Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

It really doesn't matter. Our Congress is ceremonial for the most part. The gang bankster bosses write the legislature and the Congressmen and Senators just add pork to get relected. Then they get in front of the cameras and tell the public they're sticking it to the insurance industry, the banking industry, to Wall Street, etc. The sad thing is that many people can't see through it. "Why those Dems are for the little guy. Those greedy Republicans are in the pockets of big business". Or Vice Versa "Why those Democrats are a bunch of Socialist pigs. The Republicans are pro-family, pro-gun, and for fiscal responsibility!" I say it's BS. Meanwhile our manufacturing got shipped to China.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713572]It really doesn't matter. Our Congress is ceremonial for the most part. The gang bankster bosses write the legislature and the Congressmen and Senators just add pork to get relected. Then they get in front of the cameras and tell the public they're sticking it to the insurance industry, the banking industry, to Wall Street, etc. The sad thing is that many people can't see through it. "Why those Dems are for the little guy. Those greedy Republicans are in the pockets of big business". Or Vice Versa "Why those Democrats are a bunch of Socialist pigs. The Republicans are pro-family, pro-gun, and for fiscal responsibility!" I say it's BS. Meanwhile our manufacturing got shipped to China.[/quote]

1.We gotta get some federal guidlines for some term f*ing limits for both the house and the senate. 2.And it would be nice if some way to keep special interest/lobbist/corporations moneys out of and away from capitol hill. Its a damn crying shame our reps' interest and concerns can be bought and sold...the founding fathers rolling in their graves to see how poor of political system this has become.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

I can't think of a single reason how term limits would help. It's s lipstick on a pig solution at best.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

Term limits force new thinking, and re-evaluation of what the special interests are selling. They reduce the likelihood of political cronyism by limiting how long one can expect to get favors from a particular candidate. They would ensure that the people coming into any given office don't think of it as a life long future, but instead a relatively short term stop in their path of life(this has both good and bad sub points).

Interestingly the Roman Republic article from Wiki that I mentioned earlier also said that about this time in their development they enacted a form of what we refer to as term limits.

[QUOTE]n 342 BC, two significant laws were passed. One of these two laws made it illegal to hold more than one office at any given point in time. The other law required an interval of ten years to pass before any magistrate could seek reelection to any office.[/QUOTE] 342BC would be 167 years after the marked beginning, or 55 years earlier in their society's development. I just find it historically interesting, I am not using it as justification or proof

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

To me an uninformed and unsophisticated public coupled with lobbyist and special interest nullifies the value of term limits. Politicians will still get free trips while in office and cushy jobs after they leave office from/with some special intrest group. Term limits only limits how long they have to do whatever the people pulling the strings want them to do and then the next guy comes in and the cycle is repeated.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713592]To me an uninformed and unsophisticated public coupled with lobbyist and special interest nullifies the value of term limits. Politicians will still get free trips while in office and cushy jobs after they leave office from/with some special intrest group. Term limits only limits how long they have to do whatever the people pulling the strings want them to do and then the next guy comes in and the cycle is repeated.[/quote]
You raise a good point, but it actually makes me more for term limits. Right now, Sen Byrd put his name on the ticket, x number of voters didn't think, they just voted for him. If every few years, voters were having to relearn names, maybe we could get a more informed and more sophisticated populace. Maybe. Certainly people have to re-evaluate the President every 8 years regardless, although LO may have gotten that small detail fixed by 2016.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=12thMan;713313]The account also took place around 1986 when she was working for a non-profit, not as a federal employee as Fox news has been reporting. And you would think that if she was such a racist, the farmer in question would have come out and said it by now. On the contrary, he and his wife appeared on CNN earlier totally backing Ms. Sherrod and saying how they would have lost their farm years ago had it not been for her and the continued assistance she provided.

I'm hearing calls for her to be reinstated, although I doubt this will happen. Oh yeah, Breibart or whatever his name is isTHE biggest douche on the planet. I'm talking about sleeze ball from head to toe.[/quote]

I think Breibart rules and has shed light on things others shy away from. Accorn is a great example. I have heard that some think he was set up with this tape because of what he did with Accorn. It shall be interesting to see how this pans out.

