Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[ShawnChris13]

Your representation of people who disagree with the main parties is the same as the media rhetoric portrayed by the left right commentators they employ. Just because we have more than one idea that disagrees with your principles doesn't mean we don't have our own.

That is the difference Shawn ... I am a real Conservative ... And the difference in your principles and mine are plain enough to see.

My principles don't require you to do anything ... Because I understand that I can accomplish what should be done without your telling me what it is.



If people did what they should do ... Then everything from poverty to wealth inequity wouldn't be a problem.

I do what I can to fix those problems around me and through what I do and how I conduct my business ... Doing what I should do.

For you to suggest that people won't do what they should do ... And therefor require solutions that involve fixing problems created by their lack of an ability to do what they should do ... By them voting the way they should vote ... Just further proves my point.



.

For a principled person that was a very vague post. I believe people should take responsibility for their own lives. However, there are people that legitimately need help. These people need representation from their government and must vote. The rising population brings a higher percentage of disabled or handicapped population. People requiring assistance with job training have also risen over the years. Socioeconomic cultures have evolved dramatically over the past 100 years. This is undeniable and is something that must be addressed.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I couldn't agree more. Our political system has hit a brick wall, and I don't see how this noxious environment is going to improve. When we can pass major legislation with a simple majority, something has clearly gone wrong somewhere. We have narcissistic politicians running things, people whose top priority is nothing more than fundraising and re-election.



Worse, both parties refuse to look in the mirror while pointing the finger at the other side. The ship is sinking and the deck hands are blaming each other.



You may disagree with this, but I think we'd see REAL "change" with the following:





1. Balanced Budget Amendment - Make both ridiculous parties justify their taxing and spending agendas.



2. Publicly-funded elections - Money has far more than polluted politics, it has poisoned politics.



3. Strict, short term limits - Does anyone think these "leaders" would behave the way they do if they were not worried about fundraising and re-election?





Take the power out of the hands of those who abuse it the most. Or we can just keeping bending over and taking it.



My weekly rant!







.

You have three VERY good ideas there, I like all three of them.

It's too bad SCOTUS has ruled Term Limits Unconstitutional.

Judges over rule decisions every day.

 

[paperview]

You have three VERY good ideas there, I like all three of them.

It's too bad SCOTUS has ruled Term Limits Unconstitutional.

Judges over rule decisions every day.

While SCOTUS has been known to dismiss stare decisis on occasion, it certainly doesn't do it as a matter of routine.

As much as I hate some of the ridiculously high incumbency rates, it really is unconstitutional to disallow a candidate from running. The voters decide Term Limits.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's too bad SCOTUS has ruled Term Limits Unconstitutional.

Judges over rule decisions every day.

While SCOTUS has been known to dismiss stare decisis on occasion, it certainly doesn't do it as a matter of routine.

As much as I hate some of the ridiculously high incumbency rates, it really is unconstitutional to disallow a candidate from running. The voters decide Term Limits.

Or, a change in the constitution could decide it.

 

[paperview]

Judges over rule decisions every day.

While SCOTUS has been known to dismiss stare decisis on occasion, it certainly doesn't do it as a matter of routine.

As much as I hate some of the ridiculously high incumbency rates, it really is unconstitutional to disallow a candidate from running. The voters decide Term Limits.

Or, a change in the constitution could decide it.

Of course it could. I doubt it would ever happen though.

 

[Unkotare]

2. Publicly-funded elections -

.

The would bring even more corruption, and abrogate the First Amendment rights of citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

3. Strict, short term limits - Does anyone think these "leaders" would behave the way they do if they were not worried about fundraising and re-election?

.

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

 

[ShawnChris13]

3. Strict, short term limits - Does anyone think these "leaders" would behave the way they do if they were not worried about fundraising and re-election?



.

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

Giving senators a fire to out run before their time is up would give them less time to pass the legislation and encourage the speed of progress.

 

[BlackSand]

For a principled person that was a very vague post. I believe people should take responsibility for their own lives. However, there are people that legitimately need help. These people need representation from their government and must vote. The rising population brings a higher percentage of disabled or handicapped population. People requiring assistance with job training have also risen over the years. Socioeconomic cultures have evolved dramatically over the past 100 years. This is undeniable and is something that must be addressed.

