Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
Over 30,000 were wounded.
This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.
On the other side of the ledger we have:
Saddam Hussein is gone,
No WMDs were found,
No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,
We built our largest embassy.
As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"
Off the box.
Lew
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
>> care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
>> drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
>> will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
>> until then.
>
>Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
>Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>
>Iraq = 9/11
>WMD
>Mission accomplished
>You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
>
>etc.
Perhaps it's time to bring back the crusades...
On Sep 1, 5:42=A0am, "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
>
> > Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
>
> > Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
>
> > Over 30,000 were wounded.
>
> > This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
> > themselves.
>
> > On the other side of the ledger we have:
>
> > Saddam Hussein is gone,
>
> > No WMDs were found,
>
> > No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
>
> > In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,
>
> > We built our largest embassy.
>
> > As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"
>
> > Off the box.
>
> > Lew
>
> Shouldn't it be:
>
> on one side of the ledger we have:
>
> Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
> Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
> Over 30,000 were wounded.
> No WMDs were found,
> No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
> Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,
>
> > On the other side of the ledger we have:
>
> Saddam Hussein is gone,
> We built our largest embassy.
>
> But that's only in your terms and is taking a pretty favourable view of t=
he
> outcome.
>
> Why ffs do americans think only american lives count? The Iraq body count=
is
> now around 100,000 civilian deaths.
> You don't mention the wrecked cities, the polluted waters, the unexploded
> ordnance.
> You don't mention the total loss of respect that america has suffered wor=
ld
> wide from abu graib, from videos on youtube of marines killing civilians,
> from the top level idiocy and deceit of it all, so that US citizens abroa=
d
> often pretend to be canadian rather than have taxi drivers and waiters
> incessantly telling them what jerks they are, so that if there actually w=
as
> a reason to form invade a foreign country nobody, not even Tonga would jo=
in
> you or support you.
> You don't mention the cost to servicemen who come home uninjured who will=
be
> spending the rest of their lives mentally unhinged.
>
> And actually it was all totally predictable. Look at what Gen Norman
> Schwarzkopf had to say about invading Iraq a few short years before Bush =
jr
> did it.:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/schwarzkopf/7.html
>
> Tim W
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/ajntsa.jpg
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
>>
>> Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
>>
>> Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
>>
>> Over 30,000 were wounded.
>>
>> This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
>> themselves.
>>
>
> Actually, about $740 billion.
>
> And no lives were sacrificed. Our volunteer military is made up of people
> who knew the risks - the same as mountain climbers or sky-divers or race
> car drivers - and eagerly enlisted for the opportunity to kill people and
> blow things up. The military is our warrior class: They were born to do
> this, they were trained to do this, they need to do this.
>
> Fully 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan reenlist at each
> opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were invalided out, or married
> harridans.
>
> If you get a chance, watch the movie "Hurt Locker." Fairly boring, but the
> screen periodically interjects "330 days remaining," "200 days remaining,"
> "35 days remaining." Then we get to the last five minutes of the movie as
> the main character gets back home.
>
> Various scenes of him helping with the dishes, mowing the grass, feeding
> the baby.
>
> Then the last scene: The BDU-dressed main character walks down the ramp of
> a C-130 carrying his gear as the screen says "365 days remaining."
You saw the film, huh. Whooosh.........!!!
Max
>
> Was the KoolAid at least chilled?
Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this shit up all by
myself.
I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
game in an imperfect world.
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:19:19 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
>>> care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
>>> drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
>>> will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
>>> until then.
>>
>>Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
>>Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>>
>>Iraq = 9/11
>>WMD
>>Mission accomplished
>>You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
>>
>>etc.
>
>Perhaps it's time to bring back the crusades...
Inquisition starting ON the lawyers, not by them. ;)
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps it's time to bring back the crusades...
I dunno; didn't the christians get their heads handed to them by the
Turks?
Dave in Houston
On 9/1/2010 9:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:38:03 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>>> Was the KoolAid at least chilled?
>>>
>>> Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this shit up all by
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
>>> I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
>>> Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
>>> example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
>>> along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
>>> cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
>>> up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
>>> We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
>>> game in an imperfect world.
>>
>> We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
>> Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
>> Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.
>>
>> A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
>> in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
>> North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.
>
> Long before the last of our troops left, the Demonrats cut funding to
> the war and thousands of our soldiers died as a result of being over
> there without any way to defend themselves.
>
>
>> I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
>> or the Democrats.
>
> Demonrats. When will they ever learn?
>
In all fairness, that was rank stupidity, not perfidy.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
>> don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
>> beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
>> them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
>> we know it survives until then.
>
> Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
> Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>
> Iraq = 9/11
> WMD
> Mission accomplished
> You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:
* Less than 5% unemployment
* Negligible inflation
* Stock market above 12,000
* Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all other
forms of welfare
* 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth
Then the Democrats took over Congress...
And with Obama's actions we fall short again.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
>
> Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
>
> Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
>
> Over 30,000 were wounded.
>
> This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
> themselves.
>
> On the other side of the ledger we have:
>
> Saddam Hussein is gone,
>
> No WMDs were found,
>
> No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
>
> In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,
>
> We built our largest embassy.
>
> As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"
>
> Off the box.
>
> Lew
>
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
>
> Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
>
> Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
>
> Over 30,000 were wounded.
>
> This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
> themselves.
>
> On the other side of the ledger we have:
>
> Saddam Hussein is gone,
>
> No WMDs were found,
>
> No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
>
> In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,
>
> We built our largest embassy.
>
> As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"
>
> Off the box.
>
> Lew
>
Shouldn't it be:
on one side of the ledger we have:
Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
Over 30,000 were wounded.
No WMDs were found,
No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,
> On the other side of the ledger we have:
>
Saddam Hussein is gone,
We built our largest embassy.
But that's only in your terms and is taking a pretty favourable view of the
outcome.
Why ffs do americans think only american lives count? The Iraq body count is
now around 100,000 civilian deaths.
You don't mention the wrecked cities, the polluted waters, the unexploded
ordnance.
