USMB Political Hackery

[Samson]

Quantity will not insure quality. We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.

Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.

It was the during the Great Depression that America had an influx of people that wouldn't work, and whined for jobs and were not responsible. They were an awful, people, lazy wanted food, like little children, not real Americans, but then when WWII came along those bums left America, and a new breed immigrated to America, these new ones were hard workers, independent and winners of wars.
I still wonder where that old group of the lazy depression laggards went, and where the new breed of WWII workers came from. Now some are back wanting food stamps.

January 2012 seems to have been the apex an influx of morons to USMB.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Samson:
I was thinking the best way to organize mass representation is by Party.

Could we cap how much is paid to the federal govt in income tax? Such as keeping it at 10% where anything above that is considered a loan, and then giving states or parties an option of working out how to delegate that money "per issue" or "per Party" etc. So if Republicans want to take on the responsibility for the debts from under the Bush administration and Iraq War contracts, and how to redirect funds from supporters to Vets and military and national security; while the Democrats want to focus on "health care" and domestic policies that other groups/taxpayers DON'T necessarily want to fund, could we organize this by Party?

Also, I was thinking the big business contributors could get involved; what if the big business interests could formulate a plan to get China paid back, such as calculating how much debt is owed, issuing credits to China that they can redeem for labor or resources to re-organize their country into educational districts, and rework their economy and labor to gradually offer sustainable living conditions for their workers instead of slave labor where the money goes into the Chinese govt and military.

We wouldn't necessarily depend so much on assigning people to a rep by geographical district, if we could organize by Party or issue (such as addressing the death penalty, and redirecting funds into more cost-effective alternatives and deterrents, or gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, etc.).

And given how people are ABUSING party politics to represent their own party agenda instead of the constituents in their districts, or states or whole nation; it's almost better to organize the representation and funding from taxpayers by the parties/issues of their choice.

I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;

The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.

I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.

This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.

Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.

If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.

Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!

 

[editec]

I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;

The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.

I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.

This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.

Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.

If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.

Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!

I completely agree with you on this one.

I believe that the HoR ought to have one rep for every 30,000 people. (yes I realize that would mean roughly 1,000 Reps)

I also think that each state ought to send 4 Senators to the Senate.

Of course I also think a parlimentary system would be preferable to what we have, now, too, so more HoR Reps is not my ideal solution to our GRIDLOCK.

 

[Politico]

Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.

 

[editec]

Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.

I believe that it is a problem.

Today's HoR rep is supposed to concern himself with the well being of over 700,000 people CONTRARY to the original consitution.

Being that far removed from the people makes them out of touch with the lives of their constituents.

Representing the interests of 700,000 is difficult because then the Rep has to balance the needs of too many people, people who are not remotely in the same communities, and people whose local interests are often in conflict.

Knock that number down to 30,000 people and the REP will likely be a more effective Rep for the people of that one area, and area which has more allied interests.

 

[jillian]

Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.

there are things that government does well and for which its necessary.

and there are things that government doesn't do well and shouldn't do.

like government SHOULDN'T tell women what to do with their bodies or make people's religious decisions.

it should be adequately funded so that it can do the things it does well.

the problem with the 'small government conservatives' is that they aren't for small government, they want government doing things like forcing women to have unnecessary internal sonograms, but don't want to do a thing to help other people.

 

[JimH52]

To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea. Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.

 

[Samson]

Dear Samson:
I was thinking the best way to organize mass representation is by Party.

You mean, say, if your born under Sagitarius, then you would be in the Sagitarius Party for life. Ditto Gemini, Capricorn, Tarus, etc...?

Interesting idea Emily N. Ghiem.

Probably deserves a thread of its own on whatever planet you're on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.

Adding more reps is not how government gets big.

 

[Samson]

I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;

The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.

I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.

This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.

Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.

If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.

Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!

I completely agree with you on this one.

I believe that the HoR ought to have one rep for every 30,000 people. (yes I realize that would mean roughly 1,000 Reps)

I also think that each state ought to send 4 Senators to the Senate.

Of course I also think a parlimentary system would be preferable to what we have, now, too, so more HoR Reps is not my ideal solution to our GRIDLOCK.

2,4,6, 8 Senators....Not certain what the magic number is, or why two is not OK: Senators really do not represent "the peoples' interest" as much as they do the state government and industry.

 

[Samson]

Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.

Adding more reps is not how government gets big.

Well, literally, it is obvious that adding more representatives will add to government.

Many seem to have a great deal of trouble separating the number of representatives from the total number of government employees, believing that raising the number in the HoR to 1500 will have some dramatic increase on the 21,000,000+ govenment employees, most of whom have nothing to do with representing the interests of tax payers.

How to overcome this deficite in common sense?

Sadly, stupid is incurable.

 

[Samson]

To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea. Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.

Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.

And you wonder why they are unpopular?

 

[grandwizfla]

who would pay for the extra chairs ?

 

[regent]

To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea. Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.

Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.

And you wonder why they are unpopular?

How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?

 

[Samson]

To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea. Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.

Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.

And you wonder why they are unpopular?

How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?

You really need to begin reading the OP before asking, but I see you could probably benefit from spoon-feeding if you ever suspected that we have 700,000 representatives for 700,000 constituants.

I suggest that the ratio should be what it was the last time it was adjusted in 1910

 

[Politico]

Being that far removed from the people makes them out of touch with the lives of their constituents.

