Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Direct Democracy — Why the American People must disband Congress

Mike Adams
Natural News
November 9, 2009

Given that the massive health care reform bill just passed by the House was one of the largest pieces of legislation in U.S. history, you might wonder why you didn’t get to vote on it. When it comes to federal legislation, your vote doesn’t count in America, didn’t you know? You are dictated to by a small band of the political elite who may or may not represent your interests (or even the interests of your fellow citizens).

Those people are called members of Congress. And as you’ll read here, they are essentially obsolete. Society no longer has any need for them. Here’s why…

Why Congress was created

Consider why the U.S. Congress was created in the first place: Back in the 1700s, there was no internet. There weren’t even telephones. Heck, this was pre-telegraph! Long-distance communication was simply impossible, so the people had a very practical need to send a representative to Washington to represent their wishes on the legislative front.

And so the idea of the U.S. Congress was born. Senators and Congresspeople would be representatives of the People from their home states and districts, and they would vote according to the wishes, desires and best interests of the people back home. They would essentially be proxy voters. Sounds good in theory, right?

Fast forward 230 years or so…

Now, instant communication is available to almost everyone. A new law being proposed in Washington could be instantly read — and voted on — by the People all across America. The internet has made the whole purpose behind the U.S. Congress obsolete… irrelevant. Why do Americans need someone else to represent them when we can all just read and vote on the bills ourselves? In an age of instant communications, Congress is no longer needed.

But of course, the current members of Congress would heartily disagree with that assessment. If there’s one rule about power, it’s that those in power always seek more power. And because only members of Congress can vote federal laws into existence — not the actual citizens of the country — they hold a tremendous amount of concentrated power… and they’re not about to let it go.

Corporations love the current system, too, because they can simply bypass the People and lobby Congress to pass the laws that favor their own interests. This is how the U.S. Congress has become a legislative auction house where new laws are passed to appease whoever raises more money for reelection campaigns. Meanwhile, the People have been abandoned in this equation, and the interests of the People that were supposed to be “represented” in Washington have been long forgotten.

Did you realize that 237 members of Congress are millionaires? Report: 237 millionaires in Congress - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html) And seven of them have a net worth greater than $100 million. When lawmakers are rolling in that kind of cash, how can they possibly represent the interests of the People, of which 99% earn far less?

Further demonstrating detachment from the people they claim to represent, one new Congressman — just sworn in yesterday — managed to break four campaign promises in his first hours of office (http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/inde… (http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7623:owens-to-break-campaign-promises&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175)).

It’s time for Direct Democracy

In a Direct Democracy, the People directly participate in the debate and passage of new laws. All laws are publicly published for debate and discussion — unlike the current situation where 1,000-page laws like the Patriot Act or the new health care reform bill are covertly written, then often deposited in the federal register just minutes before a scheduled vote.

Today, we have a system of “ambush lawmaking” going on in Congress where even the members of Congress voting on the laws have little time to read the bills (much less understand them). In a Direct Democracy, however, all proposed laws are posted publicly so that the People can read them, debate them and vote on them.

After all, if the whole point of the U.S. Congress was to represent the votes of the People, in an age where people can now vote directly thanks to internet technology, shouldn’t the U.S. Congress step aside and just let the People vote for themselves?

How to disband Congress and give power back to the People

Disbanding the U.S. Congress would, of course, require a Constitutional amendment. That is extremely unlikely to happen, given that such an amendment requires an approval of the majority of U.S. states (and existing members of Congress happen to be quite influential in their home states). So to disband Congress, you’d have to convince hundreds of power-hungry people to vote themselves out of power. The odds against that happening are astronomical.

The other option is to just wait for the current U.S. system to collapse, and then replace it with a form of Direct Democracy that makes more sense. This is the more likely scenario, and it may be closer than you think: The financial blowout of America is well under way, and it’s only a matter of time before unbridled debt spending leads to runaway inflation and the disastrous demise of the dollar. The passage of the $1 trillion health care bill, in fact, will accelerate America towards financial collapse.

Within a few short years, there may be an opportunity to “reboot America” and create a smarter society to replace the corrupt, outmoded system of government that’s failing the American people right now. I support the idea of a Direct Democracy that eliminates the entire U.S. Congress. Of course, there would need to be some sort of process for deciding which proposed laws get put on the public website for discussion and voting, but even that process can be crowd-sourced to some degree.

It’s time to decentralize power in Washington and distribute it back to the People. In one sense, it’s the most politically progressive idea yet proposed, but at the same time, it’s also about preserving personal freedom, liberty and responsibility. So it appeals both to progressives and conservatives (Libertarians, too).

The point is, it’s time to give back to the American people the power they once granted to their representatives out of practical necessity. Besides, the People can do a far better job debating and voting on proposed laws than the U.S. Congress ever did. Many of the comments I’ve read about the health care bill on discussions boards are far more intelligent than the debate that took place in the House. The People deserve the right to directly vote on laws that deeply impact their lives and finances.

After all, if the United States is supposed to be a government of the People, by the People and for the People, then why not let the laws be directly voted on by the People?

We the People don’t need Senators and Congresspeople to make our decisions for us. What we need is the freedom to vote for ourselves. If we continue to allow Congress to make our decisions for us, they will drive America into the dirt, leaving us all penniless, diseased and neck-deep in debt. (Actually, we’re sort of there already…)

Congress promises freedom but delivers financial slavery. It promises to take care of us but then it sells us out to the corporations. Congress puts the corporations first and the people last, and it’s time to advance to a better form of Democracy where individual participation in our democratic lawmaking process is the norm.

Now, I know what the main critics of this idea will say: “The People aren’t qualified to vote on legislation!” It’s a fair question. But I answer, “Are the members of Congress any better qualified?” I’m willing to bet that not 1 out of 5 members of Congress can even cite the Bill of Rights ( United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%20States%20Bill%20of%20Rights)). They are nutritionally illiterate. They almost universally have little or no knowledge of the banking system or how the Federal Reserve really works. How are they any more qualified to vote on health care than you or I?

Truth is, they aren’t. The hard-working, tax-paying people of the United States of America could do a much better job voting on legislative bills than members of Congress.

Congress has become a big part of what’s wrong with America today. Disbanding Congress and invoking a Direct Democracy might be the only remaining way to save America from destruction at the hands of greedy corporations, powerful lobbyists and contemptible Congresspeople.

Oh sure, let's throw out the constitution when people don't do what we want. I wonder what this guy's solution will be when a direct democracy doesn't do what he wants?

Mike Adams
Natural News
November 9, 2009


Does this mean he does his reporting nude?

But seriously, we should have term limits for Congress and the Senate. Let's be honest, most people vote the incumbent just because he's already there. I mean, God had to finally croak Ted Kennedy because even HE thought we let it go too long.

Oh sure, let's throw out the constitution when people don't do what we want. I wonder what this guy's solution will be when a direct democracy doesn't do what he wants?

Read the entire article. It says it HAS to be done by an Amendment, which is in line with the Constitution.

I for one agree 100% with direct democracy. Idiots vote whether its DD or represented democracy, so there will be no difference except:

1) Bills WILL be read before they are voted on.

2) Having a DD ensures that no bills are snuck through at the last minute.

3) The will of the PEOPLE would be done, balanced by the Judicial system, as it was meant to be.

4) The Government would return to a role where it works for the people, not for itself.

5) It would eliminate, or at a minimum drastically reduce, the influence of special interest groups that hinder the growth and stability of our nation.

In this instance, the author has it spot on. The original intent of Congress WAS representation due to distance and communication issues. In this day and age, those are no longer issues.

And its hard for anyone to argue that Congress is operating outside the mandates of the Constitution. Even Pelosi, when cornered and asked where she found the authorization in the Constitution to push the Healthcare bill, said "Are you serious?" Tell me, does that sound like someone who is taking their Oath of Office seriously? How many of the 218 people that voted yea on the bill actually took the time to read it or even better, took the time to listen to their constituents when they said "NO! We don't want it!"?

