This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Soap Opera Just Got Very Exciting: Eric Cantor Will Propose Balanced Budget Amendment To US Constitution
Well now things are really getting downright exciting:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding House consideration of a balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 1, sponsored by Congressman Bob Goodlatte:
“We are being asked by the Obama Administration to approve a debt limit increase. While President Obama inherited a bad economy, his overspending and failure to enact pro-growth policies have made it worse and now our national debt is currently more than $14 trillion. House Republicans have made clear that we will not agree to raise the debt limit without real spending cuts and binding budget process reforms to ensure that we don’t continue to max out the credit card. One option to ensure that we begin to get our fiscal house in order is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I expect to schedule such a measure for the House to consider during the week of July 25th. I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues will overwhelmingly support this common sense measure and I urge Democrats to as well in order to get our fiscal house in order."
As a reminder, while in the US most states have mandatory balanced budgets, the same is not true for the Federal government (a fact that US bankers slaughter calves to daily, out of gratitude that they can plunder future generations' cash flows while converting the NPV into non-extradition islands in French Polynesia complete with thermoregulated gold and Chateau Lafite 1990 cellars).
Should this law pass, it will mean that QE is the only option for future growth, as this will mean a dead end for debt funded deficit spending. Yes, it will benefit bonds since the US will finally start getting its insolvent fiscal house in order, and result in an epic collapse in stocks.
The soap opera just got exciting again.
»
- 17874 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
But don't cut the tax subsidies for the oil companies!
It's your duty as a citizen to support them. How else would they live?
National scoreboard sometime in 2012:
Wall Street : +6Trillion
Mom&Pop: -6Trillion plus -4Trillion = -10Trillion
And the Stanley Cup goes to....Wall Street!
Wall Street has fucked itself. No one trusts you any more.
Two major hurdles need to be overcome:
First, ratification of 2/3 of the States, which won't be done.
Second, composition of a short document, which can't be done.
Actually, it's 2/3 of House and Senate and then 3/4 of the states.
with ample precedent for the new, alternate, version: the fuking president just says it!
They will, shrink government, cut taxes and allow the people to prosper, one way or the other.
Voluntary is preferable...but either way, it will happen...one way or the other.
Part of the problem is this...2,000 page bills...any legislation/law being considered cannot be greater in length than the Constitution itself...if it is...we don't need it.
"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
After initially downplaying any concern, the Obama administration said late Tuesday it would look for a fix."
Popcorn anyone?...munch munch munch...
"Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster said the situation was keeping him up at night.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care/
No chance this will pass. Neither party (Dems or Repubs) really want this to pass. This is a pre-election year ruse. There is ZERO chance that Dems or Repubs will go back to their OWN constituents and campaign on the platform that they want to slash federal spending in their OWN district. No chance.
This is pre-election year politics and nothing more.
Exactly....a proper kickoff for campaign silly season.
The Repubs know this will never pass. They want to posture like they are fiscal conservatives, but they spent plenty of money themselves when they were in control of both houses of Congress back when Shrub Bush was President.
This is posturing for the campaign silly season...
Every vote will be on the record. I would take issue that it will never pass. May get hung up but a vote will likely pass. Too much pressure would be brought to bear. Who wants to vote against it in these times? They'll be barbequed back home.
<<< Every vote will be on the record. >>>
That would be one purpose of this tactic.
Some version of a bill may pass one of the houses of Congress on the back of a voting bloc by Republicans in a show of unity against Obama, but this will not become law this year. There is no chance that sufficient members of both parties will willingly slash federal spending in their own districts during times of sluggish economic growth and high unemployment. No way.
George W. Bush and the Republicans were in control in Washington D.C. for 6 years. They didn't do it then, and it won't happen now.
Agreed but not a commonly held crisis then. Believe me, I argued it was at the time and all I got was yawns.
Good political move, and could help keep the debate focused and alive.
