Do we really need a Senate?

[thereisnospoon]

Maybe if the Republicans stopped filibustering every fucking piece of legislation, every judicial nominee, every executive appointment, the Senate would be more functional.

The idea of the filibuster is to insure the majority party cannot steamroll the minority party AND to insure that ALL states have equal representation in the Congress.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This Senate demonstrates every day that we do not need them

HA! You lefties are just pissed off because the...

... DEM controlled...

...Senate is not permitting Obama's far left wing progressive agenda to be rammed down the throats of the people.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe if the Republicans stopped filibustering every fucking piece of legislation, every judicial nominee, every executive appointment, the Senate would be more functional.

Maybe if your post was not a lie, you'd have a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

It's sort of our "House of Lords".

I see you failed your basic US government classes as well.

But yeah..it kind of makes no sense. Anyone can be a Senator

Same goes for a member of the house, and for Presdient, so long as they are natural born.
Your point?

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

It's sort of our "House of Lords".

But yeah..it kind of makes no sense. Anyone can be a Senator. Would make more sense if there were a requirement of some kind..like a master's degree.

That smacks of elitism.
The Founders goal was that which is termed "citizen legislature"...
Their vision was to have the people elect those to represent them in government for a short period of time. They are to serve the people, then return home then allow the next person to represent the people.
Now politics is a career. Members of Congress are grossly overpaid. They get perks. They have over the years exempted themselves from certain laws and regulations to which ordinary citizens are subject.
All of the above is wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Impossible to do away with from a pragmatic standpoint.

I invite you to consider life without the Senate, the House sends a bill to the President; He vetoes it; then the House over-rides the veto or it dies. Sounds like government to me...

Consider today's reality. The House sends a bill to the Senate. Scumbag Harry Reid wads it up and tosses it into the garbage can. The President gets on the TV and urges the Congress to get to work on a bill he can sign....

Meanwhile, farm bill dies; student loan rates double; too big to fail banks are bigger than ever in some cases;

Proof that not everything can be resolved by government act. Nor should it be.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The senate is dysfunctional since we stopped having state legislatures elect senators.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Impossible to do away with from a pragmatic standpoint.

I invite you to consider life without the Senate, the House sends a bill to the President; He vetoes it; then the House over-rides the veto or it dies. Sounds like government to me...

Consider today's reality. The House sends a bill to the Senate. Scumbag Harry Reid wads it up and tosses it into the garbage can. The President gets on the TV and urges the Congress to get to work on a bill he can sign....

Working as intended.

 

[Redfish]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Yeah, do away with the senate and the house. Declare obama king for life and let him dictate laws on the peons.

You idiot, this country was founded to escape the kind of govt that you seem to want.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Would it be safe to assume that you want to do away with the senate because of republicans?

No, the way the Majority Leader of either party acts is the reason I want to do away with the Senate.

If so do you realize that the republicans control the house and can pass bills fairly easily?

Good, that is what they are supposed to do...pass legislation

If you get what you want Obama would be spending the rest of his presidency vetoing bill after bill. How would that be for you?

A sign that the government is working...the legislative branch is trying to turn the wheel one way and the President is trying to turn it the opposite way. Currently we have a ship where the Legislature is not even on the Bridge and the President is demanding they take the wheel so they can turn it in the same direction.

Incorrect. The Congress is not a rubber stamp.
The system is set to control government. To limit its powers.

 

[Oddball]

Ahem.....

Having a state legislature appoint senators smacks of cronyism and elitism. The direct election of senators seems a lot more in keeping with the ideals of democracy to me.

But that's just MHO.

Well, the original concept was that the Senate would be an elite set of individuals that represented the interests of the states since they would be appointed by the governor or the legislature of the state. These individuals were the original "think tank" and sort of a balance to the Supreme Court in conceptualizing the finer points of Constitutional law. If you educate yourself about what the 17th amendment really did to this country, you'll see that the direct vote of Senators resulted in an unreal surge in federal spending. It resulted in lots of cronyism, lobbying and special interest pork being added to bills coming out of Congress.

Not only that, but it has also basically resulted in Senators-for-life.

The political makeup of the states is far more fluid than the federal...There is absolutely no way that career turds like Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Orrin Hatch or Juan McCain could just plant themselves in office, were they subject to re-authorization by the state legislatures and Governors.

