[Double_Take]

Well, I lost and will be absent for exactly 1 week from the posting of this thread.

Go ahead and gloat, I wont be able to respond till next monday.

I do want to ask one legit question though: Now that the republicans control the house, what will they do to reduce spending? Please use numbers.

 

[Texdentist]

The Republicans alone can't cut spending. Any bill they can push through congress must get a presidential signature. They won't be able to reverse anything the previous group passed, although they can refuse to fund some of it. I have seen many articles where Republican leaders have listed places to cut spending. But only time will tell what they can actually manage to do until they get a like-minded president. The bad news for the Dems is that it is going to be very difficult to label the Republicans as the culprits in 2012 since the Dems own 2/3 of the branches needed to pass legislation.

 

[Vette_Newb]

Well, I lost and will be absent for exactly 1 week from the posting of this thread.

Go ahead and gloat, I wont be able to respond till next monday.

I do want to ask one legit question though: Now that the republicans control the house, what will they do to reduce spending? Please use numbers.

:laughing: Who did you lose the bet to?

All appropriations bill must originate in the house. If the reps deem it unnecessary or unneeded, spending bills won't get wrote.

But, the real big issue is at the state level, through redistricting. The wave at the state level is massive, largest since 1948. And redistricting starts next year. I don't know if your familiar with the process, but that is where the real change is going to happen and then 2012-2014 could really be a democratic bloodbath.

Right now, not gonna see much other than posturing.

 

[Texdentist]

:laughing: Who did you lose the bet to?

All appropriations bill must originate in the house. If the reps deem it unnecessary or unneeded, spending bills won't get wrote.

But, the real big issue is at the state level, through redistricting. The wave at the state level is massive, largest since 1948. And redistricting starts next year. I don't know if your familiar with the process, but that is where the real change is going to happen and then 2012-2014 could really be a democratic bloodbath.

Right now, not gonna see much other than posturing.

My crystal ball says look for lots of court cases to drag down the redistricting process. 2012 comes pretty quickly.

 

[Double_Take]

Im back! :devil:

Florida's legislature is considering a law which requires redistricting to occur along natural and city borders. I wish all states would adopt this. There is a district here in chicago that has a half mile long 1 street wide stretch so the representative can still live in the district. :crazy:

 

[Texdentist]

Im back! :devil:

Florida's legislature is considering a law which requires redistricting to occur along natural and city borders. I wish all states would adopt this. There is a district here in chicago that has a half mile long 1 street wide stretch so the representative can still live in the district. :crazy:

Gerrymandering, at various times, suits both parties needs. They hate it when they are not in control and love it when they are. The timing was good for Republicans this time.

 

[Double_Take]

Gerrymandering, at various times, suits both parties needs. They hate it when they are not in control and love it when they are. The timing was good for Republicans this time.

Shouldnt it represent the peoples' needs?

 

[Texdentist]

Shouldnt it represent the peoples' needs?

:laughing::laughing::laughing: Good one!

 

[Vette_Newb]

Shouldnt it represent the peoples' needs?

:smack

 

[iburke]

Shouldnt it represent the peoples' needs?

The needs of a few or the needs of the many???:huh:

 

[Double_Take]

The needs of a few or the needs of the many???:huh:

There is a huge difference between the following statements: The government serves the peoples' needs, and the government provides for people's needs.

We can argue all day about what the government should provide, but the government exists to serve its citizens. That has been true since, well societies first started forming governments.

IMO our government is no longer beholden to its citizens. They make decisions based on campaign contributions, not votes. They know that votes can be bought, voters can be convinced, and they can remain in power while voting against the electorate's best interest.

There are only two ways to change this. 1) All out revolution. 2) Change campaign finance laws. Money rules everything, money is power. If you can force politicians to act in the best interest of their constituants we will have better government.

Here is my campaign finance idea. Its not perfect, but I think its a start. Any person or corporation (a union counts as a corporation) can only contribute $1000 a year to any campaign, party or PAC. They can give $1 to 1000 different groups or $1000 to one. This removes the issue of corporations giving millions to a PAC for ads in favor of their candidate.

 

[Texdentist]

There is a huge difference between the following statements: The government serves the peoples' needs, and the government provides for people's needs.

We can argue all day about what the government should provide, but the government exists to serve its citizens. That has been true since, well societies first started forming governments.

IMO our government is no longer beholden to its citizens. They make decisions based on campaign contributions, not votes. They know that votes can be bought, voters can be convinced, and they can remain in power while voting against the electorate's best interest.

There are only two ways to change this. 1) All out revolution. 2) Change campaign finance laws. Money rules everything, money is power. If you can force politicians to act in the best interest of their constituants we will have better government.

