Only Nixon could go to China / Only Obama can get B.B. Amend

Yea, yea; this could have been placed under the "Four More Years" topic, but I at least consider it to be a different topic. Your opinion may vary.
=====

Most of us have heard the phrase:
"Only Nixon could go to China".

For those of you who are too young or uninformed, the unspoken part behind this phrase is that prior to his election as President of the USA, he was one of the biggest most radical loud-mouthed rabid Anti-Communist politicians there were in DC. And yet, with the help of SOS Kissinger, he was able to establish relations with China. This was one of the key events that shaped history up to this point. By many (but not unanimous) opinions, this was generally a VERY GOOD THING to have happened.

I have a fantasy.

My fantasy is that one day there will be another, similar phrase that goes something like:
"Only Barack Obama can get a reasonable, responsible Balanced Budget Amendment written, passed, and approved by the states".

For right or wrong, Republicans have succeeded in attaching the label of "spender" to the Democrats. You may agree or disagree with the accuracy of the label, but the fact that the label has been attached can't be argued. By extension then, President Barack Obama has this label attached to him: A deficit spender who presumably has no interest in a balanced budget amendment.

I am something of a "Centrist" or moderate. Republicans would consider me to be a social liberal, and Democrats would consider me to be a fiscal conservative. I've stated for some time now my desire for a responsibly written BBA. Unfortunately, every example I've seen from a Republican source ignore the "responsibly written" adjective.

However, in fairness to the Democrats,
I myself have NEVER heard of any Democrat who is adamantly against the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment in general. Most of the opinions I've heard have to do with reactions to how a specific version has been written.

It's that old phrase: "The Devil is in the Details".

-----

If, _IF_ the Democrats had been able to capture more seats in the House of Representatives, _THEN_ I was hopeful that a well written Balanced Budget Amendment could have been written and passed.

I'm not so hopeful now.

So long as Mr. Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist) maintains his no taxes pledge death-grip on the Republicans, I can't see a plausible way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to get done in the next year or two.

Let's face it, the last two years of any president's second term, nothing much gets done on the BIG issues. If a BBA is going to get done Speaker John Boehner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_Boehner) has to cut Norquist's b*lls off, and be willing to go the revenue route.

Nuts.
That's not gonna happen.
So much with my daydream.

Reactions anyone?

My reaction? First, Ensign, it's time you gave yourself
a Promotion. Rear Admiral Re-read reads So Much better!

Second, IMHO, no "Balanced Budget Amendment can be
"reasonable" or "responsible." A balanced budget is
nice if we can do it, but some times we cannot avoid
going into debt. This Amendment would either have
loopholes big enough to negate it,
or else it would ruin us.
Thus any BBA must be a Bad Thing.
I never heard any Democrat say otherwise.

The Republicans are supporting this because ...
well, I am a Democrat, so you can guess my opinion.

I do note that the last President to balance a budget
was Bill Clinton.
George W. Bush made Huge Deficits.
Then Obama found Deficit Spending necessary in the
state of the economy he inheirited.
I have tried to avoid inflamatory language
in the above paragraph.

Howard Wilkins, Pointy-Headed Liberal

Ensign Re-read wrote:
Yea, yea; this could have been placed under the "Four More Years" topic, but I at least consider it to be a different topic. Your opinion may vary.
=====

Most of us have heard the phrase:
"Only Nixon could go to China".

For those of you who are too young or uninformed, the unspoken part behind this phrase is that prior to his election as President of the USA, he was one of the biggest most radical loud-mouthed rabid Anti-Communist politicians there were in DC. And yet, with the help of SOS Kissinger, he was able to establish relations with China. This was one of the key events that shaped history up to this point. By many (but not unanimous) opinions, this was generally a VERY GOOD THING to have happened.

I have a fantasy.

My fantasy is that one day there will be another, similar phrase that goes something like:
"Only Barack Obama can get a reasonable, responsible Balanced Budget Amendment written, passed, and approved by the states".

For right or wrong, Republicans have succeeded in attaching the label of "spender" to the Democrats. You may agree or disagree with the accuracy of the label, but the fact that the label has been attached can't be argued. By extension then, President Barack Obama has this label attached to him: A deficit spender who presumably has no interest in a balanced budget amendment.

I am something of a "Centrist" or moderate. Republicans would consider me to be a social liberal, and Democrats would consider me to be a fiscal conservative. I've stated for some time now my desire for a responsibly written BBA. Unfortunately, every example I've seen from a Republican source ignore the "responsibly written" adjective.