Representing the interests of 700,000 is difficult because then the Rep has to balance the needs of too many people, people who are not remotely in the same communities, and people whose local interests are often in conflict.

Knock that number down to 30,000 people and the REP will likely be a more effective Rep for the people of that one area, and area which has more allied interests.

I don't have to be in touch with anyone's lives. My job is to do what the constituents ask. Whether it 's 100 or 70,000, if the majority want Smurfs to have their own holiday then I vote yes when the bill hits the floor.

 

[regent]

Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.

And you wonder why they are unpopular?

How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?

You really need to begin reading the OP before asking, but I see you could probably benefit from spoon-feeding if you ever suspected that we have 700,000 representatives for 700,000 constituants.

I suggest that the ratio should be what it was the last time it was adjusted in 1910

I'm suggesting it ain't gonna happen. How many views are there on most issues before the Congress, I'd say basically two, the Republican and Democratic view, or conservative and liberal. It is the very reason we have only two major political parties-two views. The other people must adjust their wishes to fit those two concepts or in effect lose their clout. To add another hundred congressmen would not change much, but the cost. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Interesting proposal re enlarging the HoR, and I will think on it. As it hasn't been on my radar lately, other than those running for election, I haven't given the makeup a great deal of thought. But I will think on it. The main downside I can immediately see is the cost, so I would want an enlargement of the House to be contingent on the representatives funding their own healthcare and pension plans out of their salaries, and the taxpayers would no longer contribute to these during their tenure or once they left office. Also the current system of automatic incremental raises for those in congress would be ended and they would have to go back to the system where they voted themselves each raise and could not benefit from it until after they were re-elected.

(I want to see this in both houses of Congress even if we don't enlarge the HoR.)

As for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to legislature appointed senators, I can see an advantage to that but in my state that has never had a Republican majority in the legislature, I would never have a Republican representative and the nation would never have had such great statesmen as Manuel Lujan Jr. or Pete Domenici.

The Senate is not really supposed to represent "The People;" This legislative entity, in fact, is supposed to act as an override to foolish populism, so increasing the number here really is not the point.

The tread is not another repeal the 17th Amendment re-hash either: I'm really not interested in HOW Senators gain office, we are addressing the HoR, and the gridlock results of BiPartisanship that is a product of too few parties and too few members.

The Constitution sys that there is supposed to be not more than one representative per 35,000 people. Here we see a clear example of just how far astray the country has been lead. Most states have fewer than 1 representative per 700,000 people. In short, the people are vastly less represented and far more distant from their representatives than intended by the Framers. Further, there is the presumption that each citizen is equally represented in congress -- which is clearly a fraud given that huge disparity in these numbers. The citizens of some states are vastly more represented than others.
People Per Representative | DataMasher

current population is about 315 million.

meaning we should have 9000 HoR members.

9
fucking
thousand

 

[Samson]

Interesting proposal re enlarging the HoR, and I will think on it. As it hasn't been on my radar lately, other than those running for election, I haven't given the makeup a great deal of thought. But I will think on it. The main downside I can immediately see is the cost, so I would want an enlargement of the House to be contingent on the representatives funding their own healthcare and pension plans out of their salaries, and the taxpayers would no longer contribute to these during their tenure or once they left office. Also the current system of automatic incremental raises for those in congress would be ended and they would have to go back to the system where they voted themselves each raise and could not benefit from it until after they were re-elected.

(I want to see this in both houses of Congress even if we don't enlarge the HoR.)

As for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to legislature appointed senators, I can see an advantage to that but in my state that has never had a Republican majority in the legislature, I would never have a Republican representative and the nation would never have had such great statesmen as Manuel Lujan Jr. or Pete Domenici.

The Senate is not really supposed to represent "The People;" This legislative entity, in fact, is supposed to act as an override to foolish populism, so increasing the number here really is not the point.

The tread is not another repeal the 17th Amendment re-hash either: I'm really not interested in HOW Senators gain office, we are addressing the HoR, and the gridlock results of BiPartisanship that is a product of too few parties and too few members.

The Constitution sys that there is supposed to be not more than one representative per 35,000 people. Here we see a clear example of just how far astray the country has been lead. Most states have fewer than 1 representative per 700,000 people. In short, the people are vastly less represented and far more distant from their representatives than intended by the Framers. Further, there is the presumption that each citizen is equally represented in congress -- which is clearly a fraud given that huge disparity in these numbers. The citizens of some states are vastly more represented than others.
People Per Representative | DataMasher

current population is about 315 million.

meaning we should have 9000 HoR members.

9
fucking
thousand

Indeed 9,000 representatives....each with 35,000 constituants.

Even that's a lot of email.

 

[Samson]

How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?

You really need to begin reading the OP before asking, but I see you could probably benefit from spoon-feeding if you ever suspected that we have 700,000 representatives for 700,000 constituants.

I suggest that the ratio should be what it was the last time it was adjusted in 1910

I'm suggesting it ain't gonna happen. How many views are there on most issues before the Congress, I'd say basically two, the Republican and Democratic view, or conservative and liberal. It is the very reason we have only two major political parties-two views. The other people must adjust their wishes to fit those two concepts or in effect lose their clout. To add another hundred congressmen would not change much, but the cost. Ain't gonna happen.

It has happened before.

It will happen again.

The position that there are only two (2) POV in politics is exactly the stupidity that bipartisanship depends upon.