CNN Poll Finds Media on Wrong Side of 'Cut, Cap and Balance'
In the past week, you couldn't swing a debt cat without hitting a press report about how irresponsible the "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill passed by House Republicans is.
A new CNN/ORC poll released a few hours ago finds the media very much on the wrong side of public opinion concerning this issue:
23. In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal? July 18-20 2011
Favor 66%
Oppose 33%
No opinion 1%
Wow! Almost two-thirds of respondents favor "Cut, Cap and Balance."
But that's not all:
25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget? July 18-20 2011
Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%
Wow! Almost three quarters favor a balanced budget amendment.
Assuming he actually sees it, this will surely be a surprise to CBS's Bob Schieffer who on Sunday's "Face the Nation" asked two Senators why they were wasting their time debating such a thing.
It's certainly good to know how in touch with the people America's newscasters and commentators are.
(H/T Washington Examiner via Weasel Zippers)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
American Idol is popular,
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 5:32pm.
American Idol is popular, too, that doesn't make it good. So it appears that if your position is in the minority, then that means you're wrong. Is that the argument?
Pervmo
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 5:43pm.
There's a pervert in our midst, and it won't go away.
- 33 1/3 Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
NO
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:37pm.
No...That's NOT the argument, peabrain. The argument is that fully two thirds of the American People want their government to represent them. You know...Like "Of the People, By the People, and For the People"?? Ever hear of that notion, Louis?? The American People want their government to show a little responsibility and manage our finances the way WE are forced to manage or own. Does that seep into your liberal brain in the least??
Don't bother, he is upset his view isn't in the majority
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:40pm.
You can't fault fools for being foolish
Satchmo
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:39pm.
The point is that the poll respondents apparently aren't swallowing the MSM/DNC narrative on Cut, Cap, and Balance.
As often as they trot out polls that show a plurality/majority believe the DNC talking points the media tries to pass off as journalism, it's nice to see a poll that shows people aren't buying the MSM's BS.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
The title is "CNN Poll Finds
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:47pm.
The title is "CNN Poll Finds Media on Wrong Side of Cut, Cap and Balance," obviously implying there is a right side. The argument is that if you aren't aligned with majority opinion, then you are on the wrong side and out of touch. Of course, this doesn't address the merits - or lack thereof - of the legislation; it just paints it as a popularity contest. And the CC&B legislation is not good legislation.
This Perverted Incest Approver
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 8:01pm.
Spins "wrong" in the title to mean its author is referring to some level of popularity and not wrong as in, the other side (wrong one) of what the people's actual majority opinion is, which is obvious.
How blatantly disgusting that he should deliberately skew the meaning of the word, playing us for idiots. But that's Incestpervmo for you.
- Shy on Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Does the word popular and
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:12am.
Does the word popular and majority opinion equals popular opinion really have to be explained to you???
Does the word fill or out or subject or line mean anything?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:44am.
How about Sissy? Or Mollycoddle? Or Milquetoast? Or Coward? Or Cut and Run Sissy Mollycoddling Milquetoast Coward Satchmo?
Still waiting for you to man up and say exactly what I lied about and what would be the truth if I did.
But you keep running off and posting elsewhere like the sissy you are.
I already responded to you in
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:55am.
I already responded to you in another thread. Obviously you didn't read it.
Whatever sissytroll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:25am.
You are a cut and run sissy troll that calls people liar and then runs off to post somewhere else. Waiting for you in the thread where you made the accusations. Acting like a cut and runny mollycoddle does not count as a response. Still waiting. What did I get wrong and what is the truth?
"The argument is that if you
Submitted by Lgbpop on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 11:26pm.
"The argument is that if you aren't aligned with majority opinion, then you are on the wrong side and out of touch."
Well, if this is bad - why does the Lamestream Media labor so mightily to convince us that THEIR opinion is the majority opinion, and that by not being on THEIR side us ignorant rubes with the sloping heads in flyover country are on the wrong side and out of touch?
Can't have it both ways, Poindexter.
This is Noel's argument. And
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:41am.
This is Noel's argument.
And who's trying to have what both ways? That has nothing to do with the blog entry.
Trollin, trollin, trollin on da rivah.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:52am.
"Now I understand why I get so many requests to ban you!" – Noel Sheppard
Satch is a tenacious little
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:56am.
Satch is a tenacious little Troll, isn't he?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:22am.
