3 in 5 voters: Boot every congressman

You'd end up with a de-facto budget that way. I'd rather see spending decreased over time by elimination of all social programs.

Keep our social programs. Stop foreign aid. Nobody over there likes us anyway. My mama always told me "You can't buy love.":lol:
 
I'm down. None of them have really done a good job lately. I would rather just start over. We should also change the current voting rules to allow for third parties to become a legitimate force in American politics. Two parties is obviously not working out too well for us these days. Not enough options.
 
Keep our social programs. Stop foreign aid. Nobody over there likes us anyway. My mama always told me "You can't buy love.":lol:

But man do we try. Israel still loves us :eusa_eh: My only problem with that idea is it opens to door for Russia to gain more influence world wide. With their behavior lately I would really hate for them to become a popular alternative to the US because of their massive foreign aid programs.
 
We went to breakfast yesterday and there was a man standing on the corner with a sign that said "VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY/GIRL" and the response was amazing. If people want a real change, then thats the best way to do it. Get rid of all of them on one big lump, when you see the word incumbant you should pull the lever for the other person.

We did that in 1994. Overturned almost 2/3rds of Congress. That got us a Republican majority then, a "contract with America", and you know the rest of the story.....
 
Every last one of them should be voted out in the upcoming election. It`s the only LEGAL way for decent American citizens to show their disgust with these spineless money grubbing pricks.
 
Voting out all incumbants might make sense if the people running against them were fundamentally different than the people we'd be getting ride of.

They're not.
 
Voting out all incumbants might make sense if the people running against them were fundamentally different than the people we'd be getting ride of.

They're not.

Man those horns of the dilemma really hurt.
 
We did that in 1994. Overturned almost 2/3rds of Congress. That got us a Republican majority then, a "contract with America", and you know the rest of the story.....

That's 'cause we re-elected the new clowns when their turn came up.

Maybe we should 'vote for the other guy / gal' every single election?

-Joe
 
We don't need Term Limits or Campaign Finance reform. All we need is a return to electing our reps on the basis of population rather than some set number.

If you elected reps 1 for every 250,000, or less, you would reduce the need for money, because the districts would be smaller. You would reduce the need and influence of staffs because members could do the work themselves. You could reduce the number of committee assignments because there would be enough members to go around.

It has the added benefit of being the system we started out with. Change it BACK!!!

I'm so in agreement with you on this one.

My only suggestion is that our Representatives should be 1 per 30,000 constituents and those 1/6th of them are up for election every year

I ALSO think that every state should have about 6 Senators, too with 1/6th of them coming up for election every year, as well.

Why? First because it dilutes the power of every Senator and Rep considerably, doesn't it?

Secondly because one in six of them is up for election every year it gives the Senators and Reps a motivation to pay attention to cahanging public sentiment, too.

While I'm on the subject of ways we can make our so called democratic republic more democratic, I'd ALSO like to see changes in the way both houses conduct business and choose leadership.

The amount of control we grant to the majority party in office causes a lot of problems I think, and gives the Republican/ Democratic parties far too much control over our legislation when they're in power.

We don't HAVE to be a two party system, ya know?

We could, if we had a house of Representatives numbering about 1,000,000 Representatives and about 300 Senators, actually have a far more nuanced political environment, one where very different political points of view had some potential input into our system.

Would it be an unwieldy government to dominate?

You bet.

And that's not really such a bad outcome, either, is it?
 
Last edited:
Get rid of both. Let the States fund that crap if they want to. That way all the libs will move to the Coasts and we conservatives can live in peace.

You mean like Mexico, with peaceful beggars on every corner and dirty kids peacefully selling chicklets and dolls made from string?

-Joe
 
I'm so in agreement with you on this one.

My only suggestion is that our Representatives should be 1 per 30,000 constituents and those 1/6th of them are up for election every year

I ALSO think that every state should have about 6 Senators, too with 1/6th of them coming up for election every year, as well.

Why? First because it dilutes the power of every Senator and Rep considerably, doesn't it?

Secondly because one in six of them is up for election every year it gives the Senators and Reps a motivation to pay attention to cahanging public sentiment, too.

While I'm on the subject of ways we can make our so called democratic republic more democratic, I'd ALSO like to see changes in the way both houses conduct business and choose leadership.

The amount of control we grant to the majority party in office causes a lot of problems I think, and gives the Republican/ Democratic parties far too much control over our legislation when they're in power.

We don't HAVE to be a two party system, ya know?

We could, if we had a house of Representatives numbering about 1,000,000 Representatives and about 300 Senators, actually have a far more nuanced political environment, one where very different political points of view had some potential input into our system.

Would it be an unwieldy government to dominate?

You bet.

And that's not really such a bad outcome, either, is it?

I'll support this only if we pay them what they're worth, and not the ridiculous salary & benefits they currently 'earn'.

How about a base of 25 k and a percentage of the budget surplus that they can generate?

-Joe
 
Voting out all incumbants might make sense if the people running against them were fundamentally different than the people we'd be getting ride of.

They're not.

I agree.
The people running against them will be no different once they get elected but voting out EVERY incumbent will send a message that "we the people" will not tolerate their crap anymore.
 
If that's what they want then why would you care?

Dude,

Have you ever tripped over a beggar in Mexico? Have you ever bought a box of chicklets from a poor kid, only to have 100 poor kids come running?

If this is an acceptable vision of America for you, you have my pity...

How can you not care?

-Joe
 
Dude,

Have you ever tripped over a beggar in Mexico? Have you ever bought a box of chicklets from a poor kid, only to have 100 poor kids come running?

If this is an acceptable vision of America for you, you have my pity...

How can you not care?

-Joe
I'm not sure what you're trying to compare here. Be specific. Dude. :cuckoo:
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to compare here. Be specific. Dude. :cuckoo:

My original thesis:

Public assistance is not evil. Profiting from it is.

There is nothing wrong with assisting those less fortunate... even if the motivation is to keep from seeing beggars in the streets.

Well, that and the observation that Mexico is a less desirable place to live because they can't or won't assist their poor, if this is what you mean by 'comparison'...

-Joe
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top