I guess you felt the same way about CBS and 60 Minutes when they used those fake documents against Bush.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713598]You raise a good point, but it actually makes me more for term limits. Right now, Sen Byrd put his name on the ticket, x number of voters didn't think, they just voted for him. If every few years, voters were having to relearn names, maybe we could get a more informed and more sophisticated populace. Maybe. Certainly people have to re-evaluate the President every 8 years regardless, although LO may have gotten that small detail fixed by 2016.[/quote]

Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713598]You raise a good point, but it actually makes me more for term limits. Right now, Sen Byrd put his name on the ticket, x number of voters didn't think, they just voted for him. If every few years, voters were having to relearn names, maybe we could get a more informed and more sophisticated populace. Maybe. Certainly people have to re-evaluate the President every 8 years regardless, although LO may have gotten that small detail fixed by 2016.[/quote]

If people just show up for Byrd what makes you think they won't just show up for a democrat or republican? In fact I believe that's how Alvin Greene.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=GMScud;713528]Well, I think it is on Obama, even if he didn't make the phone call himself. I mean, Gibbs in his presser today said that he had "no knowledge" of anyone in the administration pushing for Sherrod's resignation. Then in the same breath he apologized for the administration acting without all the facts. Ummmm....

Bottom line is, someone in the administration made her firing happen, otherwise they wouldn't be apologizing. Ultimately Obama is responsible for the people with whom he surrounds himself. So yeah, it's on him. Frankly I think it was a rash decision by an administration anxious to prove it stands equally on both sides of the racial fence. And chances are they probably do. But they've stumbled so much on the issue that they now just look dumb.

This presidency has really wet the bed on race in a few major instances, which surprises me considering the skin color of the POTUS. I figured on issues of race he'd be more unifying than polarizing. Guess I was wrong. I mean, didn't his campaign emphasize that it wouldn't get caught up in racial issues? Oops. The whole Gates thing, this Black Panther voter-intimidation case, Van Jones, now Sherrod...

Do I smell Beer Summit V2.0? LOL.[/quote]

Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation. The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=12thMan;713603]Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. [SIZE=4]It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation.[/SIZE] The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.[/quote]

That makes no sense after they just decided not to prosecute that Black Panther or maybe they where worried how they would look for not prosecuting him and not taking actions against her.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=dmek25;713547]let me ask you something scud. do you think that racial issues are more in the fore front because we have a black president? not once during W's, or any other presidents term have i heard anyone refer to them as a "white" president. i guess because Obama is the first "non white", there will be some growing pains. i agree that Obama is walking a tight rope when dealing with this stuff. but not sure what he, or the administration, had to do with the voter intimidation thing. and i am always in the corner of getting the facts first[/quote]

I can agree with that. Certainly if he was white he wouldn't have gotten any heat from saying the cops in Mass were stupid for arresting Gates. Being the President is obviously no easy task, especially when you're the first black one. Any issues of race are going to amplified for him.

As far as the Black Panther thing, IMO that was pretty cut and dry voter intimidation, and certainly racially motivated. Yet the attorney general (who Obama appointed and who is also black) dropped the case. I think that was a mistake, and of course it's going to raise eyebrows.

I think a huge part of it is the sensationalist media as well. I mean, the whole reason anyone is even talking about this is because Breitbart edits clips in a way that should be criminal. The media blows everything up ad nauseum. The whole MSNBC vs Fox etc etc. Couple that with a Congress who's approval rating sits around 11%, and throw in two wars, balooning defecit, double digit unemployment, a housing market in the gutter, and the country's worst environmental crisis ever... well, if Obama farts in the wrong direction it's going to be blown up to epic levels. He's in a tough spot.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713601]If people just show up for Byrd what makes you think they won't just show up for a democrat or republican? In fact I believe that's how Alvin Greene.[/quote]

They could and some would, but even then at least at the primaries there would be some level of thought.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713600]Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.[/quote]

I would like the states to develop individual plans for the nomination of Senators, back as it was before they became elected by the general public.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=firstdown;713609]That makes no sense after they just decided not to prosecute that Black Panther or maybe they where worried how they would look for not prosecuting him and not taking actions against her.[/quote]

Umm..that would be the DOJ's area.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=12thMan;713603]Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation. The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.[/quote]

I hear you. You are not alone, 12th. A few of my closest work friends are black, and we discuss politics here and there. They feel the same way. Over the past 18 months, I've watched them go from ra-ra Obama fans to just kind of shrugging their shoulders at the man. I'm convinced that's a pretty accurate microcosm. There was a time when Obama being a 2 term president was a given. How quickly things have changed.

