first

i watched the first 5 minutes

it was just some guy saying how things suck


was the other 10 minutes better?

Marco Rubio is definitely a up and coming leader. Very articulate and seems to be extremely intelligent.

Marco Rubio's record is extremely short because of him being a new senator; but I think I would already prefer him over majority of the GOP candidates for president. Too bad he isn't running; because his passionate speaking style would definitely make him a contender.

Btw; lol at John Kerry; he has got to be the least passionate guy I have ever heard talk. With a senate full of John Kerrys no wonder nothing gets done.

The counter counted me as watching it when I only watched the first 30 seconds.

Balanced budget amendment, flat tax, fair tax, all dumb ideas.

John Kerry has less charisma and commands less attention than a rock, seriously fuck that guy.

It wasn't that honest of a speech, it was half the story, same political posturing the rest of the shitheels in DC do, this was just packaged in a well spoken and coherent speech.

I like the balanced budget amendment; what are your issues with it?

Few reasons:

*Lack of faith in our lawmakers to write a clean, concise and effective amendment. The one offered during the debt debate was like 84 pages or something.

*The potential to hamstring the Federal Government as economic times go up and down. Tying a balanced budget to some fiscal calendar could prevent the government from being able to adequately respond to some crisis.

*Mostly I rather demand better leadership from our elected officials instead of giving them more excuses to pass the buck, congress doesn't need another "avoidance device" they have enough rules already that allow them to avoid governing.

Similar to my feelings on gun control, we don't need better laws we just need to enforce the laws we have better.

The ideal of the amendment is good, and I agree with it, I just think we don't have the leadership in DC to create the type of flexible rule we need that would also be hard to skirt or abuse.

Fair enough.

If at all possible, the Constitution should not be cluttered up with amendments that deal with narrow issues if they can be dealt with in some other way.

If we do have a balanced budget amendment, it should be for a seven to ten year moving average to account for the business cycle. There should be no references to GDP or any other measures because an end-run could be made around the amendment by tampering with the definition of GDP.

States should consider a seven to ten year moving average.