PDA

View Full Version : GOP Budget Hypocrisy is Boundless



Buzz
01-03-2011, 08:50 PM
Seems the Republicans want to pass a law that requires budget offsets for any spending increases. Sounds like a good idea no? Except...

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011010103/house-gop-will-obliterate-its-own-cutgo-rule-when-it-repeals-health-reform


The House Republican leadership has announced it will enact two things immediately upon taking control of the House this week: a new "CutGo" rule to require revenue offsets for any increases in spending, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act health reform law.
The Republicans might want to pass health reform repeal first.
Because if they install "CutGo" rules first, they won't be able to repeal health reform without also finding $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next two decades to make up for the taxpayer savings they'll be throwing away.
At minimum, if the House GOP doesn't feel bound by the Congressional Budget Office's nontraditional long-range forecast -- which was provided because the bulk of the estimated deficit reduction would occur in the second decade of implementation -- it would at least need to offset the $143 billion that the traditional CBO estimates would be saved by health reform in this decade.

Except that...


(UPDATE: I overestimated the House GOP's creativity. The New York Times reported that the "CutGo" rule will simply have a loophole exempting the repeal of health reform. Hat tip: Alec82.)

See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us/politics/03repubs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2


Under new rules drafted by House Republicans in an effort to bolster fiscal discipline, lawmakers must show how they will pay for legislation that increases the deficit. But a bill repealing the health care law would be explicitly exempted from that requirement.


Why would they have to put this loophole in their bill if HCR was going to cost a trillion dollars as they keep saying?

Freaking lying hypocrites!

david gibson
01-03-2011, 09:03 PM
waaaaaaaaahhhh!!! wahhh - waaaaaaaaahh!http://tjsullivan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/crying-baby.jpeg

JDogger
01-03-2011, 10:54 PM
waaaaaaaaahhhh!!! wahhh - waaaaaaaaahh!http://tjsullivan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/crying-baby.jpeg

Ya see RK? Dripping snarky, just dripping...

Steve Hester
01-04-2011, 01:53 AM
Except that...

Why would they have to put this loophole in their bill if HCR was going to cost a trillion dollars as they keep saying?

Freaking lying hypocrites!

Probably because that's the only way the Democrats would even begin to support it...:rolleyes: You know, get the bill passed, then gut Obamacare..:D

road kill
01-04-2011, 05:32 AM
Ya see RK? Dripping snarky, just dripping...

Actually, that's calling a spade a spade.;-)



RK

dnf777
01-04-2011, 07:58 AM
Yeah, I just bought a truck from our new representative. (a politican who's a car dealer.....Hmmmmm)

Any-hoo, he part of the new republican freshman class who will usher in the era of financial responsibility and austerity. And just to prove it, they're throwing themselves an oppulent multi-million dollar soiree at DC's swankiest hotel! (now I know, some rich billionaire is probably paying out of pocket for this, so its ok!)

road kill
01-04-2011, 08:02 AM
Yeah, I just bought a truck from our new representative. (a politican who's a car dealer.....Hmmmmm)

Any-hoo, he part of the new republican freshman class who will usher in the era of financial responsibility and austerity. And just to prove it, they're throwing themselves an oppulent multi-million dollar soiree at DC's swankiest hotel! (now I know, some rich billionaire is probably paying out of pocket for this, so its ok!)

Where are they holding this party??

Hawaii???:D


RK

mjh345
01-04-2011, 08:03 AM
Probably because that's the only way the Democrats would even begin to support it...:rolleyes: :D

Therein lies one of the biggest problems in the legislative process

david gibson
01-04-2011, 08:14 AM
Ya see RK? Dripping snarky, just dripping...

snark·y
   /ˈsnɑrki/[snahr-kee]

–adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang .
testy or irritable; short.

i would hardly call my post irritable - that however is a perfect description of your post. mine is satire, poking fun, teasing, mocking, razzing.

see if you can find a better word, but "snarky" aint quite it.