I can think of only 1 person in Congress that is upholding their oath, reading bills, listening to the citizens, and has America's best interests at heart - Ron Paul. Everyone else is perverting their oath for professional advancement at the cost of the Constitution and American Citizens.

Every member of Congress (with the possible exception of one or two appointed to fill a term) was elected by people within a distinct geographical area. That congressman had better represent the interest of the majority of the people in that area or they won't be reelected.

As you said, the same people that elected these clowns are going to be voting pretty much the same way their congressmen voted. Maybe you have the time and inclination to read every bill that comes down the pike and vote on it, but most people are out there busting their asses trying to make a living. They aren't going to read that stuff, much less vote. The only people paying any attention to it are zealots from both sides. That's simply human nature.

I don't like this health care bill either, but a lot of people do. I realize that the extremes of both political spectrums believe the other should STFU, but it ain't gonna happen. I'm sure some form of the bill will pass, probably not what the House passed though. But most Americans want some sort of reform. And since I'm a believer in the power of the majority and not some little tyrants who believe they know what's best for everyone else, I'm willing to bow to that majority.

As far as procedures, etc., when the American people get fed up with what's happening, they'll do something about it. That's the nature of a free country.

But seriously, we should have term limits for Congress and the Senate. Let's be honest, most people vote the incumbent just because he's already there. I mean, God had to finally croak Ted Kennedy because even HE thought we let it go too long.

Oregon passed term limits for all state and local officials and it works pretty good. Although most run for another office when they hit their limitation and because of name familiarity, they get elected there too.

I agree totally with doing it to Congress, but it'll never happen. It took a state referendum to get it here and we don't have national ones.

I agree with some of the basic premises he's come out with, but I've got some problems with the nuts-and-bolts of it.

An Internet-based voting system would be rife with problems. How could we verify who was voting for who? To me, the technology isn't secure enough to support such a system. Hell, the law hasn't kept up enough with technology to prosecute people for crimes committed via the 'Net in many cases. Jurisdiction issues haven't been fully decided with any degree of surety.

What about Congressional oversight of things like Intelligence? Do we really want the entire populace knowing about or voting on intelligence operations? There are things the government has to do that I don't need to know about... The trouble is, somebody or group outside the executive branch needs to oversee this stuff, otherwise abuse is inevitable.

At this point in time, term limits are our best option. Four terms for the House, three terms in the Senate. If you held a seat in either, you would be ineligible for election to the other. In other words, a Senator who reaches his limit would be ineligible to run for a House seat and vice versa. I'd like to see Senate terms reduced to four years instead of six for a maximum of twelve years, and would also vote for making congressional elections "off year", or opposite from the years of presidential election.

I forgot something... who would be eligible to introduce new legislation under such a system? Anybody?

Can you imagine a direct democracy system that would allow 300,000,000 citizens to introduce new laws on their own and require 300,000,000 million people to vote on each new piece? Talk about instant and total paralysis.

I was at a local County Republican meeting last evening to support their passing of a censure of Lyndsey Graham.

I really believe that term limits would solve a lot of the crap going on.

Until our state Legislature presents a Bill this Spring, we have no way of recalling him.

I was bending some ears of candidates for Lt. & Governor in the next Primaries.

It turns out a pretty good former County Councilman who has gone into State Legislature is running for Lt. Governor. He apparently remembered me from when I had my neck broken protecting his County.

Did anyone here know that the Republicans have a "Creed"?


The Republican Creed

I do not choose to be a common man.

It is my right to be uncommon.

If I can seek opportunity, not security,

I want to take the calculated risk to dream and

build, to fail and to succeed.

I refused to barter incentive for dole.

I prefer the challenges of life to

guaranteed security, the thrill of fulfillment

to the state of calm utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence,

nor my dignity for a handout.

I will never cower before any master,

save my God.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and

unafraid. To think and act for myself, enjoy the

benefit of my creations; to face the whole world

boldly and say, "I am a free American."

There are too many that have forgotten what this means.

I would like to see us be able to introduce voter initiatives to be voted on like some states (Oregon included). All of our tax limitation laws, minimum sentencing laws, etc came from citizen referendums, not anything out of the legislature.

I like it in principle. Practical application would be a bit hinky to work out at first. I could see Senators and Congresspeople reassigned to their respective states and facilitate the voting process or overseeing their bills and recruiting people to vote. You'd still have grassroots organizations and lobby groups, but it would be much more difficult to sway the entire nation rather than line the pockets of several dozen Congresspeople.

I still think a huge problem would be apathy. The argument that Congress is now outmoded because of technology doesn't cut it. As I told Taz, a huge percentage of the country don't have the time nor the inclination to read all the legislation that they would be voting on. Yeah, some hot button issues, but a lot of that other stuff is important too. Besides, trying to read that **** is like reading Greek anyway. It takes someone working more or less full time with a staff to do their job. Some guy coming home from working hard all day simply can't do much of a job of sifting through all the acts that are required to keep the nation running. The only people doing it are going to be the zealots on each side of every issue.

And hell, a good many Americans don't know the name of their own Congressman. In fact, it's been shown time and again that a lot, and I mean a lot of people who are voting are horribly uninformed on what and who they're voting for. Having them vote for representatives is bad enough, having them vote on specific legislation is really scary.

Besides, this whole idea was raised merely because of the health care bill in Congress. How do you know that it wouldn't pass if it was voted on by everyone? The public option, etc. is being pushed by Congressmen who feel they are representing the wishes of their constituents and they may well be right. I don't like the health care bill at all, but that doesn't mean because some people are being vocal about that the majority of Americans don't want something like it passed.

Most voters don't do any serious research when deciding which Presidential candidate to vote for; why would we expect them to do any better for every piece of legislation that is introduced?

For example, say the AARP doesn't like a particular bill. All it takes is for them to send out a massive email to people who wouldn't ordinarily vote to sink that legislation, unless of course, the opposing camp does the same.

The only logical thing to do then would be to designate certain people from each community to research the bills and make an informed decision, voting for us according to our principles. And that leads us back to the Republican form of government.

What we need to do is to evaluate methods in which Congressmen are forced to remain subject to their constituents and to make sure they stay true to their principles.

One possible method would be term limits. This was argued about back in the early days, and almost put in place back then. A Constitutional Amendment would be tough to put in place, especially these days, when big changes are rare.

One other gripe this guy has is the fact that so many people in Congress are millionaires. Again, he needs to read history. About the only Founding Father that wasn't wealthy was Samuel Adams. Powerful people are almost always the ones who end up running any country. And having money is just one of those ways to get power. Being rich isn't much indicator of a person's character one way or the other. I've known some wealthy people who were just as big a jerks as some poor. A good friend of mine is a multimillionaire who is one of the kindest men I know.

Several years ago, I got on a kick of reading early American history. You have to be pretty naive to believe Congress is more corrupt today.:wow: In fact, since JFK, the media has quit giving politicians a free ride and we know more about individuals than we ever did in the past. The term lobbyist was coined during Grant's administration and that was long before electronic anything.

Frankly, I think we have a better handle on Congress now than we ever have. The problem is, as greenlead said, "Most voters don't do any serious research when deciding which Presidential candidate to vote for; why would we expect them to do any better for every piece of legislation that is introduced?" They do the same when they vote for members of Congress.

But I do have to say too, Oregon congressmen pretty much represent the views of their respective districts. Mine is a screaming liberal, I've agreed with maybe 12 of his votes since he's been in office. But this is a liberal part of the state and he votes the way the majority of the people here like. The fact I disagree with him doesn't mean he's not doing the job he was elected to do.

I have to give him credit though, even though I've always been a registered Republican, I've called on him for help a couple of times and his office has responded like gangbusters...

