An Uber Congress???

[discoberry]

Another addition to the WTF are they possibly thinking file:

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an "inevitable" option. "For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president's request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan," he said in a statement. "Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option."

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

[Dragon Zachski]

I AM BULLET PROOOOOOOOOOO--

Oh wait, wrong Uber.

Man, this has the potential to be a nightmare and a half.

[cestlefun17]

Eh I really don't see the big deal. The Constitution says that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" and as the "Uber Congress" does not vote for final passage of laws, only if they go to the floor (like any other committee), I don't see why it wouldn't be constitutionally sound.

It seems like it's a committee with the ability to fast-track non-controversial legislation.

[ironbite]

All legislation is controversial according to everybody.

Ironbite-even a no cancer bill would be controversial

[discoberry]

Jul 24, 2011 19:28:24 GMT -5 ironbite said:

All legislation is controversial according to everybody.

Ironbite-even a no cancer bill would be controversial

Especially according to the Tea party

[MaybeNever]

More problematic I think is this:

A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

All I see here is another vehicle to aggrandize the rich and fuck the poor, destroy the middle class, and generally continue dismantling the social progress made in the 20th century while fellating Objectivism, Mises school economics, and related forms of sociopathy. Since apparently a good government that actually considers the well-being of the country to be a worthwhile goal is too much to ask for, I'd rather have a mostly paralyzed government than one that can fast track shoving a middle finger right up the asshole of everybody without a trust fund or a seat on some board of directors.

[chad sexington]

Jul 24, 2011 19:36:44 GMT -5 discoberry said:

Jul 24, 2011 19:28:24 GMT -5 ironbite said:

All legislation is controversial according to everybody.

Ironbite-even a no cancer bill would be controversial

Especially according to the Tea party

Well yeah. Look what happened to the 'Save the Puppies' bill.

[Ranger Joe]

Jul 24, 2011 21:08:45 GMT -5 MaybeNever said:

More problematic I think is this:

A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

All I see here is another vehicle to aggrandize the rich and fuck the poor, destroy the middle class, and generally continue dismantling the social progress made in the 20th century while fellating Objectivism, Mises school economics, and related forms of sociopathy. Since apparently a good government that actually considers the well-being of the country to be a worthwhile goal is too much to ask for, I'd rather have a mostly paralyzed government than one that can fast track shoving a middle finger right up the asshole of everybody without a trust fund or a seat on some board of directors.

What if some people think getting a finger shoved right up the asshole isn't a bad thing?

I don't think creating another group (and expanding the government further) would benefit anything at all. These assholes that are running the show have absolutely no care about the average citizen. They are all protecting their own interest and hedging their bets so they still continue to rake in money and advance their own agendas.

I firmly believe that if the debt ceiling actually does collapse, then the house, senate and president should be removed from office (there is a provision for this in the Constitution if I'm not mistaken). Now, I'm not exactly sure who we'd replace them with so this isn't a feasible option...I just want to see the bastards hang if they play political chicken for too long and actually shit the bed more than they already have...

[DrKilljoy]

Isn't this how dystopian sci-fi novels start?

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 19:36:44 GMT -5 discoberry said:

Jul 24, 2011 19:28:24 GMT -5 ironbite said:

All legislation is controversial according to everybody.

Ironbite-even a no cancer bill would be controversial

Especially according to the Tea party

We should let the free market decide if cancer is a good thing!

[cestlefun17]

I firmly believe that if the debt ceiling actually does collapse, then the house, senate and president should be removed from office (there is a provision for this in the Constitution if I'm not mistaken). Now, I'm not exactly sure who we'd replace them with so this isn't a feasible option...I just want to see the bastards hang if they play political chicken for too long and actually shit the bed more than they already have...

Unless you're suggesting that the House vote to impeach the President, 2/3 of the Senate votes to convict the President of a crime (and thus remove him from office), and 2/3 of both houses of Congress vote to expel every member of their house, then no, there is no such provision in the Constitution.

[devilschaplain2]

And I don't much care for the design of their headquarters:

[Rat Of Steel]

My memory of 80s cartoons is a bit rusty after all these years. Is that the Legion of Doom's HQ?

[Damen]

Jul 25, 2011 17:05:35 GMT -5 Rat Of Steel said:

My memory of 80s cartoons is a bit rusty after all these years. Is that the Legion of Doom's HQ?

Of course not. That is clearly Stewie Griffin's head.

[devilschaplain2]

Jul 25, 2011 17:05:35 GMT -5 Rat Of Steel said:

My memory of 80s cartoons is a bit rusty after all these years. Is that the Legion of Doom's HQ?

Why yes it is.