PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of the medi



suepuff
08-28-2013, 09:48 PM
This week on one of the morning shows there was discussion on the state of the House and their poll results showing how dissatisfied the public was with them. One of the guests commented on elections next year. She said "Of course they (reps) should be worried about Elections. That is their job."

Aaahhh...no...I was not aware that was their job. Last I knew, they were 'supposed' to be representing us...

I don't know why I watch the news....or read it...

And when are the reps/Senators going to start listening. We seem to elect new ones and they keep on the same track as the old ones.

Has this always been like this? Or is it that as we get older we pay more attention???

Frustrated....

Sue Puff

BonMallari
08-28-2013, 10:10 PM
They are too busy representing the "special interest lobbyist" , which is basically legalized bribery...if we did away with lobbyist and set term limits we just might get them out of permanent campaign mode...

if a Congressperson (House or Senate) actually voted the way their constituents wanted I would be shocked

GaryJ
08-28-2013, 10:20 PM
I do pay more attention as I get older. I think the most upstanding, honest person will not be effective in the 'DC Machine' without compromising something. The 'DC Machine' will eat them up and spit them out if don't. Then they spend more time to get re-elected than doing their job.

Marvin S
08-28-2013, 10:30 PM
I do pay more attention as I get older. I think the most upstanding, honest person will not be effective in the 'DC Machine' without compromising something. The 'DC Machine' will eat them up and spit them out if don't. Then they spend more time to get re-elected than doing their job.

IMO, there is enough low hanging fruit to be done that an individual could go a long time before finding any necessity to compromise.

In negotiation always ask for much more than you expect to achieve - when the folks across the table do not violate your "line in the Sand", you will have achieved your original intent. That's not compromise except to those who believe they got you to budge :cool:.

GaryJ
08-28-2013, 10:39 PM
IMO, there is enough low hanging fruit to be done that an individual could go a long time before finding any necessity to compromise.

In negotiation always ask for much more than you expect to achieve - when the folks across the table do not violate your "line in the Sand", you will have achieved your original intent. That's not compromise except to those who believe they got you to budge :cool:.

I agree with you on the negotiation point. New members don't get a whole lot of opportunity to do much. They are lead by more senior members. The more senior members have the power and it is hard to pick low hanging fruit when you have no power.

HPL
08-28-2013, 10:56 PM
I agree with you on the negotiation point. New members don't get a whole lot of opportunity to do much. They are lead by more senior members. The more senior members have the power and it is hard to pick low hanging fruit when you have no power.


Two words: Term limits

suepuff
08-29-2013, 02:41 AM
Ditto on the term limits......no chance in hell that will ever happen....

Gerry Clinchy
08-29-2013, 10:09 AM
Maybe term limits, alone, would solve the problem ... but so would reducing the incentives to make a career out of politics! Fat chance we have of Congress doing this to themselves!

There is another problem as well, which we seem to overlook ... the career bureaucrats. Even if we had term limits on Congress, the bureaucrats ... who are NOT elected ... would get the power that the Congress now has in terms of special interests and lobbying. So, while we're at it, we might be well advised not to let any Fed employee in a leadership position serve any longer than the Congress-people. While this may not be true in the private sector, in the private sector the high-level employee is more often held to a standard, usually predicated upon profit/success performance of the company. While the latter is not 100% foolproof, it surely seems more effective than giving promotions to people like Lois Lerner.

This would all be made easier to monitor/evaluate if the govt were overall smaller than it has grown to be.

The fact that being in DC govt for too long is so corruptive of even a well-intentioned individual, we should really give a lot of credit to people like Cruz, Lee, and others who are fighting that uphill battle to remember why their constituents elected them to go to DC on their behalf.

huntinman
08-29-2013, 10:27 AM
Gerry, people like Lois Lerner are promoted because they are EXACTLY the type that thrives in govt.

HPL
08-29-2013, 02:25 PM
Maybe term limits, alone, would solve the problem ... but so would reducing the incentives to make a career out of politics! Fat chance we have of Congress doing this to themselves!

There is another problem as well, which we seem to overlook ... the career bureaucrats. Even if we had term limits on Congress, the bureaucrats ... who are NOT elected ... would get the power that the Congress now has in terms of special interests and lobbying. So, while we're at it, we might be well advised not to let any Fed employee in a leadership position serve any longer than the Congress-people. While this may not be true in the private sector, in the private sector the high-level employee is more often held to a standard, usually predicated upon profit/success performance of the company. While the latter is not 100% foolproof, it surely seems more effective than giving promotions to people like Lois Lerner.

This would all be made easier to monitor/evaluate if the govt were overall smaller than it has grown to be.



Probably the most profound statement in the entire thread.

Gerry Clinchy
08-29-2013, 08:56 PM
Gerry, people like Lois Lerner are promoted because they are EXACTLY the type that thrives in govt.
I very much agree, Bill. And the problem becomes that even with term limits these bureaucrats continue to run the govt. Oversight from Congress, or Inspectors General, seems to be seriously lacking.

Gerry Clinchy
08-29-2013, 09:01 PM
President Bashar Assad’s forces have moved Scud missiles from a base near Damascus to a heavily militarized mountain region, Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-missiles-idUSBRE97S12920130829), which may be aimed at protecting them from any coming attacks.
That surely is no surprise ... they've had plenty of warning.


Russia called for an urgent meeting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on Thursday afternoon to discuss the crisis in Syria, according to (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/russia-calls-urgent-council-meeting-syria-20107320) the Associated Press.
Will Samantha Power be back from Ireland? Maybe not ...


The Security Council meeting Russia called ended after less than an hour on Thursday evening, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-calls-urgent-meeting-of-5-permanent-security-council-members-on-syria-crisis/2013/08/29/4211f688-10c9-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_t witter_washingtonpost). No progress was made.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357140/live-updates-syria-nro-staff