Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

Ga. calls for Federal Constitutional convention


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,527 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:32 PM

BREAKING NEWS Posted Image
Georgia Senate calls for federal, constitutional convention
ATLANTA The Georgia Senate voted Thursday to petition Congress for a constitutional convention to consider requiring the federal government stick to balanced budgets.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to hold a convention if 34 states pass resolutions calling for one.

http://onlineathens....onal-convention


If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#2 Mr.Dis

Mr.Dis

    Super Icon

  • +PC BIZ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,169 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:40 PM

That is scary stuff!! There is a lot of good that can be done through that but a lot of bad as well. A convention would basically through out the constitution in favor of a new Constitution.
Mr. Dis offers Professional, Reliable lawn care for all of your home's needs. Please PM for a free Quote.

I'm a Uber Hottie... LGM say's so...

I hearby give credit to the Phoenicians for the Phoenician alphabet in all my writings on PCOM

#3 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,943 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:26 PM

Something I heard today at the Chamber lunch comes to mind. It seems Rep. Tom Graves, who sits on the powerful ways and means committee but shortly after his becoming the new Congressman for Georgia's 14th, said that folks here ought not ask him to bring money back to Georgia because he was only about cutting spending.

Well, he's hosting a seminar at the Chamber entitled "How to secure contracts with the federal government" ... hosted by Representative Tom Graves.

Now I'm applauding Rep. Graves apparent turn toward service of his district and figure that the call for a Constitutional Convention on the part of the Georgia Senate may have been uttered with the same intent as that of Mr. Graves repudiation of federal spending - lip service to please those mental giants who want to get rid of all social services because they're communist but don't touch my Medicare or Social security.

pubby

#4 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:30 PM

This is grandstanding by the provincial legislature. It does nothing but manipulate the naive voters into thinking they are upset with the national leaders. Reality is that the American Constitution allows for a Constitutional Convention, but it cannot be for a single issue - it must be for an entirely new Constitution.

Second, a balanced budget requirement prevents the government from emergency spending, even if only temporarily over the budget limit.

Thirdly, if the people that created the Constitution in America thought a balanced budget was a good idea, it would have been in the document already. The US has only had a balanced budget a few years out of its entire history.

Calls for a balanced budget only inflames the passions of those who don't know any better.
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#5 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:51 PM

Thirdly, if the people that created the Constitution in America thought a balanced budget was a good idea, it would have been in the document already. The US has only had a balanced budget a few years out of its entire history.


Perhaps a class on the constitution would help you understand that provisions were made for amending the constitution. The fact that a balanced budget wasn't in it initially doesn't mean the founders thought it would be a bad idea. I suspect they never imagined the federal govt would grow to the size it has today.

Here is a link that may help you understand the process better. Constitutional Amendments

Edited by cptlo306, 07 March 2013 - 07:52 PM.

This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.

#6 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:03 PM

Something I heard today at the Chamber lunch comes to mind. It seems Rep. Tom Graves, who sits on the powerful ways and means committee but shortly after his becoming the new Congressman for Georgia's 14th, said that folks here ought not ask him to bring money back to Georgia because he was only about cutting spending.

Well, he's hosting a seminar at the Chamber entitled "How to secure contracts with the federal government" ... hosted by Representative Tom Graves.

Now I'm applauding Rep. Graves apparent turn toward service of his district and figure that the call for a Constitutional Convention on the part of the Georgia Senate may have been uttered with the same intent as that of Mr. Graves repudiation of federal spending - lip service to please those mental giants who want to get rid of all social services because they're communist but don't touch my Medicare or Social security.

pubby

Mr mental giant, give me back the money I paid into Medicare and Social Security, I'll be happy....It's my damn money.
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#7 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,527 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:41 PM

Mr mental giant, give me back the money I paid into Medicare and Social Security, I'll be happy....It's my damn money.


You may want to reconsider that demand considering that most healthy retirees collect more from SS and Medicare than they have contributed.

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#8 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:39 PM

Perhaps a class on the constitution would help you understand that provisions were made for amending the constitution. The fact that a balanced budget wasn't in it initially doesn't mean the founders thought it would be a bad idea. I suspect they never imagined the federal govt would grow to the size it has today.

