Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo
Obama sucks, Palin sucks, McCain sucks, Clinton sucked (ok Monica sucked Clinton just stood there) , both the Bushes sucked, Reagan sucked, Kennedy sucked, Nixon was a crook. Great forum. Glad I could express my political views.
Great...
Now, may I have your vote in 2012???
07-19-2009 03:05 PM by
Jumbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windwalker
Great...
Now, may I have your vote in 2012???
At least when you are confronted with your affair/ political scandal YOU would have the guts to stand in front of the American people and say " I did not sleep with Ms. Lewinski, Not one wink, WE WERE UP ALL NIGHT". You have my vote. Now come out of that closet with those skeletons and lets get you elected.
07-25-2009 10:39 PM by
GMAN
"The Proposal"
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 must 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.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State)..
Then, reduce their 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 their 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 worksmarter and improveefficiencies. It might even be intheir 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)
Note:
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 thathave not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on thecampaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary ofopportunity:
$ 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.
$8,073,383,400per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does thesetypes of cuts all the time.
If Congress persons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.(One term? That also sounds like a good idea. One and out - no retirement).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMAN
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.(One term? That also sounds like a good idea. One and out - no retirement).
And, then, we impose term limits, and they only get half the retirement if they're not there for 4 full terms...:clap:
GMAN posted this: (doesn't mean he's RESPONSIBLE for it)
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Quote:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
Please give me some citations to prove that America, in 1909 (BEFORE Ford invented "mass production") was "the most prosperous" OR had the greatest GNP/GDP in the WORLD!
Quote:
We had absolutely no national debt,
This may well be true... but, it proves nothing considering the HUGE amount of natural resources we were exporting to the world and the LACK of any real infrastructure except a few RAILROADS west of the Mississippi. [ Not to mention that it predates even the FIRST World War! ]
Quote:
had the largest middle class in the world,
AGAIN.... I'd like to see some PROOF! "MY" recollection of Circa 1900 is a few Land Barons and Financiers.... and a WHOLE lot of poor people working in "sweat shops" in the big cities, and a bunch of farmers and ranchers in every "rural" area of the country.
Quote:
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
I can't believe you allowed yourself to "quote" this! What a SEXIST remark! I "understand" the Conservative belief that a MAN should bring home the bacon, and a WOMAN should RULE the house and kids. Men are just not too good at that. But.... to make a statement that IMPLIES that life was BETTER in this country when Women were "glorified housekeepers and Nannies.... goes beyond the pale!
100 years ago, Black men had barely been recognized "legally" but not yet in reality! Women, had YET to even earn or deserve (according to law) the RIGHT to a political opinion or a VOTE!
Wages for BOTH "classes" were FAR below that of a white man.... regardless of their abilities, loyalties or dedication to this country.
Let me give you ANOTHER statistic to consider:
100 years ago, men didn't DIVORCE their wives, leaving them to support WAY too many kids with NO WAY to work and make equal wages!
This is the very CRUX of the disparity between Conservatives and Liberals. You want to "conserve" the ideals and so-called "values" of the PAST.... and WE want to face the realities of the present and build equlity for the future. YOU reminisce about the PAST.... WE plan for the FUTURE!
Time marches on! LEAD... FOLLOW.... Or get OUT OF MY WAY!
I just don't understand how SOME people can "GLORIFY" the sacrifice of both men AND women in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) Afghanistan to fight aganst the Tyrianny of the Taliban who treat women as less than CATTLE.... yet, BY THEIR POLICIES.... do no better here at home!
In the OLD days.... they would have called me a "Women's Libber!" NOW they would accuse me of supporting Gay Rights. I don't care! I bellieve my Great Great Uncle died to defend HUMAN rights.... American's rights! And I believe the Declaration of Independence DECLARED them and the Constitution protects them.
It really matters NOT that they put "constraints" on them! What matters is the LAW! The "spirit" of the Constitution is that ALL Americans deserve equal protection under our SECULAR law. And WAY too many servicemen and women have died to "extend" this right to others.... while at HOME we clog up Congress with debates about "ammendments" to clarify the definiton of a MARRIAGE!
GET OVER YOURSELVES! This is a nation known as a "melting pot" of different nationalities, cultures, religions and "free thinking beliefs." What we have in COMMON is our desire to be FREE from oppression wherever and however it raises its ugly head!
Where we DIFFER is in our COMMITMENT to our ideals.
Again.... I want to point out that this is not an indictment of GMAN. He only "pasted" the propaganda! I rail ONLY against the propaganda!
07-26-2009 04:51 PM by
GMAN
This country did much better when we had no debt. We were a moral country 100 years ago. Women and men had clearly defined responsibilities. They worked together to provide a home for their family. Today, men and women don't seem to know what they should be doing. I heard a minister speaking this morning. He said something that goes along with this. He talked about when he grew up in the late 1960's. Girls were required to take home economics and boys were required to take shop. They no longer require these classes and as a result, women don't know how to cook and men don't know how to fix things. What he was saying is that we no longer know how to take care of ourselves. The constitution provides for equal rights. We have equal rights but may not have equal abilities. There is nothing wrong with ideals of the past. We need to remember our past. One major reason we are in the current mess is that we forgot the lessons of the past. History is repeating itself. 100 years ago most people raised their own food. Farmers were the backbone of this country. Most people may not have had a lot of money but they were rich. They had a strong belief in GOD, family and country. People were not afraid to express their views. The industrial revolution led to a strong middle class in this country. This country was built by a strong people who fed the world. Most of these wienie's today could not even feed themselves. The people who built this country didn't depend on a government to take care of them. They relied on their own grit and that of their neighbors. And I am still trying to figure out what women wanted to be liberated from? If you look at the kids of today it must have been that they wanted to be free from any parental responsibility. You will never be able to please everyone. What you can do is do what is right. Many people are afraid to do what is right because it may not be politically correct or hurt someones feelings. I think my views are pretty basic. I believe something is either right or wrong. There is no in between. If something is mostly true then it is wrong. I don't think we need to deliberately hurt others feelings. But I do think that we need to decide what is right and don't deviate from those ideals just because it may be unpopular or politically incorrect.