"Why is Congress so Disliked"---------
- Thread starter gyrafoam
- Start date
Congress has a 14% approval rating, and in less than two weeks we're going to re-elect the same two parties, and the exact same people back to Congress.
Why? This USA Today editorial is a perfect example. It spews a lot of absolute nonsense (e.g. "In truth, most members of Congress are dedicated public servants who work long hours and play by the rules", etc etc), and completely ignores the real problem:
America is comprised primarily of "Reagan Republicans" (small government fiscal conservatives) and "Reagan Democrats" (small government fiscal conservatives). And "neither" of these groups is represented by "either" party. We have just two choices: borrow-and-spend Republicans, or tax-and-spend Democrats, and the only people actually represented in Congress are corporate criminals and billionaires. And meanwhile, anyone who comes along to threaten this status quo is immediately marginalized and discredited by our major media. Ross Perot is psychotic, Ralph Nader is an environmentalist whacko, Ron Paul is a threat to our national security, etc etc.
IMO there's no solution to this problem except another revolution -- and I believe we'll see one within the next 20 years.
Why? This USA Today editorial is a perfect example. It spews a lot of absolute nonsense (e.g. "In truth, most members of Congress are dedicated public servants who work long hours and play by the rules", etc etc), and completely ignores the real problem:
America is comprised primarily of "Reagan Republicans" (small government fiscal conservatives) and "Reagan Democrats" (small government fiscal conservatives). And "neither" of these groups is represented by "either" party. We have just two choices: borrow-and-spend Republicans, or tax-and-spend Democrats, and the only people actually represented in Congress are corporate criminals and billionaires. And meanwhile, anyone who comes along to threaten this status quo is immediately marginalized and discredited by our major media. Ross Perot is psychotic, Ralph Nader is an environmentalist whacko, Ron Paul is a threat to our national security, etc etc.
IMO there's no solution to this problem except another revolution -- and I believe we'll see one within the next 20 years.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Revolution----its easy to say-----but-----
are you ready to lose your life over your principles?
When I was a lot younger, hot headed and much more idealistic------well, that was the Vietnam War era.
Now, its a different world. I wonder just how many Americans would be willing to die to change the government? The founding fathers gave us the right to "overthrow the government" and to "bear arms" ------so we could.
Of course, our current administration has thrown the Bill of Rights to the wind.
Just some thoughts.
I would agree that eventually something's 'gotta give.
are you ready to lose your life over your principles?
When I was a lot younger, hot headed and much more idealistic------well, that was the Vietnam War era.
Now, its a different world. I wonder just how many Americans would be willing to die to change the government? The founding fathers gave us the right to "overthrow the government" and to "bear arms" ------so we could.
Of course, our current administration has thrown the Bill of Rights to the wind.
Just some thoughts.
I would agree that eventually something's 'gotta give.
Steve, our founding fathers didn't give us the right to overthrow our government, they identified it as a self-evident truth in their Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I believe we are actually closer to "absolute Despotism" now in our government than our founding fathers were, 240 years ago.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I believe we are actually closer to "absolute Despotism" now in our government than our founding fathers were, 240 years ago.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Overthrow, alter, abolish, its all revolution already.
You get what I mean.
So what do you think----are Americans willing to die to make a change?
You get what I mean.
So what do you think----are Americans willing to die to make a change?
I've always interpreted "right to bear arms" to mean a #2 pencil and "revolution" to mean filling in the oval on a ballot for the candidate that is NOT the incumbent unless you have absolute assurance that they are working for your best interest.
Wield that graphite carefully, the revolution is at hand.
Wield that graphite carefully, the revolution is at hand.
Who would try and stop a revolution? You think Dick Cheney is going to order the U.S. army to start shelling our neighborhoods?
Take a lesson from the L.A. riots, or any other major uprising: if it's widespread enough, all government can do is step aside and get out of the people's way.
Take a lesson from the L.A. riots, or any other major uprising: if it's widespread enough, all government can do is step aside and get out of the people's way.
But violence is wholly unnecessary
Catch The ‘Wave’
Awash in money, the Dems may turn this into a party tsunami.
Eleanor Clift
NEWSWEEK
Seven million dollars a day: That's how much money the Obama campaign is raking in. Together with the eye-popping $150 million the campaign amassed in September, we are witnessing the equivalent of a collective scream from the voters. In the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling that declared political contributions are a form of speech, millions of donors to the Obama campaign are shouting that they're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
Absent is the usual tension over the allocation of resources that erupts among party leaders when tough decisions must be made. Democrats are awash in money and expecting big gains in Congress. Four years ago, party leaders were furious at John Kerry for husbanding his resources for a legal battle that never occurred. When Kerry conceded Ohio instead of mounting a challenge to the vote count, his campaign was left with a war chest that prompted bitter recriminations among Democrats.
Today Democrats are unified, their candidates are doing well even in red states, and Barack Obama is spreading the wealth. His campaign is spending money in media markets that haven't heard from a national Democrat in decades. Obama is not going to win Mississippi, but his campaign is spending a fortune on advertising in the state, and they're doing it for one reason: to help the first Democrat seriously in contention to win an open Senate seat in Mississippi since the pre-Civil Rights era.
Obama's expenditures in Georgia, where he probably won't win, and North Carolina, where he might, are turning two once-safe Republican seats into competitive contests. Republican icon Elizabeth Dole, who has fallen behind challenger Kay Hagan, is running ads warning the voters not to give the Democrats a blank check—a message that implicitly concedes the presidency to Obama. Georgia's Saxby Chambliss won his Senate seat six years ago by attacking the patriotism of Vietnam veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland. Now that the mood has turned, Chambliss is an especially inviting target for Democrats eager for payback.
"Saturday Night Live" alumnus Al Franken's bid for a Senate seat in Minnesota seemed like a joke in early September, when Republicans gathered for their convention in St. Paul. Now he's built a small lead against GOP incumbent Norm Coleman, who is touring the state in what he calls the Hope Express, an Obama knockoff. In another nod to Obama and the core message of his campaign to end partisan rancor, Coleman pulled his negative ads, a nice gesture but one that comes so late in the campaign that it's easy to dismiss as a stunt.
Democrats are eyeing 75 "opportunity seats" in the House of Representatives. They won't win them all, but a 25-seat pickup is possible. (The current lineup is 235 Democrats; 199 Republicans; 0 Independents; 1 Vacancies.) Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that she suspects Obama harbors "anti-American views" and called on the media to investigate Democrats in the Congress who might be fellow travelers, has seen her once-safe seat become competitive. Bachman seemed unaware of the historical echoes from the McCarthy era, when charges of being a communist sympathizer destroyed lives and careers. Her baseless charges generated an immediate backlash. Overnight, her opponent raised a million dollars, and the Cook Political Report, a bipartisan ratings guide, now calls the race a toss-up.
At a breakfast with reporters Friday morning, Democratic strategist James Carville urged the assembled to look around, and remember how everything looked today. "Nothing will be the same" after Election Day, Carville suggested. "This place is going to get hit" with political change on a scale folks haven't seen before. Carville is given to hyperbole, but he and his sidekick from the Clinton era, pollster Stan Greenberg, produced numbers and charts and scenarios to back up their prediction that Washington's ruling class is about to undergo massive political upheaval. Obama is pulling away in the national polls, and the McCain-Palin ticket is cratering with independents—a group of voters John McCain used to own, back before the word "maverick" was more than a punch line.
To understand the scale of what's happening, Greenberg cited numbers that show Obama winning the tax argument over Joe the Plumber, eroding one of the last vestiges of Republican dominance—the ability to effectively paint Democrats as big tax-and-spenders. McCain's admission that he would tax employer health benefits has made a bigger impact on voters than Obama's remark that he wanted to spread the wealth.
The country seems poised for another "wave" election, where the close seats fall in one direction. "We've not had a leader elected in this kind of environment in our lifetime," said Greenberg. You have to go back to 1930 and 1932 to see two wave elections in a row. At the National Press Club, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was asked what would happen if the Democrats "only" picked up seven seats, and fell short of the nine they would need for a filibuster-proof Senate. (The Dems currently have 49 seats plus two independents that caucus with them). "Only seven seats!" Schumer exclaimed. "We haven't had that many seats since 1979!"
Surely Schumer has not forgotten the election of 1980, in which Ronald Reagan won the White House, brought his own wave of Republican senators with him—and help usher in an era of conservative reign that is only now in danger of winding down. That serves as a timely reminder that what voters give, they can just as easily take away.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165507
Catch The ‘Wave’
Awash in money, the Dems may turn this into a party tsunami.
Eleanor Clift
NEWSWEEK
Seven million dollars a day: That's how much money the Obama campaign is raking in. Together with the eye-popping $150 million the campaign amassed in September, we are witnessing the equivalent of a collective scream from the voters. In the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling that declared political contributions are a form of speech, millions of donors to the Obama campaign are shouting that they're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
Absent is the usual tension over the allocation of resources that erupts among party leaders when tough decisions must be made. Democrats are awash in money and expecting big gains in Congress. Four years ago, party leaders were furious at John Kerry for husbanding his resources for a legal battle that never occurred. When Kerry conceded Ohio instead of mounting a challenge to the vote count, his campaign was left with a war chest that prompted bitter recriminations among Democrats.
Today Democrats are unified, their candidates are doing well even in red states, and Barack Obama is spreading the wealth. His campaign is spending money in media markets that haven't heard from a national Democrat in decades. Obama is not going to win Mississippi, but his campaign is spending a fortune on advertising in the state, and they're doing it for one reason: to help the first Democrat seriously in contention to win an open Senate seat in Mississippi since the pre-Civil Rights era.
Obama's expenditures in Georgia, where he probably won't win, and North Carolina, where he might, are turning two once-safe Republican seats into competitive contests. Republican icon Elizabeth Dole, who has fallen behind challenger Kay Hagan, is running ads warning the voters not to give the Democrats a blank check—a message that implicitly concedes the presidency to Obama. Georgia's Saxby Chambliss won his Senate seat six years ago by attacking the patriotism of Vietnam veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland. Now that the mood has turned, Chambliss is an especially inviting target for Democrats eager for payback.
"Saturday Night Live" alumnus Al Franken's bid for a Senate seat in Minnesota seemed like a joke in early September, when Republicans gathered for their convention in St. Paul. Now he's built a small lead against GOP incumbent Norm Coleman, who is touring the state in what he calls the Hope Express, an Obama knockoff. In another nod to Obama and the core message of his campaign to end partisan rancor, Coleman pulled his negative ads, a nice gesture but one that comes so late in the campaign that it's easy to dismiss as a stunt.
Democrats are eyeing 75 "opportunity seats" in the House of Representatives. They won't win them all, but a 25-seat pickup is possible. (The current lineup is 235 Democrats; 199 Republicans; 0 Independents; 1 Vacancies.) Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that she suspects Obama harbors "anti-American views" and called on the media to investigate Democrats in the Congress who might be fellow travelers, has seen her once-safe seat become competitive. Bachman seemed unaware of the historical echoes from the McCarthy era, when charges of being a communist sympathizer destroyed lives and careers. Her baseless charges generated an immediate backlash. Overnight, her opponent raised a million dollars, and the Cook Political Report, a bipartisan ratings guide, now calls the race a toss-up.
At a breakfast with reporters Friday morning, Democratic strategist James Carville urged the assembled to look around, and remember how everything looked today. "Nothing will be the same" after Election Day, Carville suggested. "This place is going to get hit" with political change on a scale folks haven't seen before. Carville is given to hyperbole, but he and his sidekick from the Clinton era, pollster Stan Greenberg, produced numbers and charts and scenarios to back up their prediction that Washington's ruling class is about to undergo massive political upheaval. Obama is pulling away in the national polls, and the McCain-Palin ticket is cratering with independents—a group of voters John McCain used to own, back before the word "maverick" was more than a punch line.
To understand the scale of what's happening, Greenberg cited numbers that show Obama winning the tax argument over Joe the Plumber, eroding one of the last vestiges of Republican dominance—the ability to effectively paint Democrats as big tax-and-spenders. McCain's admission that he would tax employer health benefits has made a bigger impact on voters than Obama's remark that he wanted to spread the wealth.
The country seems poised for another "wave" election, where the close seats fall in one direction. "We've not had a leader elected in this kind of environment in our lifetime," said Greenberg. You have to go back to 1930 and 1932 to see two wave elections in a row. At the National Press Club, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was asked what would happen if the Democrats "only" picked up seven seats, and fell short of the nine they would need for a filibuster-proof Senate. (The Dems currently have 49 seats plus two independents that caucus with them). "Only seven seats!" Schumer exclaimed. "We haven't had that many seats since 1979!"
Surely Schumer has not forgotten the election of 1980, in which Ronald Reagan won the White House, brought his own wave of Republican senators with him—and help usher in an era of conservative reign that is only now in danger of winding down. That serves as a timely reminder that what voters give, they can just as easily take away.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165507
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Jeff, you are evidently too young to remember the DNC in Chicago or the Kent State U. shootings.
Oh yeah, they will order us shot.
Oh yeah, they will order us shot.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Jeff, just for the sake of argument, if you really remembered the impact of the two incidents I referenced you would not possibly have made the statement you just did.
Just how old were you? Profile shows you born in '62.
Just how old were you? Profile shows you born in '62.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
And on a lighter note-----
The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/obama_purchases_ad_space_on
The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/obama_purchases_ad_space_on
I was 6 and 8 during those two events. Not sure what point you're trying to make. I distinctly remember them, both were limited to small areas (the DNC, and Kent State University) and were easily contained by local police and a few dozen national guard.
The same was NOT true in the L.A. riots. I know because I was living there at the time. Law enforcement headed for the hills for a few days, and waited for the people to start calming down before they even attempted to interfere.
The same was NOT true in the L.A. riots. I know because I was living there at the time. Law enforcement headed for the hills for a few days, and waited for the people to start calming down before they even attempted to interfere.
twinniefan
Well-known member
Australian Parliaments not much better
I have just been reading a few of your posts about this topic folks,and unfortunately Australian Parliaments are not much better, in fact they may possibly be worse than your Congress.
I understand that your Congress members and Senators do not necessarliy follow party lines when they vote on different bills and such(please correct me if I am mistaken on this.),however here in Australia we have the problem that our M.P.'S vote on party lines on almost every issue which comes up,I note someone here mentioned fillibusters in your Senate well consider this down here we have the exact opposite, Governments on both persuasions use their numbers in Parliament to ram thier agenda through via the use of the gag motion and the guillotine motion.
The gag means that the Goverrnment use their numbers to silence Oppositon M.P.'S from speaking on issues and the guillotine is when they again use their numbers to force an instant vote on what the Government wants to happen.
I believe I was not even alive when the last successful motion of no-confidence was passed in a federal Australian Government, and I am 44 years old,some constitutional experts say that we actually have an elected dictatorship via parliamentary numbers not a real democaracy, I find myself agreeing with them.
Just a few days ago we had the almost scary scence when the federal Labor Government tried to use their majority to FORCE the Leader of The Opposition to comdemn members of his own party over various public speeches which they made,sounds just like Stalin's Russia.
Perhaps the solution is to change our voting system to proportional representation voting to stop either the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition from getting large majorities.
I would be interested in other views on this,any opinions people?
Cheers.
Steve.
I have just been reading a few of your posts about this topic folks,and unfortunately Australian Parliaments are not much better, in fact they may possibly be worse than your Congress.
I understand that your Congress members and Senators do not necessarliy follow party lines when they vote on different bills and such(please correct me if I am mistaken on this.),however here in Australia we have the problem that our M.P.'S vote on party lines on almost every issue which comes up,I note someone here mentioned fillibusters in your Senate well consider this down here we have the exact opposite, Governments on both persuasions use their numbers in Parliament to ram thier agenda through via the use of the gag motion and the guillotine motion.
The gag means that the Goverrnment use their numbers to silence Oppositon M.P.'S from speaking on issues and the guillotine is when they again use their numbers to force an instant vote on what the Government wants to happen.
I believe I was not even alive when the last successful motion of no-confidence was passed in a federal Australian Government, and I am 44 years old,some constitutional experts say that we actually have an elected dictatorship via parliamentary numbers not a real democaracy, I find myself agreeing with them.
Just a few days ago we had the almost scary scence when the federal Labor Government tried to use their majority to FORCE the Leader of The Opposition to comdemn members of his own party over various public speeches which they made,sounds just like Stalin's Russia.
Perhaps the solution is to change our voting system to proportional representation voting to stop either the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition from getting large majorities.
I would be interested in other views on this,any opinions people?
Cheers.
Steve.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Steve---
That does sound like an irritating situation. I guess it has just become too much to expect that governments should work FOR the people and not against.
IMO we really do need a strong third and/or fourth party system here in America. The "Independent" and "Libertarian" party candidates are usually late out of the starting gate and never taken seriously. IMO neither of the two existing major parties really represents "We the People" any more. Its all about special interests and of course the individual politician's career aspirations. I get so tired of having to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Also, since our media (both television and newspapers) are controlled by companies deeply embedded in government interests, we can't get them to properly inform us either. The media used to be a good check and balance for us. Not any more. For instance, GE (a major government contractor, in particular the military) owns NBC, Murdoch owns Fox News, etc. All of the major networks are owned by "conservatives" but spew "liberal bias" lies about each other to confuse the public. We can't get "just the facts" anymore.
Pres. Eisenhower once warned us about the Pentagon taking over our government and I believe that is exactly what happened on 9/11. I still remember Bush's "deer-in-headlights" speech on the evening of 9/11. They kicked him to the curb, gave him a bad 'spankin, and he has done what he has been told ever since. Will we ever know what role Darth Cheney our (supposed) Vice-President has played in all of this? Likely not.
The last few debates, the televised media did not even attempt to allow other parties candidates to participate,AND the American public did not even notice!!!! They should have screamed bloody murder!!! I know I did!!!!!
Our Congress has been controlled by one majority or another rather than a good balance.Our system of checks and balances has been seriously disrupted. It's the laws of physics. For every action there is a re-action. The stronger the action the stronger the re-action. When Pres. Clinton was in office we had a Republican Majority in congress----and the Democrats rolled-over and played dead. Now that it looks as if we are headed for a vastly Democratic Majority, the Republicans are screaming bloody murder---as usual----and it remains to be seen how well the Democrats perform. We need everybody to work together for the common cause, but who knows how many more election cycles it will take to get a "moderate" government?
The Republicans did a great job of dividing this country and now no one will work together.
You can see how divided we have become just by reading our different opinions here on this website!
Crazy!
That does sound like an irritating situation. I guess it has just become too much to expect that governments should work FOR the people and not against.
IMO we really do need a strong third and/or fourth party system here in America. The "Independent" and "Libertarian" party candidates are usually late out of the starting gate and never taken seriously. IMO neither of the two existing major parties really represents "We the People" any more. Its all about special interests and of course the individual politician's career aspirations. I get so tired of having to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Also, since our media (both television and newspapers) are controlled by companies deeply embedded in government interests, we can't get them to properly inform us either. The media used to be a good check and balance for us. Not any more. For instance, GE (a major government contractor, in particular the military) owns NBC, Murdoch owns Fox News, etc. All of the major networks are owned by "conservatives" but spew "liberal bias" lies about each other to confuse the public. We can't get "just the facts" anymore.
Pres. Eisenhower once warned us about the Pentagon taking over our government and I believe that is exactly what happened on 9/11. I still remember Bush's "deer-in-headlights" speech on the evening of 9/11. They kicked him to the curb, gave him a bad 'spankin, and he has done what he has been told ever since. Will we ever know what role Darth Cheney our (supposed) Vice-President has played in all of this? Likely not.
The last few debates, the televised media did not even attempt to allow other parties candidates to participate,AND the American public did not even notice!!!! They should have screamed bloody murder!!! I know I did!!!!!
Our Congress has been controlled by one majority or another rather than a good balance.Our system of checks and balances has been seriously disrupted. It's the laws of physics. For every action there is a re-action. The stronger the action the stronger the re-action. When Pres. Clinton was in office we had a Republican Majority in congress----and the Democrats rolled-over and played dead. Now that it looks as if we are headed for a vastly Democratic Majority, the Republicans are screaming bloody murder---as usual----and it remains to be seen how well the Democrats perform. We need everybody to work together for the common cause, but who knows how many more election cycles it will take to get a "moderate" government?
The Republicans did a great job of dividing this country and now no one will work together.
You can see how divided we have become just by reading our different opinions here on this website!
Crazy!
panthera
Well-known member
comment on trust from Slate
I thought this was ironic enough to bring a smile or two to this depressing thread:
A 2006 Harris poll found that only 18 percent of Americans trust attorneys completely. That's a sad and unfair reflection on the contempt we feel for the profession in this day and age. One can't help but wonder what it says about public confidence in our voting systems, then, that despite our almost complete lack of faith in them, we will rely almost exclusively on lawyers to protect the integrity of this election.
http://www.slate.com/id/2202777/
I thought this was ironic enough to bring a smile or two to this depressing thread:
A 2006 Harris poll found that only 18 percent of Americans trust attorneys completely. That's a sad and unfair reflection on the contempt we feel for the profession in this day and age. One can't help but wonder what it says about public confidence in our voting systems, then, that despite our almost complete lack of faith in them, we will rely almost exclusively on lawyers to protect the integrity of this election.
http://www.slate.com/id/2202777/
> Pres. Eisenhower once warned us about the Pentagon taking over our government and I believe that is exactly what happened on 9/11. <
Actually it happened not long after Eisenhower's speech in January 1961. The assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963 marked the end of civilian rule in the United States. The military-industrial complex was installed as our permanent (albeit shadow) government, and it's been that way ever since.
Actually it happened not long after Eisenhower's speech in January 1961. The assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963 marked the end of civilian rule in the United States. The military-industrial complex was installed as our permanent (albeit shadow) government, and it's been that way ever since.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
How Many Cycle Defrost Refrigerators Exist?
- Latest: turbokinetic
-
Matchbox Hoover suspension help- Latest: Frigidaire Deluxe
Sponsored