You don't mention the total loss of respect that america has suffered world
wide from abu graib, from videos on youtube of marines killing civilians,
from the top level idiocy and deceit of it all, so that US citizens abroad
often pretend to be canadian rather than have taxi drivers and waiters
incessantly telling them what jerks they are, so that if there actually was
a reason to form invade a foreign country nobody, not even Tonga would join
you or support you.
You don't mention the cost to servicemen who come home uninjured who will be
spending the rest of their lives mentally unhinged.
And actually it was all totally predictable. Look at what Gen Norman
Schwarzkopf had to say about invading Iraq a few short years before Bush jr
did it.:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/schwarzkopf/7.html
Tim W
"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> And actually it was all totally predictable. Look at what Gen Norman
> had to say about invading Iraq a few short years before Bush jr did it.:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/schwarzkopf/7.html
>
This was what Schwarzkopf was told to say. He had originally said that he
wanted to go after Hussein. He said this publicly, on TV. The next day he
retracted that.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
>
> Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
>
> Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
>
> Over 30,000 were wounded.
>
> This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
> themselves.
>
Actually, about $740 billion.
And no lives were sacrificed. Our volunteer military is made up of people
who knew the risks - the same as mountain climbers or sky-divers or race car
drivers - and eagerly enlisted for the opportunity to kill people and blow
things up. The military is our warrior class: They were born to do this,
they were trained to do this, they need to do this.
Fully 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan reenlist at each
opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were invalided out, or married
harridans.
If you get a chance, watch the movie "Hurt Locker." Fairly boring, but the
screen periodically interjects "330 days remaining," "200 days remaining,"
"35 days remaining." Then we get to the last five minutes of the movie as
the main character gets back home.
Various scenes of him helping with the dishes, mowing the grass, feeding the
baby.
Then the last scene: The BDU-dressed main character walks down the ramp of a
C-130 carrying his gear as the screen says "365 days remaining."
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:31:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
I would argue that one doesn't exist here either.
On Sep 1, 5:57=A0pm, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On the other side of the ledger we have:
>
> A few thousand potential underwear bombers buired face down in the
> sand and not dropping planes out of our skys.
Was the KoolAid at least chilled?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:38:03 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>> Was the KoolAid at least chilled?
>>
>> Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this shit up all by
>> myself.
>>
>> I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
>> I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
>> Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
>> example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
>> along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
>> cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
>> up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
>> We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
>> game in an imperfect world.
>
>We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
>Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
>Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.
>
>A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
>in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
>North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.
Long before the last of our troops left, the Demonrats cut funding to
the war and thousands of our soldiers died as a result of being over
there without any way to defend themselves.
>I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
>or the Democrats.
Demonrats. When will they ever learn?
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:
A pretty lame troll. Almost qualifies as chumming.
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
> care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
> drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
> will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
> until then.
Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
etc.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sep 4, 9:24=A0pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies=
.
> > To the uninitiated, it's gibberish.
>
> Which should be unacceptable.
Canadian consumer groups have successfully forced lawyers to offer
legal documents (when requested) in normal English. Documents such as
real estate transactions, employment contracts, a whole host of docs.
In some circles, the bullshit is referred to as froth and there is
evidence that a lot of it is deliberate. A real estate transaction can
legally be done on a frickin' napkin. So heretherefore....
On 9/3/2010 10:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote
>> I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy to work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal Joe, and not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would perhaps not be out of touch with what is going on out there, for all of us normal Joes that these same politicians are supposed to be representing.
>
> We have people willing to work for that salary. They are the multi-millionaires spending tens of millions to get that job too. We need reform as you suggest below. Given the current state of DC life, the second home, etc. I don['t think you can do it on the 170k. I know they have budgets for expenses and such that may be helping in some ways.
>
>>
>> First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to that amount as what they can spend on getting elected.
>>
>> Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Lobbyists provide us with the best Congress money can buy.
>
> As for campaign funding, that is a very sad state of affairs. Fund raising is a big part of daily life for a politician.
How about a system like jury duty - you get selected randomly for 2 years
in the House as a matter of civic duty. No running for office and no
second term. I cannot believe that a random selection of citizens
could be worse than the bottom-feeding algae that is today's US Congress...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 9/7/2010 12:07 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> spewed forth:
>> On 9/7/2010 10:56 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:52:07 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>>>
>>>> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
>>>
>>> You know, that's a proposal I think both liberals and conservatives
>>> could get behind. Add something about accepting
>>> money/gifts/services from lobbyists, add something about public
>>> financing of *short* campaigns, include a provision limiting bills
>>> to one subject, and we're almost there.
>>>
>>> What's left are the career bureaucrats who will gain influence with
>>> novice politicians - don't know how to fix that one. A similar
>>> problem would exist with staff - they'd just transfer from one
>>> politician to his successor.
>>>
>>
>> How do you fix the problem that the pols are responding to their
>> constituents that constantly demand things they don't want to pay
>> for themselves? It's easy to blame the pols, but they're just
>> doing what they got elected to do: Take from some and give to
>> others...
>
> To quote Mick
> " You can't always git what you want"<g>
> If they don't want to pay for it themselves, then they don't want it bad
> enough
> This "I want" attitude is killing us
>
>
I agree, but - in the US - about half the nation lives off the other half. And
the mooching half votes ... for more, more, and more "free" stuff. Like I said,
it's easy to blame the pols, but they're not really the problem - the moochers
are.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator and
> the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by the
> taxpayer or by the lobbyists?
The base pay comes from the taxpayer, but the free meals and other goodies
come from the lobbyists.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote
> IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
> make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
> responsibility.
I'd be tempted to work for just the fringe benefits.
Max
On 9/2/2010 3:39 PM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
>>>> don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
>>>> beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
>>>> them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
>>>> we know it survives until then.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
>>> Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>>>
>>> Iraq = 9/11
>>> WMD
>>> Mission accomplished
>>> You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
>>
>> But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:
>>
>> * Less than 5% unemployment
>> * Negligible inflation
>> * Stock market above 12,000
>> * Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all
>> other forms of welfare
>> * 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth
>>
>> Then the Democrats took over Congress...
