ENOUGH ALREADY! Obama: ‘We Don’t Need a Balanced Budget Amendment’

I think this little blurb by Obama speaks volumes. Therefore, I will add it to the pile along with his recent "professional politicians" know better you, big dummy, comment.

What in the hell is this man doing? He claims to be doing his job and yet 3 years into his admin he is still blaming Bush publicly.

President Barack Obama says America does not need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and he once again blamed much of the fiscal problem on Bush-era tax cuts.

Funny, how he plays the Constitution card ONLY when it serves his immediate needs.. Pick and choose want you want to abide by Obama.

The House will consider a balanced budget amendment next week. It is an idea supported by both conservatives (including Sen. Jim DeMint of S.C.) and liberal Republicans (including Sen Olympia Snowe of Maine)..

Mr. Tough Guy

“We don’t need a balanced budget amendment,” Obama said on Friday.

Flashback for support of Balanced Budget Amendment

A reporter at the news conference pointed out that Vice President Joe Biden voted for a balanced budget amendment when he was in the Senate in 1997.

The Blame Game is Getting old... Tell him what he has won Johnny!!

Obama blamed the policies former President George W. Bush for the nation’s current fiscal problems – touting his own $787-billion stimulus package at the same time. He asserted that the United States will not find itself in the same position as Greece and other countries that have reached the financial brink.

How many millions of jobs lost since his Stimulus? Only about 2 million....Since passing Stimulus the national debt has increased by almost $5 trillion – about 50 percent – in just over two years. Wow!! Great plan and we're only borrowing about 40 cents for every dollar the govt spends.

By the end of this year it is projected the our TOTAL debt will EQUAL our nation's entire economic output.

Still don't think there is a need for a Balanced Budget Amendment Nimrod?? Poor Obama is afraid of the checks and balances that are supposed to keep him and congress in line for failing do their jobs and for doing what is best for the people of this nation not the political interests of the President.


www.cnsnews.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Obama is starting to find out that being the president is a whole lot more than just talking in to a camera. Its about making tough decisions for millions of people. This man has never been a governor, never been a mayor, never been an administrator or business owner; he has never had to make those tough decisions. Yet we elect him as the most powerful man in the world? How dumb have we become?

Just my paranoid opinion: but opening the constitution to revision in this "yes;we can" mob mentality environment would be incredibly divisive and dangerous to our liberties.Plenty of people are willing to trade away all (fellow) Americans' rights for a little perceived "security" in one form or another.

reply to post by 46ACE


Spending is out of control and the Senate Democrats have once again failed to submit a Budget for FY 2012 just like they failed to do for FY2011. The Dems leading in Senate have not passed a budget since 2009 for FY2010.

Time to end the games with the budget and if it takes and Amendment to do it than so be it. I don't see that as an effort that will endanger our freedoms. It will hold Congress and the sitting president accountable to the people.

We should be more concerned about Obama's under the radar efforts to inflict his own form of gun control on the nation.

reply to post by jibeho


Its a joke and everyone knows it. Perhaps he can smooth talk his way out this total absense of leadership and leverage the media once again into thinking he has the temerity to do the job he was elected to do, lets hope not.

To suggest that the US does not have an institutional spending problem and needs a formal, legal constraint to curb spending is like saying that John Candy did not need a diet in the years before he vapor-locked due to heart failure.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by 46ACE

 

Spending is out of control and the Senate Democrats have once again failed to submit a Budget for FY 2012 just like they failed to do for FY2011. The Dems leading in Senate have not passed a budget since 2009 for FY2010.

Time to end the games with the budget and if it takes and Amendment to do it than so be it. I don't see that as an effort that will endanger our freedoms.

Perhaps Iam just being "paranoid" but with what they bury (sneak) into legislation nowadays. Once a"constitutional convention" is convened and the committees start their unstoppable "rolling": the bartering,(politics) will begin in full swing.

( "gun control" ) Judging from the responses I've seen here we would probably have a major rewrite of the second Amendment by people who don't know a "barrel shroud" from a "recoil spring guide". Or a an "incendiary tipped round" from a "heat seeking" missile".

The fourth amendment has been effectively neutered by the so-called"patriot act" already .

Wait until the "mega corporations throw a few millions at the process. Want a corporate bill of rights? Sorry thingswere indeed simpler ( clearer) around the founders time. I think we would fail to glean the simple solid principles from all the noise and outside influence today.
Just my opinion perhaps I am nutz...

Originally posted by jibeho






It will hold Congress and the sitting president accountable to the people.
We should be more concerned about Obama's under the radar efforts to inflict his own form of gun control on the nation.

I just love seeing the Doofus in Chief showing his true colors like this.
But, it is at the cost of America.

Let's hope that Ron Paul can get in and correct the mistakes.

"Ronald Reagan has proven that deficits don't matter"

Congressmen would vote for such an amendment because they know it would never get ratified by the states, and that it makes them look good in the eyes of folks like jibeho.
It's like obama voting against raising the debt ceiling. Purely symbolic, and only done if there is no danger that the debt ceiling would not be raised.

Also: A balanced budget amendment would be economic suicide.

reply to post by debunky


Let's see 40 plus years of deficit spending and look where our nation is heading. Should we just keep heading on the path to nowhere? Remember the debates for a BBA back in 1997? Back when Biden supported it.

The theory of more and bigger govt. is good for the economy has failed!! The govt. does not generate wealth in its pure form. In the past 40 years, govt. spending has spiraled out of control as has the influence of the special interests who spend money to ensure that the govt. money will be sent their way. Not good!.

40 years of deficit spending and all our President wants to do is maintain the status quo. What about the future? What great stewards we are??? Leaving this mess for future generations to clean up. When and where should the circle be broken?? Time to get serious about real economic growth and time to cut wasteful spending on worthless projects run by worthless agencies.

We also need to slow the growth of govt. The current administration has created an economic boom in the counties surrounding DC which will only grow larger with the size of the bureaucracy. In reality, government spending actually hinders the economy's performance by transferring resources from the productive sector to the government whether government spending is financed by taxes or by borrowing. A balanced budget amendment should make it more difficult to use borrowing as a way to raise revenue and therefore should slow the growth of government. The endless borrowing is ridiculous and counterproductive.

Its a complicated process but one that certainly needs attention and public discourse. I am tired of the "shut up, no questions, I/we know better" approach from this administration. It's time to finally get this right.



ETA: Please explain the "economic suicide" of providing and following a balanced budget?? A solid budget works in my house and could probably be used to keep plenty of people out of foreclosure. Gotta check that spending when you have a limited income. Which is the problem of with our govt. They don't ever see a limited stream of revenue all they see are deep taxpayer pockets. I can't and I won't spare another dime that only applies to reckless spending.

And in your house, if a storm tears off your roof, do you wait till you saved all the money you need to repair it?
When do you save in your home budget, when times are good, or when times are bad?

Anyway: The simplest problem with a balanced problem amendment is that any expenditure by the state, no matter how necessary (think disaster relief, or wars, or infrastructure (US is 23rd place worldwide and falling) would have to be met with a revenue increase. This would lead to highly unpredictable tax rates. that would eliminate one of the few benefits of basing your business in the US (low taxes)
Now, those who can't choose and are more or less stuck here face the same volatile tax rates. This means they will need to save more money, which will dimnish demand.

I hope obama doesnt get voted to be president of the USA

There really is no need for a balanced budget amendment. He's right at least about the constitution already telling them to do their jobs.

And your "cherry-picking from the constitution" argument is specious. You're saying, basically, "You did one bad thing -- why do you get to try to do a good thing?" You're saying that because he does something perceived as unconstitutional, he might as well burn the whole thing. One wrong does not mean that you should just go all-out and become Satan.

I don't know enough about the rest of the topic to really contribute. Budget Balancing and Politics make my head spin.

reply to post by jibeho

Obama is scared. He has learned that he can't lead by some ingenuous comments or pithy sayings. His "government for everything" policy is failing. Sure there are the entitlement folks that love the free stuff taken from the rich, but he is failing because 2/3rds of the economy comes from small business.

