumsy, was beause they wanted a country governed by very few laws - the states and lower govts, and people themselves, could control all else.

Mandating a sunset date on ALL laws, would get us back toward that ideal.


Excellent point.

Alternatively we could just mandate that Congress can't pass any laws during a calender year until each member has read a loud the entire US tax code live on CSpan.

That way we don't have to worry about any laws accidently expiring and not being renewed.

Little-Acorn
01-23-2013, 02:30 PM
Yes, I considered that as well. It is true but thought the wastefulness of the first term outweighed the issue.

On a related note, here's a list of some of the Amendments proposed by Congress since 1991:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

One of these has a hidden sting in the tail:


•To require a balanced budget without use of Social Security Trust Fund monies.

If that were to be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution, it would be the first time Social Security was even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. And thus, a heretofore unconstitutional program would become constitutional for the first time.

Aside from that, the only effect it would have, would be that every huge, wasteful program that would explode the deficit, would have the words "Social Security" included in the title, to trigger the exception named in this amendment. And they would get routinely passed, and no budget would ever balance. Just like today. There would be no real change, as a result of this amendment.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 02:34 PM
One of these has a hidden sting in the tail:



If that were to be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution, it would be the first time Social Security was even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. And thus, a heretofore unconstitutional program would become constitutional for the first time.

Aside from that, the only effect it would have, would be that every huge, wasteful program that would explode the deficit, would have the words "Social Security" included in the title, to trigger the exception named in this amendment. And they would get routinely passed, and no budget would ever balance. Just like today. There would be no real change, as a result of this amendment.

True

which is why I proposed simply

balanced budget

if you want to count social security contribution as income, that is no problem, you must also count social security expenditures as expenses

Who among us when making out our personal budgets takes any money and says to themselves "okay this isn't REALLY income" but then goes out and spends it like it is?

That's just stupid.

Little-Acorn
01-23-2013, 02:42 PM
An amendment with two sections:


1.) Automatic Tax Withholding from paychecks, is forbidden for all governments, whether Federal, State, or local. Taxpayers must directly pay all such taxes by sending or bringing checks, cash, or money orders to appropriate government offices (IRS etc.).

2.) The day on which all tax discrepancies must be resolved (presently April 15 of each year) is changed. Now it will be the Tuesday before each Presidential or Congressional General Election. In years when there is no such General Election, it will be the last Tuesday in October.

Thunderknuckles
01-23-2013, 02:59 PM
2.) The day on which all tax discrepancies must be resolved (presently April 15 of each year) is changed. Now it will be the Tuesday before each Presidential or Congressional General Election. In years when there is no such General Election, it will be the last Tuesday in October.
LOL. Bravo
:clap:

ConHog
01-23-2013, 03:01 PM
An amendment with two sections:


1.) Automatic Tax Withholding from paychecks, is forbidden for all governments, whether Federal, State, or local. Taxpayers must directly pay all such taxes by sending or bringing checks, cash, or money orders to appropriate government offices (IRS etc.).

2.) The day on which all tax discrepancies must be resolved (presently April 15 of each year) is changed. Now it will be the Tuesday before each Presidential or Congressional General Election. In years when there is no such General Election, it will be the last Tuesday in October.

If were going that route, I'd burn the IRS building to the ground and go with a sales tax. No exemptions, no excuses, no "it's not fair to ________" , no refunds, no fucking NOTHING.

YOU BUY YOU PAY period.

A serious discussion would have to be made about rate.


but the latest data i can find suggests that taxpayers paid in roughly $900,000M dollars (2009) in income tax. written out that is $900,000,000,000

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Here is an article claiming that American's spent $10.7T in that same time.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31222/numbers-how-americans-spend-their-money

writing that number out equates to $10,700,000,000,000,000. Thus it looks to me like were paying in about 1% of our overall spending in income tax.

Is my math right?


Seems like we could go with like oh, 5% sales tax and have more income for the government .

oh darn i just forgot, the "poor" are the ones doing most of that spending and we wouldn't want them to be paying anything to the government now would we?

fj1200
01-23-2013, 05:15 PM
Is my math right?

I don't think so. The FairTax calculated a revenue neutral rate of 23%. Your other numbers don't seem right either.

mundame
01-23-2013, 05:25 PM
True

which is why I proposed simply

balanced budget

if you want to count social security contribution as income, that is no problem, you must also count social security expenditures as expenses

Who among us when making out our personal budgets takes any money and says to themselves "okay this isn't REALLY income" but then goes out and spends it like it is?