Might as well spend to default at this point. Nothing to be gained by passing a balanced budget amendment when you are past the point of no return. $15 trillion and counting. You honestly think that is EVER going to be paid back? C'mon.
If someone says the $14T of debt can be paid back I tell them that you would have to run a $500 billion budget surplus every year for 28 years straight to pay it off. And what are the odds of that happening?? That pretty much ends the conversation.
Umm, that assumes no interest due.. Inflation, heavy duty inflation must occur or the reset is upon us, we cannot pull a Japan over the next 20 years..
That said the reset is further out than we think, miles to go before we sleep.
Get JPM to make the initial payment to Congresscritters without admitting or denying the payment.
Jamie, $10 billion for a quick start to get everybody on the same page?
This thing doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, sadly.
Wot? Just weeks ago i jokingly proposed something similiar (though, i went further by proposing, that parties should feel the consequences of their budget planning themselves... not just indirectly, but by making the public budget THEIR budget someway..... that is: run good budgets, and you have something to give to the people during later terms..... run deficit, and your ability to spent are reduced in later terms.... to the point that a party ruining a country, should itself be so ruined, that it cannot govern anymore in the future)...... but i never considered something so utopic to be seriously considered....... and now this.
I am thinking that mathematically a balanced budget agreement would require that the government pay 0% interest. Otherwise, the budget can never be balanced... mathematically.
What this means is that if the amendment is passed "YEAH!!", the privately owned Fed automatically becomes impossible and Congress would have to take back its constitutional responsibility for managing money supply and it would be the Treasury that must lend money to the banks at INTEREST!!
I am thinking that this is a better solution than the banks loaning money to the Treasury at interest.
Any serious discussion about balancing the budget includes a complete overhaul (or nullification) of the Federal Reserve System. This has no chance of happening, unless you have major public support.
Good luck explaining the Federal Reserve System to the average American monkey.
Bah. Populists demagogues.
I place this one firmly in the bread+circuses column.
Don't think so? Well watch what happens if the Repubs sweep the next election. This shit will go down the memory hole so fast it will make your head spin. Oh teh noes we cannot change the Constitutionalities no that would be unconstitutional, and shit. Word.
Something like this - even if perhaps in a more advanced version - should however exist IMO.... even if they now perhaps do not seriously mean it.
Happy hour special!
Balanced budget amendment with ethanol corn beans and a side of freedom tax fries ~ $14T
dup
Constitutional amendment, huh.
The total disregard for the entire Constitution is SOP.
What difference would another amendment make?
Is there any way they can add an amendment to the constitution whereby they can null and void an idiot who took office who turns out to be someone who sold the country one fat lie after another and sold it down the fucking river..yes its you Obama you snake!
this is a good ol' way to try to put grass-rootz pressure on the congo-elite now that the "debate" seems to be moot. ? ? ? the entire House is up in '12. when these good ol' ones go home for vacation, BBQ, fairs & gladhanding over the 4th, eric & bob would like to frame the discussion.
T frame?
First of all, a Constitutional Amendment has to be ratified by 2/3's of the states, which is a tall order in and of itself. Second, when the Amendment will in theory take away the federal funding that all of our dead fucking broke states need, I highly doubt there will be a groundswell of state support.
We are getting a mixed dose of financial repression, QE and austerity. It doesn't matter whether the budget is balanced or not, interest owed on our debt is in the exponential phase. There is no stopping it. The bankers are coming for all of our assets, just like they are in Greece and the rest of Europe. What we need to do is tell them to fuck off like Iceland has.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SixS1JMDgUk
"(a fact that US bankers slaughter calves to daily, out of gratitude that they can plunder future generations' cash flows while converting the NPV into non-extradition islands in French Polynesia complete with thermoregulated gold and Chateau Lafite 1990 cellars)"
Hahah, good shit.
Hahaha, we're fucked people, party like it is 2011.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMnSpd0XRmo
When it comes to money and balanced budgets...which part of the Constitution is the Federal Reserve bound by?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ciwAd9D8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPcod8IS214
David Rockefeller?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oC63H7HbI&feature=related
I agree the wording is crucial, but this should be brought to the floor every month until November 2012.
