Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment ...



...of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Introduced:Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)Sponsor:Rep. José Serrano [D-NY15]Status: Referred to Committee

The moron will have added more to our national debt than every president before him COMBINED by the time THIS term is done....

I read that Serrano has introduced the bill every year for the last two decades. You'd think he'd learn by now that this will never pass, but I guess he really believes in it or something. What a weird man.

Donks.

∞∞∞ wrote:I read that Serrano has introduced the bill every year for the last two decades. You'd think he'd learn by now that this will never pass, but I guess he really believes in it or something. What a weird man.

You think it's a mere coincidence that he introduces this bill when Hugo Chavez Obama is seeking to consolidate his power? You need a consultation with spandos!

Conks that wanted this under Reagan :pathetic:

dbackjon wrote:Conks that wanted this under Reagan :pathetic:

Who also spent more than every president before him...

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Conks that wanted this under Reagan :pathetic:

Who also spent more than every president before him...

Conks

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Conks that wanted this under Reagan :pathetic:

Who also spent more than every president before him...

In a decade that saw an unprecedented rise in federal revenue.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Tip O'Neil or Dan Rostenkowski.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who also spent more than every president before him...

In a decade that saw an unprecedented rise in federal revenue.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Tip O'Neil or Dan Rostenkowski.

Yep. Together, they spent our way to prosperity!

(While raising taxes 11 times)

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
In a decade that saw an unprecedented rise in federal revenue.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Tip O'Neil or Dan Rostenkowski.

Yep. Together, they spent our way to prosperity!

(While raising taxes 11 times)

Well, all taxes weren't created equal.

It's probably not fair to compare a temporary $0.05 increase in the gas tax or an increase in the cigarette excise tax to decreasing the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%.

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Conks that wanted this under Reagan :pathetic:

Who also spent more than every president before him...

Which was a lot easier then.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who also spent more than every president before him...

Which was a lot easier then.

OK.

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Conks that wanted this under Reagan :pathetic:

Who also spent more than every president before him...

Keep bashing Reagan kalm.
History says that the country was better after his 8 years than before his 8 years. A lot better.

The Carter years....

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who also spent more than every president before him...

Keep bashing Reagan kalm.
History says that the country was better after his 8 years than before his 8 years. A lot better.

The Carter years....

You're missing the point. Reagan's influence is still alive and well today. But to apply your logic, Carter was less damaging than Bush 42.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who also spent more than every president before him...

Keep bashing Reagan kalm.
History says that the country was better after his 8 years than before his 8 years. A lot better.

The Carter years....

Yeah, the majority of Americans are really benefiting from the legacy of Reaganomics.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Keep bashing Reagan kalm.
History says that the country was better after his 8 years than before his 8 years. A lot better.

The Carter years....

Yeah, the majority of Americans are really benefiting from the legacy of Reaganomics.

Majority? No.
Many? Yes.
You are too young to remember the Carter years. Reaganomics rescued the nation.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Yeah, the majority of Americans are really benefiting from the legacy of Reaganomics.

Majority? No.
Many? Yes.
You are too young to remember the Carter years. Reaganomics rescued the nation.

Try 1%.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Yeah, the majority of Americans are really benefiting from the legacy of Reaganomics.

Majority? No.
Many? Yes.
You are too young to remember the Carter years. Reaganomics rescued the nation.

I remember them quite well, it was when the bill for Viet Nam came due, just after Gerald Ford's Whip Inflation Now campaign.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
In a decade that saw an unprecedented rise in federal revenue.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Tip O'Neil or Dan Rostenkowski.

Yep. Together, they spent our way to prosperity!

(While raising taxes 11 times)

Don't hate on Reagan. Many brown people are very thankful for his amnesty...and many more are awaiting the next one.

∞∞∞ wrote:I read that Serrano has introduced the bill every year for the last two decades. You'd think he'd learn by now that this will never pass, but I guess he really believes in it or something. What a weird man.

If he wanted to do something useful, he should submit a bill that calls for an amendment limiting the presidency to one, six-year term. No reelection period to waste time on.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I read that Serrano has introduced the bill every year for the last two decades. You'd think he'd learn by now that this will never pass, but I guess he really believes in it or something. What a weird man.

If he wanted to do something useful, he should submit a bill that calls for an amendment limiting the presidency to one, six-year term. No reelection period to waste time on.

Agreed 100%

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Majority? No.
Many? Yes.
You are too young to remember the Carter years. Reaganomics rescued the nation.

Try 1%.

1%? You could make a good argument that the economic boom that nearly everyone enjoyed during Clinton's presidency was the result of policies put in place by Reagan. Clinton was smart enough to ride the wave and not fvck it up unlike Dubya who doubled down at the wrong time.

UNI88 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Try 1%.

1%? You could make a good argument that the economic boom that nearly everyone enjoyed during Clinton's presidency was the result of policies put in place by Reagan. Clinton was smart enough to ride the wave and not fvck it up unlike Dubya who doubled down at the wrong time.

Except that you had a recession in between Clinton and Reagan and you also had the tech bubble. Bubbles tend to happen more and are larger when trickle down economics in is in play.

But yes...it's all cyclical and there certainly be some coat tail riding.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote: 1%? You could make a good argument that the economic boom that nearly everyone enjoyed during Clinton's presidency was the result of policies put in place by Reagan. Clinton was smart enough to ride the wave and not fvck it up unlike Dubya who doubled down at the wrong time.

Except that you had a recession in between Clinton and Reagan and you also had the tech bubble. Bubbles tend to happen more and are larger when trickle down economics in is in play.

But yes...it's all cyclical and there certainly be some coat tail riding.

I've been saying for a long time that the economic impact of a Presidents policies aren't truly felt until 10-20 years after they're implemented. IMO, Reagan was a great president and his legacy will continue to grow with time. I also believe that Clinton was a darn good president and his legacy will also grow. Economics are cyclical and we were going to have a recession around this point in time regardless of fiscal or monetary policies. The depth and length of the current recession was significantly increased when Dubya decided to lower taxes and go to war (1st time in U.S. history that's been done), both parties decided that everyone should be able to own a home regardless of whether they could afford it (thank you Dubya, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, et. al), and they loosened up the separation between banking and investments. It was a perfect storm and we helped to create it.

Is there a greater separation between rich and poor than there was 20 years ago? Yes. Is this Reagan's fault? I don't think so. It's also relative, the poor frequently have electricity, cars, tvs, food stamps, etc. so they're significantly better off today than they were 50-100 years ago.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote: 1%? You could make a good argument that the economic boom that nearly everyone enjoyed during Clinton's presidency was the result of policies put in place by Reagan. Clinton was smart enough to ride the wave and not fvck it up unlike Dubya who doubled down at the wrong time.

Except that you had a recession in between Clinton and Reagan and you also had the tech bubble. Bubbles tend to happen more and are larger when trickle down economics in is in play.

But yes...it's all cyclical and there certainly be some coat tail riding.

Are you really blaming the tech bubble of the mid to late 90s on Reagan? I don't suppose easy money monetary policy had anything to do with it.

If you want to find the reason for the recession of 91-92, you might want to look at the tax increase that the Dems skillfully forced HW Bush to agree to.