Close
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1
    Bang Bang Ridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cedar Park, TX
    Posts
    8,307

    Default Senators present idea of "Super Congress"

    WASHINGTON -- Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

    This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

    Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner's proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue, though if it's anything like the deals on the table today, it would likely be heavily slanted toward spending cuts. Or, as Obama said of the deal he was offering Republicans before Boehner walked out, "If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue."

    Republicans, however, are looking to force a second debt ceiling fight as part of the package, despite the Democratic rejection of the plan. Under the Republican plan, lawmakers would need to weigh in on the debt ceiling during the heat of the presidential election, a proposal Democrats reject as risky to the nation's credit rating. "We expressed openness to two stages of cuts, but not to a short-term debt limit extension," a Democratic aide close to the negotiations said. "Republicans only want the debt ceiling extended as far as the cuts in each tranch. That means we’ll be right back where we are today a few months down the road. We are not a Banana Republic. You don’t run America like that."

    The aide said that Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. "Our proposal tonight was, do two tranches of cuts, but raise the debt ceiling through 2012 right now, though the McConnell process would be one way," said the aide, leaving open the possibility that Boehner could craft a new process and distinguish it from McConnell's, which the Tea Party despises as a dereliction of duty. "Do that now with a package of cuts, and have the joint committee" -- the Super Congress -- "report out a package that would be the second tranch. Republicans rejected that, and continued to push a short-term despite the fact that Reid, Pelosi and Obama all could not have been clearer that they will not support a short-term increase. A short term risks some of the same consequences as outright failure to raise the ceiling -- downgraded credit rating, stocks plunge, interest rates spike, etc. It is unclear why Republicans have made this their sticking point."

    Boehner spokesman Michael Steel argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an "inevitable" option. "For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president's request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan," he said in a statement. "Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option."

    Obama has shown himself to be a fan of the commission approach to cutting social programs and entitlements. Shortly after taking office, Obama held a major conference on deficit reduction and subsequently created, by executive order, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The White House made two telling appointments to chair the commission: The first was former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a well-known critic of Social Security who earned notoriety by suggesting, among other things, that the American government had become "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" Yet Obama's Democratic appointment was even more indicative of whose interests took priority: former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Bowles is a member of Morgan Stanley's board of directors; an adviser to Carousel Capital, a private equity firm; and a director of Cousins Properties Incorporated, a firm with significant investments in commercial and mixed-use real estate.

    Simpson and Bowles, perhaps unsurprisingly, produced a report recommending corporate and high-end tax cuts, along with cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and a host of other social programs.

    The commission needed 14 of 18 members to approve the plan in order for it to advance to Congress for a vote. The commission fell short, but did win a majority.

    Proponents of slashing spending won't make the same mistake with a new Super Congress. Only a simple majority will be necessary.
    HuffPo

  2. #2
    Beer Meister DFBrews's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    With the classyish Hipsters...Stapleton
    Posts
    3,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ridge View Post
    Super congress= Super devil and his jar of adultry marmalade

    You sir, are a specialist in the art of discovering a welcoming outcome of a particular situation....not a mechanic.

    My feedback add 11-12 ish before the great servpocaylpse of 2012

  3. #3
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Fuck John Boehner for suggesting something like that.
    "There are no finger prints under water."

  4. #4
    The Bullet Button of Gun Owners nynco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Thornton
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    Great so they are suggesting something that is against the constitution because they are so ideologically psychotic that no one will compromise. Fuck them all with a fork.

  5. #5
    The Bullet Button of Gun Owners nynco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Thornton
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irving View Post
    Fuck John Boehner for suggesting something like that.
    John Boehner says he wants to solve government's deficit. Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.

    But hey we need to cut Grandmas Soc Sec first.... let them eat cake

  6. #6
    65 yard Hail Mary
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Parker CO
    Posts
    2,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nynco View Post
    John Boehner says he wants to solve government's deficit. Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.

    But hey we need to cut Grandmas Soc Sec first.... let them eat cake
    Everything's Bush's fault, huh.
    The wars our congress voted to allow us to go to in retaliation to unprovoked attacks on American soil against our own citizens are not to be blamed for us being broke. Its not like he sent us to a country we have no interest in without congressional approval. The economic situation we're currently in has been developing since FDR's admin, and is snowballing under the current one.
    I didn't agree with everything Bush's admin did, but they're not to blame for the shithole we're in now... a little bit, sure, but not much.

    Tax cuts for the rich? That's a good thing.
    Money don't grow on trees, they got it from somewhere (business). Say you own a business... you have a certain amount of expenses you need to cover, taxes, materials, bills, and such. You sell your product for the amount it costs to cover those expenses, plus a little to put some cash in you and your employees pockets so you can pay your own taxes, bills, and such. We, the consumers, pay you that amount for your product. Now say the gov't raises your taxes, costing you more to run your company. Where does that extra money come from? You and your employees pockets? Nope. You're going to raise the cost of your product. Simple cause and effect, why this is so hard for people like you to understand is beyond me. Tax cuts (or rather, no tax increases) for the wealthy and big business only benefits US, the consumers.

    We spend so much on needless crap... bailouts for failing companies, literally giving money to countries that hate us, running gov't entities that serve no real purpose (TSA comes to mind)... if we'd just cut the crap, stop spending money on things we don't need with money we don't have, we'd be headed in the right direction. No need to raise taxes for ANYBODY on ANYTHING.



