I'd like to get polititians back to being responsive to their constituants as opposed to entites with money. This afflicts both sides of the aisle.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Constitutional reform of congress
- Thread starter CHAINSAW
- Start date
I'd like to get polititians back to being responsive to their constituants as opposed to entites with money. This afflicts both sides of the aisle.
Werbung:
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Excellent...a voice of rational thinking and a true middle of the road {sounds more like my Independent philosophy} ...but beware those 'TIN FOIL HATS' can turn real UGLY when they get P.O.
well, fortunately they are on the other end of a wire so their looks are of little import.
Its well past time to get the money out of politics.
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
No greater words have ever been spoken {well at least not around here in the past several months}...and the choir sings 'GLORY HAL LA LUYA'
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
I suggest a two-term limit, period. Can be two terms in one house of Congress, or one term in each. Once two terms have been served, that person can never again be a member of EITHER house of Congress.
That one's especially hilarious. Any money that gets put into the SS Trust Fund, is immediately spent on other things. The Trust Fund is basically empty, and has been for generations, ever since SS's first year in the 1930s. The spenders put little notes in there, promising to pay it back someday, but they have no actual plans to do so.
So you are saying here that present Congresscritters essentially lose all their saved-up pensions, and get the same SS "credit" the rest of us do. Excellent.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
we have term limits...its called voting
Technically not true.
Its required by law that "surplus" funds get used to buy an exclusive form of a t-bill. The money is then dumped into the General Fund same as with all other t-bill sales to be spent on whatever.
And there HAVE been surplusses after the prior reforms that bumped the rates charged. The reforms were needed because FDR's original ponzi scheme got rocked by expanding the rolls with full benefits from the start which was expressly prohibited in the original version. FDR knew that the population would expand fast enough to keep the thing afloat for a good while so long as you didn't muck with the model.
It was these surplusses that got pumped into the general fund that created Clinton's supposed overall budget surplusses (back out those entitlement bucks and its back to deficit).
But you are right to wonder how all these t-bills will get paid for when they come due not too far from now. they have manages to keep up with the ones that have been trickling in over the last decade or so but the spigot is soon to be opened up and that will be a challenge that nobody has had the fortitude to address seriously. Well, Fred Thompson did in the campaign, may explain why he fell off the radar.
Well then I dont think there is an issue then. All states have 2 senators regardless of thier poppulation and land size. To myself, the Senators from Alaska regardless of thier party is my biggest voice in DC. Alaska is a land with untold resource wealth, unimaginable to most Americans. Yet with a poppulation of less than 700,000 at any given time and having only Representative would make for an impossible situation for my state.
While I generally support the respective states to do as they please in matters like this...Alaska was badly burned when our Junior Senator Frank Murkowski campaigned for an won the Governorship(he was the good ole boy Sarah ran off). He swore up and down he wasnt going to appoint his daughter Lisa, well on the 11th hour of the deadline, guess who got appointed? Look at the situation with Illinois and Blago as another good reasons why Senate vacancies should go to special election.
Those seats are to valuable (F-in gold IIRC) to be subjected to partisan political appointment.
Well that is the most important issue, it is party politics. The two respective parties have so much money and ultimately power on the line for it not to become corrupt. I see no good reason why there should be any indication on the ballot over party membership.
Bad idea. Think about a company that had %100 turnover every 4 years. From the leadership on down. The fact of the matter is that the nature of both houses of Congress are slow, and the knowledge and fact base to deal with some very complex issues would never have time to really make a well informed decision on any number of issues. While I dont like the concept of single people holding political seats for basically thier entire life quick examples of both parties would be Senators Kennedy and Stevens respectively.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
PFOS, I have told you many times, quit stating the obvious.
I try not to, but seems often it needs to be said
and on that idea of don't put Dem or Rep next to there names...if you walk in that voter both and don't know what party they are...chances are you don't know enough you should be voting.
I can understand your premise. The Australians have mandatory election participation and it works well. Granted they are on the parlimentary system. Either way, Australia might be a crowning gem of democracy as was seen in 99 or 2000 and thier referendum about retaining the queen as head of state.
The problem you highlight is garden variety corruption. And this needs fixing to be sure. So start with it. Popular vote is subject to the same problems as whoever gets the most money will almost always win anyway and that means whoever is most corrupt wins.
Vote buying is the gravest issue America faces.
Werbung:
Everyone voting is the problem here. Most people aer too stupid to vote. Sorry but its true. The framers had it right limiting it to landowners. Modern times would need that expanded a little but if you have no dog in the fight you have no say.
