The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kdsub -> The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/20/2010 11:16:18 PM)

As an independent does anyone else find it disgusting that democrats as a block vote one way on Healthcare and Republicans with few exceptions vote as a block another way.

On something as important to the American people as healthcare should not elected officials of good conscious consider the bill and not their political affiliations?

If they did there should be more of a mix of opinions based the bill and realistic compromises that would relieve the suffering and pocketbook drain of our expensive failing health system.

To me it is a disgrace and an embarrassment that many of our elected officials are actually afraid to vote the way they think best for America…Because they are putting their political ambitions ahead of my heath and it pisses me off.

Butch




DomKen -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/20/2010 11:18:19 PM)

Actually if Democrats voted as a block on anything this would have all been settled back in July. That republican politicians endanger their careers by differing from their party's leaders on even a single vote is one reason I will never support them.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/20/2010 11:30:44 PM)

It's quite probable that I will never vote for another democrat as long as i live. I already vowed several years ago never to vote for another republican, and now that the democrats have completely failed yet again to effect any meaningful change, I have no reason to ever vote for them again either. Neither party represents me, so why should i vote for them?




Kirata -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 12:01:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

It's quite probable that I will never vote for another democrat as long as i live. I already vowed several years ago never to vote for another republican, and now that the democrats have completely failed yet again to effect any meaningful change, I have no reason to ever vote for them again either. Neither party represents me, so why should i vote for them?

You know, they say that voting for an candidate that can't win is throwing your vote away. But I have to think if there's a good one, and he draws a decent percentage of the vote, however small, the major parties may start to get the idea. I've reached the point where "throwing my vote away" seems the only way to make it mean something anymore. Besides, I'd like to be able to vote without feeling like I need to shower afterward.

K.




Aneirin -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 2:20:29 AM)

And that is what it is all about, this voting one way or another, keep your allegiance to a party, and will the change people seek happen, I doubt it. Change will only happen when the powerful notice it would be a good idea to actually listen to the voter and act the way the voter wishes and this can be done by dropping this neo tribal allegiance, this notion that one should always vote for a certain party, erode their power then they will listen and more importantly, act to keep their position.

It is said that it is the floating or swing voter that is the primary target of the political parties, as it is they that can swing an election, the parties have their loyal followers, they can more or less guarantee a certain number of votes from those who outright support them no matter what their agenda is, the allegiance thing I mentioned earlier. If the majority of voters became swing voters, i.e., voters with no allegiance, the change we all talk about and seem to want, might actually go some way to happen.

You have to ask yourself something, what have you got in the US, democrat and republican basically, the two major contenders, both of which have been in power, so they have a track record, ask yourself, did your party achieve what you wanted when they held power,if not, well if you seek something else, why hold an allegiance to something that does not represent your views. It is the same here, it is either Labour red, or Conservative blue, they alternate with who holds power, but the reality is, they are more or less the same. We have the allegiance thing too, people who vote the way they do because they have always done so, or their family has always done so, or their class always votes that way. I say class, as many still hold onto that notion in this country and Labour were traditionally working class, so they can ensure the working class vote. Conservative are traditionally middle class and upwards, so basically we have a class war at election time, who is going to win, the great unwashed or the toffs.

I generally vote independant, the so called wasted vote, but I vote with my conscience and seek those who run along humanitarian lines. Still, our last election which labour won there was only a forty percent voter turn out, so they certainly do not represent the majority in this country, and for that matter, neither do the blues, people are getting fed up with the mealy mouthed politicians who say one thing and then do another. Either our political landscape must change, or voting must become compulsory if the politics is to continue.




eyesopened -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 3:06:26 AM)

In order for meaningful change to happen two things have to happen, in my opinion.  First, outlaw lobbyists.  It seems our elected representatives vote the will of the lobby, not the people.  Second, make it a conflict of interest for a lawyer to make law.  I trust a room full of wrestlers, actors, and comedians more than I trust a room full of lawyers.




mefisto69 -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 3:39:03 AM)

eyesopened is spot on.... we also need to bring back tar and feathering. why should we have to suffer through a full term of some elected scumbag not working 'for the people'




AsmodaisSin -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 4:15:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Actually if Democrats voted as a block on anything this would have all been settled back in July. That republican politicians endanger their careers by differing from their party's leaders on even a single vote is one reason I will never support them.


And the fact that the democrats blatantly disregard what their constituents want or don't want is any better?  MOST people do not want this health care bill to pass as is.  ALL the people I know want health care reform/change, but they do NOT want it in this form. 