Well, since I view tenaciousness as a positive character trait, I'd have to go with obnoxious.
Or this.
A very good point. I'll fix
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:50am.
A very good point. I'll fix it.
"Satch sure is obnoxious, isn't he? Noxious too . . ."
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Satchmo,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:53am.
I would agree with you if we stick to this single story but the overall message from the media has been that the GOP is fringe members that don't represent the people. This poll flies in the face of that meme and it is worth pointing out this inconsistency. Popularity only matters in a Democracy which is what many of our elected officials are trying to create - possibly because it is a stepping stone to Socialism or perhaps out of ignorance. Popularity has little to do with a Representative Republic because it should always be about the right thing to do or at least to the best of the abilities of the Representatives.
It is the media that uses popularity as a sledge to beat their version of 'truth' into the audience. Giving the benefit of the doubt here a bit but I believe the author in this blog was merely pointing out the discrepancy in the use of popularity and not hailing the attributes of being popular.
But popularity matters here
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:06am.
But popularity matters here in Noel's argument; all that matters is popular opinion is on one side and media is on the other. He states the media is on the wrong side of public opinion and imples that the media is out of touch for it. As I said, there is no mention of the merits or flaws of the bill. It's just more of playing the game and avoiding substance. There is nothing to be gained from it.
Nothing to be gained from it, Incestmo?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:27am.
You mean like your constant starting of sh*storms here questioning every headline and challenging the authors with your inane drivel?
STFU and knock off the trollie games.
Others are able to respond
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:45am.
Others are able to respond maturely and discuss the issue. Why are you unable or unwilling to do so? You're the one being belligerent and using profanity, not me. You're the one playing games.
Why? How about because you're a nutjob?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:54am.
Now look at the sh*storm you've created right here on your latest threadjacking. Why? Because you didn't like the headline... again.
You do this a dozen times a week, and I'm not the only one who's sick of it.
Go start your own blog or petition the management to allow you to post articles as a contributor. Otherwise, STFU.
First, you are the one
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:21pm.
First, you are the one creating a "sh*storm". I have every privilege here as you do to post my opinions on topics and to respond to other posters, which is what I do: discuss content, and I do so without name calling or profanity. You don't do that; you respond with personal attacks and profanity only because you don't care for a poster or for a particular viewpoint, and, I have no doubt, because you are unable to articulate and defend a position in a discussion. Your faults are your own. You are responsible for your behavior, not I.
Secondly, threadjacking does not mean what you think it means. Directly responding to a the content of a blog entry or the argument presented therein is not threadjacking. What you are doing is threadjacking.
Third, this isn't your website; you do not make the rules nor are you the arbiter of who can and who can't post here, nor do you get to decide what opinions and positions are approved for discussion.
Grow up.
Satchmo = Sissy Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:28pm.
Still waiting SissyTroll. You have repeatedly called me a liar for pointing out your constant Stupid and Lies. Now prove it. Prove I told the first lie about you out of the more than 60 instances of Stupid and Lies.
You are a lying coward of a troll. You -
LOL. "Threadjacking 101 by Mr. High Road."
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:28pm.
Knock it off. We're sick of it.
Too bad there's no way to
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:43pm.
Too bad there's no way to "vote Satch off the island"
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:59pm.
Like!
Free*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:19pm.
LIKE
The pos Satchmo troll IS voted off.---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:36pm.
Daily.
But, like a creature who is the result of a cockroach mating with a snail, survives to slime yet another thread.
MD
And, I'm sure it'll still be around
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 5:54am.
after the nuke goes off. Still sliming what's left.
And, look below, it appears that Incestmo is having a conversation with itself again.
popularity matters
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:08am.
Once again I acknowledge giving BOD and that you are most likely correct if addressing this single posting. I've seen this happen on many sites were the overall opinion or theme is taken for granted because a majority of the readers are a similar pov. Most of the readers of this blog understand the media use of popularity and how the media has consistently painted the GOP as fringe. Should the author, for clarity sake, have added this to the post or would that have been repetitious since there are several postings already documenting this bias. IMO, I prefer the article to be shorter and to the point because I acknowledge the political position of the author and don't need to be told for the tenth time that the media is portraying a popular idea as fringe.