The part that seems to be the problem is that, like in retdetsgt's situation, the elected may not specifically represent you if they're from another party or have opposing viewpoints. For instance, my representative is a hispanic Democrat who's views on literally all the "hot button" topics are completely opposite of mine. Needless to say, while he's the elected representative for this district, he does NOT represent my views on Capitol Hill. The only way my voice makes it to Washington D.C. is if I travel there myself to speak, or join groups specifically aligned to my beliefs ala the NRA.

I guess, in the end, it seems a direct democracy would really make it feel like your vote actually counts.

I guess, in the end, it seems a direct democracy would really make it feel like your vote actually counts.

True, but at the end of the day, if your Congressman is representing the views of majority of the people in the district, the end result will be the same. As I said earlier, if a member of Congress isn't doing that, they won't hold that office long.

A Republican wouldn't have a chance in hell of being elected to my district. He wouldn't be representing the will of the majority of the people who live here. Same in the Eastern Oregon district, most people living there are conservative and always elect a Republican.

That's why I think it works out in the end that Congress does represent the majority of Americans. It's too bad that my views aren't usually in that majority.:nonod: But that's why I don't think that even in theory that a direct democracy would change the direction of the country.

Right now, I'm grateful for the Senate. It looks like at least a little bit of sanity will prevail there.

How many people here are truly and actually represented? How many people here have had THEIR voice heard about pending legislation?

The transition would actually be easy. All Representatives and Senators would be recalled to their home state. From there, with the advent of email and phones, all business could be conducted. Bills would still be introduced by each elected Representative and placed on the website for preliminary votes by the People. If a majority agree with the bill, it then goes to all members of Congress for a final vote.

Bills would be laid out just as they are during regular elections, with a synopsis of the bill. It would remain up for 30 days for review and voting.

How to make internet voting secure? Easy. SecurID (http://www.rsa.com/node.aspx?id=1156). I've used one for years for access to secure servers. Each voting adult is issued one (read more jobs in each State), and uses it to log onto the server to read the bills and vote. Will everyone do it? No. But it would give more people a chance to be heard in relation to new legislation.

Finally, it would put the elected Representative back where they belong...accessible to the public, and more importantly, accountable. Its easy to deflect criticism and inquisitions when you are thousands of miles away, but when an individual can make an appointment and see them face to face, well, that changes everything. They HEAR the people, and can't be as easily ignored.

Congress has become a central government unto itself, with no means of checks and balances to the PEOPLE. They do not fear the people, which gives them free reign to do as they please. When was the last time someone from Congress was recalled due to not doing the will of the people? It doesn't happen.

How many people here are truly and actually represented? How many people here have had THEIR voice heard about pending legislation?



Everyone has the power to write their representative and senator to express their views. If enough people write, the representative had better listen.

As I continue to repeat, if a representative isn't following the views of MOST of their constituents, they won't be in office the next election. Just because we don't agree with what's happening in Congress doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. If you're looking for a remedy to having bills passed you don't agree with, I seriously doubt this is the answer. Just because the fact you don't agree with your representative doesn't mean he isn't speaking for the majority of the people in your district. I seriously doubt the outcome of many bills would be changed one iota if the were voted on by those willing to do so.

And to say not everyone would read the bill is a gross understatement. Very few would. That's why people elect others to do that for them, they have more to do than to sit and read all the bills that go through Congress. It's not that often a bill goes through Congress that 90% of the people care about anyway.

If you don't think people can elect representatives that speak for them, why do you think they would do better in voting on legislation?

You're very passionate about politics. Not that many people are and if they aren't, a direct democracy won't work.

As I said earlier, if a member of Congress isn't doing that, they won't hold that office long.
Still, you're left with someone who isn't representing you and won't be gotten rid of until maybe the next election which is years away. I'd personally prefer to cast my own vote and not count on someone else to do it for me.

That's why I think it works out in the end that Congress does represent the majority of Americans. But that's why I don't think that even in theory that a direct democracy would change the direction of the country.
In my district, my rep also represents the views of illegal immigrants. As another example, look at Joe Arpaio. Thousands upon thousands of people attack him and his policies, but he still gets voted into office every term. If he had to be elected through proxy votes or anything besides total votes, special interest groups would scream and yell at the voting reps to send him packing. That's the power of the individual vote.

Right now, I'm grateful for the Senate. It looks like at least a little bit of sanity will prevail there.
Sucks that we have to hope that another part of Congress gets it right because the others couldn't.

Everyone has the power to write their representative and senator to express their views. If enough people write, the representative had better listen.
They had better, but they don't. That was just proven in the medical bill the Dems voted in. Talking heads on Sunday said the people spoke loud and clear in the 2008 election. They didn't pay any attention at the public outcry during all the town hall meetings that have happened since.

You're very passionate about politics. Not that many people are and if they aren't, a direct democracy won't work.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but my Dad always told me, "If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain." Those people who don't take the time to learn about the issues and vote can just sit back and buckle up. How much different is national voting on an issue than voting on a state or local issue?

Most voters don't do any serious research when deciding which Presidential candidate to vote for; why would we expect them to do any better for every piece of legislation that is introduced?



The vast majority of Americans are concerned with a few things regarding government.

The economy ( but only as how it affects them personally), crime rate (usually after they're a victim), and whether or not their kid is being sent off to fight a way they personally believe in.

In the economy, the only thing they know to do is change elected officials when they lose their jobs or their buying power goes down the tube. They don't care how it's fixed, just fix it. The economy was what made Bush I a one term president and probably hurt McCain. They couldn't care less about the gold standard, the Federal Reserve or anything else, just fix them damn thing or I'll vote you out. Don't send them bull**** legislation to read, just fix it and fix it now.

Crime is easy. That's why it's so popular to run on an anti-crime platform. People are all for cheap rehab programs until they get their house kicked in. Guns go along with that, they want to be able to keep their guns.

People get tired of wars pretty fast, especially the type we've fought since WWII. Limited and extended warfare drains their patience.

And taxes to a point. They don't want unreasonable taxes, but they want good roads, parks, public safety, etc.

Health care is going to pass. The majority of people want some change in it. Health insurance has gotten too damn expensive, bottom line. Again, it's because it affects their pocket book, not because of any utopian ideas. Only extremists care about that. What kind we get is still up in the air, but Obama will be signing something. Polls consistently show that people want health care reform and that's why Congress is going after it. The only real issues are paying for abortion and the public option. But to think a direct democracy would stop a health care bill is ridiculous at this point.

And health insurance is hurting people. I pay about a thousand a month for my wife (who just retired) and will do so until at least I'm eligible for Medicare next year. Then I'll be paying about 600 bucks for her and my supplemental. I can afford it, a lot of people can't. And I'd like to have some of that money to spend for other things.

Social Security passed because when people got too old to work, they had to depend on their families or charity just to live. Medicare passed because old people couldn't afford neither private insurance nor to go to the doctor. My grandfather died at home in 1954. He had no SS because he turned 65 about the time it was enacted and this was long before Medicare. My mom and her siblings all had to pay for just about everything for he and my grandmother. They couldn't afford a hospital bill and only a few doctor visits. Both programs are poorly managed, but they need to be there.

But the point I keep drumming on is that most people don't want to bother with a direct democracy because they haven't got the time nor the inclination to worry about the nuts and bolts of most things.

But the point I keep drumming on is that most people don't want to bother with a direct democracy because they haven't got the time nor the inclination to worry about the nuts and bolts of most things.

And that's why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. They don't care. They are apathetic and ignorant and refuse to change either viewpoint. They have taken the PEOPLE out of Government and left it to its own accord.

FTR, I do think that Medicare and SS are necessary. Its the execution of the programs that I have issues with.

...FTR, I do think that Medicare and SS are necessary. Its the execution of the programs that I have issues with.

I have issues with the fraud that they do nothing about. :cuss:

Still, you're left with someone who isn't representing you and won't be gotten rid of until maybe the next election which is years away. I'd personally prefer to cast my own vote and not count on someone else to do it for me.

