How can we ever hit the "reset" button on Congress?

[JohnOfSheffield]

The use of force was approved by most all members of congress with a resounding yes based on 23 some odd reasons. You forget that.

That dumbass who got us into that is called congress. Typical revisionist history, you can't even rember 6 years ago.

Well, they sure did lie enough to scare everyone in the US including congress.

Does that make it better?

They said they KNEW they had WMD's, they said they KNEW where they were, they said they KNEW they had means of delivery and could deploy them against the US any day.

They said they KNEW there were terrorist connections....

All bloody lies, each and every one of them, NO WMD's anywhere, the UAV's were balsa RC planes held together with duct tape and there were no terrorist connections except in the zone that the US controlled that SH had no control over.

Is that better? REALLY?

I agree, they shouldn't have believed the lies but then again, why wouldn't they lie if it would further them when there are obviously no reprecussions when you lie to start a war?

Oh, and use of force was supposed to be used as a last resort, not to tell the inspectors to get the fuck out of dodge because we are going to invade right this fucking minute.

 

[Carmen813]

People assume that because Congress has poor approval ratings, the actual Congressmen/women do too. That's not the case, and Congressmen/women usually enjoy high approval ratings in their home districts. Coincidentally, that's the only place where your job approval as an elected official matters.

There's a number of theories as to why this is, but basically I think it's human nature. It's easier to disapprove of an ambiguous object called "Congress" than it is to disapprove of an actual person.

 

[cubeless]

the constitutional convention thing is kind of interesting... i can't seem to find who can call it and who can run it... iirc all the elected politicos of the day didn't participate in the first one, and a lot of non-politicos did...

i wonder how far you could get throwing a party in philly?

 

[spacejamz]

what's the point? how long would it take for the replacements to get corrupted/bribed/etc so we can be back where we are at now?

Human nature is a bitch...

 

[sandorski]

the constitutional convention thing is kind of interesting... i can't seem to find who can call it and who can run it... iirc all the elected politicos of the day didn't participate in the first one, and a lot of non-politicos did...

i wonder how far you could get throwing a party in philly?

That does seem to be an interesting thing to try. Who decides on doing such a thing though and would they be interested in carrying the idea through? IIRC that process was abandoned a long time ago, which makes me wonder why? Perhaps it's not all it's cracked up to be?

 

[Vic]

look at the full polling... everybody thinks their rep is great but that it's all the rest of 'em who suck... the downward spiral is just getting started...

This is hardly new, that's what congressional polls always look like... going back decades (yes, even when the Pubs were in power). Which is why overall congressional polls are always worthless (except perhaps to rally the minority party in off-year elections). But if you want know what's really going on, look at the individual state/district polls.

Personally, I might vote Republican for governor this year, but my Democratic Congressmen and Senator are both already certain to win in landslides. And I don't have a problem with that, even though I disagree with them on some issues, because they've both done good jobs and - more importantly - the Republicans can't seem to get anyone qualified and serious to run against them.

 

[Vic]

what's the point? how long would it take for the replacements to get corrupted/bribed/etc so we can be back where we are at now?

Human nature is a bitch...

Politicians are already corrupted and bribed before they get into office. That's how they get the funding to win the elections in the first place.

 

[spacejamz]

Politicians are already corrupted and bribed before they get into office. That's how they get the funding to win the elections in the first place.

either way...what's point? I don't think there is anything that can be realistically done to ensure our leaders will actually look out for our interests, not those that are lining their pockets...

 

[Patranus]

Can't. The people in power think that the seats in congress belong to them and not the people of this county.

Only way would be to clean house but with all of the special interest groups that doesn't look like it is going to happen.

 

[Vic]

I think a Constitutional Amendment could do it. A one time shot to remove all of them and force an immediate revote. If the people feel strongly enough to remove them all they certainly won't vote them back in. win-win.

The mice voted to bell the cat.