As a post on its own without knowing the political and economic leanings of the website and the authors, without knowing the overall theme of the media on this topic and without knowing the audience at this website, in majority, are aware of these items and the basics of the proposed bill - basically if you take this particular posting in a vacuum then his use of the term popularity loses meaning.
IMHO, the author did a compare and contrast where the assumption was made that one side of the argument was known. I understand that I could be misinterpreting the authors goals on this but it is only my opinion.
I agree that context is key,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:47am.
I agree that context is key, and certainly looking at this against the larger context of a media-painted narrative, as you are presenting, is a valid view. At the same time, we do have to look at the words used and argument presented here (and you have absolutely acknowledged that twice. Sorry that I didn't acknowledge that before). I don't see any indication that this is part of that larger context.
The argument presented is:
* Media says that CC&B is irresponsible (no reasons given, however).
* Media is on wrong side of public opinion since 66% favor the CC&B proposal
* 74% of respondents favor a balanced budget Constitutional amendment
* The media is out of touch with the people.
This argument is a logical fallacy: because the media view is a minority one, it is wrong.
Now, if the argument were that the media says there is only fringe support, when this poll shows the opposite, then the reasoning and conclusion would be sound, since it does not depend upon the substance of the bill.
Context is key
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 1:12pm.
I agree with your conclusion but still stand by the fact that this being a conservative anti-media site that part of the context is what is expected to be known by their audience. This may not be convenient for first timers or for people who can not conceptualize the ideology but I don't think it qualifies as being wrong - the repetition of repeating the same conservative and bias mantras on every post would be irritating to most.
TROLL
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:21pm.
DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL
The American people are not
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 5:38pm.
The American people are not as uninformed as we sometimes feel.
What is really significant is the very small number of undecideds. That means the people are really for restraining congressional spending.
Lately the LSM...............
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 5:54pm.
has been on the wrong side of public opinion. Watch for a "new poll", in a day or two, that will refute the poll above........of course heavily biased towards Democraps. The LSM is losing their grip on public opinion, and frankly it is fun to watch them spin in circles!!
Edit: I'm waiting for Bob Beckels head to explode any day now.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
So True
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:50pm.
I love to hear their glee when they say "this just in: According to a new poll 60% of Americans disagree with republicans in the house concerning the debt ceiling" then you look at the sample: and there is many more democrats sampled. LOL! Do they not realize how obvious their Obama worship is? Hahahaha! I love it! I love it! I love it! Even better, is the fact, the republicans are not falling for their poll gimmickry either!
When was the Main Stream Media Correct?
Submitted by bmac32 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:26pm.
Seeing how 90% of the main stream is left what would anyone expect. They don't like it because it makes sense and will take funds from those favorite programs that the Democrats use to get votes.
They already know
Submitted by richb313 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:48pm.
They already know how most Americans think but they do not care. They are try to change how we think, at least change the narrative to one where they can chamge minds. That was why there was never any attack on substance only on its chances. The entire argument is this, I knwo it is the right thing to do, I know the American people want it, but it has no chnace of passing so why are we wasting time on it?
They are the ones who call us Rubes and they are trying to sell us this?
Oops.
Submitted by DaMav on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:51pm.
This should be thrown in the face of every liberal pundit in DC. A radical, fringe plan supported 2:1 by the American people!
What's even more amazing is
Submitted by Martin2717 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:20pm.
What's even more amazing is that this is a CNN poll. I wonder if CNN would even use their poll when discussing this topic........
True. Coming from CNN, it is
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:57pm.
True. Coming from CNN, it is amazing. Does anyone know the sample on this poll?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 30% republican 30% independant & 40% democrat
CNN had a whole different take.............
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:22pm.
On its website only pointing out the positves for barry! Well I have said this before and I will say it again.......... CNN
COMMUNIST
NEWS
NETWORK
Why anyone wouldn't support
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 8:08pm.
Why anyone wouldn't support balancing a budget is beyond me and frankly shows how naive and irresponsible the CC&B opponents really are.
"honey, we just can't afford these credit card payments any more!!"
"Don't worry we will just get more credit cards to pay for them!"
Classic liberal thinking.
"When people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the Republic" -Benjamin Franklin
Because it isn't that simple.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:52am.
Because it isn't that simple. The language doesn't match the feel good title of the bill. You actually have to dig into the substance. It isn't that people don't support balancing a budget, it's that people don't support this particular proposal. I think if you read it and learned about it, you wouldn't call its opponents naive and irresponsible.
Self-Disenfranchisement
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:46pm.
You might have a right to, but you have no business voting on how to spend other people's money if you do not pay federal income tax. Do the decent thing and just don't go to the polls.
______________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
~The Balanced Budget Amendment
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:27am.
is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Thanks for the link to that
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:50am.
Thanks for the link to that site. Seeing his post on nullification and his position, I'd say it looks very promising.
~His?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 7:01pm.
Good grief, get off the internet until you learn to distinguish males from females, at the very least. You're an embarrassment to the human species.
Good evening Bru
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:36pm.
Splain somethin to me fella. Havin them younguns of yours must have taken some doin.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
~ROFL, coco!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:20pm.
It took some doing, but we managed. Sometimes you just have to close your eyes and think of your country.
Doesn't the BBA
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:11pm.
require a super majority to raise taxes? This piece doesn't reflect that, unless I missed something.
That's pretty much beside the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:25pm.
That's pretty much beside the point. It doesn't matter how many votes it takes, just that it can be done. It makes empty promises that can be voided through a vote:
Section 1: They won’t spend more than they take in unless they vote to spend more than they take in.
Section 2: They won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP unless they vote to spend more than 18% of the GDP.
Section 4: Congress won’t make a law raising your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes.
Section 5: Congress won’t raise the debt limit unless they vote to raise the debt limit.
It's nothing but a game designed to fool you.
Yeah Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 3:04pm.
I saw the section synopses, but that's the author's interpretation. The only thing that can garner 67 votes in the Senate these days is an Obama budget proposal.
They won't set the building on fire unless they vote to set the building on fire. -See how that works?
~Here's the thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 6:50pm.
If Congress only spent money on what the Constitution says it is supposed to spend money on, there would be no need for this discussion at all, right?
So.
Since Congress is already violating the law of the land, what is the point in making another law that supposedly reins them in? If the Constitution doesn't already restrain them, this will? Of course not; it's another power grab. Only this one will have the backing of the TEA party until it blows up in their faces.
Yeah I get that Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 6:58pm.
but a Constitutional amendment ratified by the States? I just don't see a budget passed that would violate that unless you have Democrats holding a filibuster-proof majority in all three branches of government again. The Constitution is obviously vague enough that it allows for this type of spending to go on unabated- an Amendment should -theoretically- fix that.
What if capitol buildings all over the country start exploding like what happened in Oslo today? Under wartime conditions, Congress generally authorizes additional spending. This CCB would allow for that. I know once the money is spent we can't get it back, but would you be for (A) not allowing the defense spending increase, or (B) withdrawing allocated spending for other things and moving it to defense?
~I would be
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 7:03pm.
for cutting spending to the Constitutional limits, which would reduce government spending to such negligible levels compared to the GDP that we could tax the entire population at 5% and have money to burn.
I remember the movement...
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:28pm.
...to convene another constitutional convention a few years ago to deal with limiting the powers of the federal government. The problem is that a convention could take other action that would be very, very dangerous. The last time I heard about the "con-con" (can't remember where I heard that?) option was in a neurology association meeting where the problems of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement were being discussed and the consensus of the panel pointed to massive changes needed in public health care programs.
I can see how more than a few state legislatures would love to bring the Congress and POTUS to account for the reckless spending and endless unfunded mandates, but I worry that the anti-gun nuts and the idiots advocating limits on free speech would be out in full force. It would be the tinfoil event of the century.
You're right, Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:26pm.
the devil is in the details with which if the American public were actually familiar, that 66-74% approval rate would drop like a rock. This was an exercise in legislative theatrics--looks good in theory, but a dangerous land mine in practice.
Jer
Lookie Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:07pm.
Cajun is agreeing with Jer. Just wanted to point out that the condition of our economy at present is because of legislative theatrics for the last 50 yrs. Spend now kick the can down the road. Ooops, I see a detour sign ahead.
Danger! Sharp Learning Curve Ahead!
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:11pm.
If Congress ignores the detour and "stays the course", there's another sign down the road that reads "Danger! Sharp Learning Curve Ahead!"
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
cajun agrees with ME!!
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:23pm.
HIJFAICGU
[Help I Just Fainted And I Can't Get Up]
Jer
Dont over react Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:30pm.
Agreeing with you has happened twice in 2 yrs..calm down. And the first time was about SEC so that really doesn't count.
