That's ridiculous! Oh, , , tell me about it.

[henryclay]

Over the 235 years of the Republic we have a record of finding the most outlandish freedoms, (inalienable rights may be a better term for it), included in the Constitution while we have also had things clearly written in it that have been denied to us. So I am curious. I wonder if anybody would like to say anything about what they would lioke to have as a law that has not been spelled out yet, or one that is spelled out but they think should not have been.

My biggest problem is that we don't have an official language. I would like to see us have English as a language, and anybody who doesn't want to learn to read, as well as learn to speak English, (I went to the emergency room a while back and the doctor had an aide with him who told me what the doctor was trying to tell me), should have to furnish their own interpreter no matter when, why or how the subject of language comes up.

Just asking.

[mmhmm]

I, too, would like to see English declared the national language, henry, and every hopeful citizen required to learn it. While we've not had a national language, there was a time when immigrants were, indeed, required to learn the language in order to survive and, perhaps, flourish. They did. It doesn't seem outrageous to me to expect those who wish to make their lives here to learn our language.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

I'm an advocate of assisted suicide rights.

And I would also like to see English declared the national language.

[cme1201]

Jul 28, 2011 17:31:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I, too, would like to see English declared the national language, henry, and every hopeful citizen required to learn it. While we've not had a national language, there was a time when immigrants were, indeed, required to learn the language in order to survive and, perhaps, flourish. They did. It doesn't seem outrageous to me to expect those who wish to make their lives here to learn our language.

I agree with this, but, more importantly I would like to see a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, yearly. Not one that only applies towards the sitting Congress when it is in session.

[mmhmm]

I wouldn't be averse to that, either, cme ... that is, if we can get ourselves out of the hole we're currently digging deeper!

[mmhmm]

Jul 28, 2011 17:34:18 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

I'm an advocate of assisted suicide rights.

And I would also like to see English declared the national language.

I'm not against assisted suicide, wiccan, provided there are stringent controls in place to deal with those whose wish for suicide is simply a permanent solution to a temporary problem. For those with painful, debilitating, disfiguring, terminal disease, I've got no problem with allowing them to make that decision. It is, after all, their life, not mine.

[magichat]

Jul 28, 2011 17:35:49 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jul 28, 2011 17:31:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I, too, would like to see English declared the national language, henry, and every hopeful citizen required to learn it. While we've not had a national language, there was a time when immigrants were, indeed, required to learn the language in order to survive and, perhaps, flourish. They did. It doesn't seem outrageous to me to expect those who wish to make their lives here to learn our language.

I agree with this, but, more importantly I would like to see a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, yearly. Not one that only applies towards the sitting Congress when it is in session.

So what if a balanced budget required 80% income tax?

[mmhmm]

If the requirements for increased taxes are outrunning the requirements for decreased spending, magichat, there's a problem with the budget, IMO. I do, however, agree that both are necessary.

[henryclay]

I have heard a budget cap of a percent of GDP. , , , I think I heard 18% as being the historical norm, and that takes into consideration that spending has outrun revenues. So, why couldn't taxes be held at a reasonble rates with a balanced budget/GDP cap requirement?

[magichat]

Just because we require the budget to be balanced doesn't mean that spending will necessarily decrease. I will not trust congress with that kind of power. Instead I think PBP has proposed a better idea of requiring that spending be capped at a % of the GDP.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2011 17:22:35 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Over the 235 years of the Republic we have a record of finding the most outlandish freedoms, (inalienable rights may be a better term for it), included in the Constitution while we have also had things clearly written in it that have been denied to us. So I am curious. I wonder if anybody would like to say anything about what they would lioke to have as a law that has not been spelled out yet, or one that is spelled out but they think should not have been.

My biggest problem is that we don't have an official language. I would like to see us have English as a language, and anybody who doesn't want to learn to read, as well as learn to speak English, (I went to the emergency room a while back and the doctor had an aide with him who told me what the doctor was trying to tell me), should have to furnish their own interpreter no matter when, why or how the subject of language comes up.

Just asking.

i vote for Cherokee.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2011 17:48:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If the requirements for increased taxes are outrunning the requirements for decreased spending, magichat, there's a problem with the budget, IMO. I do, however, agree that both are necessary.

actually, the house proposal nipped that in the bud by saying that no new taxes could be created to balance the budget. therefore, any crisis that the US runs into will drive us into bankrupsy.

sounds like a terrif idea, eh?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I'd join the "official language: English" bandwagon... sign me up...

[cme1201]

Jul 28, 2011 17:46:52 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Jul 28, 2011 17:35:49 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

I agree with this, but, more importantly I would like to see a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, yearly. Not one that only applies towards the sitting Congress when it is in session.

So what if a balanced budget required 80% income tax?

Is that 80% tax across the board with no deductions or credits for all citizens, or is it 80% tax on the 60% who now pay taxes while allowing credits and deductions that subsudize the lifestyle of those who pay no federal income tax?

If we have 2.2t coming in then according to a balanced budget we should be spending no more than 2.2t at the absolute most.

[Phoenix84]

I would support a law making english the national language. One of the things I hate is going to the store and seeing all the products marked in spanish. There really should be a law against that.

As far as a balenced budget, I agree, but I still think we should be able to borrow in a national emergency.

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2011 18:01:36 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Just because we require the budget to be balanced doesn't mean that spending will necessarily decrease. I will not trust congress with that kind of power. Instead I think PBP has proposed a better idea of requiring that spending be capped at a % of the GDP.

Who is going to be doing the math on this?

[magichat]

Jul 28, 2011 20:23:52 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jul 28, 2011 17:46:52 GMT -5 @magichat said:

So what if a balanced budget required 80% income tax?

Is that 80% tax across the board with no deductions or credits for all citizens, or is it 80% tax on the 60% who now pay taxes while allowing credits and deductions that subsudize the lifestyle of those who pay no federal income tax?

If we have 2.2t coming in then according to a balanced budget we should be spending no more than 2.2t at the absolute most.

Who cares who is taxed at 80%, would you really support that just to have a balanced budget?

[magichat]

Jul 28, 2011 22:45:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 28, 2011 18:01:36 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Just because we require the budget to be balanced doesn't mean that spending will necessarily decrease. I will not trust congress with that kind of power. Instead I think PBP has proposed a better idea of requiring that spending be capped at a % of the GDP.

Who is going to be doing the math on this?

Excellent question...I hadn't really thought that much about it, but I would imagine the GAO would handle the number crunching. Thankfully their math would be reviewable by any number of watch dog groups.

[billisonboard]

Jul 29, 2011 8:19:00 GMT -5 @magichat said:

[quote author=billisonboard board=politics thread=11879 post=481046 time=1311911149]

Who is going to be doing the math on this?

Excellent question...I hadn't really thought that much about it, but I would imagine the GAO would handle the number crunching. Thankfully their math would be reviewable by any number of watch dog groups. [/quote]

And debated endlessly on message boards like this. And we all know how much impact that has on government action. I have no doubt that if the government were required to "balance the budget" they would "balance the budget".

[Waffle]

I'm for English being the official language. I only want the government to have to issue signs, forms etc. in one language. I wouldn't go as far as some, though. I don't think it would have to be a requirement for immigrants to learn English - afterall there have been many immigrant families in our history where some of the older members never fully learned English, but the younger working ones did. I'm ok with that as long as they know coming in that the government isn't going to provide information, interpreters, etc.

As for private businesses, if they want to add additional languages to their product labeling and signage that's fine with me as long as the government is not mandating or paying for it.