It's sort of ironic really. What got him elected has in a way been his downfall thus far. Even Tim Tebow couldn't live up to that presidential campaign. :)

I think it's worth reiterating that IMO Obama has done a piss poor job of selecting an inner-circle. I don't know who I would replace them with, but I think Axlerod, Plouffe, Jarret, Emanuel, etc have NOT been good for this President.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713555]I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.[/quote]

Other than the Senatorial appointment, term limits and "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club ", I agree with all of these. Further, if the economc policy can be sold simply as a "freeze", rather than a "cut", it might be easier to generate the political will.

I am on the fence about the term limits & return to appointments, I just see these as increasing cronyism & corruption and not necessarily an improvement to the current system.

What do you mean "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club"?
[quote=CRedskinsRule;713555]A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic]Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[QUOTE]Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a new aristocracy which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance.[/quote]

I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example..[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were [I]given [/I]their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713555]Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it.[/quote]

1. I absolutely agree that poor govt. is unacceptable and that a population should at all times demand, and those elected or appointed to public service, should provide that service effectively, efficiently and in a responsive manner. Even the best government in the world can be improved, but it requires a population willing to do so.

2. Currently, Foreign Policy Magazine ranks "failed states" considering a multitude of factors. We are ranked 159 out of 177 (i.e. we have one of the most stable govts. out there) and all but a couple of those govts. "better" than the US are smaller western European countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland make up the "best" five). [url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/2010_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings]2010 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy[/url]

We should always strive for better government, but, rather blame govt. for all our ills, it is important to recognize just what our stable, central govt. has enabled us to accomplish. A failure to recognize where our govt. [I]is[/I] working increases the likelihood of f'ing things up worse as we damn govt. to hell and rip it apart.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713555][W]hat you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. [B]But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. [/B] Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.[/quote]

I do not believe govt. is innately "neutral". It can, and should be neutral, but that is dependant on the governed. In dictatorships or oligarchies, the government is good or bad dependent on the dictator or oligarchy (the Nazis under Hitler were baaaad government). In a democracy, the govt. is reflective of its electorate. Today's electorate, certainly on a federal level is apathetic, so we have apathetic, sloppy governance (I think this is due, in part, to the sheer numbers involved). This, in turn, allows for things like money, race, and other undemocratic factors to undermine fair, efficient governance.

Everyone in govt. wants power? Maybe. Certainly, the government [I]needs[/I] "the power to control what others do" to govern or it is not a government. The question is what do those who hold power want to do with that power? An effective, knowledgeable electorate insures that those in power are using the public power as it was intended - for the public good. Yes, the power "the power to control what others do" should be limited and, even today, the Bill of Rights provides those protections.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713555] ... Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.[/quote]

First, the "government bureacracy" [I]is [/I]pre-eminient. Can't have a central government "without the Federal government dictating." The bureaucracy (the unelected administrators of govt. power) know where their "power" comes from - the elected officials who appointed them - and will respond to pressure from them. These "established politicians" were allowed to become "established" by an apathetic electorate. And why is our electorate apathetic you may ask? Well, let me rant -

Mustering the political will to cut "something" means finding cuts upon which the majority of us can agree. I don't care how persuasive you are, convincing a majority of 300 million people to agree on the specifics of [I]anything[/I] is, in my opinion, beyond a Herculean task. It requires all 300 million of us (well, 150,000,001 of us) to recognize that we will probably have to do some things we don't like in order to accomplish [I]something[/I] we do like. Faced with this massive task of finding [I]some[/I] common ground. TTE and his ilk believe that they have all the answers and that no answers can be found from beyond their spectrum. JTF and his ilk believe the same. From these two groups of idealogues there is no willingness or tolerance to even [I]consider[/I] the other's positions in order to accomplish finding a consensus and effect some change.