With that being said, if there were a worthy democratic candidate who somehow agreed with my political views, I'd vote for him/her in a heartbeat.




vincentML -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 4:17:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

It's quite probable that I will never vote for another democrat as long as i live. I already vowed several years ago never to vote for another republican, and now that the democrats have completely failed yet again to effect any meaningful change, I have no reason to ever vote for them again either. Neither party represents me, so why should i vote for them?

You know, they say that voting for an candidate that can't win is throwing your vote away. But I have to think if there's a good one, and he draws a decent percentage of the vote, however small, the major parties may start to get the idea. I've reached the point where "throwing my vote away" seems the only way to make it mean something anymore. Besides, I'd like to be able to vote without feeling like I need to shower afterward.

K.



The Senate is structurally dysfunctional. California has maybe 96 time the population of Wyoming yet each is represented by two Senators. During the healthcare debate in the Senate Finance Committee the so-called group of six who put together the final version represented only about 2% of the total national population.

Original big state/small state compromise. Only way that can be fixed is by Constitutional Convention. Never know what would come out of that Pandora's Box.

Other problem is the Senate supermajority via filibuster. Neither party will over-ride it which they can easily do I understand because they want it for their own future use. It is not in the Constitution. Just a rule of the Senate attached by the Rules Committee to each piece of major legislation.

We should probably also demand reforms with term limits and pension modification. They continue to receive their full salaries and healthcare for family for life ???? So I have heard. Not sure of that. Republicans promised term limits in 1994 election. Not holding my breath.

Probably would be best to just be rid of the Senate but again would require a dreaded Constitutional Convention.

No apparent cure. Screwed with not even a kiss or a hug.




vincentML -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 5:02:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

In order for meaningful change to happen two things have to happen, in my opinion.  First, outlaw lobbyists.  It seems our elected representatives vote the will of the lobby, not the people.  Second, make it a conflict of interest for a lawyer to make law.  I trust a room full of wrestlers, actors, and comedians more than I trust a room full of lawyers.


Funny you should say that .... Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, Al Franken [:D]

Not criticizing your comment. Just struck me that we have had one of each at least.




eyesopened -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 5:07:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

In order for meaningful change to happen two things have to happen, in my opinion.  First, outlaw lobbyists.  It seems our elected representatives vote the will of the lobby, not the people.  Second, make it a conflict of interest for a lawyer to make law.  I trust a room full of wrestlers, actors, and comedians more than I trust a room full of lawyers.


Funny you should say that .... Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, Al Franken [:D]

Not criticizing your comment. Just struck me that we have had one of each at least.


Um........ that's exactly why I used those professions, it wasn't an accident... I just thought everybody already knew that.   Even Sonny Bono made a better congressman than a singer.  Well, he could have made a better ski instructor than a singer.  Sorry.... too soon?

It would be really nice if we could have representatives that were doctors, construction workers, waiters, farmers, etc.   I wonder what would happen if we chose representatives like we choose juries?  But then we'd end up with a congress that's too stupid to come up with a valid excuse not to serve.  Not sure if that would be better or worse than what we have now.




pahunkboy -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 5:36:12 AM)

kill all lawyers.  

there ya go.




Sanity -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 5:45:01 AM)


The Constitution would never have been ratified if it awarded the states with the largest populations all the power of the federal government.

What you are advocating is mob rule, which that's dysfunctional.


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The Senate is structurally dysfunctional. California has maybe 96 time the population of Wyoming yet each is represented by two Senators. During the healthcare debate in the Senate Finance Committee the so-called group of six who put together the final version represented only about 2% of the total national population.

Original big state/small state compromise. Only way that can be fixed is by Constitutional Convention. Never know what would come out of that Pandora's Box.

Other problem is the Senate supermajority via filibuster. Neither party will over-ride it which they can easily do I understand because they want it for their own future use. It is not in the Constitution. Just a rule of the Senate attached by the Rules Committee to each piece of major legislation.

We should probably also demand reforms with term limits and pension modification. They continue to receive their full salaries and healthcare for family for life ???? So I have heard. Not sure of that. Republicans promised term limits in 1994 election. Not holding my breath.

Probably would be best to just be rid of the Senate but again would require a dreaded Constitutional Convention.

No apparent cure. Screwed with not even a kiss or a hug.




Sanity -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 5:53:16 AM)


If the Democrats had paid attention to the people more Democratic Congressmen would have joined the Republicans in opposing that monstrous legislation as well as the underhanded methods used to craft it.