>
> While the Dems aren't blameless, the Housing bubble and banking thefts
> occurred on the Repubs watch. When that is corrected somewhat, things
> WILL be well again. In fact, the pace of housing sales/new building etc
> is already at the average level from before the housing bubble. Yes,
> there are many people unemployed, and that is terrible. But what if
> there hadn't been so many seduced to work in the housing field? Cars -
> part of the bankruptcy of the car industry has come about because
> suddenly the "false" equity we had in our homes fell away, and we
> couldn't buy that fancy big SUV anymore.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but in spite of what my buddy the bank examiner and
> ultra right winger says, it's not really the Dems fault, but much more
> likely the Repubs. I agree with my buddy that it would be better to fire
> the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch. Give them a good
> slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes, campaign contributions and
> loose women and men.
>
>
Yes, there are so many signs the the fine Democrats got this right. This,
for example:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/01/clunkers_a_classic_government_folly/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
>
> Canadian consumer groups have successfully forced lawyers to offer
> legal documents (when requested) in normal English. Documents such as
> real estate transactions, employment contracts, a whole host of docs.
> In some circles, the bullshit is referred to as froth and there is
> evidence that a lot of it is deliberate. A real estate transaction can
> legally be done on a frickin' napkin. So heretherefore....
But it's the "legalize" rendition that's official, the "normal English" is
just a translation.
There is a reason for the "legalize" version. Every word, phrase, and nuance
has been vetted by a almost a thousand years of court decisions going back
to the Magna Carta. Somebody complains that the word "warbaggle" in the
contract is ambiguous, the lawyers for the other side can point to 78
appellate court cases just within the last 500 years that show the word is
not unclear at all.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>> industry?
>
>Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they are
>out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
>Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
>or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.
>> As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama
>> and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
>> candidacies.
>>
>> Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!
>>
>> The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
>> Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
>> curtail political speech.
>>
>> George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
>> * No cash
>> * No foreign contributions
>> * Instant disclosure
>
>What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the wealthiest
>individual, not the best person wins the election. Not many low income
>senators these days. In addition, you have media scrutiny that makes the
>purest person hesitant to step into the public eye. If you ever copped a
>cheap feel of Mary Jane in the eight grade, it will be on the news the day
>after you announced your candidacy for office.
Such small potatoes don't seem to matter much to the Rangel caucus.
In news:[email protected],
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> On 9/7/2010 10:56 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:52:07 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
>>
>> You know, that's a proposal I think both liberals and conservatives
>> could get behind. Add something about accepting
>> money/gifts/services from lobbyists, add something about public
>> financing of *short* campaigns, include a provision limiting bills
>> to one subject, and we're almost there.
>>
>> What's left are the career bureaucrats who will gain influence with
>> novice politicians - don't know how to fix that one. A similar
>> problem would exist with staff - they'd just transfer from one
>> politician to his successor.
>>
>
> How do you fix the problem that the pols are responding to their
> constituents that constantly demand things they don't want to pay
> for themselves? It's easy to blame the pols, but they're just
> doing what they got elected to do: Take from some and give to
> others...
To quote Mick
" You can't always git what you want"<g>
If they don't want to pay for it themselves, then they don't want it bad
enough
This "I want" attitude is killing us
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote
> Salary is one of the problems with many potential politicians. Unless
> you've made your fortune, running for office is a big pay cut for many
> potential well qualified candidates. The mayor in our town gets
> something like $42k. Fine for a retired guy, but sucks for a qualified,
> educated administrator making twice that at his private sector job.
>
> IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
> make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
> responsibility.
I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy to
work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal Joe, and
not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would perhaps not be out
of touch with what is going on out there, for all of us normal Joes that
these same politicians are supposed to be representing.
First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign contributions as
a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum of money (small) to be
used on elections, and make them stick to that amount as what they can spend
on getting elected.
Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
--
Jim in NC
It worked!
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
What's your issue?
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:55:19 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> <snip>
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 16:39:15 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>>>>>> congressman
>>>>>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
>>>>>>>>> yak
>>>>>>>>> industry?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as
>>>>>>>> needed"
>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>>>>>>>individuals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
>>>>
>>>> So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>> That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.
>
>
>No, it is not. Both the House and Senate are subject to their Own Rules.
Not when it comes to "petitioning government", they aren't.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 16:39:15 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>>>>>>> congressman
>>>>>>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the
>>>>>>>>>> ramifications
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> yak
>>>>>>>>>> industry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can
>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
>>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as
>>>>>>>>> needed"
>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by
>>>>>>>>private
>>>>>>>>individuals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>> That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.
>>
>>
>>No, it is not. Both the House and Senate are subject to their Own Rules.
>
> Not when it comes to "petitioning government", they aren't.
Take a number.
--
National Socialism showed what can happen when very ordinary people get
control of a state and the merely opportunistic are regarded as
intellectuals.
Anthony Burgess
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:55:19 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
<snip>
> Take a number.
Wow again - an 81 line message to say three words. I hate to give up on
someone who posts in both woodworking and model railroading groups but it
would sure be nice if you learned to snip. Yes, I said "snip", not
"snipe", you know how to do that :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:55:19 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> <snip>
What's your issue?
Usually the ones that keep the "troll" lists.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Wow again - an 81 line message to say three words. I hate to give up on
someone who posts in both woodworking and model railroading groups but it
would sure be nice if you learned to snip. Yes, I said "snip", not
"snipe", you know how to do that :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:55:19 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
<snip>
> Take a number.
Morgans wrote:
>
> First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign
> contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain
> sum of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to
> that amount as what they can spend on getting elected.
>
The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine the
railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak industry?
Do you want our country to suffer a yak-fat gap?
As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama and
McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
candidacies.
Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!
The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech. Attempts
to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to curtail
political speech.
George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
* No cash
* No foreign contributions
* Instant disclosure
In news:[email protected],
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> On 9/4/2010 5:51 AM, Han wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> How about a system like jury duty - you get selected randomly for 2
>>> years in the House as a matter of civic duty. No running for office
>>> and no second term. I cannot believe that a random selection of
>>> citizens could be worse than the bottom-feeding algae that is
>>> today's US Congress...
