Super Congress: Welcome to The United States of Goldman Sachs and Company

Here you go:

And in 1985, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control, or the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, included a trigger to enforce deficit targets. If the year’s target wasn’t met, spending cuts were triggered. In the five years of the act, the triggers kicked in twice, one of which was reduced by Congress and the other overridden by a subsequent budget agreement.

“Anything Congress does, Congress can undo,” said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. “They can’t really bind themselves. You really have to have a political will to make these things work or they won’t.”

www.bloomberg.com...

So as you can see Congress has done this before but it never stuck so I wouldn't worry about this getting out of control.

reply to post by kro32


Kro...but if cuts are guaranteed...no matter what....then who wins?

We all like see the world in our own shoes.

I am making it..barely...but I am making it. You are most likely...really anyone on ATS can call themselves fortunate to even be able to get internet connection.

But those struggling the most can't comment on ATS....nor anywhere. They are unrepresented not only in government...but even here on this forum.

I'm not the person who demands more, quite frankly I am damn lucky, even as hard as it is, to be where I am. I work my damn ass off...and so does my wife....and there isn't much extra money....but as long as I can do just enough to keep my kid happy...that's all that matters. That's what most people want.

Regardless, it's far better to stand for those who need help the most than those who deprive their help.

reply to post by David9176


I don't understand what your replying too with that post.

Must have missed something somewhere.

reply to post by kro32

I don't understand what your replying too with that post. Must have missed something somewhere.

Sorry...I'm known for ranting.

But essentially...spending cuts are guaranteed. Tax increases are not.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by burntheships

 

There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

That is debatable.

Show me the last council of 13, or the last committee of 12.

This is a way to force unlimited debt level increases upon the American people
without the appearance of giving ordinary members of Congress a say in those increases.

Further, it is a condensing of power into those 12 that can decide on any matter, not just
financial matters. Reid said there were no limits to the legislation they decide on.

And this is a ripe tree to pick from for the lobby crowd. Hence my title.
Its a way for the bankers to have direct access to an elite ruling group of
House members.

reply to post by David9176


Ahhh I see. They are guanteed on paper sure but you have to look at the history of these triggers. Congress has the power to override it if they want so they are more for show than anything else. If a trigger kicks in and it's definetly gonna be a bad thing than Congress will just override it. They've done it before.

Your also assuming that they won't be able to come to an agreement which would make their re-elections look very bad so I don't think you will see them letting it get that far.

reply to post by burntheships


All this is is a committee sending a bill to the floor. Congress still retains every bit of power over it and if it's not to their liking it will be voted down the same every bill is. Once this "SuperCongress" submits it for approval it will be debated on just as if it was submitted by any other member of Congress. That has not changed. This "SuperCongress" will also hear the debate and when they have to go back and draft a new one they will take all that into consideration.

So yes members still have as much say as they always have. Right now if Pelosi drafts a bill how much say do you think other members of Congress have in it? Not alot but they still vote and debate it and if it get's voted down she will go and redraft it until in includes the things the members want in order to get it passed.

reply to post by kro32

Your also assuming that they won't be able to come to an agreement which would make their re-elections look very bad so I don't think you will see them letting it get that far.

We'll see... the lobbying on cuts/tax increases will never be stronger. Basically those wanting a tax increase for the wealthy and/or corporations already have a strike against them.

The only things Republicans may not like on spending cuts is military spending. To me, that is the only thing they may cave on or save in support of a tax increase.

I may be wrong, but this is just what I'm seeing.

Your also assuming that they won't be able to come to an agreement which would make their re-elections look very bad so I don't think you will see them letting it get that far.

They already look bad. Obama, Dems, and Repubs all have dismal approval ratings on the economy. When everyone sucks it's better for both (Dems and Repubs).

If you look at the last 10 years and the current state of politics, how likely is it that taxes are increased on the middle class or poor..or spending cuts enacted that hurt the middle class or poor (which IMO is the same as a tax increase)...as opposed to a tax increase on the wealthy?

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by burntheships

 

All this is is a committee sending a bill to the floor.

One that has already been allowed to the floor, and they will only have an up or down vote.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by burntheships

 

All this is is a committee sending a bill to the floor.

One that has already been allowed to the floor, and they will only have an up or down vote.

Correct. And when they vote no the "Super Congress" will have to adjust the bill to include things the members of Congress are asking for in order to get it passed. It will work exactly the same way it does now with the only difference being the people who are submitting the bill.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by burntheships

 

All this is is a committee sending a bill to the floor.

One that has already been allowed to the floor, and they will only have an up or down vote.

Correct.

Which leaves out any chance of amendment without sending it back to the Super Congress.

Therefore, bills couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers. Again, this is
just a "third" House to do the dirty work of the Banking Cartel.

reply to post by burntheships


Their goal is to get this bill passed so realizing that it can't be amended once it's on the floor don't you think they will be doing that before it's submitted? I would highly doubt if anything they submit hasn't already been agreed on by both parties.