However, in fairness to the Democrats,
I myself have NEVER heard of any Democrat who is adamantly against the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment in general. Most of the opinions I've heard have to do with reactions to how a specific version has been written.

It's that old phrase: "The Devil is in the Details".

-----

If, _IF_ the Democrats had been able to capture more seats in the House of Representatives, _THEN_ I was hopeful that a well written Balanced Budget Amendment could have been written and passed.

I'm not so hopeful now.

So long as Mr. Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist) maintains his no taxes pledge death-grip on the Republicans, I can't see a plausible way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to get done in the next year or two.

Let's face it, the last two years of any president's second term, nothing much gets done on the BIG issues. If a BBA is going to get done Speaker John Boehner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_Boehner) has to cut Norquist's b*lls off, and be willing to go the revenue route.

Nuts.
That's not gonna happen.
So much with my daydream.

Reactions anyone?

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:My reaction? First, Ensign, it's time you gave yourself
a Promotion. Rear Admiral Re-read reads So Much better!

Second, ... --CLIP--

To the best of my knowledge, names can not be changed on this, or most forum boards.

(Duckk, can you verify?)

That is not politics. That is religion brought into politics. My personal opinion is that any religious organization that attempts to bring a matter of faith into a political debate should loose their designation as a church and instead be clasified as a political party with the loss of all the benifits that a church normally enjoys. Especialy the tax exemptions. I am sure that a lot of municipalities could use the extra income.

Beyond that, instead of a BBA, I would prefer to see a Deficit Reduction Amendment passed. (I know, I know, I'm an unrealistic dreamer).If that would mean a smaller government, I could live that.

One way to accomplish that would be to reduce the number of conflicting laws the govern businesses. It is hard to do anything when anything you do or don't do breaks the law. When one law says you must do A and another law (sometimes from the same agency) says you must not do A, it becomes impossible to avoid that. One set of laws that cover a business or occupation that is simple to understand and follow would make it easier for people to do business. Easily understood guidelines would make it easier to regulate and inspect for compliance. That would mean fewer inspectors. Fewer inspectors would require fewer office staff. Lower numbers of office staff would lead to the need for less office space. All of that would mean lower federal budgets. But that's not going to happen either.

I suppose I could change your username (I've done it for a few people already), but I'm not exactly going to be changing your name on a weekly basis to match a rank.

Remember the novel Catch 22? When they had an airman called Major they couldn't handle his being called Captain Major so he got a promotion to Major Major.

Duckk wrote:I suppose I could change your username (I've done it for a few people already), but I'm not exactly going to be changing your name on a weekly basis to match a rank.

When I first signed up to this Forum, I picked the "Ensign" part first as a bit of sarcasm aimed at the actor Wil Wheaton, and second as a homage to David Weber's Ensign characters in his books. (Think of it as two sides of the same coin.)

The reason for the "Re-read" portion is obvious:
It's what I do; over and over and over and over, again and again and again and again. Must stop, must stop, must stop, must stop...

BTW, when it comes to odd names, check out these members of the House of Rep's names:
* John Ensign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ensign) and
* Dick Armey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey);
given the right scenario, they could also have been misnomers.


Anyway, Duck...
The name thing just isn't that big of a deal to me. If it ever becomes one, I'll let you know. In that scenario, I'd just drop the "Ensign", and keep the "Re-read".

-----

In the mean time, does anyone have a rabbit to pull out of their hat? By that I mean,

Can anyone see a way to make my dream of a Balanced Budget Amendment in Barack Obama 2nd term, a plausible scenario???

Ensign Re-read wrote:
[SNIP]

In the mean time, does anyone have a rabbit to pull out of their hat? By that I mean,

Can anyone see a way to make my dream of a Balanced Budget Amendment in Barack Obama 2nd term, a plausible scenario???

Well there's prayer. Perhaps he'll tell our creditors like China what Mao Tse Tsung told the US in 1949 "What debt?" <G>

Poker

Using social media, bombard your congressmen (both houses). If they don't have at least the start of the amendment process in 18 months, start a recall. Make it loud and make it stick. Recall enough politicians and the rest will get the message.

KNick wrote:Using social media, bombard your congressmen (both houses). If they don't have at least the start of the amendment process in 18 months, start a recall. Make it loud and make it stick. Recall enough politicians and the rest will get the message.

Sorry, but by then it will be too late, as it'll then be election season all over again. If anything is going to be done, it has to be (almost) now. The timing is such that it needs to be the first or almost first thing on their collective minds AFTER the "Fiscal Cliff" issue has been dealt with (or not).