>>
>> Tim, do you really want to have people assigned to Congress mostly
>> against their will? Who would they represent other than themselves?
>>
>> I have no idea what would be a good system, other than idealists.
>>
>
> 1) I was kidding.
>
> 2) People serving against their will couldn't possibly be worse than
> those serving willingly.
I got this again today in an email.. It's been floating around for awhile
Sounds like a pretty good start, to me
YMMV
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
I am sending this to virtually everybody on my e-mail list and that includes
conservatives, liberals, and everybody in between. Even though we disagree
on a number of issues, I count all of you as friends.. My friend and
neighbor wants to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2010". It would
contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed
by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I know many of you will say, "this is impossible". Let me remind you,
Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the
time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that
represents us.
We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a
Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people
will become American hero's..
Thanks,
A Fellow American
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
work.
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security
system, Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back
to work.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
work.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back
to work.
6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
work.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American
people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
work.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with congressmen,
congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back
to work.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and
> things like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of generating
> income that your broad brush would be precluding. My original comment
> though was in surprise at what I thought you were suggesting - that they
> need a better salary. I could not believe anyone would suggest such a
> thing...
Salary is one of the problems with many potential politicians. Unless
you've made your fortune, running for office is a big pay cut for many
potential well qualified candidates. The mayor in our town gets something
like $42k. Fine for a retired guy, but sucks for a qualified, educated
administrator making twice that at his private sector job.
IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
responsibility.
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:24:45 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote
>>>I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
>>>second
>>>class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to
>>>the
>>>detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
>>>yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.
>>
>> It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.
>
>Sure, trust a congressman instead. That works well.
What "works well" is besides the point. Other than some hand-waiving,
pissing, and a little moaning, you've come up with nothing. Trashing what we
have left of the Constitution isn't a good idea.
>>>He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
>>>lobbyist.
>>
>> So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you*
>> don't
>> believe in what he sells. Nice.
>
>Not what I said.
It is *exactly* what you said.
>He has every right to sell what he wants. He does not have
>the right to take from others because he bought a senator. That is the
>reality of most DC happenings.
He has every right to _petition_ his government in any way he sees fit.
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:29:19 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>> One can argue that if the Congress is going to allocate funds for school
>> lunches then the Congress has an obligation to take reasonable measures to
>> ensure that that money is being spent wisely. If the use of hydrogenated
>> yak fat is wise spending then it should certainly not be
>> discouraged--whether it should be encouraged or not is another story.
>>
>> This is the real problem with Federal support for social programs of all
>> kinds.
>
>The real problem is that the Feds should not be in the schools anyway.
Yup! That's the state's responsibility (usually delegated to the
communities).
>>> He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
>>> lobbyist.
>>
>> So is the person who got the Congress into the education business in the
>> first place, but I don't notice you complaining about that.
>>
>
>See above. I did not get to it and I can easily make a list of things the
>government should not be involved in.
Now, *we're* on the same page. ;-)
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
>>> don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
>>> beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
>>> them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
>>> we know it survives until then.
>>
>> Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
>> Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>>
>> Iraq = 9/11
>> WMD
>> Mission accomplished
>> You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
>
> But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:
>
> * Less than 5% unemployment
> * Negligible inflation
> * Stock market above 12,000
> * Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all
> other forms of welfare
> * 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth
>
> Then the Democrats took over Congress...
While the Dems aren't blameless, the Housing bubble and banking thefts
occurred on the Repubs watch. When that is corrected somewhat, things
WILL be well again. In fact, the pace of housing sales/new building etc
is already at the average level from before the housing bubble. Yes,
there are many people unemployed, and that is terrible. But what if
there hadn't been so many seduced to work in the housing field? Cars -
part of the bankruptcy of the car industry has come about because
suddenly the "false" equity we had in our homes fell away, and we
couldn't buy that fancy big SUV anymore.
Sorry for the rant, but in spite of what my buddy the bank examiner and
ultra right winger says, it's not really the Dems fault, but much more
likely the Repubs. I agree with my buddy that it would be better to fire
the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch. Give them a good
slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes, campaign contributions and
loose women and men.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
<[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
>>lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
>>society.
>
> You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
> restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he owns
> YFI,
> is a second-class citizen.
I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than second
class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to the
detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.
He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
> One can argue that if the Congress is going to allocate funds for school
> lunches then the Congress has an obligation to take reasonable measures to
> ensure that that money is being spent wisely. If the use of hydrogenated
> yak fat is wise spending then it should certainly not be
> discouraged--whether it should be encouraged or not is another story.
>
> This is the real problem with Federal support for social programs of all
> kinds.
The real problem is that the Feds should not be in the schools anyway.
>
>> He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
>> lobbyist.
>
> So is the person who got the Congress into the education business in the
> first place, but I don't notice you complaining about that.
>
See above. I did not get to it and I can easily make a list of things the
government should not be involved in.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:53:10 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>> congressman
>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
>>>>> determine
>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>>>> industry?
>>>>
>>>>Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>>>are
>>>>out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that.
>>>>The
>>>>Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
>>>>wanted
>>>>or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
>>>
>>> Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
>>> let
>>> Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his
>>> business.
>>
>>Let him get in line.
>
> He does.
No, he does not. He pays bribes to get to the head of the line.
--
National Socialism showed what can happen when very ordinary people get
control of a state and the merely opportunistic are regarded as
intellectuals.
Anthony Burgess
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>>> congressman
>>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
>>>>>> determine
>>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
>>>>>> yak
>>>>>> industry?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
>>>>> they
>>>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
>>>>> that.
>>>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
>>>>> person,
>>>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
>>>>> basis.
>>>>
>>>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>>>>individuals.
>>>
>>> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>>
>>I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
>
> So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
>
Nope.
On 9/4/2010 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
>>> lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the
>>> rest of
>>> society.
>>
>> You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
>> restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he
>> owns YFI,
>> is a second-class citizen.
