Sharp as a Marble - A sliver of hope

<< Industry links | Home | Spam title of the day >>

A sliver of hope

Politics

Just when I think there's no hope of America getting back to its roots, millions of people march on DC to protest.

I don't care if NBC or CNN or any of the lame-stream media report it as "tens of thousands" because their lowball estimate doesn't change the fact that more people marched on DC than showed up at Obama's inauguration. This isn't astroturf, no matter how hard the left wants to spin it. When you can show me pictures of the buses that brought these people in, all wearing the same preprinted t-shirt and carrying identical signs, then we'll talk.

The sad part is that I'm not sure what we can do with this anger. Sure, we can kick those in office out, but just what are we going to replace them with? Republicans? Who do you think started this mess?

Still, the giant is awakening from his slumber and I'm thinking 2010 is going to make 1994 look gentle in comparison.

posted @ 9/13/2009 8:56:12 AM

Incoming Links

Hope – Accept no imitation. at A Dixie Carpetbagger on 9/14/2009 3:05:40 PM

Comments

hypnagogue says:

on 9/13/2009 9:46:19 AM

While I would love to see a third party take some seats, "Kick the bums out" isn't a bad strategy. After a few generations of this, they might begin to remember that they are our representatives, not our leaders.

It also has the added bonus of being fun to watch.

Cargosquid says:

on 9/13/2009 10:23:22 AM

I say vote out all the incumbents. Even if we replace them with Republicans and Democrats, the shock alone of being replaced might fix some of the problems.

I think, instead of a third party, we need a Tea Party caucus and influence the parties.

Stephen Wrighton says:

on 9/13/2009 10:39:54 AM

I say we replace them with the Constitutionalists and Ron Paul. And then do the following:
get term limits set in place (maybe even office limits where a politician can only hold 3 or 4 offices during his "career") in order to cut back on entrenched politiciansGive the Senate back to the STATES as opposed to having them elected directly, the Senate was supposed to be the voice of the STATE in the Congress, the populace already has the House to represent them

Patrick says:

on 9/13/2009 10:57:21 AM

I went to a similar protest in DC in 1994. This one was more specific to gun rights, and I'd be surprised if it broke 30,000. Based on that, I was hoping this protest would break 100,000. I'm glad to see I was an order of magnitude off.

I wonder if the politicians are going to be in denial about this. If all they read are the AP headlines, they'll be able to shrug it off. "Thousands march to US Capitol". Harrumph.

UBU52 says:

on 9/13/2009 3:36:10 PM

Unfortunately, I'll bet a lot of us have Congressmen like mine: He does a pretty good job on most issues but he votes opposite what I would like on some. I'm not willing to replace him because he represents our area prety well.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/13/2009 5:07:17 PM

UBU, are you saying nobody can represent you better?

Politicians, like diapers, should be changed regularly. And for the same reason.

People act as if congresscritters are a rare breed and that it takes a very special talent to try to run other people's lives. No such thing. We're supposed to have people who represent us, and the best way to do that is to have people like you and I who are rotated out regularly.

Hell, a lottery system would work fine with me - You want franchise? You can vote but your name goes into a pool. When it's time for rotation, a name is drawn and you serve if yours is called. You may run for office a total of X times with Y number of years total, the only position that doesn't count for is President.

Couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

UBU52 says:

on 9/13/2009 6:05:56 PM

Everytime you vote out one guy and replace him with another guy, that's one more government pension you have to pay as a taxpayer.

My aunt used to say that and I think there is a lot of truth in it.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/13/2009 6:17:15 PM

Take that perk away as well. There's nothing special about government service that requires me to continue to pay you even after your ass has left the building.

Homer says:

on 9/13/2009 8:30:08 PM

Robb -

How's this:

"No one may serve more than 4 terms or portions thereof in federal elected office, no more than two terms of which may be in the same office; no one who has served in federal elected office is eligible for compensation in any form from the federal government, except for pay and benefits commensurate with rank in the active duty military or reserves.

No one, except for active duty military and reserves, is eligible for employment with, or to receive compensation in any form from, the federal government for a period longer than 15 years.

No one employed by, or who has received compensation for services rendered from, the federal government shall receive compensation in any form after their employment period terminates, the sole exception being retirement payments and benefits commensurate with rank for service in the active duty military or reserves."

aczarnowski says:

on 9/14/2009 11:19:30 AM

I liked the idea of term limits initially myself. Then someone mentioned the unelected bureaucrats behind each of those positions. That's the real problem, and that isn't solved with term limits. I could see term limits making that worse too.

A lottery system is interesting. Too much turn over, however, leads to weak leadership against a strong military. And we Americans love our guns so I can't see the defense department shrinking. I'm rather not see coups become a seasonal sport here in the USA.

Tough problems. Voting out the incumbent has been my tactic but I don't have illusions it's addressing the fundamental problems.

BTW: I like the tag/section design - subtle. Making them links is on the TODO list?

Robb Allen says:

on 9/14/2009 11:33:35 AM

BTW: I like the tag/section design - subtle. Making them links is on the TODO list?

It is now.

As for the behind the scenes bureaucrats, that's another problem, but often, from what I've learned, they're party specific in many instances. A constant switch is sure to shake them up a bit more than they are now.

There are many other issues with the government that need to be taken care of and we simply cannot do them all at once. My main concern is removing the power they have. The federal government should be small, almost tiny. Without the power to do X,Y, and Z, the behind the scenes shenanigans aren't as worrisome.

aczarnowski says:

on 9/14/2009 2:48:05 PM

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page Robb. I've concluded that smaller government is our only hope myself.

Until an effective way to pop some federal balloons appears, I'll vote for whomever will put the most gum in the works). If I can't make it smaller, I'll try to stop it rolling over me as efficiently.

Jake says:

on 9/15/2009 2:07:27 PM

"The federal government should be small, almost tiny. Without the power to do X,Y, and Z, the behind the scenes shenanigans aren't as worrisome."

I've always thought the best way to limit the government was to limit taxes. Less money means less ability to do things other than what they're supposed to do.

My thought? Limit taxes to 10% total of any one income. My paycheck? The government could only take 10% maximum - from me or my employer (none of this double-tax garbage like with FICA). Also, no sales tax. A manufacturer or store owner counts his money from sales as income, and is only taxed on his income. And no more than 10%.

Once you've limited the government's income, you can focus on making them spend it intelligently, but as long as the income is effectively unlimited, it's almost impossible to make spending limited.

Oh, yeah... require a balanced budget and that the government use generally accepted accounting practices, not the "make it up as we go along" accounting they use now.

Comments have been closed on this topic.