Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: o-daddy on September 30, 2010, 01:22:55 AM
-
Since a few days passed after the publication of A Pledge to America (and the first review of it on this forum), it would be interesting to check the observations: How seriously is it perceived by people? Does a heavy degree of repetition (considering the Gingrich era Pledge) further undermine its sincerity in the eyes of realistically pessimistic people?
-
I don't know if I qualify as either "most people" or "realistically pessimistic."
I don't buy it though.
-
I really like nearly all of the ideas in it. I support the Pledge fully. I'm just not entirely sure the GOP will really follow through.
-
Its a joke. The current groundswell of popular opposition isn't to see us go back 2008, but more like 1778.
-
Its a joke. The current groundswell of popular opposition isn't to see us go back 2008, but more like 1778.
That is my loose assessment. It's alright, but it is missing the point. I suspect the GOP brass mistakenly think people are enthusiastic for the GOP, instead of just being anti-incumbent and sick of the entire system. Which is how the Dems got control of the House and Senate.
If either party doesn't pull its head out of its fourth point of contact, this is how it will continue, incumbents continuously being tossed out until someone learns.
-
If either party doesn't pull its head out of its fourth point of contact, this is how it will continue, incumbents continuously being tossed out until someone the public learns.
Fixed that for you.
I can't come up with a better system of government than what we have now, with the possible exception of bureaucrat employment time limits and more stringent term limits for elected folks so as to encourage greater civic participation...
But the next evolution to make our government better is for the public to acknowledge that BOTH parties are inherently statist, just wanting to tax and inflict force in different directions. Giving a 3rd party a 25-40 percent stake in the Congress will force the statists to build concensus rather than dictating with 51%.
Either that, or well armed sheep need to contest the vote of the wolves.
-
As someone wiser (or at lest better compensated for opining) than I, The Pledge makes obvious that the GOPers who get elected were elected for a particular purpose, not because they are just so wonderful.
Anything to puncture policritters' self-regard is good in my book.
-
As someone wiser (or at lest better compensated for opining) than I, The Pledge makes obvious that the GOPers who get elected were elected for a particular purpose, not because they are just so wonderful.
Anything to puncture policritters' self-regard is good in my book.
Very true that. However, 2008 is part of why the GOP lost the election. Pledging to return us to 2008 is like telling a domestic violence victim that you're taking her from being beaten black and blue back to when she was just slapped around and swore at.
-
Its a joke. The current groundswell of popular opposition isn't to see us go back 2008, but more like 1778.
One advantage of being in Texas; I'll settle for 1836.
-
I can't come up with a better system of government than what we have now, with the possible exception of bureaucrat employment time limits and more stringent term limits for elected folks so as to encourage greater civic participation...
What I'd like to see would be two Constitutional Ammenments. The first one would be to impose term limits on the House and Senate. Say 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate, and 12 years cumulatively between the two chambers. Maybe add a repeal of the 17th Ammendment for kicks while we're at it.
The other would be to add a 10 year sunset clause to all existing and future federal legislation (except the Consitution of course). All current laws more than 10 years old would be granted 5 years to be reauthorized, and thereafter be on a 10 year cycle. All current laws less than 10 years old would require renewal by their 10 year anniversary. So the ENTIRE spectrum of federal laws would have to voted on within 10 years to re-authorize it, or else it disappears. And all future laws would also require review after 10 years or else they too disappear. And no fair making blanket 10 year renewals. Each individual law must be seperatly reauthorized. That would slow down the statists.
-
How about any regulation promulgated by any bit of the executive branch that includes either a fine or prison time must be reviewed by both the appropriate subcomittees and hte Congress must vote on them to keep them. Individually.
-
What I'd like to see would be two Constitutional Ammenments. The first one would be to impose term limits on the House and Senate. Say 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate, and 12 years cumulatively between the two chambers. Maybe add a repeal of the 17th Ammendment for kicks while we're at it.
The other would be to add a 10 year sunset clause to all existing and future federal legislation (except the Consitution of course). All current laws more than 10 years old would be granted 5 years to be reauthorized, and thereafter be on a 10 year cycle. All current laws less than 10 years old would require renewal by their 10 year anniversary. So the ENTIRE spectrum of federal laws would have to voted on within 10 years to re-authorize it, or else it disappears. And all future laws would also require review after 10 years or else they too disappear. And no fair making blanket 10 year renewals. Each individual law must be seperatly reauthorized. That would slow down the statists.
I like both of those tremendously.
-
I too like the idea of the sunset clause. =)
-
I too like the idea of the sunset clause.
Especially if it also applies to all government officials.
-
I (and my friend) independently thought of the sunset provision. It is a very elegant government-limiting mechanism because laws can be basically repealed, in a very politically-favorable way. Right now the only way they go away is if some politician actually repeals them.
-
I (and my friend) independently thought of the sunset provision. It is a very elegant government-limiting mechanism because laws can be basically repealed, in a very politically-favorable way. Right now the only way they go away is if some politician actually repeals them.
I'd vote for any politician, and support any party that would be serious about making something like this the law.
-
Repeal of the the 17th amendment would go a loooong way toward repairing the damage that is DC.