What do you think?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Hardballer, Sep 26, 2009.

?

Who here believes. . .

Poll closed Oct 1, 2009.
  1. electing new politicians will change things for the better?

    15 vote(s)
    27.8%
  2. supporting Obama will change things for the better?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. doing nothing will change things for the better?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. starting over? (you know what I mean)

    39 vote(s)
    72.2%
  1. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    NH
    I agree that term limits are a necessity, and truthfully the $1,500 toilet seats bother me a lot less than $85,000 in the freezer although that one is peanuts as well when you look at this one:

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/

    On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

    Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

    Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

    Yes we need a constitutional amendment for term limits.:mad:
  2. momo

    momo Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    300
    Hardballer,

    Here's the real problem, 47 percent of the population pay no income taxes. Another 20 percent pay in less than what they get out, that's 67 percent that get more than they put in. That means the other 33 percent are footing the bill for everybody else. Do you see any incentive for the 67 percent to change the way the Feds do business, neither do I. Sooner or later the system will implode because the percentage of people paying for it is getting smaller and smaller.
  3. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    NH
    Those of us that are now taking out of the "system" via Social Security and retirement have just one question: What to hell did they do with the money we put in for 40 years?

    As to those that pay no taxes and are here illegally, secure the borders, round up the illegals and send them home. That will be a huge plus to the system and then we can look at able bodied that are on welfare and give them the jobs the illegals had.
  4. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Location:
    Central Florida
    One problem I see is the liberal interpretation of the letter of the law as opposed to the constitutional interpretation of the spirit of the law. Any school kid knows what our founding fathers had in mind when they put their signatures to the greatest document since the Bible(the constitution). Now comes modern day politicians who dissect every word, explore meanings that may not have existed in 1776 and twist it to their benefit calling it the letter of the law. Oftentimes the results bear no resemblance to what a reasonable man would construe, but there it is. Nobody did it better than William Jefferson Clinton when he said under oath, "I didn't have sex with her!" It set a benchmark that politicians have consistently tried to raise ever since to suit their own needs. I fear it's too late to go back.
  5. TAB

    TAB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    North Texas
    Terry P,

    Social Security is a pay as you go deal and always has been. Current benefits are paid from current income and surplus if any goes into the SS trust fund. Income has always exceeded outlays and was expected to do so until 2016. Due to the economy, it didn't last that long. This year, there is $10billion shortfall. Next year is expected to to be $9bil. The shortfall should be paid from the trust fund but...Congress has been borrowing from the trust fund for years because govt IOUs to itself are off budget. Bottom line is that SS is now broke and must be financed from other sources.
  6. TAB

    TAB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    North Texas
    Actually, the process probably started in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshal, in Marbury v Madison, found that the Supreme Court had the authority to determine the Constitutionality of a law or govt action. According the the Federalist Papers, it was intended that the President should determine constitutionality of laws before signing them and veto any that were unconstitutional. That was the primary purpose of the veto. But Marshal found something in the Constitution that wasn't there. Courts have been doing it ever since.
  7. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    Smack dab in da middle
    I don't think anyone gets what I am really saying here. I don't give a rat's. . . Well, you know, as to any of the crapola we're discussing here. To me, it is just the ideal if we set things up again.

    If we vote in 2010 with a ballot, no matter how it ends up, we are just voting for the same stuff different day. It will be an utterly meaningless exercise in futility.

    Unless we play hardball (read extreme) with ourselves, and the world, the US as you know it is done.
  8. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    I know what you are saying and agree. When dealing with liberals in the past I have found that they seem unable to debate logically, that is, their arguments are full of holes, and they refuse to acknowledge their errors when pointed out. It's as if they believe they can create their own reality. They follow this when discussing and interpreting the constitution.

    That is why I believe the constitution should be amended to firm up the intent of the bill of rights, to ensure that the intentional misinterpretation of the constitution for political purposes would become impossible. For example make it clear that neither executives both federal or local, nor legislaters, nor courts may infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by any law abiding citizen.
  9. red14

    red14 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,936
    Location:
    N FLA
    We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.
    Thomas Jefferson

    ""As to those that pay no taxes and are here illegally, secure the borders, round up the illegals and send them home. That will be a huge plus to the system and then we can look at able bodied that are on welfare and give them the jobs the illegals had.""

    This is where I think we should start. We have millions who are registered and do not vote. We have many millions more who don't even register. If we can mobilize those and kick out the aliens, we can start somewhere else.

    They have the votes, some not even living, we need numbers. I think most of our problems stem from illegal aliens.
  10. TAB

    TAB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    North Texas
    The US as we know it is done? Hmmm...The US, as I know it, changes. It always has because change is built into the Constitution. The 3 branches of govt. exist in a dynamic tension, like a triangle balanced on a pole with one branch at each apex. Never in equilibrium, one branch always a bit more powerful than the other, depending on which party controls. The two party system is not described in the Constitution, but is an almost inevitable evolution given the prevailing conditions at the time. Power swings from one to the other. keeping the triangle unbalanced. In practice, no party is ever likely to gain absolute control of all 3 branches for a significant period of time. The party that is out works harder to get back in, aided by the fact that Lincoln's rule holds: "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

    The result is a system of government that itself is inefficient at consolidating power because it can't easily ignore or override the will of the people. The problem today is that too many of the people don't care to either express their will or just don't have any to express, so government is getting out of control. But we don't have a tyranny of government--the system is working as designed. We have a tyranny of apathy and our out-of-control government is just a symptom. Don't attack the symptoms, attack the cause.
  11. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    Well, the polls are closed, but I still believe if we changed the rules a bit so that these Senators and Reps can't make a life-long career out of politics, we might get some good people. Our system, as it stands, allows these politicos to stay forever. That leads to corruption. There are good people who would do well in office, but with the likes of Kennedy (I know...dead), Dodd, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Byrd, Murtha, ad nauseum, we'll be stuck on this merry-go-round forever. I still feel that we have the best form of government there is, but it has it's weak points. We should limit lobbyists, PACs, and all the temptations from politics and maybe we could get somewhere. Isn't it odd that when a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. When a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants no one to have them. Same with meat. When a conservative doesn't eat meat, they don't buy it. When the liberal doesn't like it, they form PETA and don't want anyone to eat it. If a conservative doesn't like a news program, he turns the channel. When the liberal don't like it, they want a "Fairness Doctrine." What a screwed up bunch, those liberals. TJ
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2009
  12. tntrucker

    tntrucker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    119
    Long thread, don't know if anyone will get this far. Our Founding Fathers never intended for everyone to have the vote; that's the problem! I'm NOT talking about race or sex! Zero-liability voters! People that don't pay taxes-don't have anything invested in this country. People on the govt. "dole"- when they hear "new govt. program- it's what do I get? When I hear new govt. program-it's how much do I lose?
    Yes we need to take care of the helpless. But hard work needs to be rewarded. Everyone can't have the same amount. Communisim doesn't work.
    Can anything be done? I don't know? If 51% of voters are sucking the govt. tit?? I don't want anything GIVEN to me; but am I going bust a gut supporting people that won't work?? I wonder if we are living in the last days for America?