Representatives are reelected every two years. He sits through only two sessions of Congress before he has to run again. I bet yours will be reelected if most of the people in your district agree with the job he's doing. You can vote against him, but others have the right to vote for him. I vote against mine every two years and he still wins by huge margins.

In my district, my rep also represents the views of illegal immigrants. As another example, look at Joe Arpaio. Thousands upon thousands of people attack him and his policies, but he still gets voted into office every term. If he had to be elected through proxy votes or anything besides total votes, special interest groups would scream and yell at the voting reps to send him packing. That's the power of the individual vote.

Your representative in Congress isn't elected by proxy votes either. Both are elected officials, no difference in how they get into office. The same people in Maricopa county that voted for him cast ballots for a congressional representative too.

Sucks that we have to hope that another part of Congress gets it right because the others couldn't.

Sucks that not the everyone else agrees with you and I either. But that's reflects the wisdom of the people who wrote the Constitution. Senators are more secure in their office and usually, but not always show more restraint.

They had better, but they don't. That was just proven in the medical bill the Dems voted in. Talking heads on Sunday said the people spoke loud and clear in the 2008 election. They didn't pay any attention at the public outcry during all the town hall meetings that have happened since.

In the 2008 election, Democrats really got their power. That's when we got Obama, wasn't it? The people spoke loud and clear that they like the Democrats. Are you talking about the 2009 where Republicans picked up two governors? The people in the town hall meetings may no more be representing a majority of the people anymore than anti-war protester do.

But we'll wait and see what happens in 2010. I bet only the yellow dog Democrats that voted for it lose their seats though. It will depend on what the final bill looks like. We have no idea what it will be at this point.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but my Dad always told me, "If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain." Those people who don't take the time to learn about the issues and vote can just sit back and buckle up. How much different is national voting on an issue than voting on a state or local issue?

How many state and local issues do you get to vote on? Most come out of the state legislature, don't they? Other than some local tax issues, of course.

I vote too. I feel strongly about a lot of things. But most people don't, that's my point and I'm right on that. Most election non presidential elections have low turnouts. Oregon even instituted vote by mail years ago in order to increase turnout and people are still too lazy to fill out the ballot and mail it back. And among those that do, many are voting merely on name familiarity, let's face it.

That's why I would like to see the ability to vote on national referendums initiated by the people. Most of the good things in my state that have happened have been a result of a voter initiative.

And that's why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. They don't care. They are apathetic and ignorant and refuse to change either viewpoint. They have taken the PEOPLE out of Government and left it to its own accord.

FTR, I do think that Medicare and SS are necessary. Its the execution of the programs that I have issues with.

We just found points we agree on, Taz.:cheers:

I have issues with the fraud that they do nothing about. :cuss:

I have HUGE issues with that. You used to read about doctors and clinics being charged with Medicare fraud, but it's been 20+ years. I was surprised to hear they charged some company with Medicare fraud over those motorized wheel chairs. I don't know if it was the Scooter Store or not, but I haven't seen their commercials in a while.

That's why I hate the public option idea, it will cost at least 40% more than it should because of the fraud. The idiot writing the checks couldn't care less.

In the 2008 election, Democrats really got their power. That's when we got Obama, wasn't it? The people spoke loud and clear that they like the Democrats.
I disagree. The people decided they wanted someone besides President Bush. That just happened to be the Democrats. Of course followers were promised the world and assured they'd be taken care of. :)

Are you talking about the 2009 where Republicans picked up two governors?
No sir. I was referring to Democrat leadership intentionally disregarding the views expressed at the town hall meetings because the people had already spoken in 2008. Evidently, "the people" are only allowed to speak every couple of years...:nono:

I was referring to Democrat leadership intentionally disregarding the views expressed at the town hall meetings because the people had already spoken in 2008. Evidently, "the people" are only allowed to speak every couple of years...:nono:[/COLOR]

And this one is the main reason why I support a DD. Each and every Representative and Congressman/woman came to the Town Hall meetings NOT to listen to us, but to sell US on the idea of a nationalized healthcare system. They ignored THOUSANDS of people who DO care enough to show up and voice their opinion. Instead, they pandered to the minority who said "YES, we want someone else to take care of us!":cuss:

Each and every Representative and Congressman/woman came to the Town Hall meetings NOT to listen to us, but to sell US on the idea of a nationalized healthcare system.
Let me temper this by saying that I only saw the clips broadcasted on TV and did not personally attend any, but that was the impression I got as well.

When you have a representative (don't remember the name but it was a black female) that declined to have a meeting due to to possibility (damn near guaranteed, really) of a public outcry, or having meetings by telephone so you could cut people off whenever you want to, what interests of ours do they really represent? Reps should NEVER hide from the people they are speaking for.

I disagree. The people decided they wanted someone besides President Bush. That just happened to be the Democrats. Of course followers were promised the world and assured they'd be taken care of. :)

The people also spoke when Democrats got more congressional seats in 2008. I agree they wanted change from Bush and company. But I don't see where saying the "people spoke" in the 2008 elections strengthens conservative convictions.


No sir. I was referring to Democrat leadership intentionally disregarding the views expressed at the town hall meetings because the people had already spoken in 2008. Evidently, "the people" are only allowed to speak every couple of years...:nono:

Again though SS, were those people at the town hall speaking for the majority of Americans? The loudest don't necessarily reflect the masses. The bottom line is that the power in this country lies in the metropolitan regions. Looking at the counties Bush took as opposed to those Kerry took is a shining example. The map makes it seem that Bush won just about the whole nation, which wasn't true. The vast majority of the population live in cities. And you didn't see town halls in L.A., NYC, Chicago, etc. They were all in smaller communities where there really isn't a lot of voting power. I don't know about the South and possibly places like Phoenix, but the East, Midwest and West all had their town halls in lesser populated regions.

Democrats always take the large cities because that's where the welfare recipients live. The political power in Oregon runs down a narrow stretch of the Willamette valley and it's all liberal and Democrat.

Every two years should be enough. If an adequate number of Americans don't like what they did, they'll be gone. Time will tell.

Let me temper this by saying that I only saw the clips broadcasted on TV and did not personally attend any, but that was the impression I got as well.



I attended one. They were none inside Portland, they were all in the outlying areas. Attendance was always light, there might have been a hundred people, but not all of the people were against health care, only the loud ones. They were loud, but that was about all. I was disappointed in the one I went to as a whole. And I live in the most conservation part of the region. They were sure nothing compared to the liberal demonstrations I've seen in Portland where thousands regularly act out.

The people also spoke when Democrats got more congressional seats in 2008. I agree they wanted change from Bush and company. But I don't see where saying the "people spoke" in the 2008 elections strengthens conservative convictions.
It doesn't have anything to do with conservatives. I'm just passing along the reasons the Democrats used for not listening to anyone after the election.

Again though SS, were those people at the town hall speaking for the majority of Americans?
I don't know. I'm not a pollster. I do know that, no matter how many people they speak for, they have a right to be heard and not just summarily dismissed like they're insignificant.

The loudest don't necessarily reflect the masses.
I agree. But it doesn't require reticence to reflect the masses either.

Time will tell.
Doesn't it just SUCK to wait sometimes? :wink:

The Democratic Whip is from here.

He made the statement on a local radio show that he was getting calls and faxes that ran more than 40 to 1 against the Stimulous fiasco, but yet he proudly voted for it.

The Democratic Whip is from here.

He made the statement on a local radio show that he was getting calls and faxes that ran more than 40 to 1 against the Stimulous fiasco, but yet he proudly voted for it.

And this is precisely what I've been saying. CONGRESS DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!!! Its all about the professional advancement voting down party lines will get them.

And this is precisely what I've been saying. CONGRESS DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!!! Its all about the professional advancement voting down party lines will get them.