These guys are in it for nothing but themselves and their donors while they claim to serve their "constituents" and our children's futures. To heck with the country.
Why is it that these guys always take the ball and go home when they can't have all the things they want and want the other side to do exactly as they say?
I am sure that everyone of us would cut different things and find different ways to increase revenues through the tax code. The difficulty, of course, is that it is going to cost SOMEBODY, and nobody wants to give up what they have or pay more.
The only way we are going to wean people off relying on the government is gradually and over time, and the ONLY way any program will change is if congress passes the law and the President signs it.
Is the Republican idea of how a democratic society should work, to take the ball and go home or not vote if they can't have things their way? And why did they not balance the budget and pay off the debts as they could have in the six years under George W Bush?
Of course, the Republicans can blame the Democrats or v.v. and go for broke - and do nothing! But what are the odds that one side or the other will win the election in 2012 and gain control of the house, the senate, and the presidency?
I'd say zero.
Anyway, in the end, this is nothing but gamesmanship for the benefit of the media and appeasing "the base".
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.
Fascinating...to see how the ZH trolls are interested in this topic. Lot's of debunkers coming out of the wood work on this, indicating the nerve that is tapped by the very discussion of this subject.
At this point, it is inappropriate to debunk the notion, but rather support it so that it becomes an issue publicly debated in Congress. Let them, then, stand upon that floor and decry it...make the motion prior to the next election. That is what matters at this point in time.
Bring the amendment! Not a single Average Joe out there would rise up against it, but only entrenched and crony players.
"Bring the amendment! Not a single Average Joe out there would rise up against it, but only entrenched and crony players."
Agree, wholeheartedly.
Whether they end up defaulting on the drifting piles of flotsam they have created doesn't matter to me at this point...because I believe they certainly will, the numbers are gigantic, too many riding in the cart and not enough pulling it.
What we, the people of this nation need to discover once and for all is, who these people really are...those that would say its perfectly fine and even "pragmatic" to continue along this path of generational theft so that they, themselves, won't feel any discomfort at all and for some (in positions of responsibility) even enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
The pot is beginning to boil ;-)
and while they're at it, add a second Amendment for "Term Limits"...........
fed .gov would never do this but a state legislature might be able to put a viable amendment together for serious consideration.
i'd be thrilled to sell my silver if it came to pass.
We should tax Mexico by the illegal we catch.
I figure one million barrels per illegal.
Cantor knows dick about an economy. People who value balance budgets over everything else, have unbalanced minds.
Glass-Steagall
American Credit System
We know where the 'cuts' come from ALWAYS (from the people), the cuts that kill people, in fascist manner. What a boon for wall street this would be. What a boon for the fascist.
But can you still hyperinflate with this, even if you cut social spending to the bone? YEP. Because social spending ain't the problem. Only in the minds of propagandized idiots.
So absolutely fucking pointless, just like Eric Canwhore.
Don't cut for fraud
Don't print for fraud
Cancel the fraud with Glass-Steagall
Or you can be like a dipshit and pass idiot laws like this. I hope it fails, because it won't change a damn thing, except if passed, give a 'reason' to screw over the people.
The screw over the people law, of course Canwhore likes it. These should be removed from every state as well. But nope, the fascist bankers already won that round. Looks like the squid have a chance to win another.
Support this law? Then you are supporting the banksters. That's reality. Enjoy the death that arrises out of it (needlessly) for dogma that has nothing to do with what's wrong.
Remember the deficit is because of the conditions wall street created. As long as the fed has a hyperinflate policy, anyone not mimicing it, are fucked. So now wall street can hyperinflate, the states can't (so they're screwed), and possibly the federal gov't now too (so they will be screwed). It won't stop the hyperinflation and/or hyperdeflation.