And that's who he is targeting. NOT the multi-gazillioaires like Soros. But folks like Larry and Wanda who own a small bsiness and have @ 250,000 tied into it.

It is the Cloward-Piven Model for a complete government takeover.

And people are still FALLING for it!
(sorry, didn't mean to shout)

Originally posted by Solasis
There really is no need for a balanced budget amendment. He's right at least about the constitution already telling them to do their jobs.

And your "cherry-picking from the constitution" argument is specious. You're saying, basically, "You did one bad thing -- why do you get to try to do a good thing?" You're saying that because he does something perceived as unconstitutional, he might as well burn the whole thing. One wrong does not mean that you should just go all-out and become Satan.

I don't know enough about the rest of the topic to really contribute. Budget Balancing and Politics make my head spin.

Obama's has done plenty to ignore the constitution only when doing so will serve to his advantage. Case in point, the appointments of his endless supply of Czar advisers. He circumvented the Senate confirmation process for good reason. Because Czars like Van Jones (already gone) and Cass Sunstein would have never made it through the first round of questioning. Checks and balances sir.

I won't get into the whole Libya "kinetic military action" issue...

I could talk about Eric Holders violation by bringing the UN into the Arizona Immigration law debate. Wrong move!

He also violated the separation of powers aspect by getting involved with the Chrysler Motors bankruptcy mess. Just another big no no in a growing list of no no's. Love how he wants to hide behind the constitution only when it serves him and yet is willing to walk over it when it will serve the interests who support him.

reply to post by jibeho


But my point is that all of that is irrelevant. Even if he does break the law repeatedly, that doesn't mean that the entire law should be thrown out. It's a good thing for everyone if he does follow the constitution sometimes, rather than never.

I'm not trying to defend the man; I don't even understand that issue anymore. I'm trying to say that our constitution is still important, whether or not it has been broken.

Also, you seem to be in favor of a BBA; if it were passed, it would become part of the constitution. And by your own argument, Obama would be obliged to just ignore it anyway.

reply to post by beezzer


Excellent reference to his textbook execution of the Cloward Piven approach to an orchestrated crisis. That's a thread in and of itself. Just connect the influential dots that link Obama's past to his present. All radicals all the time. Period.

For all to enjoy who may not be familiar with Cloward-Piven

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Sounds familiar. Meet the foundation of the class warfare that is being fueled by Obama and his handlers.

Cloward and Piven were incidentally heavily influenced by the teachings of Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton's mentor. No surprise.

Republicans and Corporatists manufacture failure of government to privatize governance, in order to remove it from the hands and of the people and the interests of the individual.

Originally posted by jibeho


For all to enjoy who may not be familiar with Cloward-Piven

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Sounds familiar.

lol

that is GOP strategy...

tank the government and privatize everything as a response, like the pre French Revolution (which back fired)

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by jibeho

 

But my point is that all of that is irrelevant. Even if he does break the law repeatedly, that doesn't mean that the entire law should be thrown out. It's a good thing for everyone if he does follow the constitution sometimes, rather than never.

I'm not trying to defend the man; I don't even understand that issue anymore. I'm trying to say that our constitution is still important, whether or not it has been broken.

Also, you seem to be in favor of a BBA; if it were passed, it would become part of the constitution. And by your own argument, Obama would be obliged to just ignore it anyway.

You're right! Since he'll just ignore it anyway !@#$ it!! Let the next generation worry about it. Maybe the next President will support the constitution and a BBA. Maybe someone will actually hold Obama accountable between now and then. Pipe dream!!

reply to post by jibeho


I don't know why I thought my argument would penetrate your all-consuming Obama hate-on and make you actually think about what you were saying.

www.smbc-comics.com...

(Which isn't to say that you're overall wrong. I just want you to not dilute what rightness you have with absurd appeals to emotion. It makes people who are on the fence but not swayed by appeals to emotion think you're just another illogical shouting pundit.)