No, they care about what the majority of their constituents want, Taz. If they didn't, they wouldn't be reelected. Getting pissed because the majority of the people don't agree with us doesn't change anything nor makes the idea of a representative government bad. Without getting a majority of the votes, professional advancement in the party wouldn't happen. Neither party will support anyone who can't get elected.

Again, I disagree with about everything my rep stands for, but most of the voters in this district think he's just great. If we had direct democracy, the same people would support the same issues I don't care for anyway.

One of his opponents, I actively campaigned for and gave a lot more money to than I normally contribute to political campaigns. She still got beat by a substantial margin. The only way I'm going to get my conservative views represented is to move where the majority of electorate feel the same way I do. Again, each representative reflects the views of the majority, pure and simple.

The Democratic Whip is from here.

He made the statement on a local radio show that he was getting calls and faxes that ran more than 40 to 1 against the Stimulous fiasco, but yet he proudly voted for it.

That's how Tom Foley, former speaker of the house lost his district in Washington and how Daschle lost his senate seat.

No, they care about what the majority of their constituents want, Taz. If they didn't, they wouldn't be reelected. Getting pissed because the majority of the people don't agree with us doesn't change anything nor makes the idea of a representative government bad. Without getting a majority of the votes, professional advancement in the party wouldn't happen. Neither party will support anyone who can't get elected.

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but explain to me how when 40 people say NO, one person says Yes, and the Representative still votes YES (which is along party lines) is doing what the majority wants?

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but explain to me how when 40 people say NO, one person says Yes, and the Representative still votes YES (which is along party lines) is doing what the majority wants?

I have to say that I am equally confused... :skep:

:lol:

I have to say that I am equally confused... :skep:

:lol:

Tom Foley of Washington state, former speaker of the house was defeated in reelection in the late 80's as was Tom Daschle later. When Foley realized he wasn't representing his district and was about to lose, he played the speaker card and what a loss it would be if he were defeated. Tough ****, he was gone.

Daschle was the Senate majority leader and he lost his seat because he no longer represented the interest of the people in his state.

Harry Reid may well lose his too, he's worried.

That's how it works, guys.

Tom Foley of Washington state, former speaker of the house was defeated in reelection in the late 80's as was Tom Daschle later. When Foley realized he wasn't representing his district and was about to lose, he played the speaker card and what a loss it would be if he were defeated. Tough ****, he was gone.

Daschle was the Senate majority leader and he lost his seat because he no longer represented the interest of the people in his state.

That's how it works, guys.

That still doesn't explain how 1 YES beats 40 No's, yet the Rep feels that what the majority wants is Yes?:crazy:

That still doesn't explain how 1 YES beats 40 No's, yet the Rep feels that what the majority wants is Yes?:crazy:

Representatives are elected by the people within their district. If at some point, they disregard what the people want, they will lose their seat. They elect someone who will. Hopefully the people will do that there, it's up to them if they want to be represented.

I can't make it any simpler. It's all in the Constitution.

Sure, but in the meantime the vote (the only ones that "count") has been cast and legislation may have been passed that otherwise may NOT have passed with a popular vote. Once it's enacted, there's really no choice for redaction - we're stuck with what they choose and THAT'S the appeal of each citizen being able to cast their individual vote.

Yeah, maybe. But if you truly believe the American people will develop a better system by a direct vote, you have more faith in them than I do. Look at the people you deal with on a daily basis and decide if you want them voting directly on important issues.

Remember the Florida presidential election where Democrats were going out and rounding up people and telling them how to vote? You don't think that won't happen on a regular basis with DD on important issues? Those people didn't know Bush or Gore from Adam, but they voted as they were told. You can't see that happening on things like the stimulus and public option? Again, look at the map where liberals and conservative live and tell me how hard that would be for Democrats to do it on any major spending bill.

Like it or not, liberals are much more organized on stuff like that than conservatives have ever been. I'd been willing to bet that if you get that, you'll want to go back after a year or so.

Like it or not, liberals are much more organized on stuff like that than conservatives have ever been. I'd been willing to bet that if you get that, you'll want to go back after a year or so.

I agree. It is easier to get the liberals organized and moving whereas the conservatives are usually busy at their job.

Yeah, maybe. But if you truly believe the American people will develop a better system by a direct vote, you have more faith in them than I do. Look at the people you deal with on a daily basis and decide if you want them voting directly on important issues.

....

Hell, I don't want some of the people who post on here to vote... period... :coolgleamA:

I truly believe there should be a civics test you should have to pass to get a Voters license.

I truly believe there should be a civics test you should have to pass to get a Voters license.

Oh, no kidding! That's my other argument against DD!

I also think they should take the voting age back up to 21. Young people as a whole vote idealistically, 18 and 19 year olds vote based on the last video game they bought. :idea:

Seriously, people that young have little, if any experience paying taxes nor do they have much idea of the consequences of some of these "free money" programs. It's no secret that youngsters got Obama elected.

I was thinking, maybe Clyburn was thinking that he was still representing the majority of his SC district and was only hearing from the vocal. It will be interesting to see if he gets reelected. If he does, it was probably because he ignored a vocal minority. Whadda think? My rep got an earful too, but he knew that we didn't represent the majority of the people in his district.

I agree. It is easier to get the liberals organized and moving whereas the conservatives are usually busy at their job.

That's why they had trouble getting people to the tea bag parties. It was mostly old retired codgers like me there.

This has been going on since the 60's. It started as "voter registration drives" and blossomed into things like ACORN. Democrats here have no morals when it comes to voting. Oregon finally did away with last minute voter registration because people were wandering from precinct to precinct, registering under different names and voting. Because it was last minute, they couldn't be checked.

Finally a voter initiative put a 30 limit on it and the Democratic party howled like Banshees. They'd been doing voter fraud for decades here.

As I said earlier, we have vote by mail, which works pretty good all in all. It gets a few more people to vote and it's set up as such that it's hard to screw with.

Voting standards for elected officials need to be introduced and strengthened again. Proof of citizenship and residency at a minimum. I would like to see a mandated test used to ensure the voter KNOWS what the DUTIES are of those they are electing. I would also like to see that the voter has a viable employment record so as to avoid the "entitlement" issues common to the welfare classes.

Term limits NEED to be introduced.

I would like to see campaign funding standardized for ALL elected officials. I would also like to see campaign time standardized.

I would like to see congressional and presidential election holidays to ease voting for citizens.

I would like to see national referendum procedures similar to those by states.

Most of all, I would like to see candidates with integrity and the will to do whats best for the nation.

A feller can dream....

Just tossing in my $.02 here...

I myself do NOT agree with SS and/or medicare/caid. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. People need to be taught to be responsible for themselves and plan for their future. If anything like these programs needs to exist it should be in the private sector.

SS is a great idea on paper. So is Medicare and Obamacare. Hell - Socialism/Communism looks great on paper too if you have the right author. But we all know the reality of these programs - they don't work. These social programs are money monsters that are about to come out from under the bed. In a relatively short period of time, our entitlement benefits will exceed the GDP of the entire world. At that time, one of 2 things are going to happen... rampant inflation as we try to monetize it, or the programs will simply cease to exist.

My guess will be the latter... and millions of old folks will be left to fend for themselves. It's already starting with the announcement of no COLA for the next 2 years. I myself will never see a SS check... not that I want to anyway. I will set myself up for retirement and will not trust my money and well being in the hands of politicians that sell out to the highest bidder.

The only form of government assistance I would agree with would be for those who are truly unable to take care of themselves or physically incapable of working... IE the physically and mentally handicapped, severely injured, etc.

Everyone gets old at some point and can no longer work. Everyone will endure some sort of ailment in old age that will require medical attention.

Those are simply facts of life... learn to plan ahead.

Just tossing in my $.02 here...

I myself do NOT agree with SS and/or medicare/caid. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. People need to be taught to be responsible for themselves and plan for their future. If anything like these programs needs to exist it should be in the private sector.