He will bring them death, and they will love him for it. Eric Canwhore and the rest of the dipshits. Nothing different than Rome here. Move along
Glass-Steagall
No, it continues to be very, very boring. A balanced budget amendment is no cure all. Even a well written amendment will have loopholes that will be exploited. Exhibit A: Illinois taking out a loan to fund it's pension contribution - off the books. Exhibit B: Every page of every budget for California for the last 20 years.
In any case, Cantor doesn't even have the votes in the House, let alone the Senate. (Though, there might actually be enough votes in the states?) It's probably a sign of capitulation. Republicans can say they gave it the college try, but didn't want to trigger a default. They'll still be able to say, "See, we voted for this balanced budget amendment!" Democrats can say they stopped the barbarians at the gate, pretend there is no debt crisis, and tell their voters, "Your welfare check is still in the mail." Win, win!
This ranks right up there with budget proposals that dont even make it past the rounding error when stating the national debt like the defunding of NPR. One has to stand back in awe or perhaps applause because these politicians sure know how to act like they're at work when the only thing they are doing is distracting us while they empty whats left in the people's coffers. We may vote for them, but they are bought and paid for 3 times over before they even run- remember that.
Since the purpose of all this is to torture the democrats, particularly obama, why not simply raise the ceiling by, say, $50B, which give them about month of borrowing overhead. Do this every month for a year and the projected additional $1.4T of added debt is cut to $600B. And the howls of useless protests would be hilarious! Or raise it by say, $25B, voila, only $300B of new debt! Or scale it down each month in which no budget cuts are implemented: first $100B, then $50B, $25B, $12.5B etc. Just continue to raid the FED employee pensions until they quit and we finally reduce the government size.
I like the way you think.
I nominate you for president.
The fastest amendment to pass both house then be ratifed by the States took over 6 months and there were only 2. The 26th establishing a national voting age and the 12th establishing the electoral college.
This is political theatre and Cantor needs to be flogged with a copy of the Constitution in the lobby of the National Archives.
Of course, the freak would probably like it.
concur with your insight lol
These criminal sock puppets routinely ignore, usurp, shred and wipe with the Constitution.
The only amendments needed are to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, then repeal the (not really) Federal (with no) Reserve Act! After wiping off the elephant and jackass $#!+ and taping the Constitution back together, of course.
Disclosure: Long rope
That is a very good and reasonable move based on common sense. Because that is a very good and reasonable move based on common sense it won't be allowed to implement at this moment.
Based on the existing money system if they install it there is no money to pay the debt mountain and its interests.
They (the illuminati) will install it on a clean sheet after the let the crooks plunge the the system and let the debt implode (zerohedge readers know it will). By then the crooks will be kicked out and get blamed as they have to be.
It is common sense, isn't it?
It is about fucking time.
Lets dare the democrats in the senate to veto or filibuster it.
Brilliant play! Because i just might get out and vote in the republican primary against my.congressmen if they dare vote to raise the debt limit for any reason. I know I shouldnt let the tea party get my hopes up again.
The thing about the Tea Party that so infuriates both left & right is its focus of one basic thing.
Government at all levels is too large/overbearing stuffed to the gills with cronyism making the resultant taxes way too high.
The left tries to knock it down for obvious reasons, the cherished programs imperiled by it if it were to become even more successful. Now the right is seeing the danger it poses to corporate subsidies going buh bye should it gain even more traction with the populace.
The right is more subtle in denigrating it, they try to inject social issues into it to mold it because they have never controlled it (no I don't entertain ridiculous Koch brother red herrings), they try to appoint spokesmen for it in the hopes of harnessing it.
The left is much more venomous and accusatory because it was not born in that spectrum...barely containing their bile that its a bunch of racists, its members are "unpure" hypocrites as if it were the opposite of what a "classic liberal" always was/is...LOL!
The last mid term showed that the TP is a danger to both sides...chucking out republican statists with the same vigor as democrat statists...now its Orrin's turn on the pyre...I doubt he will even run.
The TP is about fiscal sanity and individual freedom first...oddly, it scares them both equally.
@top calling fool
I was (unfortunately) a fundraiser for the United States Chamber of Commerce in the 90's. I raised a lot of $$ "earmarked" to a "special fund" to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment.
When (our guys) the Republicans took over, it went right out the f'ing window. Of course, we were never serious!
Looks like they've dusted this one off and the "brilliant play" is on you.
It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.
Slip in a line to have the government/taxpayers default on all the debt owed to the Federal Reserve.
Cantor voted against the amendment striking executive perpetual war powers, and he voted to stay in Libya.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-361
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll412.xml
But if he's like my jackass rep, Mike Fitzpatrick, he won't tell constituents that in his newsletters but will brag about not funding Libya.
Running for cover, a face saving diversion from reality. Sop for the Tea Party dupes.
About Eric Cantor from wikipedia:
"Israel
As of December 2010, Cantor is the only Jewish Republican in the United States Congress.[2][10][19] He supports strong United States-Israel relations.[2][5] He cosponsored legislation to cut off all U.S. taxpayer aid to the Palestinian Authority and another bill calling for an end to taxpayer aid to the Palestinians until they stop unauthorized excavations on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[20] Responding to a claim by the State Department that the United States provides no direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, Cantor claimed that United States sends about US$75 million in aid annually to the Palestinian Authority, which is administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development. He opposed a Congressionally-approved three-year package of US$400 million in aid for the Palestinian Authority in 2000 and has also introduced legislation to end aid to Palestinians.[21]"
So, what I can say.... maybe: Good luck, digital pigs and geeks, in "balancing the US budget".
Bu-Ha-Ha!
Further proof that all democracies eventually fail, and though the writing population at ZH is far above the 50th percentile of American IQ and education even here we cannot agree. I believe it would be a very bad move to open the constitution to such an amendment under the current climate of polarization. A balanced budget mandate would just not work without the fiscal discipline which if we demanded that from our politicians we would not need such a mandate to start with. It would only assure that poverty increase even as bankers continue to hollow out the economy and destroy the middle class.
But then again it is already too late anyway, want a glimpse of your kids futures? Book a week in a two star hotel in Tijuana. Wall Street won.
This is a long process as allready stated, all states have to ratify it. You know NY and CA will not cut their gravy train.
What a jewish circus! A jew strongly supporting Israel, a fascist country WITHOUT ANY CONSTITUTION, is trying TO AMEND the first written Constitution in the world! Mr. Cantor, I have a better, more simple way to balance US Budget: how about to ask Your buddies from jewish financial mafia on Wall Street to re-arrange money stream flow - in order to balance US budget ? Or..... Oh My Lord, is it THEIR idea - to AMEND US Constitution ? Oh, I am deeply sorry to interrupt Your buddies' "Wag the Dog" PLAY. Go on, guys, go on. I will not interrupt Your scenario. American digital pigs are deserving this.
-deleted-
If the Federal government is constrained to maintain a balanced budget then the domestic money supply is entirely at the mercy of the private sector and the current account. Should, for example, the private sector engage in deleveraging or run up a trade deficit then the government has no means by which to inject money into the system to prevent deflation. Conversely, if the private sector borrows excessively or runs up a trade surplus then the government is not permitted to tax excess money out of the system and prevent inflation.
If the government is to be forced to maintain a balanced budget at all times, then an alternative mechanism must be proposed to replace the role of deficit / surplus flexibility. Might I remind people that the problem here is debt QUALITY. It doesn't matter who or what the borrower is, if the borrower is borrowing to invest in activity that promotes organic economic growth (eg a government selling bonds to invest in universities, or an individual taking a loan to grow a private business), then all is good. Problems occur when any entity borrows to invest in pointless activity, most notably speculation in a Ponzi scheme.
Either Eric Cantor fails at the most basic economics or he is just doing this as a political stunt. Chance of success = 0%. It would be far more valuable if he proposed an amendment that forbid lending, at any level, for the purpose of speculation.