The only thing that makes it vague is your desire to place limits on what could, should and will be done.

People should take responsibility for their own lives and it doesn't matter what you believe ... They should anyway.
See how much easier that is to facilitate when you no longer have to convince someone it makes a difference what they believe.

People legitimately do need help ... And the best way to help them is to assist them in taking responsibility for their own lives ... And support along the way is something you yourself can administer with less waste and abuse.
Not only is job training available ... You can also volunteer to teach the classes ... Make transportation available if necessary ... And by all means encourage people to pursue that opportunity which does exist.

You get to the evolving socioeconomic cultures ... And do more of what doesn't solve the problems ... Then explain why we should look to the government to fix a problem that exists within each of us if we fail to meet our obligations.
The part you don't get ... Is that it is my responsibility to help others ... Not my responsibility to dump my responsibilities off on the government so they can do a shitty job and never fix anything.

.

 

[Unkotare]

3. Strict, short term limits - Does anyone think these "leaders" would behave the way they do if they were not worried about fundraising and re-election?



.

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

Giving senators a fire to out run before their time is up would give them less time to pass the legislation and encourage the speed of progress.

Speed does not always equate to progress. The Senate in particular was expressly designed NOT to be hasty or subject to the passions of the day.

 

[ShawnChris13]

For a principled person that was a very vague post. I believe people should take responsibility for their own lives. However, there are people that legitimately need help. These people need representation from their government and must vote. The rising population brings a higher percentage of disabled or handicapped population. People requiring assistance with job training have also risen over the years. Socioeconomic cultures have evolved dramatically over the past 100 years. This is undeniable and is something that must be addressed.

The only thing that makes it vague is your desire to place limits on what could, should and will be done.



People should take responsibility for their own lives and it doesn't matter what you believe ... They should anyway.

See how much easier that is to facilitate when you no longer have to convince someone it makes a difference what they believe.



People legitimately do need help ... And the best way to help them is to assist them in taking responsibility for their own lives ... And support along the way is something you yourself can administer with less waste and abuse.

Not only is job training available ... You can also volunteer to teach the classes ... Make transportation available if necessary ... And by all means encourage people to pursue that opportunity which does exist.



You get to the evolving socioeconomic cultures ... And do more of what doesn't solve the problems ... Then explain why we should look to the government to fix a problem that exists within each of us if we fail to meet our obligations.

The part you don't get ... Is that it is my responsibility to help others ... Not my responsibility to dump my responsibilities off on the government so they can do a shitty job and never fix anything.



.

Well just in case there are people who work 70 hours a week and don't have time to go around helping people with their spare time we should be able to pay people to provide such services. I'm not asking you to personally give up your responsibility for yourself so that others can take care of themselves. These services can be provided by the government and should be as a public service. Is the government the best way to provide these services? No. But until a huge portion of the population feels like being charitable then paying people to do this is the only feasible option in order to help those that need it. I'm not advocating for taking away more money or dictating the actions of others, that's a stretch of everything I've stated. People need help and the government is a viable option to provide it, granted the circumstances changed in order to better facilitate such avenues.

 

[BlackSand]

Well just in case there are people who work 70 hours a week and don't have time to go around helping people with their spare time we should be able to pay people to provide such services. I'm not asking you to personally give up your responsibility for yourself so that others can take care of themselves. These services can be provided by the government and should be as a public service. Is the government the best way to provide these services? No. But until a huge portion of the population feels like being charitable then paying people to do this is the only feasible option in order to help those that need it. I'm not advocating for taking away more money or dictating the actions of others, that's a stretch of everything I've stated. People need help and the government is a viable option to provide it, granted the circumstances changed in order to better facilitate such avenues.

Every time the government asks me to finance their failed ideas and waste my resources ... Because you or others are too busy to figure out a way to help those in need ... You are asking me to surrender a portion of my responsibility to the government.
You are advocating that we give more power to the government because people won't do what they are supposed to do ... Well get a clue ... Turning that over to the government is not in the supposed to do category.

.

 

[Redfish]

3. Strict, short term limits - Does anyone think these "leaders" would behave the way they do if they were not worried about fundraising and re-election?