>
> I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
> second class when he tried to take government money for his own private
> good to the detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if
> hydrogenated yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.
One can argue that if the Congress is going to allocate funds for school
lunches then the Congress has an obligation to take reasonable measures
to ensure that that money is being spent wisely. If the use of
hydrogenated yak fat is wise spending then it should certainly not be
discouraged--whether it should be encouraged or not is another story.
This is the real problem with Federal support for social programs of all
kinds.
> He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
> lobbyist.
So is the person who got the Congress into the education business in the
first place, but I don't notice you complaining about that.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:05:40 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Wow! Over ten posts yesterday! When do you find time to do any
> woodworking?
In the time when I'm not spending an hour or so online. I'm also retired.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 19:28:37 -0400, "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
>> lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
>> society.
>Oh, and I have another suggestion for government reform. (like it will ever
>happen)
>
>Each bill stands on its own. No more adding yak fat onto the FAA
>appropriation bills, and such. Too many stupid things are passed because
>the bill it is added onto is too important to not pass. Then, we get yak
>fat, because congress (for example) wanted planes to keep flying.
That's one I could go for, but other than a line-item veto I don't see how it
could be enforced.
>All issues should stand on their own. No more pork bills.
Pork is another issue. If you could figure out how to do the above, pork is a
thing of the past.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>> congressman
>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>>>> industry?
>>>>
>>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
>>>> that.
>>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
>>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
>>>> basis.
>>>
>>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>>>individuals.
>>
>> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>
>I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
>>
>>>If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
>>>get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information,
>>>the
>>>critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
>>>critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
>>>available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
>>>purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
>>>Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.
>>
>> Why is a constituent any different than Mr. Fat? What if Mr. Fat, or his
>> employee who talks for Mr. Fat lives in Joe Congresscritter's district?
>>
>
>Then they can Get In Line. And if Mr., fat wants to talk about his business,
>he can do it himself.
So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:53:10 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>> congressman
>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>>> industry?
>>>
>>>Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>>are
>>>out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
>>>Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
>>>or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
>>
>> Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
>> let
>> Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.
>
>Let him get in line.
He does.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 16:51:47 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>> congressman
>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>>> industry?
>>>
>>>Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>>are
>>>out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
>>>Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
>>>or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
>>
>> Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
>> let
>> Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.
>>
>
>True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
>lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
>society.
You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he owns YFI,
is a second-class citizen.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:e7cf3$4c80e895
[email protected]:
>> Give them a good salary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
>> campaign contributions and loose women and men.
>
> You want to give them more than they're getting now?
I want to prohibit them from accepting any income (directly or indirectly)
other than their salary.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:57:28 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
>>>lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
>>>society.
>>
>> You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
>> restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he owns
>> YFI,
>> is a second-class citizen.
>
>I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than second
>class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to the
>detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
>yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.
It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.
>He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
>lobbyist.
So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you* don't
believe in what he sells. Nice.
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>>>> congressman
>>>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
>>>>>>> yak
>>>>>>> industry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
>>>>>> person,
>>>>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>>>>>individuals.
>>>>
>>>> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>>>
>>>I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
>>
>> So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
>>
>
>Nope.
That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.
<[email protected]> wrote
>>I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
>>second
>>class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to
>>the
>>detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
>>yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.
>
> It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.
Sure, trust a congressman instead. That works well.
>
>>He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
>>lobbyist.
>
> So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you*
> don't
> believe in what he sells. Nice.
Not what I said. He has every right to sell what he wants. He does not have
the right to take from others because he bought a senator. That is the
reality of most DC happenings.
On 9/5/2010 10:24 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote
>>> I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
>>> second
>>> class when he tried to take government money for his own private good
>>> to the
>>> detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if
>>> hydrogenated
>>> yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.
>>
>> It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.
>
> Sure, trust a congressman instead. That works well.
>
>>
>>> He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
>>> lobbyist.
>>
>> So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you*
>> don't
>> believe in what he sells. Nice.
>
> Not what I said. He has every right to sell what he wants. He does not
> have the right to take from others because he bought a senator. That is
> the reality of most DC happenings.
Uh, to get a law enacted you have to buy 51 senators, 218
representatives, and a President. Buying one senator, assuming that you
can actually find a way to do it and not get caught and sent to jail, at
most gets you a bill introduced into one house of Congress.
Further, the bidding is competitive. Mr. Fat is going to have tough
going against the butter lobby.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>>>>>> congressman
>>>>>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
>>>>>>>> yak
>>>>>>>> industry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as
>>>>>>> needed"
>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>>>>>>individuals.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>>>>
>>>>I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
>>>
>>> So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.
>>>
>>
>>Nope.
>
> That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.
No, it is not. Both the House and Senate are subject to their Own Rules.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:e7cf3$4c80e895 [email protected]:
>>
>>>> Give them a good salary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
>>>> campaign contributions and loose women and men.
>>>
>>> You want to give them more than they're getting now?
>>
>> I want to prohibit them from accepting any income (directly or
>> indirectly) other than their salary.
>
> That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and
> things like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of
> generating income that your broad brush would be precluding. My
> original comment though was in surprise at what I thought you were
> suggesting - that they need a better salary. I could not believe
> anyone would suggest such a thing...
I don't know exactly what a congress critter's salary is, but I doubt
that it is enough to live on as he/she is expected to in both DC and at
the home front, at the moment. I wouldn't tell them that they can't have
any income from assets they already had before, but accepting any funds
or fringe benefits from any individual or company with the potential to
gain from the actions of said congres critter should be excluded.
While Charlie Rangel may have done much good for his constituents, NY
state and the nation, he should really go now.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How about a system like jury duty - you get selected randomly for 2
> years in the House as a matter of civic duty. No running for office
> and no second term. I cannot believe that a random selection of
> citizens could be worse than the bottom-feeding algae that is today's
> US Congress...
Tim, do you really want to have people assigned to Congress mostly against
their will? Who would they represent other than themselves?