Buzz
01-04-2011, 08:29 AM
Yeah, I just bought a truck from our new representative. (a politican who's a car dealer.....Hmmmmm)

Any-hoo, he part of the new republican freshman class who will usher in the era of financial responsibility and austerity. And just to prove it, they're throwing themselves an oppulent multi-million dollar soiree at DC's swankiest hotel! (now I know, some rich billionaire is probably paying out of pocket for this, so its ok!)

The new gov of Michigan just threw a big expensive bash for his inauguration and in defense they said it was funded by private donations. Yup, I really feel a lot better knowing that the gov of my old home state is living it up on private funds. No conflict of interest there.

But that wasn't the point of my original post. I was kind of mocking them for shouting from the rooftops about how much Obamacare was going to cost taxpayers, but then they had to put an exclusion into their new cutgo bill because surprise, getting rid of it is going to cast taxpayers money!

Hew
01-04-2011, 08:52 AM
I was kind of mocking them for shouting from the rooftops about how much Obamacare was going to cost taxpayers, but then they had to put an exclusion into their new cutgo bill because surprise, getting rid of it is going to cast taxpayers money!
Exactly, because spending $3 to save $100 is CAAARAAAAAAAAZY!

Buzz
01-04-2011, 09:08 AM
Exactly, because spending $3 to save $100 is CAAARAAAAAAAAZY!


Holy crap Hew, where you been? I thought you went and found something better to do than chastise us libruls...

Did you mean spend $100 to save $3? That's the angle I'd expect you to take, you know them OMB guys don't understand simple arithmetic and accounting! ;-)

sinner
01-04-2011, 09:25 AM
Term limits for all elected officials!

road kill
01-04-2011, 09:35 AM
Term limits for all elected officials!
Agreed, but someone asked "what if you get a really good one??"

I answered "name 1!!"

That was pretty much the end of that!!:shock:

RK

david gibson
01-04-2011, 09:37 AM
Term limits for all elected officials!

and exactly what will that solve? knowing they wont be reelected anyway gives them no more reason to do the right thing - in fact i would argue the opposite. they will just say "i have but X years here no matter what, so in that time i'll do whats in the best interest of me, myself, and I to make sure i have a gold-lined nest when i leave"

the answer is somewhere in between. 100% transparency and accountability so they are more inclined to do the right thing to ensure that the public will keep their trust and reelect them.

gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger.

dnf777
01-04-2011, 09:42 AM
The new gov of Michigan just threw a big expensive bash for his inauguration and in defense they said it was funded by private donations. Yup, I really feel a lot better knowing that the gov of my old home state is living it up on private funds. No conflict of interest there.

But that wasn't the point of my original post. I was kind of mocking them for shouting from the rooftops about how much Obamacare was going to cost taxpayers, but then they had to put an exclusion into their new cutgo bill because surprise, getting rid of it is going to cast taxpayers money!

Oh yeah, I understand.

I still think is ironic. Vote for a millionaire tax cut, then have those millionaires throw you a million dollar party with their "private" tax savings!

Its all on the up and up. Hopefully if I schmooze our local republican rep, I can get an invite! :D:D

Hey, if you can't beat 'em......drink their expensive wine!

Buzz
01-04-2011, 09:43 AM
gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger.


Look at Texas 19.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

JDogger
01-04-2011, 09:59 AM
snark·y
   /ˈsnɑrki/[snahr-kee]

–adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang .
testy or irritable; short.

i would hardly call my post irritable - that however is a perfect description of your post. mine is satire, poking fun, teasing, mocking, razzing.

see if you can find a better word, but "snarky" aint quite it.

snark·y (snärhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifkhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)

adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide, usually out of irritation.
2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

I guess you conveniently overlooked the primary definition. Snarky fits you to a T.

david gibson
01-04-2011, 10:02 AM
Look at Texas 19.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd



wow - no surprise - its republican! i'll point out the 18th and 29th - you have to zoom in on houston - thought not reaching out like 19 they are each clearly gerrymandered - and both democratic......

road kill
01-04-2011, 10:03 AM
snark·y (snärhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifkhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)

adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide, usually out of irritation.
2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

I guess you conveniently overlooked the primary definition. Snarky fits you to a T.