TTE & JTF each claim that we, in the center, are having the wool pulled over our eyes - neither sees that they, and their zealotry, are the problem. By accepting nothing less than total victory, they set themselves up for exploitation and use by the very forces they decry. Set the ends against each other so the middle can accomplish nothing - And it's easy too, feed'em a little conspiracy theory and they eat it up. Rather than recognizing they can't have it all their way, they destroy any chance of consensus by claiming they alone have the secret to utopia.

Their zealotry increases voter apathy (ehh, why should I bother, nobody can agree on anything), which, in turn, leads to sloppy governance. Sloppy governance allows undemocratic forces to achieve illegal and unconstitutional ends which increases the apathy of the governed (well, except for the zealots). Rather than recognize the general apathy as a symptom of their own actions, the zealots claim it as proof of their cause.

You want an engaged govt. where "the minions" don't just toil? Then find a way to convince the zealots to acquiesce to [I]considering[/I] principles that don't necessarily agree with their world view and may even be antithetical to it. Right now, the zealots are standing in the way of real solutions and they can't even see it. Fools who would blindly lead their country to Gotterdammerung rather than consider that they may not have a monopoly on the truth.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=GMScud;713619]I hear you. You are not alone, 12th. A few of my closest work friends are black, and we discuss politics here and there. They feel the same way. Over the past 18 months, I've watched them go from ra-ra Obama fans to just kind of shrugging their shoulders at the man. I'm convinced that's a pretty accurate microcosm. There was a time when Obama being a 2 term president was a given. How quickly things have changed.

It's sort of ironic really. What got him elected has in a way been his downfall thus far. Even Tim Tebow couldn't live up to that presidential campaign. :)

I think it's worth reiterating that IMO Obama has done a piss poor job of selecting an inner-circle. I don't know who I would replace them with, but I think Axlerod, Plouffe, Jarret, Emanuel, etc have NOT been good for this President.[/quote]

I agree that he has been ill served by his inner circle, but I don't think I would have another group at my finger tips come 2012. David Plouffe is more or less running the re-election effort. So he's not involved in the day-to-day inner workings of the White House or advising on policy. Speaking of which, it takes somebody to beat somebody. And despite the hiccups we've had, Sarah Palin is still the front runner for the GOP 2012. That's great news. I've said it before, but there's no way she'll turn down the opportunity to bash and face Obama in 2012. She's just too in love with herself. On Obama's worst day, he'll beat her by a safe margin.

But my money isn't so much on Obama, as it is on David Plouffe. I've met him before, as all the others, been a few conference calls (national) with him, and I don't think there's a brighter mind out there when it comes to running a campaign.

My disenchantment is fairly specific, not across the board. In terms of policy and keeping campaign promises, he's doing pretty darn good. Although they're not getting enough credit.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

You sure do take up a lot of space to show you're a jackass. When that psychotic muslim started shooting our soldiers in Texas, weren't you the one who first thought how bad it would be for muslim's image? You didn't even give a shit about your own countrymen.

Yes I'm the problem. I'm the one: conducting the war on drugs, bombing people in Iraq who never did anything to me, stealing the tax payer's money and giving it to private banks, flooding the gulf with oil, sending all our manufacturing jobs to China. Yes, I did all of that because I'm a one man gang wreaking crew of destruction like Mr.T on crack. Yes you found me out. It was me and not the incompetent and greed of the Federal government. Also, I was the one who sent in troops to Yugoslavia. I also invented crack cocaine back in 1984 when I ran out of free base. Global warming occurs because I drive a Ford Van and run may air conditioner on high.

You're solution is to have a more effective government. Mine is to have less power in the hands of the eff ups that caused these problems or allowed them to fester in the first place. More government isn't the solution, because if it was we'd not have the problems in the first place.

