“Go see the movie ‘Lincoln’,” LaHood said, in a message to congressional Republicans. He said Lincoln brought people together in “the way I believe President Obama is doing.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! WTF is wrong with our government.
Good lord. Hollywood is now an accepted replacement for actual history?
I read recently that human intellegence was on the decline, and I believe it.
“Starting Friday, federal agencies will be forced to make cuts to their programs without knowing what their actual budgets for this year will be. Why? Because Congress never passed a budget, just a stopgap funding measure that expires soon.”
-This seems very efficient, so efficient I’d like the government to control the financial sector, private business, and healthcare. Who needs a budget anyway? WTF is wrong with our government?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Starting Friday, federal agencies will be forced to make cuts to their programs without knowing what their actual budgets for this year will be. Why? Because Congress never passed a budget, just a stopgap funding measure that expires soon.”
-This seems very efficient, so efficient I’d like the government to control the financial sector, private business, and healthcare. Who needs a budget anyway? WTF is wrong with our government? [/quote]
The fiscal cliff is being blamed on the TEA Party as a piece of bad policy that has generated a tempest in a tea cup. The funniest part is, that was the idea.
Neither side has been capable of generating a solution better than a piece of legislation that was designed to be bad and both sides have done their part to foment the issue (only recently have some Republicans begun to objectify the cuts).
Again, I refer to my proposal, rather than a putting metaphorical gun to the head of every politician we start considering appropriate and humane means for using real ones.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Starting Friday, federal agencies will be forced to make cuts to their programs without knowing what their actual budgets for this year will be. Why? Because Congress never passed a budget, just a stopgap funding measure that expires soon.”
-This seems very efficient, so efficient I’d like the government to control the financial sector, private business, and healthcare. Who needs a budget anyway? WTF is wrong with our government? [/quote]
The fiscal cliff is being blamed on the TEA Party as a piece of bad policy that has generated a tempest in a tea cup. The funniest part is, that was the idea.
Neither side has been capable of generating a solution better than a piece of legislation that was designed to be bad and both sides have done their part to foment the issue (only recently have some Republicans begun to objectify the cuts).
Again, I refer to my proposal, rather than a putting metaphorical gun to the head of every politician we start considering appropriate and humane means for using real ones.[/quote]
I suppose it’s wishfull thinking to hope this is a wake up for America and folks like Pelosi and McCain are voted out. I think a combined what, 100 years, in Congress is enough.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning[/quote]
A two party systen doesn’t offer choice; only a lack of options.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning[/quote]
A two party systen doesn’t offer choice; only a lack of options. [/quote]
If politics weren’t driven by $, we’d have many partied I think.
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term. [/quote]
Senators are 6 year terms. I am for the House getting up to 4-5 2 year terms, Senators 2 6 year terms. That would be 20-22 years in office. Then run for President and add 8 years to those totals.
You need term limits for beauraucrats and other government paper-pushers, too.
Up-or-out like the military for upper management.
Keep the drones/enlisted no more than 5-6.
Government of any kind should not be a career except in exceptional circumstances.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term. [/quote]
At least with the potential for re-election, you get lied to. Without it or the potential for it, you might actually see constituents (esp. the voting but non-paying kind) getting told to fuck off.
Maybe prorating the majority needed for re-election based on term but, again, it seems a clever niche solution to a system that really needs major overhaul.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term. [/quote]
Senators are 6 year terms. I am for the House getting up to 4-5 2 year terms, Senators 2 6 year terms. That would be 20-22 years in office. Then run for President and add 8 years to those totals.[/quote]
That, to me, is an insane amount of time in office. I say 2 year terms for all of Congress. You can keep the President at 2 4 year terms that’s fine.
If you can’t get anything done in 730 days, you shouldn’t be in office anyway.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term. [/quote]
At least with the potential for re-election, you get lied to. Without it or the potential for it, you might actually see constituents (esp. the voting but non-paying kind) getting told to fuck off.
Maybe prorating the majority needed for re-election based on term but, again, it seems a clever niche solution to a system that really needs major overhaul.