 

[Vic]

either way...what's point? I don't think there is anything that can be realistically done to ensure our leaders will actually look out for our interests, not those that are lining their pockets...

Oh no... they are always looking out for our interests. The problem is that "our" is a very broad and often contradictory term in this context.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Oh no... they are always looking out for our interests. The problem is that "our" is a very broad and often contradictory term in this context.

Really? I thought it was narrow and consisted of "their" interests.

You scratch my back and i'll scratch yours, works with both lions and politicians... HEY, we should bring them together...

 

[Vic]

LOL. I'll bring the catnip, you bring the hookers.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

LOL. I'll bring the catnip, you bring the hookers.

So we rub the catnip on the politicians and leave them with the lions and then we ... book a floor at the nearest luxury hotel for us and the hookers, using the politicians credit cards...

Dunno about blow though, all we got here in Afghanistan is a sheitload of opium..

Ah well, it'll have to do i guess.

 

[fskimospy]

People assume that because Congress has poor approval ratings, the actual Congressmen/women do too. That's not the case, and Congressmen/women usually enjoy high approval ratings in their home districts. Coincidentally, that's the only place where your job approval as an elected official matters.

There's a number of theories as to why this is, but basically I think it's human nature. It's easier to disapprove of an ambiguous object called "Congress" than it is to disapprove of an actual person.

Again as I've said, it's because people don't like the way in which Congress functions and carries out its business. In the past people didn't really know how legislation was made, but now they do, and they don't like it. There's no real solution for this, as its the dealmaking that pisses them off... and that's sort of the whole point of a legislature.

 

[Carmen813]

Again as I've said, it's because people don't like the way in which Congress functions and carries out its business. In the past people didn't really know how legislation was made, but now they do, and they don't like it. There's no real solution for this, as its the dealmaking that pisses them off... and that's sort of the whole point of a legislature.

As much as I hate watching the sausage making, I do sort of think the results are better. I know it tends to water down legislation, but...well, it keeps it more middle of the road as well.

I don't really trust opinion polls on major initiatives like Health Care. Depending on the poll you trust, maybe 40% of people approve of the current health care legislation. I'd be amazed if that 40% of voting eligible citizens even understood what the legislation actually does and can make an informed opinion.

There's a lot of e-thugs here talking of revolution and assassination (which is despicable btw), real solutions involve getting more people to vote and having voters paying more attention to what their elected official actual does. They need to pay less attention to the (R) (I) (D) and more to what actually is accomplished. Sadly, Americans would rather get there political information from unbiased sources like Fox News and MSNBC rather than read an actual bill.

 

[Craig234]

As much as I hate watching the sausage making, I do sort of think the results are better. I know it tends to water down legislation, but...well, it keeps it more middle of the road as well.

I don't really trust opinion polls on major initiatives like Health Care. Depending on the poll you trust, maybe 40% of people approve of the current health care legislation. I'd be amazed if that 40% of voting eligible citizens even understood what the legislation actually does and can make an informed opinion.

There's a lot of e-thugs here talking of revolution and assassination (which is despicable btw), real solutions involve getting more people to vote and having voters paying more attention to what their elected official actual does. They need to pay less attention to the (R) (I) (D) and more to what actually is accomplished. Sadly, Americans would rather get there political information from unbiased sources like Fox News and MSNBC rather than read an actual bill.

I disagree with one thing.

While the R is 'member of a monolithic lock-step grop whose agenda is to sell out the public interest and represent the interests pof the rich', even a vote for a 'good' R is a vote for the wrong party.

In an extreme case maybe that outweighs it but it's a huge barrier to voting R.

Voting I, no problem looking at the person - they usually ally with the R/corporatist Dem (Liebermann) or the progressive Dems (Sanders).

Dem - definitely look at the person. If it's a corporatist Dem nominated, you are largely out of look for a 'good' politician, and have to pick the lesser of evils, this person or the R, with an edge to the party.

If you can get a progressive Dem, vote for them. That's the only faction out country needs. It's a vote for the public against the R/corpratist Dem majority.