EXACTLY!!:D

RK

david gibson
01-04-2011, 10:13 AM
snark·y (snärhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifkhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)

adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide, usually out of irritation.
2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

I guess you conveniently overlooked the primary definition. Snarky fits you to a T.

different dictionaries = different wording. i cut and paste completely on that and omitted nothing. see for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snarky
glad you searched a bit to find a definition you could try a "gotchya" on, too bad it failed. so your "guess" is wrong - no surprise there. you always read into things what you want to read.

as far as your definition fitting me - well no it doesnt - i am not irritated by you at all. i find it funny how you get all bent out of shape. heck, you even got irritated because people wanted to talk football here. now THAT is snarky! i remember what used to happen to guys like you in grade school when you cried during sandlot football - pink belly!

you can go back to this now:

http://tjsullivan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/crying-baby.jpeg

road kill
01-04-2011, 10:18 AM
different dictionaries = different wording. i cut and paste completely on that and omitted nothing. see for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snarky
glad you searched a bit to find a definition you could try a "gotchya" on, too bad it failed. so your "guess" is wrong - no surprise there. you always read into things what you want to read.

as far as your definition fitting me - well no it doesnt - i am not irritated by you at all. i find it funny how you get all bent out of shape. heck, you even got irritated because people wanted to talk football here. now THAT is snarky! i remember what used to happen to guys like you in grade school when you cried during sandlot football - pink belly!

you can go back to this now:

http://tjsullivan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/crying-baby.jpeg

Wedgy:
1. wedgy
When your in over your head at recess and the bigger boys pull your underpants over you head or rip them by pulling them from the back.:D

MORE:

A wedgie occurs when a person's underwear or other garments are wedged between the buttocks. While a wedgie can be created naturally, the term is usually associated with a prank. When a person is on the receiving end of a wedgie, his or her underwear is forcibly pulled up by a second person.

Wedgies are commonly featured in popular works, either as a form of low comedy. In such works, briefs are usually the type of underpants that a wedgie is performed upon.[1][2]


Dangers of Wedgies, especially when performed on males, can be dangerous, potentially causing testicular or scrotal damage. An incident in 2004 involving a ten-year-old boy required reattachment of a testicle to the scrotum.

Variations

The Melvin is a variant where the victim's underwear is pulled up from the front, to cause injury to the victim's genitals. The female variant is sometimes called a Minerva.
The Atomic Wedgie entails hoisting the waistband of the receiver's underwear up and over their head.
The Hanging Wedgie is a variant in which the victim is hung from his or her underwear, elevated above the ground.


RK

sinner
01-04-2011, 10:25 AM
So far in Colorado our term limits have put new thought processes in our state legislators. To soon to know but it is worth watching. An old friend of mine who was just a county commissioner told me the way he got wealthy was by being an elected official.
Nothing wrong with money but his grandfather was a horse thief and so is he. Just a modern one that the public voted out. Might just mean they have to "steel" faster.
Term limits would reduce the number of professional politicians. Take a look at the NAMES OF CONGRESSMAN & SENATORS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR YEARS.
It is time for change!
You got a better solution let's hear it!

luvmylabs23139
01-04-2011, 10:28 AM
Look at this crazy one. Carved out by the DEMS. At some points it is no wider than intersate 85. It was created specifically to be a black dominated district by the dems in the early 90's.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/NC12_109.gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/NC12_109.gif)

Eric Johnson
01-04-2011, 10:36 AM
Oh yeah, I understand.

