• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

How is this legal?

JNickel101

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Alamogordo, NM
Unfortunately, the use of reconciliation is legal as long as it conforms to the "Byrd" rule. Of course, congress will ignore the rule today (unlike when Clinton tried to use it to pass his health care plan). IMO, it's a bad process that needs to go away. It was designed strictly for bills related to the budget.
 
I'm not worried about a Health Care plan. One way or another, like Gay marriage, we will have it.

What I have been worried about, even before this election was decided, is that there is no "Balance" in the system. The Democrats are using whatever tool is neccesary to ram rod things through. They showed us their willingness to do this with the creation of S22, then after it's defeat, the reintroduction as an add on to HR146.

They have read the rule book very carefully.

If you don't like the way they are playing, write your Senator and call them on the carpet.
 
I seem to remember Republicans pulling similarly shady moves during their 6 year reign.
 
They are ALL scum of the earth, I would prefer someone in there that does not want the job but gets drafted into it, they should also not be paid, they should have to work normal jobs and not be on any committees that have anything with what they do for a living. They should also be subject to the blue juice if they get caught taking bribes or dealing under the table.

Did you see that Pelosi news blip, she had no idea that they were waterboarding prisoners in gitmo. She's on the $#%$# committee that oversees it and did not know, even after they briefed her, She's a DAM LIAR from the get go, why do you Kalifornians keep sending her back there.
 
They are ALL scum of the earth, I would prefer someone in there that does not want the job but gets drafted into it, they should also not be paid, they should have to work normal jobs and not be on any committees that have anything with what they do for a living. They should also be subject to the blue juice if they get caught taking bribes or dealing under the table.

Did you see that Pelosi news blip, she had no idea that they were waterboarding prisoners in gitmo. She's on the $#%$# committee that oversees it and did not know, even after they briefed her, She's a DAM LIAR from the get go, why do you Kalifornians keep sending her back there.

Believe me, it's not my idea! (Then again, I don't self-identify as "Californian" anyhow - I consider myself an "Expatriated American" while I'm here.)

The more I hear about things like this, the more I like the "Political Lottery" idea.

Take the voter registration rolls, and put them into a single computer. The computer selects people at random - the terms are the same, but the people it picks get checked out to see if they meet with the Constitutional requirements of the office they're selected for.

If they pass, they serve one term in that office. Then, they're exempt from holding office for a like term of years. You get one term at a time to do anything. Period.

Eliminate the "committees" - they haven't really done anything useful anyhow.

Appoint someone - just a man on the street - as a "Secretary of Common Sense." If Congress & Senate can agree on a bill, it goes to SCS. SCS reads the bill. If it takes him too long to read it, it gets kicked back to be simplified. If it doesn't pass Constitutional muster, it gets kicked back or just shredded. If it doesn't pass the Common Sense test ("Why do we need this? What do we get out of it relative to what we put into it? Is there already a law that applies to what this is meant to do?") it gets shredded, and a note gets sent back saying why.

Hell - make the SCS a panel of three or five - an odd number, so there are no deadlocks. But a small odd number.

If it gets through Congress, the Senate, and SCS, then it can go to the sitting President.

And, appoint a panel (say, seven or nine people) to go through all of the laws we already have - most of which we probably don't need - and decide which ones we should just do away with. I'm sure the number of those is Legion. It takes a "majority plus one" (5/7 or 6/9) to decide whether to keep or scrap a law. If it can't get "M+1" votes either way - table it and come back to it later. If it fails for number of votes the second time, scrap it out of hand.

Pay? You either make what you were making before you were drafted into office (unless you make more - then you get knocked down to whatever current pay is,) or you can make about half of what they get now if you don't make anything beforehand (in the event of the unemployed, on disability, ...)

No pay rises can take effect until everyone who is currently in office is out of office. Total turnover for a pay rise to be effective.

"Aw Hell, honey! They want me in the Senate next year! I just finished with being President six years ago..."
 
The SCS would be a great idea, I agree they gotta get all those useless laws out of there... Put the people be in control. It's our government, right? :shrug:

The problem with that is that it would just be one more panel, person, etc etc for the big corporations to bribe and pay off in whatever way was deemed reasonable by the current president (who would also be getting payoffs im sure). The average American (and our current president is no different) would gladly accept money from corporations to bring in an extra easy dollar. The whole system is a joke and needs to be completey eliminated. Dont elect one person as a president... have the SCS be the president. The reason we had a president was to lead us in war and keep us united in hard times. Well not saying nothing, Obama couldnt lead a country into war any better than most (coherant) americans could. Have a panel to run the country, and have an experienced general who is selected by the public (or this leading panel) based on his merits in tough situations and on the battlefield.

Its all kinda a big dream I guess... getting rid of a system which doesnt work when, basically, eliminating the system would require the system to eliminate itself, and who would want to do that when they are making an easy dollar?
 
I seem to remember Republicans pulling similarly shady moves during their 6 year reign.

I wish I could say that I expected a different response from you, but....

:doh:


As for the rest - well, I think the draft/lottery for Congress would be awesome - but in addition to the eligibility checks, please make them take a "common sense" test - because as "intelligent" as many of our congressmen might be, 99.992% of them have zero common sense, which, in the grand scheme of things, makes them idiots.
 
I was thinking about the "government by lottery" concept over the last few weeks. The main advantage is it does away with the professional politician, but there are some jobs that require experience. I was thinking more along the lines of a limited lottery/split democracy kind of Government. At the federal level, one or both houses of congress appointed by lottery. go ahead and Elect the president, and maybe members of the Senate.
As far as payment for government services, I think anyone who agrees to serve(after being randomly chosen) should be well paid. Remember, here is a person CHOSEN, they didn't try to get the office, it's random. They have to stop what they're doing, and go to Washington for 2-6 years. That could put a serious kink in a lot of careers. So pay them for their time. Say a couple hundred K a year, no retirement benefits. Only 1 other rule change. Accepting bribery is treason, the penalty for treason at the federal level is death - no mitigating circumstances.
 
Hm. Select the House by lottery and the Senate by election? That leves out the playing field among the careerists, and the money bills have to start in the House anyhow.

A committee for POTUS? Perhaps - but not more than three. And I concur on the war leadership idea - the gang of three can declare war, but hand it off entirely to, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and let them run it. (I know - I keep using the masculine. It's the way I was taught. It was perfectly acceptable before, so why not now? Besides, "rank knows no sex.")

I'd liken the lottery "winners" (I doubt they'd think as much...) to reservists/guardsmen who were called up - you don't lose your job just because you were, er, "activated." The idea behind this is to keep people from getting screwed by the government, while keeping the government from getting screwed by the people (although mechanisms should be in place to remove people from government service with reasonable alacrity and certainty, I just haven't designed any yet.) So how about this - no retirement. Full health while in office. You get current pay (unless we decide to lower it,) whether you make more or less. (Granted, it probably should be lowered.) Official travel is covered, and a minimal permanent staff (since they don't need to change, while the pol does.)

I honestly think the idea of "some of these jobs require experience" comes mainly from the various re-election campaigns we've had inflicted upon us in the last 20-30 years - "Re-elect me, because I know what I'm doing!"

Yeah. "Vote for me, I'm a nice guy. See my wife? Here's my family."

"Oh good, his d**k works. Tired of screwing her, wants to try us."

If the system becomes simplified by turnover, perhaps the "this job requires experience" idea may die off as well. It didn't really "require experience" until 50-60 years ago, when they began obfuscating the system - "Job security by job obscurity," methinks. If you know you've only got 4-6 years to do something productive, then maybe - just maybe - you'll simplify things so the process can move more rapidly than a glacier.
 
Hm. Select the House by lottery and the Senate by election? That leves out the playing field among the careerists, and the money bills have to start in the House anyhow.
That was the idea. I just can't decide if one or both houses should be picked/elected. I believe some positions should remain elected, if for no other reason then a test for the "pool" of eligibles. ie: If you don't register to vote, and vote in the prior election, you're not eligible for current service. If you don't care about government, why should you be a part of it.
A committee for POTUS? Perhaps - but not more than three. And I concur on the war leadership idea - the gang of three can declare war, but hand it off entirely to, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and let them run it. (I know - I keep using the masculine. It's the way I was taught. It was perfectly acceptable before, so why not now? Besides, "rank knows no sex.")
Bad idea, I think. For the position of Commander in Chief, there needs to be one clear individual in charge. As far as the military command, every time they pick one General and say,"here's the objective, do it" the opposition gets creamed. Problems crop up when the government steps in and tries to micromanage war. War isn't something that can be managed. You can start it, and end it, almost everything else is just wasting the lives good men.
I'd liken the lottery "winners" (I doubt they'd think as much...) to reservists/guardsmen who were called up - you don't lose your job just because you were, er, "activated." The idea behind this is to keep people from getting screwed by the government, while keeping the government from getting screwed by the people (although mechanisms should be in place to remove people from government service with reasonable alacrity and certainty, I just haven't designed any yet.) So how about this - no retirement. Full health while in office. You get current pay (unless we decide to lower it,) whether you make more or less. (Granted, it probably should be lowered.) Official travel is covered, and a minimal permanent staff (since they don't need to change, while the pol does.)
The whole,"no loss of employment while activated" works for someone like me.(maintenance engineer for apartments: spelled "handyman" :D) However, any job that requires continuous re-training/updating, etc. would be affected by a few years off. Imagine, for example, how the future earnings of a software engineer would be affected by a 1/2 decade break in employment.
I honestly think the idea of "some of these jobs require experience" comes mainly from the various re-election campaigns we've had inflicted upon us in the last 20-30 years - "Re-elect me, because I know what I'm doing!"
If the system becomes simplified by turnover, perhaps the "this job requires experience" idea may die off as well. It didn't really "require experience" until 50-60 years ago, when they began obfuscating the system - "Job security by job obscurity," methinks. If you know you've only got 4-6 years to do something productive, then maybe - just maybe - you'll simplify things so the process can move more rapidly than a glacier.
You might be right here, but I think I still need more convincing on it.
 
Nope, I pretty much hate them all - left or right. What's your point?

As for typical - you sure stuck with your typical "I'm not going to post anything valuable related to the topic, but I'll sure sit here and point fingers at everyone else" response.
 
Nope, I pretty much hate them all - left or right. What's your point?

Any sources you provide are right-winged (Fox News). You're keen on bashing liberals, but don't want to discuss mistakes/problems of conservatives.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
 
Any sources you provide are right-winged (Fox News). You're keen on bashing liberals, but don't want to discuss mistakes/problems of conservatives.

I believe I have the right to read whichever news source I want. Fox just happens to piss me off less than CNN, and forget about MSNBC....

As for bashing Liberals - well, currently, they do run the Executive and Legislative Branches. Seems fitting, no?

I'm not about bringing up old shit that happened 6 years ago, I'm debating the bullshit that is going on now.

Next.
 
I believe I have the right to read whichever news source I want. Fox just happens to piss me off less than CNN, and forget about MSNBC....

As for bashing Liberals - well, currently, they do run the Executive and Legislative Branches. Seems fitting, no?

I'm not about bringing up old shit that happened 6 years ago, I'm debating the bullshit that is going on now.

Next.

Hey, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and bias that you have. Don't forget that Republicans were in charge only 9 months ago, as well. It's not like we're 7 years into the Democrats term. History is the key to the future, especially in politics.
 
Well, when the GOP takes control back in a couple of years, you'll see me here bitching about them too.....for now though, the current economic situation is being "handled" by Dems. They're also trying to find shady ways of pushing through their Nationalized Healthcare plan, as well as claim ignorance on everything else (GTMO Waterboarding, to name one). If you want to go back in "political history", how about we talk about who forced Fannie and Freddie to give out these loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.

See, now I'm just rambling. Please post something relevent to the topic dude.
 
It's ridiculous isn't it. At least there is one Democrat with the stones to speak out against this bad idea. His quote at the end is spot on.

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, one of the leading Democrats trying to write a health care bill, said Friday that going the fast-track route would only complicate matters, because Republican support is needed to pass legislation that would be broadly accepted.
"When you jam something down somebody's throat, it's not sustainable," Baucus told reporters. "And I want something that will last."
 
All of your ideas for re-structuring out government are good ideas, HOWEVER they are all moot points untill we get the current load of scum scraped out of our political halls. Years and years of complaint without action have brought us to the point that a revolution would be sooo costly as to be almost unbearable. Why do you think there has been a slow but deliberate removal of our rights over these many years? Patrick Henry was right, our constitution was too weak and too loosely worded, and now we have payed the price. The solution we need is not a solution for the way our government runs, but a way to remove the current collection of criminals and power mongers that is currently driving this country straight to hell.
 
Back
Top