Tony_FLADEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 08:01 AM
Original message |
Do you think some of the Tea Party members in the House would vote |
|
for the bill if it included the Balanced Budget Amendment. I might consider including that if some of them would vote for it.
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 08:03 AM
Response to Original message |
1. 2.8 trillion in cuts, with the BBA, what, |
|
You want to see the economy completely crashed, and the middle class thrown into the abyss for generations?
|
Tony_FLADEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I don't agree with the BBA |
|
If it got ratified by 3/4 of the states which is uncertain that would be in 10+ years. This is just to ensure it can pass the House of Representatives. If it were short of votes in the House, you might want to consider including it.
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. It would get ratified, and right quick |
|
After all, forty nine states have some form of a BBA. A BBA would force spending cuts in the middle of economic slumps, and is part of the reasons so many states have been hit hard in this last downturn. Thanks, but I don't want to consider economic suicide. I would rather have no deal, which would force the Congress to vote on a clean debt ceiling bill at the last minute, or force the president to pull the trigger on the 14th amendment.
|
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 08:09 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I don't know, but the BBA is a terrible idea. |
|
It gives Congress no flexibility regardless of the situation. Can anyone image the U.S. govt. being hobbled by such a thing during the Great Depression or W.W.2?
|
adhd_what_huh
(368 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-31-11 08:33 AM
Response to Original message |
5. fucktards would eat dirt if it had a BBA in it |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message |