If the UnConstitutional "Super Committee" cuts SS or M-care, but leaves the $122 B oil subsidies...

[Scuba]

...they should all be tried for treason.


Just how in the name of Calamity Jane can Social Security or Medicare be "broke" when these subsidies are not?



edited for carelessness

[leftstreet]

1. But seniors need gas in their cars to drive to the food banks

duh

K&R

[valerief]

2. they should be tried anyway. nt

[abelenkpe]

3. If they are foolish enough to even dream of doing such a thing

they are not paying attention.
How the hell is it they are able to discuss matters that effect everyone in a closed door session?

[bananas]

4. If they cut SS or Medicare, regardless of what they do about oil subsidies. nt

[TheWraith]

5. Not the "unconstitutional super committee!!!" thing again.

For the umpteen billionth time: There is nothing either unconstitutional or even UNUSUAL about a joint congressional committee, nor does this one have the special magical powers that the hysterics in the blogosphere have attributed to it. The committee, if they can get the votes, makes a set of recommendations. Those recommendations are then passed on to the full Congress. That's very average procedure, and saying anything else shows that one hasn't done any research into the actual facts.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. How exactly is the "Super Committee" unconstitutional?

[Scuba]

7. It denies my reps (ergo me) to have any input to the process. No voice in the debate.

[Exultant Democracy]

8. It really isn't. The congress is empowered by the constitution to delegate their responsibility/powe...

That is one of the reasons the republicans want to shut down the EPA, because it has the ability to write regulations with the full force of law.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Incorrect. Your reps will be able to give input when any bill comes to the House or Senate

Just like any other committee.

[jtown1123]

11. True, but there are no amendments allowed...great! That's not democratic at all n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. The Constitution specifically grants both the House and the Senate the ability to

create their own rules.

[jtown1123]

16. I'm not saying it's unconstitutional...I'm saying this is the height of anti-democratic governing

and I'm disgusted by it. I could care less that it's legal. That's not the point.

[karynnj]

18. They get to vote - which gives them a voice.

[fascisthunter]

9. It's Pure Theft and Deliberate Bankruptcy of our Government

the enemies of our gov and democracy work within the government itself.

[alfredo]

12. As Pogo said:

[Recursion]

13. Sigh. This again. Article 1 section 5, clause 3. It's constitutional, and it's done all the time.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

If they wanted to say "we will base a bill's passage on a coin toss" they could.

[yurbud]

15. You don't even need the ''but''

I think the whole point is for it to be undemocratic, so people aren't sure how to react.

[jtown1123]

17. Yes. It is undemocratic, which is the real problem. n/t

[LaValle]

19. If they do That...

I thing whats happening in Greece will look pale compared to us here.