Today, the 'person' is not as important usually as their 'agenda' or 'faction'. A politician voting for the public agenda over the corrupt interests is more important that the personal issues, short of extreme ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

The number of HF managers making that kind of dough is less than the number of fingers in one hand.

Also, they are treated the same as everyone else. HF managers pay income tax rates for wage income, and they pay capital gains rates for capital gains, just like the rest of us.

Not exactly. HF managers exploit a loophole that allows them to pay capital gains rates on money paid them by the fund. It has no relation to their actual investment.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/

There are currently thousands of such funds and managers...

 

[theevilsharpie]

If you can get a progressive Dem, vote for them. That's the only faction out country needs.

Yep. Progressive liberal policies are all this country needs. Hey, it worked for western Europe!



By far the biggest thing wrong with American politics today is this irrational infatuation with political parties.

 

[Genx87]

New constitution. The one we have is dated in a lot of parts.

Petition your representative to start amending the one we have then. The founding fathers put that process in for a reason.

 

[Genx87]

Based on hand-picked bullshit evidence presented by GWB&Co and at a time where anyone who didn't want blood for 9/11 was a traitor (you're either with us or you're against us). Sorry. Fail.

Really that doesnt matter when a lot of them admit to not even bothering to read it anyways. Bush could had put the ghost of Walt Disney was the reason and our representatives on both sides of the aisle would had voted yes. Which brings up another problem. Representatives not even bothering to read what they are voting on.

 

[Craig234]

Yep. Progressive liberal policies are all this country needs. Hey, it worked for western Europe!

You spread the myth is a disaster bu treating people well.

Funny enough, Paul Krugman's latest column is about people spreading that myth. Read him.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/11-4

By far the biggest thing wrong with American politics today is this irrational infatuation with political parties.

Hardly. A much better candidate for biggest thing wrong is the people who stand to make huge money dominanting the system over the public interest.

People who are allied in party by party. Virtually all the public interest people are progressive dems.

 

[wwswimming]

i was thinking, delete the current partition, and do a low-level format of the hard drive.

 

[ebaycj]

Seriously, how can we ethically and legally hit the "reset" button on this comical, dysfunctional, unpatriotic, lying, arrogant, lobby-owned group of so-called legislators?

Congress has the lowest approval rating of all with only about 1 in 4 Americans giving it a favorable rating. (I am actually surprised it is that high.)

(Americans Split on Obama's first year.)

So how do we do it? How do we get term limits on these people?

The first step is to "break" the traditional ways congress "gets things done" (nebraska compromise, bridges to nowhere, over-complicated bills, etc...).

Elect a president who will veto each and every bill with any hint of any bullshit in it, and will publicly declare that as the reason he is vetoing it. (I'm vetoing this because of the immense amount of pork attached to this otherwise decent legislation. If congress gives me a bill with (a,b,c,d) removed, I will sign it.) Make them get that 2/3rds majority to pull off the BS that they get away with right now.

Also getting congress to create an independent agency to handle all districting/redistricting for all federal positions. Gerrymandering is a bad thing (see the 4th Illinois congressional district: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=4 ). The same president could use this as a "pass this bill" card: (I'm vetoing your bill for another legitimate reason (too much pork). If you add this bit of pre-written legislation to your bill, I will pass it, pork and all.)

I'm actually surprised more presidents don't use their veto power more liberally and speak more publicly about it. It would make them very popular with the people and would almost certainly win them a re-election. It would also make congress very unpopular with the people, which (after a while) should cause them to shape up a little bit.

In my opinion, the President should consider himself primarily a "filter" for congress' collective bullshit.

 

[Craig234]

i was thinking, delete the current partition, and do a low-level format of the hard drive.

Yawn. For the umpteenth time, sinc you appear not to listen, all that will do withotu fixing the problem allowing money to dominate the system is change the faces for even LESS known, accountable crooks.