I still think is ironic. Vote for a millionaire tax cut, ...

What millionaire tax cut? All that was done was extend the existing tax rates for two years...was it not?

Eric

Buzz
01-04-2011, 10:41 AM
Look at this crazy one. Carved out by the DEMS. At some points it is no wider than intersate 85. It was created specifically to be a black dominated district by the dems in the early 90's.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/NC12_109.gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/NC12_109.gif)


Yes, that is pretty ridiculous. There are two ways to look at this. One is that they wanted to put enough dems together to get a dem representative. The other way to look at it could be that they put all the dems into one district so all they would get is one representative instead of two or more. Depending on who's pulling the strings, it can go either way.

david gibson
01-04-2011, 10:51 AM
Yes, that is pretty ridiculous. There are two ways to look at this. One is that they wanted to put enough dems together to get a dem representative. The other way to look at it could be that they put all the dems into one district so all they would get is one representative instead of two or more. Depending on who's pulling the strings, it can go either way.

so which one is kosher?

JDogger
01-04-2011, 11:04 AM
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/imagesCASWF0E6.jpg

Yup...positively dripping :p

Buzz
01-04-2011, 11:10 AM
so which one is kosher?

Neither, but there seems to be nothing to be done about it.

david gibson
01-04-2011, 11:16 AM
Neither, but there seems to be nothing to be done about it.

which was part of my point on post 15

luvmylabs23139
01-04-2011, 11:27 AM
Yes, that is pretty ridiculous. There are two ways to look at this. One is that they wanted to put enough dems together to get a dem representative. The other way to look at it could be that they put all the dems into one district so all they would get is one representative instead of two or more. Depending on who's pulling the strings, it can go either way.

If you read the history this was designed to be a BLACK district, There have been many court challenges over the years and it has gotten a bit shorter and fatter over the years but the underlying desire to have a BLACK district has remained and has been for some unknown reason surviving in the courts to a point. They key here is that it is designed for a specific purpose, to create by any creative means a BLACK dominated district.

david gibson
01-04-2011, 11:54 AM
If you read the history this was designed to be a BLACK district, There have been many court challenges over the years and it has gotten a bit shorter and fatter over the years but the underlying desire to have a BLACK district has remained and has been for some unknown reason surviving in the courts to a point. They key here is that it is designed for a specific purpose, to create by any creative means a BLACK dominated district.

oh but it has to be for dubious reasons, it has to be because republicans forced it in some way. buzz has to have something to hate here. so it had to be done to pool all the black votes into one district to dilute their influence in the other districts. has to be the reps fault somehow.

Buzz
01-04-2011, 12:06 PM
oh but it has to be for dubious reasons, it has to be because republicans forced it in some way. buzz has to have something to hate here. so it had to be done to pool all the black votes into one district to dilute their influence in the other districts. has to be the reps fault somehow.

I don't have any hate.

Do you doubt that the same hasn't been done in both blue and red states? The statement was made that they drew the lines to get a dem in. I was merely pointing out that it can be done to dilute influence too, and it does get done that way to the benefit of dems and repubs.

I can't just sit here and watch the spin all go one way!

david gibson
01-04-2011, 12:16 PM
I don't have any hate.

Do you doubt that the same hasn't been done in both blue and red states? The statement was made that they drew the lines to get a dem in. I was merely pointing out that it can be done to dilute influence too, and it does get done that way to the benefit of dems and repubs.

I can't just sit here and watch the spin all go one way!

if you had read my post #15 you would recall i said it first:

"gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger."

so why are pointing out only where reps did it as you did with texas 19?

road kill
01-04-2011, 12:37 PM
I don't have any hate.

Do you doubt that the same hasn't been done in both blue and red states? The statement was made that they drew the lines to get a dem in. I was merely pointing out that it can be done to dilute influence too, and it does get done that way to the benefit of dems and repubs.