I have no idea what would be a good system, other than idealists.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
> congressman with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the
> ramifications of pending legislation. Do you really want a
> congress-critter to determine the railroad tariff on hydrogenated
> yak-fat with no input from the yak industry?
>
> Do you want our country to suffer a yak-fat gap?
>
> As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between
> Obama and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support
> of their candidacies.
>
> Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
> Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
> curtail political speech.
>
> George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
> * No cash
> * No foreign contributions
> * Instant disclosure
I agree with the last 3 lines, and that lobbyists are experts on the
proposed legislation. However, the essential word left out there is the
word self-serving. The lobbyists are NOT being paid to serve the coomon
good, but need to satisfy their bosses, or else ...
I don't know how to get out of the conundrum either.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> As near as I can tell, a Senator's staff does all the Real Work and
> the Senator merely Pontificates and enjoys the perks of the most
> expensive country club in the nation. I would like to see them do
> something For the country instead of To the country. All of them.
I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator and
the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by the
taxpayer or by the lobbyists?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator
>> and the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by
>> the taxpayer or by the lobbyists?
>
> The base pay comes from the taxpayer, but the free meals and other
> goodies come from the lobbyists.
And disclosure is discretionary?
<evil grin>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the
> wealthiest individual, not the best person wins the election. Not
> many low income senators these days. In addition, you have media
> scrutiny that makes the purest person hesitant to step into the
> public eye. If you ever copped a cheap feel of Mary Jane in the
> eight grade, it will be on the news the day after you announced your
> candidacy for office.
In most cases, money is a proxy for support. The more support a candidate
has, the more money he can raise.
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:e7cf3$4c80e895 [email protected]:
>
>>> Give them a good salary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
>>> campaign contributions and loose women and men.
>>
>> You want to give them more than they're getting now?
>
> I want to prohibit them from accepting any income (directly or
> indirectly) other than their salary.
That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and things
like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of generating income that
your broad brush would be precluding. My original comment though was in
surprise at what I thought you were suggesting - that they need a better
salary. I could not believe anyone would suggest such a thing...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:48:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Yes, there are so many signs the the fine Democrats got this right. This,
>for example:
>
> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/01/clunkers_a_classic_government_folly/
And don't forget the new repercussions from said folly:
http://www.tfgi.com/201008/cash-for-clunkers-disposal-facilities-investigated/
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
On Sep 7, 1:11=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/7/2010 1:07 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:[email protected],
> > Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> =A0spewed forth:
> >> On 9/7/2010 10:56 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:52:07 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>
> >>>> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
>
> >>> You know, that's a proposal I think both liberals and conservatives
> >>> could get behind. =A0Add something about accepting
> >>> money/gifts/services from lobbyists, add something about public
> >>> financing of *short* campaigns, include a provision limiting bills
> >>> to one subject, and we're almost there.
>
> >>> What's left are the career bureaucrats who will gain influence with
> >>> novice politicians - don't know how to fix that one. =A0A similar
> >>> problem would exist with staff - they'd just transfer from one
> >>> politician to his successor.
>
> >> How do you fix the problem that the pols are responding to their
> >> constituents that constantly demand things they don't want to pay
> >> for themselves? =A0 It's easy to blame the pols, but they're just
> >> doing what they got elected to do: =A0Take from some and give to
> >> others...
>
> > To quote Mick
> > " You can't always git what you want"<g>
> > If they don't want to pay for it themselves, then they don't want it ba=
d
> > enough
> > This "I want" attitude is killing us
>
> The problem is that the Congress was never intended to be a proxy-voting
> system. =A0The idea was that the electorate would pick the best decision
> makers they could and send them off to make decisions. =A0That didn't las=
t
> very long.
The 17th Amendment had a lot to do with that.
On 9/4/2010 5:51 AM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> How about a system like jury duty - you get selected randomly for 2
>> years in the House as a matter of civic duty. No running for office
>> and no second term. I cannot believe that a random selection of
>> citizens could be worse than the bottom-feeding algae that is today's
>> US Congress...
>
> Tim, do you really want to have people assigned to Congress mostly against
> their will? Who would they represent other than themselves?
>
> I have no idea what would be a good system, other than idealists.
>
1) I was kidding.
2) People serving against their will couldn't possibly be worse than
those serving willingly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>> industry?
>>
>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that.
>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
>> basis.
>
>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>individuals.
So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
>If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
>get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information, the
>critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
>critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
>available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
>purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
>Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.
Why is a constituent any different than Mr. Fat? What if Mr. Fat, or his
employee who talks for Mr. Fat lives in Joe Congresscritter's district?
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>
> The lobbyists are the experts on directing public money to private
> use.
True. But mostly lobbyists direct their attention to keeping the government
at bay. Resisting regulation is their main effort.
> If the ramifications of pending legislation cannot be understood
> by any reasonably intelligent taxpayer, the legislation should not be
> passed. We have far too much legislation and far too little service.
You make a good point, but legislation is writting in "legislation language"
which is absolutely unintelligible to the lay person.
For example, once past the prologue of the recent health care act, we get
into the "meat" of the bill. To wit:
--- begin quote
(c) ELIGIBILITY.-For purposes of this section, the term ''eligible
individual'' means an individual-
(1) who-
(A) is not eligible for-
(i) benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social Security Act; or
(ii) coverage under an employment-based health plan (not including coverage
under a COBRA continuation provision, as defined in section 107(d)(1)); and
(B) who-
(i) is an eligible individual under section 2741(b) of the Public Health
Service Act; or
(ii) is medically eligible for the program by virtue of being an individual
described in subsection (d) at any time during the 6-month period ending on
the date the individual applies for high-risk pool
coverage under this section;
(2) who is the spouse or dependent of an individual who is described in
paragraph (1); or
(3) who has not had health insurance coverage or coverage under an
employment-based health plan for at least the 6-month period immediately
preceding the date of the individual's application for high-risk pool
coverage under this section.
For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii), a person who is in a waiting period as
defined in section 2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act shall not be
considered to be eligible for coverage under an employment-based health
plan.
--- end quote
To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies. To
the uninitiated, it's gibberish.
