Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

To fix the Federal Government, check all that apply:

  • Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Be sure that the President and Congress are of different parties.

    Votes: 4 7.1%
  • The Pres, staff, Congress, fed employees live under same laws as all.

    Votes: 30 53.6%
  • Do away with Federal Government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

    Votes: 21 37.5%
  • Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

    Votes: 19 33.9%
  • Term limits

    Votes: 23 41.1%
  • A zero tolerance malfeasance policy.

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • None of the above.

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Total voters
    56

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
66,818
32,108
2,330
Desert Southwest USA
. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)
 
In my opinion, implementing No. 5 and 6 would take care of most of it as we would again have public servants in government instead of career politicians.
 
Congress should not be able to enact laws that effect them differently from the general public. one law for all.

Congess should be held accountable to the same standards and ethical practices as the private sector. If i pulled an anthony weiner it wouldn't be recommended i step down, i'd be fired. Congessional practices of financially benefiting from decisions they make are called collusion or malfeasance in the public sector and are prosecutable offenses
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.


I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).

Not sure what else to do to correct the intensive lobbying that goes on, but the least we can do is shed some light on who gives how much to which candidate.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.


I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).
All of which, sadly, is unconstitutional as of today. But I'd gladly support an amendment that does all of these things.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.


I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).

Not sure what else to do to correct the intensive lobbying that goes on, but the least we can do is shed some light on who gives how much to which candidate.

My concern in trying to control lobbyists is the danger of whittling away at unalienable rights as expressed in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But preventing Congress from benefitting any lobbyist or person or group represented by the lobbyist makes the issue moot. Nobody would be able to buy a Congressperson's vote.

On the list: "6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind."

Implement that and the only reason a lobbyist would petition government is to get a really good law passed that would benefit everybody. There would be no purpose in funneling thousands or millions of dollars into a person's campaign when he is prevented by law from repaying you with any form of favors.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.


I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).

Not sure what else to do to correct the intensive lobbying that goes on, but the least we can do is shed some light on who gives how much to which candidate.

My concern in trying to control lobbyists is the danger of whittling away at unalienable rights as expressed in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But preventing Congress from benefitting any lobbyist or person or group represented by the lobbyist makes the issue moot. Nobody would be able to buy a Congressperson's vote.

On the list: "6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind."

Implement that and the only reason a lobbyist would petition government is to get a really good law passed that would benefit everybody. There would be no purpose in funneling thousands or millions of dollars into a person's campaign when he is prevented by law from repaying you with any form of favors.

The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.

"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.
 
I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).

Not sure what else to do to correct the intensive lobbying that goes on, but the least we can do is shed some light on who gives how much to which candidate.

My concern in trying to control lobbyists is the danger of whittling away at unalienable rights as expressed in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But preventing Congress from benefitting any lobbyist or person or group represented by the lobbyist makes the issue moot. Nobody would be able to buy a Congressperson's vote.

On the list: "6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind."

Implement that and the only reason a lobbyist would petition government is to get a really good law passed that would benefit everybody. There would be no purpose in funneling thousands or millions of dollars into a person's campaign when he is prevented by law from repaying you with any form of favors.

The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.

"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.

I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.

And if we went back to it, that would take care of most lobbying problems.
 
My concern in trying to control lobbyists is the danger of whittling away at unalienable rights as expressed in the First Amendment:



But preventing Congress from benefitting any lobbyist or person or group represented by the lobbyist makes the issue moot. Nobody would be able to buy a Congressperson's vote.

On the list: "6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind."

Implement that and the only reason a lobbyist would petition government is to get a really good law passed that would benefit everybody. There would be no purpose in funneling thousands or millions of dollars into a person's campaign when he is prevented by law from repaying you with any form of favors.

The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.

"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.

