Utah Reps call for Constitutional Convention

[LogGrad98]

I think it is a bad idea to amend the constitution to solve temporary problems. They want to set the debt limit at ~ 14trillion why? Because that's where we're at now? 14trillion might be a fry cook's weekly paycheck at some point in this nation's future. How funny would it have been if the founding fathers set our national debt limit to a constitutionally mandated $1,000,000. I can tell you that it would only lead to further amending of the constitution which doesn't make sense to me at all.

Agree.

Another side to this is the need to spend it all. If they set a "limit" it will likely become like government entitlements now: if you don't use it you lose it. I could easily picture a time in the future when the debate is to how to GET our debt to the "constitutionally mandated $14 trillion".

 

[LogGrad98]

Honestly you think that conservatives don't want minorities to have equal rights? I've never heard a conservative complain that black people and other minorities have the same rights they do (assuming the particular consrvative I'm talking to is white). What I have heard are complaints that things called civil rights and equal rights actually provide special rights to certain people who fit into a narrow category while not giving those same right to everyone.

To open a can of worms, here is a thought. Up until my birthday this year, under title 7, I was in the ONLY unprotected class in the country. White males under the age of 40. Since my birthday I am now protected in the age category. Parenthetically I am protected under the terms of "race" in that I cannot be discriminated against due to being white.

I am simply stating a fact, and I am not qualifying it as good, bad, or indifferent. It is just the way the law is laid out.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

To open a can of worms, here is a thought. Up until my birthday this year, under title 7, I was in the ONLY unprotected class in the country. White males under the age of 40. Since my birthday I am now protected in the age category. Parenthetically I am protected under the terms of "race" in that I cannot be discriminated against due to being white.

I am simply stating a fact, and I am not qualifying it as good, bad, or indifferent. It is just the way the law is laid out.

What about sex, religion, national origin...

 

[sirkickyass]

I guess you would "need" to borrow during those times if you are unwilling to curb spending.

Taking measures that reduce aggregate demand in the face of liquidity trap, such as curbing spending, is EXACTLY the wrong move and virtually guaranteed to worsen a recession.

You could also pay off the debt quicker during times of plenty instead of look for ways to spend the extra tax flow, but every x amount of years the debt should go back to zero.

Which suggests exactly the opposite mechanism you proposed earlier: that the debt ceiling should lower as the GDP increases. Obviously you've really thought this one out.

Of course a sliding scale like that would probably be kind of complex and we'd want some flexibility built in to deal with different types of unforeseen problems in the future. Maybe that Constitutional Amendment idea isn't the brightest for dealing with this kind of problem.

There needs to be some accountability to how our taxes are spent.

A nice piece of rhetoric and one that could have been copy-pasted from any number of debates. However, it's only tangentially relevant here.

The ever changing (seemingly arbitrary) tax rates and the Fed's power to control interest rates certainly do add to the difficulties in finding a good way to accomplish this goal.

so I'm guessing your formal economics training is pretty minimal.

 

[PearlWatson]

Taking measures that reduce aggregate demand in the face of liquidity trap, such as curbing spending, is EXACTLY the wrong move and virtually guaranteed to worsen a recession.

Which suggests exactly the opposite mechanism you proposed earlier: that the debt ceiling should lower as the GDP increases. Obviously you've really thought this one out.

Of course a sliding scale like that would probably be kind of complex and we'd want some flexibility built in to deal with different types of unforeseen problems in the future. Maybe that Constitutional Amendment idea isn't the brightest for dealing with this kind of problem.

A nice piece of rhetoric and one that could have been copy-pasted from any number of debates. However, it's only tangentially relevant here.

so I'm guessing your formal economics training is pretty minimal.

Yeah, I haven't really thought about this before. I wasn't ready to just dismiss the entire convention idea or the reasons for it and so I tried to promote discussion by throwing ideas (<--including Jefferson's) out to see what I got back. You seem overly hostile to my ideas? my approach? me personally?

I don't see congress (<---kids in the candy store) ever putting limits on itself so the only way to limit them is through revolutionary proposals such as a convention. I'm not sure this is the time and place for this but those at the original convention were able to find a way to discuss a variety of complex ideas and come to a compromise on them.

 

[The-Joker]

Where were these guys when Bush was raising the deficit in unprecedented terms?

Cheering him on.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't know that.

 

[babe]

Yeah, I haven't really thought about this before. I wasn't ready to just dismiss the entire convention idea or the reasons for it and so I tried to promote discussion by throwing ideas (<--including Jefferson's) out to see what I got back. You seem overly hostile to my ideas? my approach? me personally?

I don't see congress (<---kids in the candy store) ever putting limits on itself so the only way to limit them is through revolutionary proposals such as a convention. I'm not sure this is the time and place for this but those at the original convention were able to find a way to discuss a variety of complex ideas and come to a compromise on them.

One thing I've noticed in here is that there are some people here with substantial education and expertise in some of the areas of our discussions. While there are some who are just partisans without a lot of thinking behind it, and some who are following posters around to sorta direct the discussions to a particular conclusion, it's not the worst place I know of to "Promote discussion by throwing ideas out to see" what you get back. But no "buddy system" to float your boat either.