Han wrote:
>
> I agree with my buddy that it would be
> better to fire the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch.
Agreed.
> Give them a good slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
> campaign contributions and loose women and men.
You want to give them more than they're getting now?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/3/2010 11:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote
>> I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy
>> to work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal
>> Joe, and not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would
>> perhaps not be out of touch with what is going on out there, for all
>> of us normal Joes that these same politicians are supposed to be
>> representing.
>
> We have people willing to work for that salary. They are the
> multi-millionaires spending tens of millions to get that job too. We
> need reform as you suggest below. Given the current state of DC life,
> the second home, etc. I don['t think you can do it on the 170k. I know
> they have budgets for expenses and such that may be helping in some ways.
First rule should be that wanting the job is an automatic disqualification.
>> First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign
>> contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum
>> of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to that
>> amount as what they can spend on getting elected.
>>
>> Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Lobbyists provide us with the best Congress money can buy.
>
> As for campaign funding, that is a very sad state of affairs. Fund
> raising is a big part of daily life for a politician.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and
>> things like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of generating
>> income that your broad brush would be precluding. My original comment
>> though was in surprise at what I thought you were suggesting - that they
>> need a better salary. I could not believe anyone would suggest such a
>> thing...
>
> Salary is one of the problems with many potential politicians. Unless
> you've made your fortune, running for office is a big pay cut for many
> potential well qualified candidates. The mayor in our town gets
> something like $42k. Fine for a retired guy, but sucks for a qualified,
> educated administrator making twice that at his private sector job.
>
> IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
> make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
> responsibility.
As near as I can tell, a Senator's staff does all the Real Work and the
Senator merely Pontificates and enjoys the perks of the most expensive
country club in the nation. I would like to see them do something For the
country instead of To the country. All of them.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> As near as I can tell, a Senator's staff does all the Real Work and
>> the Senator merely Pontificates and enjoys the perks of the most
>> expensive country club in the nation. I would like to see them do
>> something For the country instead of To the country. All of them.
>
> I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator and
> the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by the
> taxpayer or by the lobbyists?
Us.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign
>> contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain
>> sum of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to
>> that amount as what they can spend on getting elected.
>>
>
> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
> industry?
The lobbyists are the experts on directing public money to private use. If
the ramifications of pending legislation cannot be understood by any
reasonably intelligent taxpayer, the legislation should not be passed. We
have far too much legislation and far too little service.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>> industry?
>
> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that.
> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
> basis.
Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals. If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information, the
critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>> congressman
>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>> industry?
>>
>>Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>are
>>out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
>>Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
>>or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
>
> Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
> let
> Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.
Let him get in line.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies.
> To the uninitiated, it's gibberish.
>
Which should be unacceptable.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>>> congressman
>>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>>> industry?
>>>
>>> Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>> are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
>>> that.
>>> The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
>>> wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
>>> basis.
>>
>>Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
>>individuals.
>
> So, you would ban the Sierra Club?
I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.
>
>>If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
>>get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information,
>>the
>>critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
>>critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
>>available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
>>purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
>>Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.
>
> Why is a constituent any different than Mr. Fat? What if Mr. Fat, or his
> employee who talks for Mr. Fat lives in Joe Congresscritter's district?
>
Then they can Get In Line. And if Mr., fat wants to talk about his business,
he can do it himself.
--
National Socialism showed what can happen when very ordinary people get
control of a state and the merely opportunistic are regarded as
intellectuals.
Anthony Burgess
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 4, 9:24 pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies.
> > To the uninitiated, it's gibberish.
>
> Which should be unacceptable.
Canadian consumer groups have successfully forced lawyers to offer
legal documents (when requested) in normal English. Documents such as
real estate transactions, employment contracts, a whole host of docs.
In some circles, the bullshit is referred to as froth and there is
evidence that a lot of it is deliberate. A real estate transaction can
legally be done on a frickin' napkin. So heretherefore....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party of the party part parted the party partly.
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:52:07 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
You know, that's a proposal I think both liberals and conservatives could
get behind. Add something about accepting money/gifts/services from
lobbyists, add something about public financing of *short* campaigns,
include a provision limiting bills to one subject, and we're almost there.
What's left are the career bureaucrats who will gain influence with
novice politicians - don't know how to fix that one. A similar problem
would exist with staff - they'd just transfer from one politician to his
successor.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 9/7/2010 1:07 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> spewed forth:
>> On 9/7/2010 10:56 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:52:07 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>>>
>>>> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
>>>
>>> You know, that's a proposal I think both liberals and conservatives
>>> could get behind. Add something about accepting
>>> money/gifts/services from lobbyists, add something about public
>>> financing of *short* campaigns, include a provision limiting bills
>>> to one subject, and we're almost there.
>>>
>>> What's left are the career bureaucrats who will gain influence with
>>> novice politicians - don't know how to fix that one. A similar
>>> problem would exist with staff - they'd just transfer from one
>>> politician to his successor.
>>>
>>
>> How do you fix the problem that the pols are responding to their
>> constituents that constantly demand things they don't want to pay
>> for themselves? It's easy to blame the pols, but they're just
>> doing what they got elected to do: Take from some and give to
>> others...
>
> To quote Mick
> " You can't always git what you want"<g>
> If they don't want to pay for it themselves, then they don't want it bad
> enough
> This "I want" attitude is killing us
The problem is that the Congress was never intended to be a proxy-voting
system. The idea was that the electorate would pick the best decision
makers they could and send them off to make decisions. That didn't last
very long.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
>>> congressman
>>> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
>>> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
>>> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
>>> industry?
>>
>>Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
>>are
>>out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
>>Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
>>or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
>
> Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
> let
> Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.
>
True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.
On 02 Sep 2010 20:39:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
>>>> don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
>>>> beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
>>>> them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
>>>> we know it survives until then.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
>>> Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>>>
>>> Iraq = 9/11
>>> WMD
>>> Mission accomplished
>>> You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
>>
>> But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:
>>
>> * Less than 5% unemployment
>> * Negligible inflation
>> * Stock market above 12,000
>> * Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all
>> other forms of welfare
>> * 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth
>>
>> Then the Democrats took over Congress...