Here is my campaign finance idea. Its not perfect, but I think its a start. Any person or corporation (a union counts as a corporation) can only contribute $1000 a year to any campaign, party or PAC. They can give $1 to 1000 different groups or $1000 to one. This removes the issue of corporations giving millions to a PAC for ads in favor of their candidate.

I would love to see that happen, but the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are free speech and that corporations have a right to free speech, too. There are limits on the amount anyone may give to an individual candidate. But you or I can buy an ad in a newspaper saying why we believe our candidate is the best. So there is no reason a corporation can't buy a TV ad saying why their candidate is the best - at least that's the interpretation so far.

 

[Double_Take]

I would love to see that happen, but the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are free speech and that corporations have a right to free speech, too. There are limits on the amount anyone may give to an individual candidate. But you or I can buy an ad in a newspaper saying why we believe our candidate is the best. So there is no reason a corporation can't buy a TV ad saying why their candidate is the best - at least that's the interpretation so far.

This example still lets anyone excercise their free speech, but maybe the wording would need to be changed to spending $1000 a year to influence a campaign. Therefore anyone could take out an ad, as long as no single person/corporation gave more than their allowance to finance the ad.

 

[Vette_Newb]

There are only two ways to change this. 1) All out revolution. 2) Change campaign finance laws. Money rules everything, money is power. If you can force politicians to act in the best interest of their constituants we will have better government.

:laughing: Why not just return to the constitution? I don't know why it's so hard for people to list that as a solution, when it's the most obvious. The federal government wasn't created to get into home loans, healthcare, welfare, protecting spotted owls, etc.

The best way to fix the problem your talking about is returning the congress to it's intended job. Congress isn't supposed to be in session except for a few days a year. These reps don't need to be living in DC with their lobbyist buddies supplying them with everything they need, in return for selling out their constituents. These asshats need to be staying in their district, close to their voters, that will reduce lobbying influence, and make these guys think about what they are doing for the short time they are in session.

Congress people should top out at E9 pay grade.
Congress people should use the VA health system, with a buy of at least 70% of the cost.
Government employees should be paid at a rate of no more than 90% of their private counterparts, and use VA healthcare where they contribute 50% of the cost, should they choose to enroll.

There are many things that can be done to get the government back in the hands of the people, and reduce costs, but there is too much money at stake and too many players who are determined to fundamentally change the country, on both sides of the debate. I think that campaign money should come only from the district being represented. The 2 party system is a joke.. there isn't 2 parties, they both act the same when in power.

 

[Double_Take]

:laughing: Why not just return to the constitution? I don't know why it's so hard for people to list that as a solution, when it's the most obvious. The federal government wasn't created to get into home loans, healthcare, welfare, protecting spotted owls, etc.

The best way to fix the problem your talking about is returning the congress to it's intended job. Congress isn't supposed to be in session except for a few days a year. These reps don't need to be living in DC with their lobbyist buddies supplying them with everything they need, in return for selling out their constituents. These asshats need to be staying in their district, close to their voters, that will reduce lobbying influence, and make these guys think about what they are doing for the short time they are in session.

Congress people should top out at E9 pay grade.
Congress people should use the VA health system, with a buy of at least 70% of the cost.
Government employees should be paid at a rate of no more than 90% of their private counterparts, and use VA healthcare where they contribute 50% of the cost, should they choose to enroll.

There are many things that can be done to get the government back in the hands of the people, and reduce costs, but there is too much money at stake and too many players who are determined to fundamentally change the country, on both sides of the debate. I think that campaign money should come only from the district being represented. The 2 party system is a joke.. there isn't 2 parties, they both act the same when in power.

:agree: completely except the part about returning to the raw constitution. The initial weak central government created prior to the current constitution was a complete failure.

I want to double agree with you on the 2 party system being a joke. We sit here and argue about their positions all day, when really thats exactly what they want us to do. Argue about "hot button issues" while they vote for bills we all disagree with.

IMO the best way to control Congressional salaries is to tie it to the minimum wage or if not the min wage, the medien household income. That way if the economy is tanking so does their salaries. This also prevents them from voting themselves raises every 2 years. :nuts:

 

[Vette_Newb]

:agree: completely except the part about returning to the raw constitution. The initial weak central government created prior to the current constitution was a complete failure.

Elaborate, please. :cheers:

 

[Double_Take]

Elaborate, please. :cheers:

We have over 200 years of court cases which have shaped our Constitution. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to allow amendments because they knew changes would be required as time passed. A lot of people talk about original intent. One example is allowed to vote. The original intent was white male land owners. Should we go back to that? If not, where is the line drawn? I think you will find that there is more good than bad in terms of the Constitution. The largest issue seems to be national vs states rights. Our country is very poorly run, but wiping the slate clean is definately not the answer.