[/quote]
Members of Congress say an Oath of Office correct? If they lie during thier 2 year term, they spend the remainder of the term in federal prison.
Also, this should eliminate the Congressional pension plan.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning[/quote]
A two party systen doesn’t offer choice; only a lack of options. [/quote]
If politics weren’t driven by $, we’d have many partied I think.
Big Money in Politics: Bloomberg Buys IL Congressional Primary for Anti-Gun Radical [/quote]
I’m not sure we would have more parties but i believe we would have a better country , I agree with you Blue collar , I would also ad that is why I would oppose term limits , It would just further limit choice
- indefinite duration for every political mandate. Potentially : a lifetime.
No more “terms”, no more re-election → less money, time and energy spent needlessly.
Less influence and less power for lobbyists.
Less media circus.
** giganormous wages for every elected politicians : it will make them immune to corruption, blackmail, etc.
*** even better : make the whole State their own private property.
The national debt will become their own private debt. Soon we will soon less irresponsible bullshits, and more good old, “household-like” economical policies.
*** make political positions hereditary : politics will become less short-sighted. Sustainability and long-term outcomes will become real concerns.
**** reduce the number of political seats. When 1 guy is enough to make a decision and sign a paper, 1 political seat is enough.
[quote]kamui wrote:
- indefinite duration for every political mandate. Potentially : a lifetime.
No more “terms”, no more re-election → less money, time and energy spent needlessly.
Less influence and less power for lobbyists.
Less media circus.
** giganormous wages for every elected politicians : it will make them immune to corruption, blackmail, etc.
*** even better : make the whole State their own private property.
The national debt will become their own private debt. Soon we will soon less irresponsible bullshits, and more good old, “household-like” economical policies.
*** make political positions hereditary : politics will become less short-sighted. Sustainability and long-term outcomes will become real concerns.
**** reduce the number of political seats. When 1 guy is enough to make a decision and sign a paper, 1 political seat is enough.
[/quote]
Are you serious?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term. [/quote]
Senators are 6 year terms. I am for the House getting up to 4-5 2 year terms, Senators 2 6 year terms. That would be 20-22 years in office. Then run for President and add 8 years to those totals.[/quote]
That, to me, is an insane amount of time in office. I say 2 year terms for all of Congress. You can keep the President at 2 4 year terms that’s fine.
If you can’t get anything done in 730 days, you shouldn’t be in office anyway. [/quote]
I agree with you, but the constitution mandates those year terms for house, senate, and president. The thing is that you have to win those elections to keep moving up on the totem pole. I like Jewbacca’s thinking. Government jobs are suppose to be civil servants, not get paid ungodly amounts of money, with pensions, and benefits that no one in the private sector gets access to.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A newly-elected senator has to raise $10,000/week beginning the week that he takes office in order to pay for re-election. That’s the problem with our government.[/quote]
Easy solution, single 2 year term. [/quote]
My preferred solution involves campaign finance reform. It takes these people a full year to learn how things are done inside the Beltway anyway anyway.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
- indefinite duration for every political mandate. Potentially : a lifetime.
No more “terms”, no more re-election → less money, time and energy spent needlessly.
Less influence and less power for lobbyists.
Less media circus.
** giganormous wages for every elected politicians : it will make them immune to corruption, blackmail, etc.
*** even better : make the whole State their own private property.
The national debt will become their own private debt. Soon we will soon less irresponsible bullshits, and more good old, “household-like” economical policies.
*** make political positions hereditary : politics will become less short-sighted. Sustainability and long-term outcomes will become real concerns.
**** reduce the number of political seats. When 1 guy is enough to make a decision and sign a paper, 1 political seat is enough.
[/quote]
Are you serious? [/quote]
That’s called monarchy.
It “worked” many times, in many countries, and in many eras.
Maybe it wasn’t perfect, but it was at least sustainable.
And it was way smaller than our modern states.
Most of the benefits of minarchy, but without the fatal flaw of being totally utopian.