I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

It appears to me that too many services that are absolutely essential can't possibly benefit every citizen equally. A road will greatly benefit the locals, but never or hardly ever benefit someone living on the other side of the continent. And should the government sell bonds to investors? Isn't that a "benefit?" The list goes on for quite a while, I think...
 
. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

1 & 2) A super majority is bad for everyone at any time
3) The president should be a Democrat and the congress should be Republicans
4) The law must apply equally to everyone or it cannot be applied at all
5) Pensions and health plans should be run solely by the government with all benefits starting at the age of 70 for everyone, nothing before the age of seventy
6) The government should maintain equality between everyone, not be a charity
7) Term limits are a must at the federal level, and you should be a resident for five years before you can run for office in that state
8) Put them to death for breaking the publics trust, it should be a capital crime.
 
My concern in trying to control lobbyists is the danger of whittling away at unalienable rights as expressed in the First Amendment:



But preventing Congress from benefitting any lobbyist or person or group represented by the lobbyist makes the issue moot. Nobody would be able to buy a Congressperson's vote.

On the list: "6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind."

Implement that and the only reason a lobbyist would petition government is to get a really good law passed that would benefit everybody. There would be no purpose in funneling thousands or millions of dollars into a person's campaign when he is prevented by law from repaying you with any form of favors.

The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.

"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.

I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.

And if we went back to it, that would take care of most lobbying problems.

No foreign aid?

Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?
 
. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)
Number five includes VA benefits too. Better re-think that one. Number six would hit the poor the hardest. I can't understand why some folks think they can balance the federal budget on their backs. I suppose those folks would then complain about the homeless and dispossessed clogging the streets. Poor students of history would support number 6.

We have term limits! Two four year terms for the president and an election every six years for senators, every two years for congressmen. Use the voting booth, not a mandatory hook.

The one suggestion I'd make is bulldozing every building on K Street and making professional lobbyists run for the hills. Special interests, particularly the banking, investment houses and multi-national corporations have greater access to elected officials than average citizens do.
 
It appears to me that too many services that are absolutely essential can't possibly benefit every citizen equally. A road will greatly benefit the locals, but never or hardly ever benefit someone living on the other side of the continent. And should the government sell bonds to investors? Isn't that a "benefit?" The list goes on for quite a while, I think...
Ye'ver tried to get produce from California to farmer's markets in Ohio without truck transportation?
 
The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.

"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.

I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

It appears to me that too many services that are absolutely essential can't possibly benefit every citizen equally. A road will greatly benefit the locals, but never or hardly ever benefit someone living on the other side of the continent. And should the government sell bonds to investors? Isn't that a "benefit?" The list goes on for quite a while, I think...

The Federal Government should not be building roads that benefit a particular state or community or industry or person or group or entity. The Federal Government should be building roads that benefit all and are used by all, rich and poor alike. The Federal Highway system fits that criteria by providing means to move goods and products from everywhere to everywhere, provides the common defense by providing easy means to move armies and equipment and weapons and it also doubles as emergency landing strips. And the rich and poor alike, without prejudice or bias, use it to move about the country.

Let's get the Federal Government out of the business of choosing winners and losers via how the peoples' money is spent.
 
Foxfyre, I'm not disagreeing with you or Oddball on the two posts just above - but neither of them claim that everyone benefits equally (which is what you first argued and probably didn't really mean).

All I'm saying is that it's often impossible for the government to spend ANY money without some group yelling that they're getting the shaft while another group benefits more.
 
Foxfyre, I'm not disagreeing with you or Oddball on the two posts just above - but neither of them claim that everyone benefits equally (which is what you first argued and probably didn't really mean).

All I'm saying is that it's often impossible for the government to spend ANY money without some group yelling that they're getting the shaft while another group benefits more.
Roads are equally available to all, whether you personally partake of their use or not.

Still, the point about moving goods from one end of the continent to the other stands....You go try to buy bananas in a grocery store in Rapid City, without trucks to bring them from the ports in Biloxi.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top