.

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

term limits would cut down on legalized bribery, pork, and corruption. Being in congress was never intended to be a lifetime career.

 

[Redfish]

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

Giving senators a fire to out run before their time is up would give them less time to pass the legislation and encourage the speed of progress.

Speed does not always equate to progress. The Senate in particular was expressly designed NOT to be hasty or subject to the passions of the day.

Reid and the dems just overrode that. Now the senate is just an extension of the house with higher pay.

 

[rightwinger]

Giving senators a fire to out run before their time is up would give them less time to pass the legislation and encourage the speed of progress.

Speed does not always equate to progress. The Senate in particular was expressly designed NOT to be hasty or subject to the passions of the day.

Reid and the dems just overrode that. Now the senate is just an extension of the house with higher pay.

They are paid the same

 

[Mustang]

3. Strict, short term limits - Does anyone think these "leaders" would behave the way they do if they were not worried about fundraising and re-election?

.

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

term limits would cut down on legalized bribery, pork, and corruption. Being in congress was never intended to be a lifetime career.

What about professional congressional staff members then who worked the levers of power even as congressmen and Senators came and went due to term limits? Wouldn't that inevitably increase their value, and their influence if they became the real power behind elected officials? They would know how the system ran. They would know all of the key players. And they would know how to get things done. It wouldn't be too hard for them to manipulate elected officials with that kind of institutional know how if they chose to do so.

 

[Toro]

Up to the voters to decide if an elected official's time is up by not voting for him/her again. Stripping citizens of their right to freely choose is not a 'solution.'

term limits would cut down on legalized bribery, pork, and corruption. Being in congress was never intended to be a lifetime career.

What about professional congressional staff members then who worked the levers of power even as congressmen and Senators came and went due to term limits? Wouldn't that inevitably increase their value, and their influence if they became the real power behind elected officials? They would know how the system ran. They would know all of the key players. And they would know how to get things done. It wouldn't be too hard for them to manipulate elected officials with that kind of institutional know how if they chose to do so.

Term limits make the system less democratic and more corrupt IMHO because it puts more power in the hands of those who know how to work the system, ie lobbyists, relative to the naive, fresh-faced n00bies who are like sheep to the slaughter.

 

[BlackSand]

What about professional congressional staff members then who worked the levers of power even as congressmen and Senators came and went due to term limits? Wouldn't that inevitably increase their value, and their influence if they became the real power behind elected officials? They would know how the system ran. They would know all of the key players. And they would know how to get things done. It wouldn't be too hard for them to manipulate elected officials with that kind of institutional know how if they chose to do so.

I think that term limits could also produce more of a lame duck or similar problem.
During their final term ... Members of Congress could do pretty much whatever they felt like ... Especially when they don't have to listen to their voters to get re-elected.

.

 

[paperview]

term limits would cut down on legalized bribery, pork, and corruption. Being in congress was never intended to be a lifetime career.

What about professional congressional staff members then who worked the levers of power even as congressmen and Senators came and went due to term limits? Wouldn't that inevitably increase their value, and their influence if they became the real power behind elected officials? They would know how the system ran. They would know all of the key players. And they would know how to get things done. It wouldn't be too hard for them to manipulate elected officials with that kind of institutional know how if they chose to do so.

Term limits make the system less democratic and more corrupt IMHO because it puts more power in the hands of those who know how to work the system, ie lobbyists, relative to the naive, fresh-faced n00bies who are like sheep to the slaughter.

Anyone remember the "Republican Revolution" and the "Contract on...oh I mean with America?

Term Limits were a big part of what they pledged. [Maximum of twelve (12) years' service in government]

Never happened/ And those who made the pledge never followed through on the proposed Amendment, nor personally honored what they pledged to do to reign in that..revolution.

 

[Nyvin]

Giving senators a fire to out run before their time is up would give them less time to pass the legislation and encourage the speed of progress.

Speed does not always equate to progress. The Senate in particular was expressly designed NOT to be hasty or subject to the passions of the day.

Reid and the dems just overrode that. Now the senate is just an extension of the house with higher pay.

Both the Senators and the House members have the same salary.