SS is a great idea on paper. So is Medicare and Obamacare. Hell - Socialism/Communism looks great on paper too if you have the right author. But we all know the reality of these programs - they don't work. These social programs are money monsters that are about to come out from under the bed. In a relatively short period of time, our entitlement benefits will exceed the GDP of the entire world. At that time, one of 2 things are going to happen... rampant inflation as we try to monetize it, or the programs will simply cease to exist.

My guess will be the latter... and millions of old folks will be left to fend for themselves. It's already starting with the announcement of no COLA for the next 2 years. I myself will never see a SS check... not that I want to anyway. I will set myself up for retirement and will not trust my money and well being in the hands of politicians that sell out to the highest bidder.

The only form of government assistance I would agree with would be for those who are truly unable to take care of themselves or physically incapable of working... IE the physically and mentally handicapped, severely injured, etc.

Everyone gets old at some point and can no longer work. Everyone will endure some sort of ailment in old age that will require medical attention.

Those are simply facts of life... learn to plan ahead.

Too bad society is moving away from personal responsibility of the individual and more towards the government taking care of us. A lot of people look to countries like France and how great life is there. They get six weeks paid vacation, government run everything, 35 hour work weeks etc. But thats not sustainable, not with declining birth rates seen in every Western nation (minus the U.S.).

The social programs worked while we had a big work force but once all the baby boomers retire things like SS will be practically bankrupt. I think everyone should just assume there will be no government pension and plan accordingly.

Anyway the point of my rant is that we should be moving away from government run programs, not towards them.

I myself do NOT agree with SS and/or medicare/caid. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. People need to be taught to be responsible for themselves and plan for their future. If anything like these programs needs to exist it should be in the private sector.

Those are simply facts of life... learn to plan ahead.

That's simple thinking, not simple facts. You live in a small, elitist world. A lot of people out there aren't capable of getting jobs that pay well enough to "plan ahead". And we are dependent on those kinds of jobs to keep the economy going. Just because you might have a good job with benefits that allow that doesn't mean everyone does.

I've been planning for my retirement since I was 30 and live pretty well. But I learned to do that from my Dad, who was a laborer his whole life and never made much money. He had to quit HS to help his family when his father was injured on the job as a boiler maker. He had to live on SS and what my brother and I could help him with. And for what it's worth, my job didn't pay into SS so I get minimal and I could afford health insurance if there wasn't medicare. But I'm in a small minority of older people.

Although I didn't like her and I like him, you remind me of Ann Richards' remark about George Bush. "He was born on third base, but thought he hit a triple". Only you seem to think everyone else was born there too.

There are a lot of folks out there in the real world busting their asses everyday just to put food on their table, not put away money for retirement, much less health insurance when they're old. Ever stop to think what health insurance would cost on the market for someone 75 years old? That's why most old people didn't have any pre medicare. And you think people live high on SS, you're a fool. For most people, that's barely sustainable, but at least it is.

The problem with both programs is who's running it. LBJ and the Democrats dissolved the SS fund in the 60's. I don't know if it would be soluble today or not, but with all the money the baby boomers put in over the years that was spent for other things, it would be in a lot better shape.

BTW, if it wasn't for those programs, you'd be supporting your elderly parents. That's what people did before those programs. Would you like for your parents to move in with you and you take care of them? That's what "planning ahead" used to mean, have enough kids to take care of you. Since you were born way after those days, you think people were taken care of magically? Those programs sound a little better now, don't they?

BTW, if it wasn't for those programs, you'd be supporting your elderly parents. That's what people did before those programs. Would you like for your parents to move in with you and you take care of them? That's what "planning ahead" used to mean, have enough kids to take care of you. Since you were born way after those days, you think people were taken care of magically? Those programs sound a little better now, don't they?

Tried to rep you sarge, but to to spread the love first. Well said!

Tried to rep you sarge, but to to spread the love first. Well said!

Thanks. That attitude obviously gets my goat.

My Dad worked his *** off his whole life and was finally making about $500 a month when he retired in 1969. He'd saved up enough money to pay cash for a little house for he and my Mom to live in. He had a "pension" of less than $100 from the company where he had worked for the last 25 years. He and my Mom's SS was about a grand a month combined.

Until just recently, there was no prescription drug coverage under Medicare. When they started having health problems, their medicine bills were $500+ a month. It's not hard to do the math. My brother and I sent them money when we could, but we had our own kids to take care of.

What troubles me is I saw this guy's attitude in a lot of cops coming on my Dept. before I retired. Because they were given all sorts of opportunities, they assume that everyone else had them too. And what was worse is that they looked down on people who hadn't had them. It's easy to be judgmental when you've never had to sweat making your rent payment or buying your kids' school clothes because you work at a job that doesn't pay squat. And for a variety of real reasons, you can't advance to higher paying ones.

When I worked the street, I used to actually "talk" to a lot of street people. Many of them grew up in what could only be described as terror camps. More people than we know grow up getting their asses kicked for no other reason than they exist. And when they're kicked out on the street as young teenagers, some expect them to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and move on? Those are always the people who grew up in safe, nurturing homes who seem to be so wise in how other people should conduct themselves.

My brother and I were fortunate as hell. We broke out of that cycle and had it not been for the Army, I have no idea how either of us would have ended up. I stumbled onto (literally) a good job that paid well and had great benefits. I went through college working full time and going to school full time, Mommy and Daddy didn't pay a dime of it. I did use the G.I. Bill and I'm not sure I could have done it w/o it.

I hate people who sit on their asses and draw welfare as much as anybody. I'm not for this socialized medicine that the Democrats propose. But there are people out there who seriously need and deserve some help now and then. Again, my Dad planned as well as he possibly could and still had a hell of a hard time.

That's simple thinking, not simple facts. You live in a small, elitist world.

No, I live in the real world. The one where I took the initiative to start a business and become a productive member of society, yet have customers who live in low income (state provided) housing but at the same time has a vehicle whose payment rivals my mortgage.



A lot of people out there aren't capable of getting jobs that pay well enough to "plan ahead". And we are dependent on those kinds of jobs to keep the economy going.

So lets make everyone else pick up the slack? As I mentioned, SS and such programs could be easily privatized, and anyone who wanted to participate could. The money would then be properly and wisely invested to keep up with cost of living increases when these folks needed to collect.



Just because you might have a good job with benefits that allow that doesn't mean everyone does.

Ha! I don't even have health insurance... but I don't expect someone else to buy it for me.



I've been planning for my retirement since I was 30 and live pretty well.

I'm happy for you... you did what so many do not.



But I learned to do that from my Dad, who was a laborer his whole life and never made much money. He had to quit HS to help his family when his father was injured on the job as a boiler maker. He had to live on SS and what my brother and I could help him with. And for what it's worth, my job didn't pay into SS so I get minimal and I could afford health insurance if there wasn't medicare. But I'm in a small minority of older people.

Again, a private sector enterprise could have helped this.



Although I didn't like her and I like him, you remind me of Ann Richards' remark about George Bush. "He was born on third base, but thought he hit a triple". Only you seem to think everyone else was born there too.

Hardly. My entire family is entrepeneurs. Only 2 of us are college educated (myself being one). We ALL worked up from the bottom rung of the ladder so to speak. We create our own work, and don't expect handouts. That's how my father raised me. And we are a far cry from being "rich" ;)



There are a lot of folks out there in the real world busting their asses everyday just to put food on their table, not put away money for retirement, much less health insurance when they're old. Ever stop to think what health insurance would cost on the market for someone 75 years old? That's why most old people didn't have any pre medicare.

Without a doubt it would be expensive. But that doesn't mean you couldn't get a whole group of old people and buy a group policy. That would make it cheap and privatized. The solutions are there and obvious - at least to someone in the business world.... but nobody has the initiative to explore them.



And you think people live high on SS, you're a fool. For most people, that's barely sustainable, but at least it is.

I never thought people lived "high" on SS. It's actually a pittance in my eyes compared to the cost of living today. One more reason to privatize it.