I think we have gone far into the night of socialism, and few of us really are so uncomfortable about it we are gonna jump outta the pot if it gets a degree or two more socialistic. But the mere existence of a teaparty movement, while not developed by great insightful and wise leadership, is perhaps going to put a thermometer in the pot to make those who wish to be, aware of just what the situation is.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna do my bit to point out who developed and promoted socialism and why. It was those concerned gentlemen of Europe's leading circles, elitists if you please, who felt that the American revolution and governing principles were a direct threat to their way of life. Their purpose was to co-opt the aspirations of the common folk, and sorta re-direct them in a way they could manage. Socialism is actually a counter-revolution to the American revolution, which posited inate human rights and sought to limit the power of government.

Now, they've got almost all of us believing we can't live without them.

It's a big lie.

But we have to understand the folks who have soaked up huge inventories of education from our socialist propaganda/education institutions. Given all the assumptions about our collective natures and needs, and the practical impossibilities of surviving without our cartel/corporate Daddy MegaBucks' professional influences in guiding our government, and therefore, us, it's just "common sense" we need the gov to supervise us/care for us.

We can't go out our back doors and wander in the woods gathering mushrooms, berries, and firewood anymore. It belongs to the Gov. We can't shoot a rabbit and make some stew. It belongs to the Gov. Air, water, land, sea..... all belong to our keepers.

So here's what to do: run for office. Say all the good things. Be all the right things. Flatter all the right people. Be a real DINO/RINO centrist. Collect your fat paycheck. Do nothing. Permit nothing to be done.

Gee whiz. . . . . it just occurred to me this has been going on for a very, very long time. . . . .

Problem is, our PC-centered values don't permit anyone to do otherwise. . . .

Answer is, give the folks like Lyndon LaRouche or Phyllis Schlafly, and a lot of others, the lattitude to think and advocate ideas that are not so closely conforming, and elect some Libertarians or others who are "out there" somehow. Give freedom a chance.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I don't have access to the Diebolds. I'm sure a lot of them sold themselves short and voted McSame while bitching the whole way to the voting booth. I saw a lot of Ron Paul signs around too.

If you listened then you would have heard the same anti-spending complaining over Bush's prescription drug program, NCLB, etc. Saying they weren't complaining then but are now is as inaccurate as saying leftists were complaining then but aren't now. I live here and interact with enough people to hear what you don't. You don't have to take my word for it, but a little searching the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune archives will give you what you need. Utahns like to push back on the federal government a lot harder than, say, the coastal states.

As a side note, my opinion is that the economy is much better now than it was when Obama was elected. However, this shouldn't affect voting preference like we're both aware it does.

I have no doubt that there were a few staunch conservatives that were upset about the national debt under Bush.

I've lived in Utah for a lot of my life. I remember reading letter after letter in the Dnews in support of Bush (calling people traitors if they spoke against a President during the times of war). I remember the articles calling people cowards for not supporting the war on Iraq. I remember Charles Krauthammer and other writers printed in the Dnews write ups saying how "we" were fighting for freedom while other "socialized" countries like Germany and France would not. I remember reading letter after letter about how the tax cuts were good and that the deficits created were going towards stimulating the failing economy (which had failed because of Clinton) and fighting the wars (which were because of Clinton because he didn't do anything after the USS cole).

I have no doubt that a very small handful of conservatives have been upset over the past 20 years... 30 years... 100 years about the national debt. But by far the vast majority of those who identify themselves as conservatives, were supportive of Bush's policies. Merely because, he had a R by his name. It wasn't until the very end of his presidency that he finally had less than 50 % approval rating in Utah.

Personally, I think arguing these types of points are worthless. A lot of people on the other side probably swear that Obama is completely different than Bush...

The truth of the matter is that hardly anyone would be upset if the economy was good. Since it isn't, people are looking for "change." AM radio and fox tells them what they need to know while Palin and the Tea Party Populists pump them up.

 

[Deleted member 365]

So if you were vocal while Bush was President, credit to you Franklin. Unfortunately, most of your Utahn brothers weren't so noble. And to be fair, if Obama sucks, there will probably be some liberal states that will be silent too. It's really pathetic.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

if Obama sucks,

IF? I thought this was the first thing both sides have agreed on in awhile.

 

[Deleted member 365]

IF? I thought this was the first thing both sides have agreed on in awhile.

Depends on what "both sides" are. IF you're an extreme on either side, then yes, you're probably thinking that he sucks. If you're a moderate, you're probably just wanting the economy to do more gooder.

Obama has been a pretty moderate president so far. If he "sucks" it's probably due to him not fulfilling your radical agenda.

I for one will at least let him finish his first term before I pass judgment. Once more, a double standard. Obama from day 1 has been declared a failure by conservatives. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me, when one of the most popular conservative voices (Sean Hannity) was still voicing out his opinion that we won't know how good of a Pres Bush was until years perhaps decades after....

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

Depends on what "both sides" are. IF you're an extreme on either side, then yes, you're probably thinking that he sucks. If you're a moderate, you're probably just wanting the economy to do more gooder.

Obama has been a pretty moderate president so far. If he "sucks" it's probably due to him not fulfilling your radical agenda.

I for one will at least let him finish his first term before I pass judgment. Once more, a double standard. Obama from day 1 has been declared a failure by conservatives. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me, when one of the most popular conservative voices (Sean Hannity) was still voicing out his opinion that we won't know how good of a Pres Bush was until years perhaps decades after....

Both sides means everyone. He sucks.