>
>While the Dems aren't blameless, the Housing bubble and banking thefts
>occurred on the Repubs watch.
Han, the Democratic Black Caucus, overseeing wing of Fannie and
Freddy, et al, aren't Republicans.
>Sorry for the rant, but in spite of what my buddy the bank examiner and
>ultra right winger says, it's not really the Dems fault, but much more
>likely the Repubs. I agree with my buddy that it would be better to fire
>the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch. Give them a good
>slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes, campaign contributions and
>loose women and men.
Right, start electing from the rank and file, including the homeless.
Buddha knows they -couldn't- do a worse job, and even the mildly
insane are closer in touch with reality than anyone in D.C. now.
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote
> True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
> lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
> society.
Oh, and I have another suggestion for government reform. (like it will ever
happen)
Each bill stands on its own. No more adding yak fat onto the FAA
appropriation bills, and such. Too many stupid things are passed because
the bill it is added onto is too important to not pass. Then, we get yak
fat, because congress (for example) wanted planes to keep flying.
All issues should stand on their own. No more pork bills.
--
Jim in NC
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:36:08 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:48:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yes, there are so many signs the the fine Democrats got this right. This,
>>for example:
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/01/clunkers_a_classic_government_folly/
>
>And don't forget the new repercussions from said folly:
>http://www.tfgi.com/201008/cash-for-clunkers-disposal-facilities-investigated/
...and this one:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/01/news/companies/august_auto_sales/
"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote
> I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy to
> work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal Joe, and
> not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would perhaps not be
> out of touch with what is going on out there, for all of us normal Joes
> that these same politicians are supposed to be representing.
We have people willing to work for that salary. They are the
multi-millionaires spending tens of millions to get that job too. We need
reform as you suggest below. Given the current state of DC life, the second
home, etc. I don['t think you can do it on the 170k. I know they have
budgets for expenses and such that may be helping in some ways.
>
> First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign contributions
> as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum of money (small)
> to be used on elections, and make them stick to that amount as what they
> can spend on getting elected.
>
> Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
> --
> Jim in NC
Lobbyists provide us with the best Congress money can buy.
As for campaign funding, that is a very sad state of affairs. Fund raising
is a big part of daily life for a politician.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
> industry?
>
Bull. Lobbyists are experts at bending any available facts to make their
employers as rich as possible. Distortion, misrepresentation, and non
disclosure of any information not favorable to their employers are
conveniently left out, or lied away.
Congress critters can get information about legislation the same way you
would before you buy a new car. Research. Work.
Oh, that's right. Work is contrary to congress critters. Sorry, I almost
lost my head.
--
Jim in NC
On 9/7/2010 10:56 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:52:07 -0500, ChairMan wrote:
>
>> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS AND SENATE!!!
>
> You know, that's a proposal I think both liberals and conservatives could
> get behind. Add something about accepting money/gifts/services from
> lobbyists, add something about public financing of *short* campaigns,
> include a provision limiting bills to one subject, and we're almost there.
>
> What's left are the career bureaucrats who will gain influence with
> novice politicians - don't know how to fix that one. A similar problem
> would exist with staff - they'd just transfer from one politician to his
> successor.
>
How do you fix the problem that the pols are responding to their
constituents that constantly demand things they don't want to pay
for themselves? It's easy to blame the pols, but they're just
doing what they got elected to do: Take from some and give to
others...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
> with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
> pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
> the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
> industry?
Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.
> As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama
> and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
> candidacies.
>
> Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
> Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
> curtail political speech.
>
> George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
> * No cash
> * No foreign contributions
> * Instant disclosure
What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the wealthiest
individual, not the best person wins the election. Not many low income
senators these days. In addition, you have media scrutiny that makes the
purest person hesitant to step into the public eye. If you ever copped a
cheap feel of Mary Jane in the eight grade, it will be on the news the day
after you announced your candidacy for office.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
>> care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
>> drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
>> will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
>> until then.
>
> Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
> Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
Perhaps you missed the amendment, but for several decades the President has
only been allowed Two Terms. Bush completed his Two.
On 9/2/2010 11:17 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
>> care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
>> drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
>> will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
>> until then.
>
> Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
> Bushites got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:
>
> Iraq = 9/11
> WMD
> Mission accomplished
> You're doing a heck of a job Brownie
>
> etc.
>
The mission WAS accomplished until W allowed his administration
to get sucked into nation building (aka Fixing What We Did Not
Break In The First Place) by our fine US State Department.
Speaking of keeping score ... I'd say the less than $1T spent on
this war is rather minor compared to the multiples of $Trillions
President Changeium has had to print to keep up his profligate
vote buying.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North
>>> Vietnamese or the Democrats.
>>
>> Demonrats. When will they ever learn?
>>
> In all fairness, that was rank stupidity, not perfidy.
In a legislative body, the difference between incompetence and malice is
undetectable. Often it is both.
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:19:28 -0600, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/1/2010 9:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:38:03 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>>>> Was the KoolAid at least chilled?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this shit up all by
>>>> myself.
>>>>
>>>> I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
>>>> I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
>>>> Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
>>>> example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
>>>> along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
>>>> cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
>>>> up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
>>>> We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
>>>> game in an imperfect world.
>>>
>>> We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
>>> Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
>>> Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.
>>>
>>> A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
>>> in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
>>> North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.
>>
>> Long before the last of our troops left, the Demonrats cut funding to
>> the war and thousands of our soldiers died as a result of being over
>> there without any way to defend themselves.
>>
>>
>>> I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
>>> or the Democrats.
>>
>> Demonrats. When will they ever learn?
>>
>In all fairness, that was rank stupidity, not perfidy.
Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we
know it survives until then.
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>> Was the KoolAid at least chilled?
>
> Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this shit up all by
> myself.
>
> I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
> I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
> Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
> example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
> along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
> cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
> up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
> We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
> game in an imperfect world.
We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.
A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.
I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
or the Democrats.