Oh, I'm a crack pot conspiracy theorist because I know the Federal Reserve isn't a part of the government and doesn't answer to it. You got me! I guess I'll have to retire my tin foil hat and stop learning how to do things. Government will do it all for me.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713600]Or we could go back to the way it was, [B]having the governors appoint the Senators[/B]. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.[/quote]

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713613]I would like the [B]states to develop individual plans for the nomination of Senators[/B], back as it was before they became elected by the general public.[/quote]

How does adding another layer alleviate the motivation for soft corruption and the disregard of the will of the electorate by politicians?

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713633]How does adding another layer alleviate the motivation for soft corruption and the disregard the will of the electorate by politicians?[/quote]

It isn't adding another layer. Having the citizenry vote on them was the extra layer.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713634]It isn't adding another layer. Having the citizenry vote on them was the extra layer.[/quote]

Original Constitutional method:
1. Populace elects State legislature.
2. State Legislature elects Senators.

After the 17th Amendment:
1. Populace elects Senators.

Looks like we lost a layer to me. Maybe I am just overanalyzing it.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=12thMan;713603]Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation. The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.[/quote]


He's half-white Ivy League educated black guy. What exactly did people expect him to do? Transform race relations in America? And if he isn't helping it how is he hurting it? Whatever you do someone is going to be upset. To tell you the truth when I think of Obama his race (if you can call mixed a race) is just another fact and nothing more.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713600]Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.[/quote]

The Constitution originally did not grant governors the right to select Senators, it was the job of the State Legislature.

[I]U.S. Constitution. § 1: Senate; Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators.[/I]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Pre-17th Amendment vacancies were filled by the State Legislature which, in turn, could allow the governor to appoint a [I]temporary[/I] Senator until the assembly could hold the election. After the 17th Amendment, there were restrictions placed on temporary appointments and, as a result, some States have to allow the seat to remain vacant until it is slated for general election.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

The extra layer was originally there to have the Senate as a more powerful check on the House and on the Presidency, both elected by majority. However with states legislatures (elected from smaller more localized districts) appointing Senators it provides a powerful check to the "will of the majority". Appointment by state legislatures also reduces the power of the national party machines who influence senatorial elections.

Virginia is a perfect example. The two current state senators, elected by majority vote (strongest in Richmond/NoVA), are Democrats. However the VA state legislature is solidly Republican and IMO much more reflective of the entirety of the state.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;713646]The extra layer was originally there to have the Senate as a more powerful check on the House and on the Presidency, both elected by majority. However with states legislatures (elected from smaller more localized districts) appointing Senators it provides a powerful check to the "will of the majority". Appointment by state legislatures also reduces the power of the national party machines who influence senatorial elections.

Virginia is a perfect example. The two current state senators, elected by majority vote (strongest in Richmond/NoVA), are Democrats. However the [B]VA state legislature is solidly Republican[/B] and IMO much more reflective of the entirety of the state.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL][/quote]

Not entirely true this session. I believe the Dems have the state Senate. BTW this sort of thing is purely a product of partisan redistricting effort and you will therefore have the national party machine in the picture regardless of the changes you make.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713637]Original Constitutional method:
1. Populace elects State legislature.
2. State Legislature elects Senators.

After the 17th Amendment:
1. Populace elects Senators.

Looks like we lost a layer to me. Maybe I am just overanalyzing it.[/quote]

We did lose a layer, which was my point. The Senate had that extra layer for several reasons, but mainly a check against unabashed populist democracy. The Senate was and is expected to be more knowledgeable, skilled politicians (and despite the way I talk - truly skilled intelligent politicians are important especially in the areas of foreign diplomacy).

Would going backwards lead to soft corruption or other problems, probably, after all it wasn't changed because it was working perfectly. I suppose what I would like is a 60 year clause, after 10 cycles it goes to populace vote, then 10 cycles of state appointments, repeat. But that would be very silly. The main defense I have against the corruption argument, is that then the corruption would be more localized. the state legislature would be held accountable if your senators were not looking out for state interests at the federal level. Oil and banking interests would have to pander to individual state legislatures rather than one big democratic or republican pot.

Certainly it is not a cure all, but I go back to the division of power in the House and Senate, and then look at why the founding fathers set it up the way they did, and it makes a ton of sense to me, versus the false belief that the more the "people" vote the better. Pure Democracy is not a good government, and removing the State Legislatures' role in appointing Senators took us one step closer to it, and further away from the democratic republic we were.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713632]You sure do take up a lot of space to show you're a jackass. When that psychotic muslim started shooting our soldiers in Texas, weren't you the one who first thought how bad it would be for muslim's image? [B]You didn't even give a shit about your own countrymen[/B].[/quote]

Bull. I challenge you to find any post of mine that remotely supports this assertion. My father proudly served in Vietnam and my brother also served. I have only the utmost respect for anyone who dons a uniform of our armed forces.

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713632]Yes I'm the problem. I'm the one: conducting the war on drugs, bombing people in Iraq who never did anything to me, stealing the tax payer's money and giving it to private banks, flooding the gulf with oil, sending all our manufacturing jobs to China. Yes, I did all of that because I'm a one man gang wreaking crew of destruction like Mr.T on crack. Yes you found me out. It was me and not the incompetent and greed of the Federal government. Also, I was the one who sent in troops to Yugoslavia. I also invented crack cocaine back in 1984 when I ran out of free base. Global warming occurs because I drive a Ford Van and run may air conditioner on high. [/quote]

Wait for it.....

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713632]You're solution is to have a more effective government. Mine is to have less power in the hands of the eff ups that caused these problems or allowed them to fester in the first place. [B]More government isn't the solution, because if it was we'd not have the problems in the first place.[/B][/quote]

BAM!! And there it is - the JTF moment. I have never asserted that more government is the solution - in fact, I have asserted just the opposite. I also assert, however, that govt. [I]can[/I] accomplish good things, and provide a unity for the 300 million of us that share this country. You, however, [I]appear[/I] to reject that contention and would reject, out of hand, any solution that would require increased authority to the central govt. Not exactly conducive for developing consensus.

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713632]Oh, I'm a crack pot conspiracy theorist because [B]I know the Federal Reserve isn't a part of the government and doesn't answer to it.[/B] You got me! I guess I'll have to retire my tin foil hat and stop learning how to do things. Government will do it all for me.[/quote]

Your right, we should increase the central government's authority so that the Federal Reserve is responsive to the electorate... oh wait, can't do that b/c that will just give more power to people who eff' things up. ... okay ... We [I]eliminate[/I] the Federal Reserve and allow private banks to do business in an unregulated market.... oh wait, can't do that b/c then those same banks will have an even freer reign to launder drug money.... we better pass some laws to regulate them.. wait....

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713624]...
What do you mean "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club"?
[/quote]
Simply this,
ending, or severely limiting, the restrictions the federal government can use to tie up money.

The prime example that comes to my mind is federal highway funds. Let's say, for example that Md has 1% of the interstate and federal road systems. Then when budgeting, Md should get 1% of the federal highway funds, regardless of whether the people of Md have instituted a Click it or Ticket campaign, or what the speed limits the people of Md have allowed on their roadways, or what insurance dictates Md has instituted, or whatever other things the Federal dictates that we should do.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713651]... Would going backwards lead to soft corruption or other problems, probably, after all it wasn't changed because it was working perfectly. ... [B]The main defense I have against the corruption argument, is that then the corruption would be more localized. the state legislature would be held accountable if your senators were not looking out for state interests at the federal level. Oil and banking interests would have to pander to individual state legislatures rather than one big democratic or republican pot. [/B]

Certainly it is not a cure all, but I go back to the division of power in the House and Senate, and then look at why the founding fathers set it up the way they did, and it makes a ton of sense to me, versus [B]the false belief that the more the "people" vote the better. Pure Democracy is not a good government[/B], and removing the State Legislatures' role in appointing Senators took us one step closer to it, and further away from the democratic republic we were.[/quote]

I agree with both bolded statements.

Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia article on the 17th Amendment, one of the arguments being advanced for its repeal - Senators are captives to special interests - was one of the reasons it was enacted in the first place.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713624]...

