I mean c'mon.............................are you kidding me. Sorry there, but really, you have to be part ostrich to believe that. I know.....................I know it's the media's fault. It always is when things are not what you want them to be. The other thing is if everyone knew that the financial bubble would burst............ then why didn't the Bush administration address the problem.
Originally Posted by Mr Booty
Alot but not all of the problems we face today was because of policies enacted by the Bush administration. He had plenty of help with Democrats supporting these bills.
It's time we moved on from this and figure a way to fix this problem. I think Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in the house should be ashamed of themselves for obviously putting forth a bill that was deeply flawed. I think Democracy served us well here because the Republicans at least yelled loudly enough that we are not going to be stuck with the original draft. In the end I think this bill will be better for it. Let's hope so.
You're touting the the economy's performance under Bush??? Seriously?
Originally Posted by R Little
You're giving credit to Bush for bringing the Interest rate to almost 0%, as if that is a GOOD thing??? Do you have any idea why Interest rates are as low as they are? (Hint: It's not because the economy is doing well.)
Don't think I need to pass the bong. It looks like you've already been hitting it pretty hard.
Spot on. This is the way the sausage is made, it's just that people aren't usually paying attention to the process.
Originally Posted by cotts135
Kelder sent me this, but I think it would be a nice start toward funding the stimulus package. And no I did not go to all the fact checker sites, it's close enough for me!
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does thesetypes of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only
So which of these are bad (other than a Democratic president initiated them) and why?
I would also like to know opinions on Obama's limiting executive pay when a company is bailed out.
Julie, your post doesn't work. Since "all politics is local," we need representatives who know the issues of our districts. Assigning representatives to larger districts would amount to a bunch of mini-senators.
Originally Posted by backpasture http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...s/viewpost.gif
Thanks for the Cliff Notes version of the talk radio Talking Points. "Anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans," is my favorite part of this WHARRGARBL. .
I will agree with you that the problems didn't start over the last 8 years. Let's give credit where it's due --- to the 'Reagan Revolution'.
Lets not forget Nixon's 'opening of China'. That served us well didn't it?
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
I actually thought it was the best thing he ever did as President.
Originally Posted by JDogger
Originally Posted by R Little
We can always hope they go away cant we? :)
Much ado has been made in this thread in regards to us being a democracy. We are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic form of representation. A republic is a form of government based on law, in our case the Constitution of the United States of America being the supreme law of the land. What we need is for our representatives to fully realize the severity of they oath they take to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution, not attempt to change it.