And this should also prevent that last minute stuff like a Congressman getting a million dollars for his state to research the sex life of cockroaches or stupid stuff like that.

I was unaware that this undermining, criminal activity was going on beneath the surface of our governmental realms. Thanks to the op- S&F!!!

reply to post by lowundertheradar


It is commonly referred to as the revolving door.

Almost whatever the country, you can find Goldman Sachs veterans in positions of pivotal power

With Goldman Sachs at the heart of Wall Street, and Wall Street at the heart of the US economy, few expects its power to wane. Indeed, The New York Times columnist David Brooks noted that Goldman Sachs employees have given more money to Barack Obama's campaign for president than workers of any other employer in the US. "Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government," Brooks noted grimly. "Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing." www.independent.co.uk...

John Thornton
a highly-influential figure in the developing business and poltical inter-relations between the US and China

Duncan Niederauer
Goldman Sachs "takeover" of the New York Stock Exchange.


Jon Corzine
The former co-chief executive of Goldman went into full-time politics in 1999,

Joshua Bolten
For five years until 1999, Mr Bolten served as director of legal affairs for Goldman based in London, effectively making him the bank's chief lobbyist to the EU

Paul Deighton
The man heading London's planning for the 2012 Olympic Games

Robert Rubin
A US Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton (Glass Stegal Act aboloshied )

Gavyn Davies
The ex-chairman of the BBC still has the ear of Gordon Brown

Jim Cramer
This former Goldman trader is, without question, the most influential stock pundit in the US. Robert Zoellick

Robert Zoellick
head of the World Bank.

Mario Draghi
The head of the Italian central bank

Malcolm Turnbull
Treasurer for the opposition Liberal Party, Mr Turnbull is one of the fastest-rising politicians in Australia

And last but not least...

Hank Paulson

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. President George Bush must be delighted he lured a reluctant Hank Paulson away from his $38m-a-year job as Goldman Sachs chief executive in 2006, just in time to deal with the Wall Street crisis that has engulfed the entire US economy.
www.independent.co.uk...
news.firedoglake.com...

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
This ``Super Congress`` is simply a means to secure bipartisan support for the programs that U.S citizens need. You ATS people are just being paranoid.

Well if u.s.citizens truly need them then a "regular old mediocre Congress" should have no trouble passing above board publically inspect able/debatable bills (all elected representatives get to weigh in on).

This development is troubling and has plenty of potential to be manipulated and abused. I personally don't care if you call me "paranoid" or "muffin".
They are limiting input because part of the house showed uncommon resolve in standing up for what the common joe wanted.not what the bankers paid for. (expected.).

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
This ``Super Congress`` is simply a means to secure bipartisan support for the programs that U.S citizens need. You ATS people are just being paranoid.

Well if u.s.citizens truly need them then a "regular old mediocre Congress" should have no trouble passing above board publically inspect able/debatable bills (all elected representatives get to weigh in on).

This development is troubling and has plenty of potential to be manipulated and abused. I personally don't care if you call me "paranoid" or "muffin".
They are limiting input because part of the house showed uncommon resolve in standing up for what the common joe wanted.not what the bankers paid for. (expected.).

edit on 3-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

They haven't limited input whatsoever as I have so eloquently laid out in this thread.

Deny ignorance

Originally posted by 46ACE

They are limiting input because part of the house showed uncommon resolve in standing up for what the common joe wanted.not what the bankers paid for. (expected.)

Exactly, and how conveninet that The President, in an unconstitutional manner summoned
them for a meeting with an ultimatum that day.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by 46ACE

They are limiting input because part of the house showed uncommon resolve in standing up for what the common joe wanted.not what the bankers paid for. (expected.)

Exactly, and how conveninet that The President, in an unconstitutional manner summoned
them for a meeting with an ultimatum that day.

Care to elaborate what this ultimatum was and what was unconstitutional about it?

I don't seem to remember this.

reply to post by kro32


Sure....

This proposal comes just days after House and Senate leaders of both parties compliantly fulfilled White House demands to meet at 11:00 a.m. July 23, even though the President has no constitutional authority to demand that congressional leaders meet. An angry Obama told the press July 22,

"So here’s what we’re going to do. We have now run out of time. I told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. We have run out of time. And they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default. And they can come up with any plans that they want and bring them up here and we will work on them. The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

The super-Congress proposal would put these same congressional leaders who obey unconstitutional White House orders in all-but-complete control of the debt limit, therefore making the White House the dominant force in debt-limit policies.

Ron Paul (R-Texas) — who is also a candidate for President — replied that Congressmen had an obligation to ignore the unconstitutional and dictatorial demands of President Obama:www.thenewamerican.com...

reply to post by burntheships


Really man you need to read up on the Constitution.

Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.