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

[B]The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were [I]given [/I]their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". [/B] On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.
[/quote]
I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713649]Not entirely true this session. I believe the Dems have the state Senate. BTW this sort of thing is purely a product of partisan redistricting effort and you will therefore have the national party machine in the picture regardless of the changes you make.[/quote]You're right the Dems did manage to slide a couple more seats in there.

There will always be the partisan redistricting going on. Overall the more things are localized, or in the case of term limits, power spread out over time with different people, it makes the national party machines/lobbyists/special interests jobs harder and requires them to burn up more resources....thereby weakening their influence. Once folks see the reduced power of the RNC/DNC, you'll also see their contribution levels drop, weakening them further.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713639]He's half-white Ivy League educated black guy. What exactly did people expect him to do? Transform race relations in America? And if he isn't helping it how is he hurting it? Whatever you do someone is going to be upset. [B]To tell you the truth when I think of Obama his race (if you can call mixed a race) is just another fact and nothing more[/B].[/quote]

And that's the way race should be treated across the board. Sadly, it's not that way and probably never will be.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=12thMan;713626]I agree that he has been ill served by his inner circle, but I don't think I would have another group at my finger tips come 2012. David Plouffe is more or less running the re-election effort. So he's not involved in the day-to-day inner workings of the White House or advising on policy. [B]Speaking of which, it takes somebody to beat somebody. And despite the hiccups we've had, Sarah Palin is still the front runner for the GOP 2012. That's great news. I've said it before, but there's no way she'll turn down the opportunity to bash and face Obama in 2012. She's just too in love with herself. On Obama's worst day, he'll beat her by a safe margin. [/B]

But my money isn't so much on Obama, as it is on David Plouffe. I've met him before, as all the others, been a few conference calls (national) with him, and I don't think there's a brighter mind out there when it comes to running a campaign.

My disenchantment is fairly specific, not across the board. In terms of policy and keeping campaign promises, he's doing pretty darn good. Although they're not getting enough credit.[/quote]

I wouldn't be so sure about all that. His support amongst independents is plummeting. Last July, 52% would have supported him in 2012, that number has plummeted to 36% currently. In fact more independents (39%) would vote for an unnamed Republican than would vote for Obama. Those numbers have to concern Plouffe. The honeymoon has been over for a while.

You say it takes someone to beat someone. I wonder what would happen if Newt decides to run in 2012?

[URL="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1478"]National (US) Poll * July 21, 2010 * Obama Approval Drops To Lowest - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut[/URL]

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713668]I agree with both bolded statements.

[B]Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia article on the 17th Amendment, one of the arguments being advanced for its repeal - Senators are captives to special interests - was one of the reasons it was enacted in the first place[/B].[/quote]

This makes sense. One point I think every person here (yes TTE and JTF also) will agree and concede. Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".

This is why I said a cyclical approach would be interesting. When you put a damn in the water, it takes time for the new pathways to be carved, by opening the flood gates on a cycle, you can prevent those pathways from becoming carved to deep. If you had an alternating approach to Senatorial appointments, perhaps the dang lobbyists would not get as much of a chance to take hold.

While typing I wondered: what about a system where the legislature votes in a senator for the first 6 year term (thus having some concept of bringing in locally concerned politicos) and then having a state referendum at the 5 1/2 year mark. If the public votes the senator down, the legislature would then be tasked with appointing a new one at the end of the term.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=GMScud;713675]And that's the way race should be treated across the board. Sadly, it's not that way and probably never will be.[/quote]

Whats just as sad is the media treatment...they love to fuel the fire. Like that edited tape...didnt anyone analyze it and check the actual facts before reporting it? The media in this country is out of f*ing control. (side note, sadder than this is the fact Obama admin wasnt able to figure it out before firing her)

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713672]I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.[/quote]

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really [I]entitled[/I] to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead [I]privileges[/I] granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713677]Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".[/quote]This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;713693]This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.[/quote]

I agree, the thing is over time those peddlers develop ways to do it, so, if we changed it now, at some point in the future we would need it changed again...

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713691]Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really [I]entitled[/I] to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead [I]privileges[/I] granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.[/quote]

Well said.