What's more important?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.

    if they want to spend the same, then they don’t need to go into the new laws.  It is only a measure to prevent them from spending 40 billion dollars on a hammer and having nothing left to buy any nails with.



  • The Founding Fathers had a good idea…
    Those closest to the people had to be the ones to authorize spending before anyone else was given a crack at it.

    If we had a responsible electorate, this would still work well.



  • @Cmdr:

    And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.

    if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @stuka:

    @Cmdr:

    And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.

    if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?

    Kinda the point, Stuka.

    If they want to borrow money, they better have at least, let me say that again, A–-T            L—E---A—S---T 67% of our elected leaders signing off on that deficit.



  • @stuka:

    @Cmdr:

    And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.

    if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?

    Actually, he still does not have to sign.  It just becomes law without Presidential Signature.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    @stuka:

    @Cmdr:

    And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.

    if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?

    Actually, he still does not have to sign.  It just becomes law without Presidential Signature.

    And if you look at my original proposal, you would see I said we need to change the constitution to require 2/3rds AND presidential signature.  So yes, he WOULD have to sign, Switch.



  • I was referring to current law in order to clarify the present reality.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    I was referring to current law in order to clarify the present reality.

    As long as you were not trying to correct my hope for NEW law because you misread me, I think we’re cool. 😛



  • Hey I LIKE the idea that increases in spending require Super or 2/3 Majority to pass AND signature.

    One of the main reason I vote Libertarian is that if a Libertarian wins it would force Congress to have to override Presidential Veto in order to spread pork.

    Just realize Jen that your idea will never pass.  It would require 2/3 of Congress to vote to give up their power.  And sadly, that will NEVER happen.

    Many view the Fair Tax as DOA because it would be a surrender of significant Congressional power, and Congress will never do that to itself.  Your option would be about 2 levels of power loss beyond even that.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I know.  The only way for Congress to make the necessary changes would be an over throw of the government (or a convincing threat of over throw) or to elect 400some odd members to the Congress (and Senate) with a moral center and a firm grip and understanding on ethics.

    Since no politician can be elected to the county level or higher in this country that has EITHER of those two things (A or B or A+B) then it will NEVER happen.



  • @Cmdr:

    I know.  The only way for Congress to make the necessary changes would be an over throw of the government (or a convincing threat of over throw) or to elect 400some odd members to the Congress (and Senate) with a moral center and a firm grip and understanding on ethics.

    That’s hilarious.

    I’ve always dreamt of a modern American revolution yet in reality, it would be a modern Civil War.

    As far as your wish list for making such a drastic change, it would essentially make vetoing a thing of the past. All the president would have to do is not sign it.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

    The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

    In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

    Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 38
  • 10
  • 18
  • 2
  • 5
  • 19
  • 3
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games

52
Online

13.5k
Users

33.9k
Topics

1.3m
Posts