Here is a link that may help you understand the process better. Constitutional Amendments


Perhaps you should re-read my post. The leaders that founded the nation ran a deficit. There have been only a few years in the entire American history that the US did not have a deficit. The point is that such an amendment, though can be done, is not an intelligennt move since it prohibits deficit spending at all. The means to handle spending is via the legislative action, not amending the Constitution. Even your founders ran a deficit and never thought such a Constitutional mandate was necessary.
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#9 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:08 AM

Perhaps you should re-read my post. The leaders that founded the nation ran a deficit. There have been only a few years in the entire American history that the US did not have a deficit. The point is that such an amendment, though can be done, is not an intelligennt move since it prohibits deficit spending at all. The means to handle spending is via the legislative action, not amending the Constitution. Even your founders ran a deficit and never thought such a Constitutional mandate was necessary.


I read your post. You made a silly remark and I pointed it out. Simple as that.
This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.

#10 Mr.Dis

Mr.Dis

    Super Icon

  • +PC BIZ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,169 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:16 AM

You may want to reconsider that demand considering that most healthy retirees collect more from SS and Medicare than they have contributed.


Maybe contributed but definitely not earned. By the time you add in even a modest amount of interest, you would have far more in savings, INCLUDING losses during the recession.

And even if you neglect interest and consider a person earning $50,000 / year average over a 50 year career. If they earn 1200 / month benefit, it would take 21.5 years to deplete that funded amount. (including matching funds and neglecting interest during the draw period). Then there is the whole living to age 88 in order to do that thing.

Maybe you should reconsider your side.
Mr. Dis offers Professional, Reliable lawn care for all of your home's needs. Please PM for a free Quote.

I'm a Uber Hottie... LGM say's so...

I hearby give credit to the Phoenicians for the Phoenician alphabet in all my writings on PCOM

#11 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:03 AM

I read your post. You made a silly remark and I pointed it out. Simple as that.

Then you missed the point entirely.
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#12 Nitro

Nitro

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,012 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:06 AM

Maybe contributed but definitely not earned. By the time you add in even a modest amount of interest, you would have far more in savings, INCLUDING losses during the recession.

And even if you neglect interest and consider a person earning $50,000 / year average over a 50 year career. If they earn 1200 / month benefit, it would take 21.5 years to deplete that funded amount. (including matching funds and neglecting interest during the draw period). Then there is the whole living to age 88 in order to do that thing.

Maybe you should reconsider your side.


This is no more apparent than in the city of Galvenston, TX where the city opted out of social security.

I believe it was the school system. They brought in their own financial company and
rejected the social security system... they allowed their employee's to to choose the retirement fund
and aggression they wanted... and those employees have been retiring sooner and many have retired millionaires.

I don't think anyone has retired a millionaire from 'savings' the social security program holds (takes from) for me.

#13 Glassdogs

Glassdogs

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,909 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

This is no more apparent than in the city of Galvenston, TX where the city opted out of social security.

I believe it was the school system. They brought in their own financial company and
rejected the social security system... they allowed their employee's to to choose the retirement fund
and aggression they wanted... and those employees have been retiring sooner and many have retired millionaires.

I don't think anyone has retired a millionaire from 'savings' the social security program holds (takes from) for me.


I think it was the Galveston city government, if memory serves. Not the school system individually. When I read what you wrote, my first thought was that there would be no way that the NEA/teacher's union would have let teachers get out from under the government's thumb.

How many of you know that Federal Employees are not in the Social Security system?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".


#14 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:44 AM

Then you missed the point entirely.


I got your point and it's unfortunate that you don't understand how constitutional amendments work. Seriously, some classes may help you with that.
This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.

#15 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:46 AM

I got your point and it's unfortunate that you don't understand how constitutional amendments work. Seriously, some classes may help you with that.

If you think my point was about the amendment, then, yes, you did miss the point.
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#16 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:52 AM

If you think my point was about the amendment, then, yes, you did miss the point.


I don't think your point was about amendments. You made a point that showed ignorance about our constitution and I pointed it out. Plain and simple.

But this going back and forth over your silly post is pointless so I'll stop responding to this particular discussion now.
This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics