In our fondest dreams ...

Page 1 of 9  
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.
Well ... we can dream.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, the infamous Swingman

I really like that concept. I think the growing trend is toward a vio^H^H^H overthrow, so I hope they sense it and straighten up, but I'm not betting any money on the greedy dickheads in office now.
P.S: #6 should say "loses" </nitpick>
-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

... snip of other good stuff
Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with the viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended. As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with their intent.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The current term limits at the Federal level are two, four, six years, and eight years. Any time the voting public desires to limit someone's term all they need do is vote for someone else. A President who makes it past his second election is limited by the constitution to two consecutive terms.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I feel that ALL elected officials should have just TWO terms: One as elected and one in prison for what the did in the former.
--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonny - I know you're just stirring a bucket of shit with that comment, but I have to say - it's probably the best comment to have appeared in this thread.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:39:06 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita

We tried that once and the fu^H^Hdickheads overturned our will. That should have been the day of reckoning for them, don't you think? <sigh>
-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Which is why I'd like to see an end to congressional elections. Instead, draw them by lot like a jury...one term and they are gone.
Yes, that would result in a number of them being thieves and/or dead heads. No different then now.
Go back to the original concept of a congressional session too; i.e., they are only in DC for the session, not full time. If they don't want to leave, shut down the air conditioning :)
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(snip)

The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the electorate vote during an election.
The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as defined.
It boggles my mind that people do not vote.
Larry C
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you actually want one of the people running for office.
Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we deserve someone we actually want?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2009 7:59 AM, Leon wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off the politicians and lobbyist.
This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
Sad, but true.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Totally agree!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote. That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 30, 7:45am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Don't think they give a shit about that.
One must be inCREDibly uninformed to have no concept of the true implications of the term "landed gentry."
And/or ... one must simply want to pretend they're running the Bush/ Cheney campaign, and work as hard as humanly possible to disallow votes from blocs that traditionally comprise Democrats.
Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?
Wow. Astounding.
Google "confirmation bias." Somebody needs to get out more ... and challenge some of their own fundamental, closely-held positions, from time to time.
To be crystal clear: these comments are NOT directed at Doug Miller.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2009 8:52 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:

Uh huh, just like ACORN did to get people like Dear Leader and Al "The Clown" Franken elected. Election fraud at some slight level has been with us for decades. It's smaller here than in other places, but it will never be zero. cf The JFK election.
What is interesting is that in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, even the Bush-Haters like the New York Times came to the conclusion that Bush did, indeed, win FL in 2000. This is unlike the case of ACORN for where there is overwhelming evidence that they are lying, cheating, and stealing on a massive repetitive scale.

You are deeply confused my friend. The "slaves" today, are the half the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any. The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years - be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The "slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
I say that the only "revolution" needed is for the half of us that are productive to go on strike for a few months - the moochers will be *begging* us to come back and support them. In the mean time we'll continue to see things like the "Homes For Ho's" programs of Barney "Ruble" Frank and his ilk destroying our economy, freedom, and future.

Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception I'd make is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd make a few more exceptions:
- the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral obligation to provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that inability should not disqualify them from voting
- the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working shouldn't cost a person the right to vote
- those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the military, e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the homeless, and so on
- the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net drain *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when considered over the entire span of their working lives
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 30, 1:15pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
undraware.com> wrote:

Scrap all of that.
How about a minimum IQ standard???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2009 2:19 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:

The Democrats would be through it you did that :P
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[snipped for brevity]

Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould, and I think you'll reconsider that suggestion. The *only* thing that IQ can be scientifically demonstrated to measure is performance on IQ tests. Nonetheless, it's been used in the past as a justification for some horrific acts of discrimination. Among other things, such discrimination resulted in perhaps millions of deaths in the first half of the 20th century, when vast numbers of people attempting to flee the carnage of WWII, and the destruction by deliberate famine of the Russian peasant class under Stalin[*], were not permitted to enter the United States because of harsh quotas imposed by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which severely limited the immigration of the supposedly congenitally intellectually "inferior" eastern and southern Europeans.
[*] "I Chose Freedom" by Viktor Kravchenko is a compelling eyewitness account of the horrors of Stalinist Russia. [Scribner, New York, 1946]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.