I can't just sit here and watch the spin all go one way!

You usually do.......depending on which way it's a spinnin'.


RK

Buzz
01-04-2011, 01:30 PM
if you had read my post #15 you would recall i said it first:

"gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger."

so why are pointing out only where reps did it as you did with texas 19?


I didn't mean to point a finger to texas 19 except that I know you're from Texas and it was one of the more interesting ones I saw with only a few seconds of looking. I'm sure I could have found something more ridiculous if I was willing to spend the time.

You pointed out that both parties do it and I agree wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out that it doesn't always get used just to make a one lopsided district where there is no competition. It can also be used in a state where the balance between parties is pretty tight statewide, but if you draw something to get a single lopsided district, it can swing the others in a way that it sways the overall representation in the state the other way whereas it might be otherwise pretty balanced.

Am I being clear as mud?

road kill
01-04-2011, 01:35 PM
I didn't mean to point a finger to texas 19 except that I know you're from Texas and it was one of the more interesting ones I saw with only a few seconds of looking. I'm sure I could have found something more ridiculous if I was willing to spend the time.

You pointed out that both parties do it and I agree wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out that it doesn't always get used just to make a one lopsided district where there is no competition. It can also be used in a state where the balance between parties is pretty tight statewide, but if you draw something to get a single lopsided district, it can swing the others in a way that it sways the overall representation in the state the other way whereas it might be otherwise pretty balanced.

Am I being clear as mud?
Well, it stopped spinning....I think.


RK

Blackstone
01-04-2011, 02:10 PM
Term limits for all elected officials!

Don't we have term limits? It's called an election. People just need to get out and vote out their elected official(s) if they don't like them. Unfortunately, too many people aren't going to take the time to research what their elected officials have done while in office.

road kill
01-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Don't we have term limits? It's called an election. People just need to get out and vote out their elected official(s) if they don't like them. Unfortunately, too many people aren't going to take the time to research what their elected officials have done while in office.


So, what percentage of the active voting electorate has any idea who and what they are voting for.

I mean during the last election several TV shows had a lot of fun asking people on the street particulars about the candidate they had chosen.

It was hysterically....sad!!



It's my perseption that most of those who voted for Obama could not elaborate any specifics as to why.

I'm sure the progressives felt the same way in the previous elections.

But why have term limits on the Presidency then??
Because Bush would still be President??

RK

Julie R.
01-04-2011, 02:27 PM
Yes, that is pretty ridiculous. There are two ways to look at this. One is that they wanted to put enough dems together to get a dem representative. The other way to look at it could be that they put all the dems into one district so all they would get is one representative instead of two or more. Depending on who's pulling the strings, it can go either way.

This one was done your way, Buzz: only it was to throw all the land-owning, rural Republicans into one district and spin off some new ones with higher liberal concentrations closer to D.C. It worked in the last Presidential election because otherwise the current POTUS would never have won here. This is Virginia's first Congressional district, that gets evermore distorted every time the Democrats get their hooks into it. It looks like the creator was smoking crack.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/VA01_110.gif

This district now stretches from the Blue Ridge Mountains (where I live), meandering across the Piedmont area, takes in some but not all of the tidewater Chesapeake Bay country, and wanders carefully around the few remaining rural areas near Williamsburg and Newport News in the Hampton Roads area.

Wouldn't it make sense to divide the state into the mountain, piedmont, tidewater and Hampton Roads regions instead of this political gerrymandering? I'm in the same congressional district as one of my sisters who lives 4 hours away near Williamsburg, and yet my other sister, who's only 45 minutes north, is 2 districts away. She lives in the burgeoning D.C. suburb of Woodbridge (a.k.a. Hoodbridge).