The problem with both programs is who's running it. LBJ and the Democrats dissolved the SS fund in the 60's. I don't know if it would be soluble today or not, but with all the money the baby boomers put in over the years that was spent for other things, it would be in a lot better shape.

Exactly. Keep it out of the hands of the damn greedy government! When in the private sector there are punishments for fraud and mismanagement. There is no such recourse with government.



BTW, if it wasn't for those programs, you'd be supporting your elderly parents. That's what people did before those programs. Would you like for your parents to move in with you and you take care of them?

Actually, that would be fine with me. The least I could do is return the favor to the parents who raised and supported ME for 18+ years. And with the way things are in the world right now, I think we're going to see this become a common theme.



That's what "planning ahead" used to mean, have enough kids to take care of you. Since you were born way after those days, you think people were taken care of magically? Those programs sound a little better now, don't they?

Not in the slightest.

You look back at these times and point out the hardships. Granted, there always are and always will be. Yet at the same time this country was the most prosperous and productive nation in the world. A sense of responsibility and respect was much more abundant in those times than is today.

Do you really think todays world is in better shape??

Thanks. That attitude obviously gets my goat.

What troubles me is I saw this guy's attitude in a lot of cops coming on my Dept. before I retired. Because they were given all sorts of opportunities, they assume that everyone else had them too. And what was worse is that they looked down on people who hadn't had them. It's easy to be judgmental when you've never had to sweat making your rent payment or buying your kids' school clothes because you work at a job that doesn't pay squat.

Well I apologize to you and your goat. But this is not "attitude" per say. You're looking at the world from the positions and experiences of a now retiree.

Put yourself in my shoes. I have many years left on this planet. You need to consider what my generation is about to have to put up with, courtesy of the current administration and a couple of his predecessors. We are going to be left holding the bag.

I watch more and more government intervention and socialism every day, and guys I went to high school with seem to think this is the norm. They WANT the handouts, they WANT the government to take care of them because they think they deserve it. So they do the bare minumum, and want me to make up the difference in their checks and on their rent payments.

There's no incentive for them to do better, and since there's no incentive there's no ambition...... but the government says that's ok!
Programs like SS and Medicare are going broke because of government mismanagement and theft, and because the people don't give a rats *** anyways.... just send them their check. Like I said, I will NEVER see a SS check at this rate. Why should I support a failing program? That's not what I was taught, and it makes no business sense either.

And for the record, I was not born with every opportunity in the world. I MADE opportunities. If I can do it, anyone can. And FWIW, my mortgage payment was late last month due to business being slow, so I'm not some high and mighty young prick looking down on anyone. The difference is, I went out and "pounded the pavement" to generate some extra cash and make the payment... I didn't sit at my mailbox waiting for a check.

So... try looking at the current state of affairs from someone who's going to be dealing with it for a long time coming before passing judgement :)

Well I apologize to you and your goat. But this is not "attitude" per say. You're looking at the world from the positions and experiences of a now retiree.

Put yourself in my shoes. I have many years left on this planet. You need to consider what my generation is about to have to put up with, courtesy of the current administration and a couple of his predecessors. We are going to be left holding the bag.

I used to be in your shoes. Then I grew up. It amazes me how young people think that people like me just skipped from childhood to retirement.:rolleyes5: And yeah, I made my opportunities too, but not everyone can even do much of that.

The handout thing started in the 60's. You act like all this is new. I paid a hell of a lot more money in taxes that went to welfare than you pro rata. Ever hear of a 10% surtax on income tax? I had to pony that up to pay for that stuff. A lot more tax money paid for welfare programs during the 70's and even 80's than do now. The world didn't start with you no matter what your ego tells you.

I agree with you on handouts for people who are capable of working, but not everyone starts out on the same level and the playing field isn't even. Not everyone is intelligent as you and your family. Not everyone else had the same education nor the opportunity for it. When you spend a good deal of your childhood trying not to get your *** kicked or finding enough to eat, it's hard to learn all those wonderful skills you have.

And privatization? When has the private sector ever stepped up to help people? Business, since the industrial revolution has shown how much it cares about workers. If they cared, unions would have never had a place in society.

I also agree that the government has screwed up SS, I just said that. And Medicare is full of fraud that needs desperately to be addressed. But again, you don't have a clue about how it was for people before that was enacted, do you?



Originally Posted by retdetsgt ]
A lot of people out there aren't capable of getting jobs that pay well enough to "plan ahead". And we are dependent on those kinds of jobs to keep the economy going.


So lets make everyone else pick up the slack? As I mentioned, SS and such programs could be easily privatized, and anyone who wanted to participate could. The money would then be properly and wisely invested to keep up with cost of living increases when these folks needed to collect.

Pick up the slack, hell no! Why not just put people inferior to you in concentration camps and eliminate them? That way only the brightest and best like yourself would be allowed to prosper? Screw them, if they don't have decent education, not too bright, have poor language skills, who needs them?

Hell, when people who never had much to begin with, were never able to make much money get old, let them starve if they weren't as brilliant as you. Who needs them, their productive years are over. Or just gas them, huh?

Privatize what? Who's going to run it? When you barely make enough to live, it's a bit tough to put money in a 401K. And speaking of 401's, you must not have been around long enough to see the market really crash and see people lose their whole retirement. A friend of mine lost 75% of his retirement in the crash of April 2000. He thought he'd invested wisely. And he has his own business, BTW.


If I can do it, anyone can. And FWIW, my mortgage payment was late last month due to business being slow, so I'm not some high and mighty young prick looking down on anyone

No they can't and yes, you are. But you're too closeminded and ego centric to see it. Every cop here has seen people who are doing the best they can and still struggle. Every society in every country has them. There are a lot of people out there who are pretty much peaked employmentwise working at McDonald's or working for a landscaping service. And our economy requires a lot of jobs that pay only minimum wage. That's why raising the minimum wage is a detriment on the economy, it raises the prices of everything. Believe it or not, a lot of our society are locked into that. If they all got above it, we'd really be screwed.

I agree with you that everyone who can, should work. But it's ridiculous to believe that everyone has the same abilities and skills.

I have an even better idea than Obama.

Obamacare is going to cost $1.5 TRILLION dollars over 10 years, and there will still be some 6% of the population that will NOT have insurance, either from being in jail from not carrying it or being unemployed.

SO, I propose that instead of wasting that money and creating a self-serving nationalized snafu, give (yes retdetsgt, I said GIVE) each adult $10,000 dollars each year for the next 10 years, with the caveat that each recipient MUST prove that they have health insurance each year they receive it.

Total cost = approximately $1.6 trillion

Added advantage - People won't be thrown in jail for NOT having insurance. Government won't be involved in individual healthcare. Dozens of new beauracracies will not be created.

People, the individual, will have the right and the means to CHOOSE which provider to be with.

And everyone knows that any monies left over ($20k for families) would be used towards paying off debt (which means MORE jobs as companies clear books and start turning profits again) and establishing an emergency fund. Others will spend it on the economy, driving the value of the dollar up again.

Now, I understand that it will still go against the deficit. However, more monies being spent means more taxes being brought in on all levels, bringing DOWN the deficit quicker than just dumping trillions into a bottomless pit of ineffective stupidity.

Reform IS desperately needed in healthcare, but Obamacare is not the answer. Socialized anything isn't the answer. SS and Medicare are prime examples. The government giveth, and they taketh away. Both programs WILL be bankrupt in the next 10 years. Is that a track record that we should emulate with Obamacare?:nonod:

SO, I propose that instead of wasting that money and creating a self-serving nationalized snafu, give (yes retdetsgt, I said GIVE) each adult $10,000 dollars each year for the next 10 years, with the caveat that each recipient MUST prove that they have health insurance each year they receive it.



I don't totally disagree if they're going to get involved at all. Anything the government runs will eat up at least 40% in administrative cost. As I've said before, if I were king, there would be constant audits and people would be held criminally accountable for recklessly wasted money.