Yes ma'am...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 9:47pm.
DWBOCWJSBTR
[Doused With Bucket Of Cold Water Jer Snaps Back To Reality]
CAJUN2
[Can Also Jump Up Now, Too]
Jer
This exchange Jer *
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:07pm.
Its called derailing a thread....rofl
I know, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:22pm.
TRU DAT
[That's Really Unfortunate...Derailing A Thread]
Okay...I'm done. On to more serious issues: Why are the Repubs such uncompromising dorks?
;-)
Jer
~Same reason as the Dems
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:24pm.
who count on votes from government dependents.
They want to get re-elected.
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:33pm.
The democrats have had a majority in the Senate and the House for almost 44 of the last 56 years. The R's have now a majority in the house. Dont you think 44 yrs of compromise is about enough???
Nope. I'm a proponent of
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:44pm.
Nope. I'm a proponent of compromise. Our republic was founded on compromise. Our Constitution was a product of compromise. Most major legislation until recent years was cobbled together and passed by compromise. Compromise was once the engine of progress. Now it is considered a contemptible exercise to be avoided at all costs.
Jer
Jerster*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:49pm.
Of course you are a proponent of compromise, you are a lawyer. Compromise is the avenue to take when you dont want to do the hard work. Congress will not DO the hard stuff because they may not get re elected. So what they do is compromise,,,,kick the can down the road.....and wait til the next congress. This has been the modus operandi for over 50 years!!!!!!!
Disagree...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:51pm.
Compromise requires the heavy lifting. Intransigence is light duty. Not too hard to just say "No".
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:01pm.
I am not against compromise but there are times when one must do the hard thing. You are a parent, tell me its easy to say NO! Ha
cajun
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:20pm.
When my son is willing to make sacrifices, curtail his spending habits, agrees to eat his peas, I am inclined toward amenability and modest accomodations in consideration of his behavior.
Jer
see Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:25pm.
The thing about saying NO causes discomfort and sacrifice for both parties as a parent/child incident resolution. This applies to politics as well since our representatives must make difficult decisions in OUR best interest. Compromise for an intended agenda is self serving not in OUR best interest.
Why?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:32pm.
Has he no free will?
Obviously a great way to raise anything, sincerely.
My congrats!!
I don't understand your point, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:49am.
Jer
Sorry,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 2:27am.
A question answered, well.
I should had been more clear,
Thanks, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 2:45am.
I appreciate that.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 4:53am.
But your son must curtail his spending habits and eat his peas before you make your accommodations to his behavior. Otherwise he will still not have eaten his peas and you will have to offer new inducements for said eating.
Children and politicians can be very similar. They must be reigned in frequently or they will be running the show, rather the parents/voters.
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:37pm.
That's not a serious question, right?
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:45pm.
It was not seriously phrased. Note the ;-).
Jer
I need to run to the store. Later.
Assuming I have any left, would one of my NB friends...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:37pm.
...please explain to me what is so great about passing a bill that allows for an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for a BBA (which is a double-edged sword if there ever was one), all for some obscure future spending cuts over the next ten years that are not only way too shallow, (given that our actual national debt is $113 Trillion+), but will never happen, anyway, as this thing will be amended into irrelevance in short order?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
~Motto of the Balanced Budget Amendment
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:16pm.
"Making more rules for ourselves that we won't follow"
This thing is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. The professional pols won't pull the ball away this time, they swear! This one's for realsies!
Bru, They really just don't get it, do they?
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 4:17am.
Dave.
Vote for the American in November
~I'm going to put it another way
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 9:25am.
for PSA purposes.
This is like a 600 pound woman proudly declaring that from now on she will only eat enough food to maintain her current weight (until she decides to change her mind). The first thing she'll do is treat herself to a cake to celebrate her new found virtue and self-control. "Hey, it's in my diet plan." All this does is justify Congress spending money on any stupid thing they damn well please as long as they cook the books to make it look like it fits into that imaginary "18%".
"There's room for it in the budget! We swear!"
Bottom line, there's no trusting a pol. This is why we need to just enforce the current law and limit spending to government's enumerated powers. The BBA is the proverbial camel's nose. Right now we have inexcusable pork. With the BBA we'll have legal, Constitutional pork.
I'm still not getting it
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 10:37am.