I am wondering - can they hear us now? [;)]

The system's not that broke. We have the means in place to effect a peaceful revolution every two years if need be, and the people of Massachusetts just reminded Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama of that very fact.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As an independent does anyone else find it disgusting that democrats as a block vote one way on Healthcare and Republicans with few exceptions vote as a block another way.

On something as important to the American people as healthcare should not elected officials of good conscious consider the bill and not their political affiliations?

If they did there should be more of a mix of opinions based the bill and realistic compromises that would relieve the suffering and pocketbook drain of our expensive failing health system.

To me it is a disgrace and an embarrassment that many of our elected officials are actually afraid to vote the way they think best for America…Because they are putting their political ambitions ahead of my heath and it pisses me off.

Butch





DomImus -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 6:11:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
To me it is a disgrace and an embarrassment that many of our elected officials are actually afraid to vote the way they think best for America


Who says each group isn't voting as a block in the way they think is best for America? I think both sides wish to make things better. They just cannot agree on how to go about it.




DarkSteven -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 6:20:28 AM)

Butch, your timing is ironic.

The Dems had a supermajority but were not united.  At that point, they needed to work with other Dems to pass bills.  (Disclaimer - I am actually a supporter of this.  Having a "party line" discourages the checks and balances so important to our country.)

Now, absolutely nothing will pass unless it has bipartisan support.  Fine by me.  I'd rather have no legislation passed than bad legislation.




Kirata -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 6:50:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The Senate is structurally dysfunctional. California has maybe 96 time the population of Wyoming yet each is represented by two Senators.

I couldn't disagree more. The people's house is the House of Representatives, where representation reflects population. The Senate is the states' house, with each sovereign state having an equal say, as it should. The problem with the Senate, in my opinion, is the popular election of Senators, instead of them being elected by their state legislatures or appointed by the Governor. In consequence, they play to the same constituency as their state's Representatives, and the governments of the states are left with no representation in Congress. That makes it easy for Congress to shove anything it wants down the states' throats.

K.




vincentML -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 7:00:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The Constitution would never have been ratified if it awarded the states with the largest populations all the power of the federal government.

What you are advocating is mob rule, which that's dysfunctional.



Mob rule? Words colored by passion, Sanity. Other nations have unicameral legislatures and do not seem to be subject to mob rule.

Furthermore, I did mention big state/little state compromise, and I did mention change could not be effected without a Constitutional Convention which I rejected. So, I was not "advocating" anything. I was merely making an observation on why the Senate is dysfunctional. You are arguing against your own straw man. [:)]




Sanity -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 7:18:48 AM)


Not passion, just a cold observation. You don't like the checks and balances and want to remove some of them - you've argued on Hugo Chavez' behalf before, so I'm thinking you wouldn't even mind having a dictator in charge, as long as he thought exactly like you do.

See Kirata's post for a better explanation than mine of why the Senate is what it is, but what it boils down to is that if the smaller states such as Wyoming didn't have a say in matters they would either succeed or go to war. Guerrilla war if need be, but war just the same.


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Mob rule? Words colored by passion, Sanity. Other nations have unicameral legislatures and do not seem to be subject to mob rule.

Furthermore, I did mention big state/little state compromise, and I did mention change could not be effected without a Constitutional Convention which I rejected. So, I was not "advocating" anything. I was merely making an observation on why the Senate is dysfunctional. You are arguing against your own straw man. [:)]




vincentML -> RE: The US congress refuses to represent the people in an honorable way. (1/21/2010 7:25:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The Senate is structurally dysfunctional. California has maybe 96 time the population of Wyoming yet each is represented by two Senators.

I couldn't disagree more. The people's house is the House of Representatives, where representation reflects population. The Senate is the states' house, with each sovereign state having an equal say, as it should. The problem with the Senate, in my opinion, is the popular election of Senators, instead of them being elected by their state legislatures or appointed by the Governor. In consequence, they play to the same constituency as their state's Representatives, and their state government no longer has any effective representation in Congress. That makes it easy for Congress to shove anything it wants down the states' throats.

K.



Your point is well made, K.

The Senate was conceived as the "States' House" when we were primarily an agricultural population.

Jefferson somewhat and Madison certainly were afraid of democratic rule given the horrors of the French Revolution.

We are no longer an agricultural population. Most of us live in urban or megacity regions and are not represented equally by the Senate's composition. Having the Senators appointed or elected by state legislatures would not alter the disparity between California representation and Wyoming representation.

Additionally, as a result of Prez Jackson's defeat of nullification, the North's victory in the Civil War, and the exigencies of WW2 we are no longer a nation of States United but a single United States. The Tenth Amendment and the Senate are residuals of Federalism. We are no longer a Federation of States.





Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875