That's just stupid.


It may be stupid but it will screw up your balanced budget because hiding huge expenses is normal government practice and it's why we're in deficit. That worthless George Bush took ten years of TWO wars completely off-budget and I think all the many wars are STILL off-budget under what's-his-face; no wonder we get our ratings lowered.

I would love a balanced budget, but without taking things off budget like Enron did with its Chewbacca funds and such, places to put huge money-losers, at least till the whole thing collapsed.

Missileman
01-23-2013, 05:27 PM
Definitely line item veto. Plus a clause that any bill presented for a final vote by either chamber of Congress must list any "additions" (i.e. pork) clearly and for public view. So we could see which members added them and why.
Pork is favored by congressional delegates of both parties, in case you aren't aware.

There are a couple advantages to going with the one issue per bill route, including eliminating the need for a line item veto. Another immediate advantage is making it damned near impossible for the legislature to maintain their wasteful spending ways. The current system makes it way too easy for them to spend themselves silly.

fj1200
01-23-2013, 05:28 PM
It may be stupid but it will screw up your balanced budget because hiding huge expenses is normal government practice and it's why we're in deficit. That worthless George Bush took ten years of TWO wars completely off-budget and I think all the many wars are STILL off-budget under what's-his-face; no wonder we get our ratings lowered.

I would love a balanced budget, but without taking things off budget like Enron did with its Chewbacca funds and such, places to put huge money-losers, at least till the whole thing collapsed.

Not exactly, they were just funded with supplemental spending bills. Your analogy is wrong, Enron didn't list certain transactions and investments on its balance sheet iirc whereas all government spending is voted on and funded.

mundame
01-23-2013, 05:37 PM
Not exactly, they were just funded with supplemental spending bills. Your analogy is wrong, Enron didn't list certain transactions and investments on its balance sheet iirc whereas all government spending is voted on and funded.


It's off-budget, so the point is to hide the huge expenses of all the pointless, losing wars from the public.

I'd like a stop put to that. Wars are always, always what drive a nation into bankruptcy: it's the norm. It's happening to us. There are wars, wars, wars, and pretty soon the financial system collapses and there is revolution. The English, the French, the Russians, the Germans, everybody, over and over, through the centuries, again and again. Now we're doing it. Nobody ever learns. The "leaders" sure do love their pointless, losing wars that bankrupt the nation.

fj1200
01-23-2013, 05:41 PM
It's off-budget, so the point is to hide the huge expenses of all the pointless, losing wars from the public.

I'd like a stop put to that. Wars are always, always what drive a nation into bankruptcy: it's the norm. It's happening to us. There are wars, wars, wars, and pretty soon the financial system collapses and there is revolution. The English, the French, the Russians, the Germans, everybody, over and over, through the centuries, again and again. Now we're doing it. Nobody ever learns. The "leaders" sure do love their pointless, losing wars that bankrupt the nation.

Yeaaaaaaaaaah No. The "ten years of wars" were a drop in the bucket budgetarily speaking. And to think the war expenses were hidden from the public is ridiculous. They had a whole separate proposal and vote/debate on the issue so it is almost MORE transparent than less. Our current yearly budget deficits are far more than all of the ten years of war.

mundame
01-23-2013, 05:45 PM
At this point one of us should probably back up our claims with figures and citations.....

What are you thinking is the biggest contributor to our budget deficit problem?

fj1200
01-23-2013, 05:55 PM
At this point one of us should probably back up our claims with figures and citations.....

What are you thinking is the biggest contributor to our budget deficit problem?

Total spent to date in Iraq and Afghanistan. $1.4TT (http://costofwar.com/)

Recent budget deficits:



<tbody>
Obama Deficits
Bush Deficits


FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion


FY 2012: $1,089 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion


FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion


FY 2010: $1,293 billion

</tbody>

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

My statement was a bit off but the point remains. We spent in one stimulus bill in what we had spent in the wars to that point.

ConHog
01-23-2013, 06:21 PM
I don't think so. The FairTax calculated a revenue neutral rate of 23%. Your other numbers don't seem right either.

I don't swear by them as sources. Just what I found at the time.

aboutime
01-23-2013, 06:23 PM
At this point one of us should probably back up our claims with figures and citations.....

What are you thinking is the biggest contributor to our budget deficit problem?


mundame. One word. "CONGRESS".