The problem would be making sure they spend the money on health insurance. Human nature being what it is, the money would probably have to go directly to the insurance companies.

I don't totally disagree if they're going to get involved at all. Anything the government runs will eat up at least 40% in administrative cost. As I've said before, if I were king, there would be constant audits and people would be held criminally accountable for recklessly wasted money.

The problem would be making sure they spend the money on health insurance. Human nature being what it is, the money would probably have to go directly to the insurance companies.

And therein is where I would agree with incarceration. IF they receive the money, but don't buy insurance, THEN throw them in jail. Don't book them just for living within their means if that means they can't afford insurance.

And therein is where I would agree with incarceration. IF they receive the money, but don't buy insurance, THEN throw them in jail. Don't book them just for living within their means if that means they can't afford insurance.

Personally, I'd rather the government just stay out of paying any money. They should start with tort reform. Not only for the malpractice insurance costs, but the doctors are required to run too many CYA tests that medical insurance has to pay for. But since the Trial Lawyers Assn. is the single biggest contributor to the DNC, that'll never happen.

I'd love to see them try some regulation and see how that works before they start pissing away billions down the tube.

Just tossing in my $.02 here...

I myself do NOT agree with SS and/or medicare/caid. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. People need to be taught to be responsible for themselves and plan for their future. If anything like these programs needs to exist it should be in the private sector.

SS is a great idea on paper. So is Medicare and Obamacare. Hell - Socialism/Communism looks great on paper too if you have the right author. But we all know the reality of these programs - they don't work. These social programs are money monsters that are about to come out from under the bed. In a relatively short period of time, our entitlement benefits will exceed the GDP of the entire world. At that time, one of 2 things are going to happen... rampant inflation as we try to monetize it, or the programs will simply cease to exist.

My guess will be the latter... and millions of old folks will be left to fend for themselves. It's already starting with the announcement of no COLA for the next 2 years. I myself will never see a SS check... not that I want to anyway. I will set myself up for retirement and will not trust my money and well being in the hands of politicians that sell out to the highest bidder.

The only form of government assistance I would agree with would be for those who are truly unable to take care of themselves or physically incapable of working... IE the physically and mentally handicapped, severely injured, etc.

Everyone gets old at some point and can no longer work. Everyone will endure some sort of ailment in old age that will require medical attention.

Those are simply facts of life... learn to plan ahead.

Those programmes actually do work, the trick is they have to be funded properly and obviously administered properly as well. One thing I will say I don't know if they'd work too well in a country of 300m plus people. And that's a different issue but you certainly can't say they don't work, because they do. Perhaps a regionalised approach in the US might be better?

Too bad society is moving away from personal responsibility of the individual and more towards the government taking care of us. A lot of people look to countries like France and how great life is there. They get six weeks paid vacation, government run everything, 35 hour work weeks etc. But thats not sustainable, not with declining birth rates seen in every Western nation (minus the U.S.).

The social programs worked while we had a big work force but once all the baby boomers retire things like SS will be practically bankrupt. I think everyone should just assume there will be no government pension and plan accordingly.

Anyway the point of my rant is that we should be moving away from government run programs, not towards them.

Just one point. What is a society but an agglomeration of individuals?

I get the feeling that some folks don't understand the reality of their own society. Where is the communal feeling? If we don't accept a sense of communality then what do we do if there is a situation where the volunteer military needs to be augmented by conscription? Do we all refuse to comply?

What a society can afford to allow its citizens is interesting. The wealthy don't have to worry about it. The not so well off have to worry about it. You're right, with the baby boomers retiring things will have to change. I think they may have to change radically.

Perhaps a regionalised approach in the US might be better?

That would be a good idea, but the 14th Amendment wouldn't allow it. That Amendment requires equal treatment to everyone. A poor region of the country wouldn't be able to afford to pay the same as some place like Los Angeles where the income is 10X higher and the cost of living is many times higher too. They would have to collect more taxes than the people could afford in order to do that.

California had a measure overturned by the Supreme Court based on that amendment recently. Because California pays so much more in welfare benefits than a lot of states, people are moving there to collect it. They passed a law saying that for the first year of residency, the state would only pay what they would have received in their home state. The 14th Amendment prohibits that because it's unequal treatment.

If someone in Tupelo, Mississippi makes less in SS benefits than someone it L.A., it would be unconstitutional even though the cost of living is much less in Tupelo.

Our federal government is incapable of doing anything without it costing about 40% more in administrative cost. But as I said earlier, the Democrats in the 60's just couldn't leave the Social Security pot of money alone and transferred it to the general fund and made it a pay as you go. Which worked fine for the short term because the baby boomers were paying in much more than the older generation was taking out. None cared nor had the foresight to see what would happen down the road. Had they left that money alone and let it earn interest, there would be a tremendous amount of that money available that we already paid in.

Now we're down that road, but as usual, the media always neglects to bring that up when they talk about the decline of SS in this country. To read the media and history written by contemporary college professors, the liberal Democrats have never made any mistakes while in charge. Well, no, they do give some blame to LBJ for Vietnam, but the true outrage is at Nixon who inherited and ended it.

That would be a good idea, but the 14th Amendment wouldn't allow it. That Amendment requires equal treatment to everyone. A poor region of the country wouldn't be able to afford to pay the same as some place like Los Angeles where the income is 10X higher and the cost of living is many times higher too. They would have to collect more taxes than the people could afford in order to do that.

California had a measure overturned by the Supreme Court based on that amendment recently. Because California pays so much more in welfare benefits than a lot of states, people are moving there to collect it. They passed a law saying that for the first year of residency, the state would only pay what they would have received in their home state. The 14th Amendment prohibits that because it's unequal treatment.

If someone in Tupelo, Mississippi makes less in SS benefits than someone it L.A., it would be unconstitutional even though the cost of living is much less in Tupelo.

Our federal government is incapable of doing anything without it costing about 40% more in administrative cost. But as I said earlier, the Democrats in the 60's just couldn't leave the Social Security pot of money alone and transferred it to the general fund and made it a pay as you go. Which worked fine for the short term because the baby boomers were paying in much more than the older generation was taking out. None cared nor had the foresight to see what would happen down the road. Had they left that money alone and let it earn interest, there would be a tremendous amount of that money available that we already paid in.

Now we're down that road, but as usual, the media always neglects to bring that up when they talk about the decline of SS in this country. To read the media and history written by contemporary college professors, the liberal Democrats have never made any mistakes while in charge. Well, no, they do give some blame to LBJ for Vietnam, but the true outrage is at Nixon who inherited and ended it.

It's easy to forget Nixon ended the war and opened up relations with China. "The evil that men do lives after them." He should get a bit of credit for two fairly brave foreign policy decisions.

Just one point. What is a society but an agglomeration of individuals?

I get the feeling that some folks don't understand the reality of their own society. Where is the communal feeling? If we don't accept a sense of communality then what do we do if there is a situation where the volunteer military needs to be augmented by conscription? Do we all refuse to comply?

What a society can afford to allow its citizens is interesting. The wealthy don't have to worry about it. The not so well off have to worry about it. You're right, with the baby boomers retiring things will have to change. I think they may have to change radically.

Good point. I don't think it should be every man for themselves but I get frustrated seeing people who make a decent salary and are too busy living the good life to put any away for retirement. And then there are those young and able bodied people who can't be bothered to work and instead sit on mom's couch all day watching TV. If these people were a little more responsible than they money in the system could go to those that really need it.

The baby boomers are one problem but another issue is people in the West are having fewer children. We need workers to support these programs. I read a stat the other day that in the year 2050 Greece will be spending 25% of it's GDP on pension expenditures. I think they have started to implement reforms to prevent this, most of which are to encourage people to work longer.

An Internet-based voting system would be rife with problems. How could we verify who was voting for who? To me, the technology isn't secure enough to support such a system....

This was my first thought as well.

Control, in my mind, would be riddled with problems.