Virginia's always been reliably conservative despite explosive population growth in Northern Va. and Hampton Roads, so what they did was squiggle lines across a 200-mile swath so the most rural conservative areas were all lumped together in one "give-away" district. This also had the effect of preventing any dilution of the voting habits of all the new residents in Northern VA and Hampton Roads. And, the chance to elect more liberals to Congress since Virginia got new seats. With the rural parts spun off, these new seats could be decided by all the foreigners, govt. leeches, commie symps and other come-heres that have moved here recently.

david gibson
01-04-2011, 02:46 PM
Don't we have term limits? It's called an election. People just need to get out and vote out their elected official(s) if they don't like them. Unfortunately, too many people aren't going to take the time to research what their elected officials have done while in office.

where have you been? that was my point in post 15, but elections are guaranteed tenure for officials in gerrymandered districts.

i'll repeat:

"gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger" from the opposing party

i clarified a bit by adding the red

Blackstone
01-04-2011, 02:50 PM
So, what percentage of the active voting electorate has any idea who and what they are voting for.

I mean during the last election several TV shows had a lot of fun asking people on the street particulars about the candidate they had chosen.

It was hysterically....sad!!



It's my perseption that most of those who voted for Obama could not elaborate any specifics as to why.

I'm sure the progressives felt the same way in the previous elections.

But why have term limits on the Presidency then??
Because Bush would still be President??

RK

My point exactly. So, rather than figure out why they should or shouldn’t vote for someone, they would rather have term limits to help them do the job for them. Most would rather follow some party line or have someone else tell them what to think and who to vote for. It’s easier than thinking for themselves.

Blackstone
01-04-2011, 02:54 PM
where have you been? that was my point in post 15, but elections are guaranteed tenure for officials in gerrymandered districts.

i'll repeat:

"gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger" from the opposing party

i clarified a bit by adding the red

Actually, I missed your post # 15. It appears we were making a similar point. Now, I'm really scared! ;)

david gibson
01-04-2011, 03:00 PM
Actually, I missed your post # 15. It appears we were making a similar point. Now, I'm really scared! ;) you would be surprised how non-ultraconservative i actually am in real life, its just that i dont defend or debate certain issues as vehemently as i may others. afterall, i have a reputation to maintain.

Marvin S
01-04-2011, 03:12 PM
How do you go from "Budget Hypocrisy", remain on topic & end up with "Gerrymandering"? while remaining on topic. I guess you call it the POTUS Place Float ;-).

Here in WA the D's & the R's formal party wise are very protective of their turf. They instituted a choice of ballot thing that left you voting for a party slate, rather than the previous crossover choices we had.

So an initiative was placed on the ballot & won which allowed the top "2" regardless of party to advance. After surviving court challenges by the political parties it was in effect this last election. Though the district may remain in the particular party camp, they are now represented by someone not an incumbent. Even within parties there is a tramendous difference in philosophy, but that difference is hard to put across during a primary election campaign. What did happen was some of the fringy incumbents were dropped for a more MOTR type newby.

Only time will tell if it helps!!!!!!!!!!

Uncle Bill
01-05-2011, 05:09 PM
you would be surprised how non-ultraconservative i actually am in real life, its just that i dont defend or debate certain issues as vehemently as i may others. afterall, i have a reputation to maintain.

Please tell me David, would that Senator from Houston be in power without gerrymandering? And how often do you get a chance to "vote her out"? Wouldn't it be better to have her limited as to how long she can continue making a fool of herself, and a joke of her representation of Texas?

Between she and her 'sister' in California, they make a mockery of that august body...equally well as the ignoramus that was concerned about Guam tipping over if it becomes overpopulated. And we worry about the inept empty suit in the WH?

Sodak voted out a student of the Harry Reid school of dingy leadership, but look what happened. We may be able to vote out our bad apples, but we can't get rid of the pork kings like Byrd. Of course his constituants are gonna keep him in office...none of them were ever weaned off the government tit, so they just keep buying votes.

Term limits would allow for true Americans to serve their country, and put a stop to those wanting to make a career out of it. It would provide an opportunity for a patriot to bring up his ideas on what would be good for the nation, act on it, and return to his home.

