54 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
It'll be impossible as long as neither side is interested
in passing a bill.
Neither is operating in good faith.
Neither gives a damn about their constituency, only their special interest groups financing them and their individual pet projects.
Changes I'd like to see in Congress:
1. Pay raises are put to a national vote. I don't get to give myself a raise; why should they, especially when they're paying themselves with our money?
2. Instead of a flat salary, they get paid by the vote. Any time a bill gets put to a vote, they get a certain amount of money. Doesn't matter if it's a yes/no vote (otherwise they'll be passing bills just to get paid for them).
3. $1,000 per day penalty for filibustering, out of the filibusterer's own pocket.
4. $1,000 per day penalty for every bill that has to sit on ice while they're on vacation.
5. Automatic expulsion for anyone voting based on politics and not the merits of the bill. Don't know how you'd prove or enforce that one, but I'd like to see it happen.
I bet there are other ideas...
A start but I don't see how it's practical
I don't want to pay them for voting just because a bill is up for it. What's to keep them from padding their wallets by just drafting more legislation? Do we really need to continually make new laws? In my house, the rule is nothing new is purchased until something of equal or greater volume is removed.
As for pay raises, let them tie any raises to the same criteria used for adjustments to Social Security payments. As well, I'd disallow any increase to 1st term representatives. Consider that their probationary period. I'd also like to add something we see in the private sector which decelerates raises once a person has been in the same job long enough that they are no longer growing in value. After so many terms, I'd want to see raises slow or stop.
If there's one law I'd want to see passed, it's that which forbids congress from excluding itself from adhering to any law imposed on the rest of us.
Not sure if you're aware
but the House had already cut their own budget by 11%.........and Bachmann just submitted a bill to take away the raise that BO gave them, including the raise BO gave to Biden. From what I've read BO did that on his own through another Executive Order and wasn't requested by either House.
That executive order....
....was for raises for Congress, federal employees AND the vice president, and the increases range from 1/2% to 1%.
The last time the presidential salary was increased was in 2000, when it was doubled from $200,000 to $400,000 just in time for Bush's first term. How fortunate for him.
I didn't say that BO got a raise too
I said that nobody had asked for it. BO did it on his own and Bachmann wants them all done away with.
I didn't mean to suggest that you did
I just threw that in as an aside.
While you're making a list
How about a rule that says every bill that comes from either house HAS to be put to a vote instead of jamming it into a leader's pocket constituting an automatic veto just because that leader doesn't like it?
as far as committees also
a bill is reported to the floor for a vote by a majority vote within the committee, not by the chairman choice alone.
Reid doesn't allow it to
even get to the floor........
as far as filibuster, first step is
make them stand up there and talk the entire time again, they're phoning it in like Steve Martin monologue on SNL
giv'em enough rope?
that's about what their job performance rates, hanging
Actually what kind of BS is that anyway
needing a majority of the majority party
meaning a minority of the members can vote down a bill, it's just like the committees stifling bills, something that's been complained about here enough.
Granted somethings, at least in the Senate require the "super majority" of 60%, but still that's allowing for the individual votes to count.
You require a majority of the majority, and you just disenfranchised every representative of the miniority party, and all their constituents. How does that fit in with any type of representation?
More BS and proof of how little politicians care about the people.
Boehner didn't present the "Plan B" bill up for a vote....he needed the "Hasserty Rule" of the majority of the majority party to vote for it and he didn't have enough votes.
and he knew he would not be speaker anymore
and probably won't if he ignores it this time. That probably meant more to him that just the existence of the precedent, since it is not law. Hopefully if they don't vote, all of them will lose their next election. I'm not conditioning it on passing it, but on allowing it be voted on and a roll call vote too, put them all on record. It may help some, it may hang some.
Still, this is a disenfrachisment rule, it means 51% of 51% can defeat anything.
Let's see, the Republicans won 55% of the house.
That means for the next 4 years, 28% of the House can stop any legislation. So out of 435 elected officials, 122 can kill a bill. That's a representative government, duh.
I know you'll point out about bills not being allowed out of committee, yeah, that sucks too, that should be by committee majority vote IMO, not one person.
It just proves they are not interested in representing their voters.
It just amazes me
though how easily Reid's pocket veto practice is always allowed to go unnoticed or unmentioned....He hasn't allowed a House bill up or down vote in a long time, including the House bill that solved all of this six months ago, and yet Pelosi comes out at the mike a few minutes ago and insists that the House should allow and up or down vote on the one that passed early this morning. It's disgusting to me.
I wonder if some of all this is a political fight
within the House Republicans started by some who want to replace Boehner? It certainly made him look weak and ineffectual when he proposed the "plan B" and had it shot down by his own party.
Probably an tea party cabel trying to seize the head position.
The House Reps are
already up in arms over the 'deal' calling for an additional $4 Trillion in spending over the next ten years......
So no surprise
and no surprise to me they don't care about what happens if they don't do something.
Maybe Boehner just wanted to hit the bars earlier than usual
I'd like to send them all out to bars
and keep them there. We'd be a lot better off I think.
This story is about as disgusting
that the one that the liberals spread about Romney killing that woman, seven years after a plant shutdown.
Actually the story I like best came out yesterday.......Boehner, after a lousy meeting with Reid, told Reid to "Go f... yourself"........Reid asked him what he said......so Boehner accommodated him by repeating it.
Why is it disgusting, Toni?
Are you saying it isn't true? Boehner's affinity for alcohol appears to be well-known on both sides of the aisle.
LOL, you worry more about
someone's alcohol consumption than guys cornholing each other, passing along HIV to their she-males?
What does Boehner's drinking have to do with AIDS? And do you even know what a she-male is?
Has to do with what worries you!
what do you think of Noah?
a righteous man who had too much drink, but still acted responsibly, and the one who tried to ridicule him because of it? Whose side was God on? Who was cursed?
I didn't know the man
I don't even know of any proof that he actually existed. The story is a fable, you know.
If Boehner ever tried to wrap Congressional business early so he could start drinking, then he was not doing his job.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)