Always be wary of people who want take decisions away from the voters and put it into the hands of power brokers.

No matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

So, you don't think that making the power brokers spread their resources over 50 state houses, rather than just concentrating them on K Street, would reduce their influence?

Really?

Well, doggiedawg?

Beuller?

 

[candycorn]

Would it be safe to assume that you want to do away with the senate because of republicans?

No, the way the Majority Leader of either party acts is the reason I want to do away with the Senate.


Good, that is what they are supposed to do...pass legislation

If you get what you want Obama would be spending the rest of his presidency vetoing bill after bill. How would that be for you?

A sign that the government is working...the legislative branch is trying to turn the wheel one way and the President is trying to turn it the opposite way. Currently we have a ship where the Legislature is not even on the Bridge and the President is demanding they take the wheel so they can turn it in the same direction.

Incorrect. The Congress is not a rubber stamp.
The system is set to control government. To limit its powers.

Don't know where I ever called it a Rubber Stamp; or what it has to do with the necessity of having a Senate and a House.

 

[candycorn]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Yeah, do away with the senate and the house. Declare obama king for life and let him dictate laws on the peons.

You idiot, this country was founded to escape the kind of govt that you seem to want.

Never said do away with the House...try responding to what I write.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A sign that the government is working...the legislative branch is trying to turn the wheel one way and the President is trying to turn it the opposite way. Currently we have a ship where the Legislature is not even on the Bridge and the President is demanding they take the wheel so they can turn it in the same direction.

Working as intended.

 

[candycorn]

Impossible to do away with from a pragmatic standpoint.

I invite you to consider life without the Senate, the House sends a bill to the President; He vetoes it; then the House over-rides the veto or it dies. Sounds like government to me...

Consider today's reality. The House sends a bill to the Senate. Scumbag Harry Reid wads it up and tosses it into the garbage can. The President gets on the TV and urges the Congress to get to work on a bill he can sign....

Meanwhile, farm bill dies; student loan rates double; too big to fail banks are bigger than ever in some cases;

Proof that not everything can be resolved by government act. Nor should it be.

I mentioned 4 things--not "everything".

Sheesh.

 

[candycorn]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

The Senate should go back to the old system where the individual state governments would appoint 2 Senators to serve in DC. The rules also allowed for the recall of Senators at the discretion of an individual state.

Disagree.

It adds another needless layer of bueauracracy (sp?) to an already bloated Federal Government. Have the House take over the Senate's duties if they aren't going to do them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

The Senate should go back to the old system where the individual state governments would appoint 2 Senators to serve in DC. The rules also allowed for the recall of Senators at the discretion of an individual state.

Disagree.
It adds another needless layer of bueauracracy (sp?) to an already bloated Federal Government.

Clearly, you did not pass your US government classes as you apparently have no idea why we have a senate.

All YOU want is political expedience, and only because your secular messiah is in office.

 

[Cookie]

Always be wary of people who want take decisions away from the voters and put it into the hands of power brokers.

No matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

Exactly! The Progressives in 1913 took the decision of who could be Senator away from the people in the state legislatures and removed the safety net in the balance of power that disassociated what Congress was doing with what the states - and thus the common people - needed. The concerns of the states diminished dramatically. We ended up with a federal givernment that increased in dominating state interested. We ended up with programs like the Department of Education and a whole host of bureaucracies that forced states to give up tax money and get very little in return. Look at all the unfunded mandates and you'll see the 17th amendment in action.

 

[Oddball]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

The Senate should go back to the old system where the individual state governments would appoint 2 Senators to serve in DC. The rules also allowed for the recall of Senators at the discretion of an individual state.

Disagree.

It adds another needless layer of bueauracracy (sp?) to an already bloated Federal Government.

Wrong.

It would make the lobbyists spread themselves out over the 50 states, rather than just planting themselves on K Street....Less federal bureaucracy.

Have the House take over the Senate's duties if they aren't going to do them.

There you have it...Don't like the rules, just change them in the middle of the game.

But you've already admitted that this is a purely partisan issue for you.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Agree 100%.

There are enough old white men in the House who are getting rich off PACs and lobbyists. Phuck the senators.