It would eliminate most of the graft and rip-offs that we have seen our government representatives get into, while they are developing ways to further their careers, or constantly working at buying votes or seeking ways to become lobbyists for special interests.

As opposed to your views of what type of politician would be in Washington, I believe we would get rid of that type of individual in less than a couple of cycles. Those that ran for office would have a definite purpose for even entering, and dayum sure wouldn't be to get rich, retire with a huge pension, or get on the healthcare dole they now have. All of those bennies need to be removed, so the sole purpose for serving is to make the nation better.

UB

Blackstone
01-05-2011, 05:44 PM
I believe term limits could potentially lead to more graft and corruption in Washington. If a politician knows they only have 4 or 8 years to be there, wouldn’t they be more likely to get into bed with lobbyists and other special interests that could provide them with a secure future. For many, going back into the private sector after being out of your profession for 4 – 8 years is risky. But, if someone is offering to make them rich or provide them with a lucrative job when they leave office . . . .

depittydawg
01-05-2011, 07:59 PM
I believe term limits could potentially lead to more graft and corruption in Washington. If a politician knows they only have 4 or 8 years to be there, wouldn’t they be more likely to get into bed with lobbyists and other special interests that could provide them with a secure future. For many, going back into the private sector after being out of your profession for 4 – 8 years is risky. But, if someone is offering to make them rich or provide them with a lucrative job when they leave office . . . .

I don't think term limits is the solution to corruption. Aggressive enforcement and prosecution of graft is what is needed. This is true in all three branches of government. The last two presidents are prime examples. Both should now be residing in Federal Prison.

Buzz
01-05-2011, 08:11 PM
Please tell me David, would that Senator from Houston be in power without gerrymandering? And how often do you get a chance to "vote her out"? Wouldn't it be better to have her limited as to how long she can continue making a fool of herself, and a joke of her representation of Texas?

Between she and her 'sister' in California, they make a mockery of that august body...equally well as the ignoramus that was concerned about Guam tipping over if it becomes overpopulated. And we worry about the inept empty suit in the WH?

Sodak voted out a student of the Harry Reid school of dingy leadership, but look what happened. We may be able to vote out our bad apples, but we can't get rid of the pork kings like Byrd. Of course his constituants are gonna keep him in office...none of them were ever weaned off the government tit, so they just keep buying votes.

Term limits would allow for true Americans to serve their country, and put a stop to those wanting to make a career out of it. It would provide an opportunity for a patriot to bring up his ideas on what would be good for the nation, act on it, and return to his home.

It would eliminate most of the graft and rip-offs that we have seen our government representatives get into, while they are developing ways to further their careers, or constantly working at buying votes or seeking ways to become lobbyists for special interests.

As opposed to your views of what type of politician would be in Washington, I believe we would get rid of that type of individual in less than a couple of cycles. Those that ran for office would have a definite purpose for even entering, and dayum sure wouldn't be to get rich, retire with a huge pension, or get on the healthcare dole they now have. All of those bennies need to be removed, so the sole purpose for serving is to make the nation better.

UB

UB, I fail to see what gerrymandering has to do with statewide elections. Don't they vote statewide for senator?

Also, Byrd is no longer with us.

Franco
01-05-2011, 08:15 PM
Old Cincinnatus set the bar too high for today's electorate.

Our electorate has no concept of the citizen/legislature!

The problem is well beyond term limits/no term limits.

Only way to get positive change is in making potential voters qualify for the opportunity to vote and I would support a Constitutional Amendment in making it the law of the land!

david gibson
01-05-2011, 08:25 PM
UB, I fail to see what gerrymandering has to do with statewide elections. Don't they vote statewide for senator?

Also, Byrd is no longer with us.

correct. Queen Sheila is not a senator. however, UB is right, she is the exception where term limits would be acceptable.