I mean, I get the analogy but it seems the overarching argument is that since we've been screwed before, we'll be screwed again. It's only been 15 years or so since we had a budget surplus in this country. Clinton was off on the wrong path, natch, but the GOP Congress got it turned around. Then the dot-com bubble burst -which hurt the balance sheet- then 9/11 and two more recessions. All the while the CRA was bubbling in the background, waiting to not just pop, but explode. Yes, we spent money in the beginning of this century; in part to combat global terrorism and in in part deal with two recessions. But the budget deficit wasn't insurmountable save for the housing explosion. Then the people of this country put democrats fully in charge and they ramped it up to levels not seen since FDR. It is there instinct to buy votes because their merit is so lacking.
The point is, we corrected the Keynesian debacle of FDR and we can correct the Keynesian debacle of Obama but only when Americans feel enough pain. They constantly fall for the overused "hope" and "change" message with the hope for more change in their pockets, until they eventually run out of hope and actually vote for a change. With Obama, that only took two years. It wasn't a complete dismantling of progressive policy, but it was a good start. What I'm concerned about is the belief that we can't continue the turn-around and will inevitably fall back into the same spending pattern anyway -so why even try? I don't know the full text of the BBA but from what I've read and heard, it is much stronger than anything we have today to control spending. Until God himself sends us the perfect model, we're stuck having to rely on our elected leaders to draft it for us, though at least in this case, we get an implicit chance to weigh in directly on its merits.
This is also what I don't understand about the democrat position; passing the BBA doesn't make it law, it sends it to the states for ratification. Many would probably put it on the 2012 ballot, but surely democratic governors in blue and purple states would delay it in the hope of a better political environment for them, and a better chance that it would fail. But poll after poll shows Americans would prefer explicit limits on spending and from my understanding, the BBA would do that, save for a super-majority to temporarily suspend it. Maybe I'm wrong on the details, but this seems more like giving up or adopting the strict libertarian position that laws are inherently bad and people should be able to function appropriately without them. Well, there's never been a society to perfect that model. Nor has there ever been a successful Keynesian model or progressive/socialist model. The only one that has sustenance is Capitalism, and the only purveyors of that are the new breed of GOP; the same ones pushing for a BBA.
4¢
~Here's another way of putting it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:38pm.
The BBA is Congress making a new rule because they're not adhering to the already-in-place rule. It's like kids who stay up 3 hours past their bedtime every night promising their parents that from now on they'll agree to only staying up two hours and 45 minutes past their bedtime every night...unless they decide to go to bed later. But they promise they'll vote on it first.
If the parents agree to the deal, they're giving the kids permission to stay up 2 hours and 45 minutes past bedtime every night, which means they can no longer enforce the proper bedtime. We'd be legalizing pork, nothing more.
The perfect model is the Constitution; if we force them to stick to it everything will be fine. We need to keep the pressure on and only elect Constitutional candidates. If we build it, they will come.
Listen to the Brunette.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 11:00am.
I pay $122 every 3 months for the privilege of getting advice the Wrathful One dispenses here for free.
These pages bear enough scars from the spending wars—against both political parties—to have won Milton Friedman spending-limitation citations many times over. But we have been writing since at least the 1995 vote on a balanced budget amendment that we do not believe this mechanism can achieve its desired result. Its effects may even prove perverse. We see no reason to change that view now.
The newest versions of the BBA include a strong provision requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote to increase taxes. That said, we doubt the historic 1981 Reagan tax cuts within the Kemp-Roth bill, once subjected to Congress's revenue-neutrality accountants, could have survived the balanced budget mandate. Even with deficits, the U.S. grew strongly for seven years, adding to GDP as much as the entire West German economy.
~That's a good piece
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:42pm.
Thanks for the link. I need to read the WSJ more often, they've got some good stuff. They covered a bunch of angles there I hadn't even thought of yet.
Of course, a lot of what they refer to in there happened while I was still in footie pajamas. LOL
Oh shush.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:47pm.
Stop with the false modesty. We all know the WSJ has hidden microphones in your bathroom and they get all the smart stuff as you are musing whilst doing your duty on the pot.
They admit it once a week in the Musings of the Wrathful One from the secret hidden microphone column.
~"Whilst"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 2:57pm.
Stop trying to seduce me with your vocabulary, you know I fold like a cheap lawn chair for a witty turn of phrase.
~Blubber
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 3:52pm.
Mukluks. I got lots more.