    Fawkin libtards.

  7. #7
    The Bullet Button of Gun Owners nynco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Thornton
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcantar18c View Post
    Everything's Bush's fault, huh.
    The wars our congress voted to allow us to go to in retaliation to unprovoked attacks on American soil against our own citizens are not to be blamed for us being broke. Its not like he sent us to a country we have no interest in without congressional approval. The economic situation we're currently in has been developing since FDR's admin, and is snowballing under the current one.
    I didn't agree with everything Bush's admin did, but they're not to blame for the shithole we're in now... a little bit, sure, but not much.

    Tax cuts for the rich? That's a good thing.
    Money don't grow on trees, they got it from somewhere (business). Say you own a business... you have a certain amount of expenses you need to cover, taxes, materials, bills, and such. You sell your product for the amount it costs to cover those expenses, plus a little to put some cash in you and your employees pockets so you can pay your own taxes, bills, and such. We, the consumers, pay you that amount for your product. Now say the gov't raises your taxes, costing you more to run your company. Where does that extra money come from? You and your employees pockets? Nope. You're going to raise the cost of your product. Simple cause and effect, why this is so hard for people like you to understand is beyond me. Tax cuts (or rather, no tax increases) for the wealthy and big business only benefits US, the consumers.

    We spend so much on needless crap... bailouts for failing companies, literally giving money to countries that hate us, running gov't entities that serve no real purpose (TSA comes to mind)... if we'd just cut the crap, stop spending money on things we don't need with money we don't have, we'd be headed in the right direction. No need to raise taxes for ANYBODY on ANYTHING.



    Fawkin libtards.
    Fawkin Libtards huh........... name me this tweetle toes....... when at any point in history has ANY nation ever cut taxes while going to war? Its insane and you "fiscal conservatives" cheered when it racked up more debt. Go to war, pay your damn bills, its the REAL fiscal conservative thing to do.

    The mess we are in is because of FDR? Sorry, you must have missed the largest growth of the middle class from FDR till Reagan screwed it up. Once Reagan cut taxes like he did, he exploded our debt and our middle class for the first time since FDR, stagnated and began to lose ground.

    Raising taxes causes either, profits to lower, wages to go down, or prices to go up? What ever your business does is up to them. Choose wisely. But know that workers set their wage level. Lower their wages and they quite and you won't hire another person till you find someone willing to work for the wage level you set.

    I agree the bailouts were a horrible idea. Heck if we had just handed that money to the poor it would have done more good than giving it to the wallstreet vampires. As to abolishing the TSA...... GOOD. It was a horrible idea from Bush and its a monster that won't die.

  8. #8
    65 yard Hail Mary
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Parker CO
    Posts
    2,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nynco View Post
    Fawkin Libtards huh........... name me this tweetle toes....... when an any point in history has ANY nation ever cut taxes while going to war? Its insane and you "fiscal conservatives" cheered when it racked up more debt. Go to war, pay your damn bills, its the REAL fiscal conservative thing to do.

    I'm not saying we need to cut taxes. I'm saying we don't need to raise them any further, and I explained why.

    The mess we are in is because of FDR? Sorry, you must have missed the largest growth of the middle class from FDR till Reagan screwed it up. Once Reagan cut taxes like he did, he exploded our debt and our middle class for the first time since FDR, stagnated and began to lose ground.

    Started with FDR, not because of FDR. His administrations work programs (can't recall what they were called at the moment), along with a number of other government and pseudo-government things, set the ground for what we have today.

    Raising taxes causes either, profits to lower, wages to go down, or prices to go up? What ever your business does is up to them. Choose wisely. But know that workers set their wage level. Lower their wages and they quite and you won't hire another person till you find someone willing to work for the wage level you set.

    Reread what I said. The gov't raises the taxes on your business, you aren't going to cover your higher operating cost with pay cuts, you'll cover them with increased prices for your products/services. And that money comes out of our, the consumer's, pockets.

    I agree the bailouts were a horrible idea. Heck if we had just handed that money to the poor it would have done more good than giving it to the wallstreet vampires. As to abolishing the TSA...... GOOD. It was a horrible idea from Bush and its a monster that won't die.

    Like I said, I don't agree with everything the Bush Administration did. TSA, Patriot Act, etc. And going back to your last post I responded to, the things Bush's admin did regarding Medicare cost us nothing compared to Obamacare. Things have been going down hill for a long time, and now we're off the hill and in free fall from what the current administration has ben doing.

  9. #9
    Señor Bag o' Crap Scanker19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Posts
    3,753

    Default

    I'm curious, do they have Constitution toilet paper in the Capitol?
    Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Haw haw haw?..

  10. #10
    Thinks Rambo Was A Wussy Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Southwest Denver
    Posts
    1,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nynco View Post
    Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.
    Always good to have a token liberal around the boards to hijack every thread and turn it into a political soapbox.

    Back to the original topic: a super congress is unconstitutional and I believe it would never pass any challenge in the supreme court. This would, for all intents and purposes, make us an oligarchy.
    "...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)

    “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” ~ Nathan Hale (final words before being hanged by the British, September 22, 1776.)

    If at first you don't succeed -- skydiving is not for you

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •