NationStates Jolt Archive

Then why don't they all just resign? It would cut government down by 1/2..... :fluffle:

I've always thought pretty much the same about death-cults…

Republican death-cult? :eek:

Because then the Democrats would take control and would inflate the government beyond its current size.

Because then the Democrats would take control and would inflate the government beyond its current size.
You had to spoil the fun in this thread didn't you :fluffle:

You had to spoil the fun in this thread didn't you :fluffle:

Yep, that's what I do best. Now if the Republicans ordered hits on the Democrats, and then resigned, they would get their small government :D

Yep, that's what I do best. Now if the Republicans ordered hits on the Democrats, and then resigned, they would get their small government :D


So...is there a sign up sheet for this? :D :P

Then why don't they all just resign? It would cut government down by 1/2..... :fluffle:

They're not for smaller government. They favor government a teensy-weensy tiny bit smaller than Democrats, but they still favor ginormous, all-pervasive government.

Because then the Democrats would take control and would inflate the government beyond its current size.

Under Clinton the government shrunk. Under Bush the government grew.

The Republicans are not the party of:
Small Government.
States Rights.
Freedom.
Fiscal Conservatism.
Workers Rights.
Economic Strength.
Family Values.

Can anyone else think of something, off the top of their heads, that Republicans claim to be the party of, but clearly aren't?

Yep, that's what I do best. Now if the Republicans ordered hits on the Democrats, and then resigned, they would get their small government :D
You want to go a long way towards making government smaller? Institute two-term limits for Congress members.

Under Clinton the government shrunk. Under Bush the government grew.
AFAIK, the only thing that shrunk under Clinton was the military.

Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same two-faced coin.

They're not for smaller government. They favor government a teensy-weensy tiny bit smaller than Democrats, but they still favor ginormous, all-pervasive government.
It would be be so much simpler if we could simply have a revlolution against both parties....according to Mr. Jefferson, who believed "in order to preserve democracy, there should be a revolution every 20 years." And by that, I believe we are 209 years overdue :D

You want to go a long way towards making government smaller? Institute two-term limits for Congress members.

I don't get term limits. I sort of understand it for the President, as basically allowing an executive Head of State free reign can be dangerous*, otherwise, they make little sense. If I'm an excellent congressman, working hard for my district why should the voters be compelled to vote for someone else after 8 years?

*But if people want to keep voting for the same person - why not?

Under Clinton the government shrunk. Under Bush the government grew.

The Republicans are not the party of:
Small Government.
States Rights.
Freedom.
Fiscal Conservatism.
Workers Rights.
Economic Strength.
Family Values.

Can anyone else think of something, off the top of their heads, that Republicans claim to be the party of, but clearly aren't?

Wrong. It grew under Clinton, too. Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to U.S. History by Dr. Thomas Wood, Jr., specifically the last chapter, "Clinton," and then check out his bibliographical references. The only two 20th century governments under which the government shrunk are Harding and Coolidge.

They're not for smaller government. They favor government a teensy-weensy tiny bit smaller than Democrats, but they still favor ginormous, all-pervasive government.

Not exactly. They favor a crippled government. Remember the famous Grover Norquist line? "I don't want to abolish government. I just want to shrink it down so that its small enough to drag into the bathroom and drown it in the tub."

Right now they're bloating the government up to a much larger size so that it will require massive funding, via tax increases. At the same time they cut taxes, creating a huge buget deficit. Eventually the government will be bankrupt and will have to charge everyone punitive income tax rates just to pay off its debt.

The republicans, especially the neocons, don't actually want lower taxes, and they do want smaller government. But they're corporate business people. Spending a $1,000,000 to make $50 in 3 years is their S.O.P. Because if you have enough money to do that a hundred thousand times a year then you don't actually have to work to make more money. By the same token they see lower taxes now and larger government now as a way to cash in when this causes its eventual economic collapse.

It would be be so much simpler if we could simply have a revlolution against both parties....according to Mr. Jefferson, who believed "in order to preserve democracy, there should be a revolution every 20 years." And by that, I believe we are 209 years overdue :D

*Grabs Tennessee long rifle*

Let's get started! :D

I don't get term limits. I understand them for the President, as basically allowing an executive Head of State free reign is dangerous, otherwise, they make little sense. If I'm an excellent congressman, working hard for my district why should the voters be compelled to vote for someone else after 8 years?
Because unlimited terms causes power bases to be built up, pandering to special interest groups (this includes big business) and the impetus to do nothing more than keep the status quo.

Until term limits for Congress are instituted, we will be stuck with the corrupt, broken system we currently have.

Under Clinton the government shrunk. Under Bush the government grew.

The Republicans are not the party of:
Small Government.
States Rights.
Freedom.
Fiscal Conservatism.
Workers Rights.
Economic Strength.
Family Values.

Can anyone else think of something, off the top of their heads, that Republicans claim to be the party of, but clearly aren't?
Christian values ;-D

You want to go a long way towards making government smaller? Institute two-term limits for Congress members.

I prefer adding a "None of the Above" option to the ballot and if it wins either the seat remains vacant until the next election or a new election be held immidiately. That way, the good congressmen can stay around as long as their constituants want them to but not be force to vote for the lesser of 2 evils where they would rather not elect either candidate.

The republicans, especially the neocons, don't actually want lower taxes, and they do want smaller government.
No, they don't want smaller government. Big government gives them the corporate protections, subsidies and a host of other crap that makes it easier for them to stomp out competition and the free market. FDR institutionalized those heinous policies and the Neocons are now taking full advantage of it.

I don't get term limits. I sort of understand it for the President, as basically allowing an executive Head of State free reign can be dangerous*, otherwise, they make little sense. If I'm an excellent congressman, working hard for my district why should the voters be compelled to vote for someone else after 8 years?

*But if people want to keep voting for the same person - why not?

If people want to keep voting for the same president then why not? Sure I'm horrified at the notion of 12 years of GWB, but I maintain no illusions about Republican's numbers, ignorance, and malice being sufficient to vote in another president just like him. The Democrats however would be hard pressed to find another Clinton.

It makes sense for Congress people however because as the same senator serves successive terms they end up becoming more and more powerful. They get themselves appointed to head up all the important comittees. They use this power to pour money into their home states regardless of what good it will do the nation. E.g. Wyoming gets, what is it, twice the per capita security spending of New York?

There's some state down south that has stuff all over the place named after him because whenever any spending bill was going through his comittee he wouldn't let it go anywhere unless it was stuffed with pork for his state. This is a big reason why Republicans are not fiscal conservatives (neither are Democrats, but they rarely claim to be, or are accused of being). "Conservative" in Washington means "favors taxes being collected in other states to be spent in one's own state."

No, they don't want smaller government. Big government gives them the corporate protections, subsidies and a host of other crap that makes it easier for them to stomp out competition and the free market. FDR institutionalized those heinous policies and the Neocons are now taking full advantage of it.

Corporations don't need government protection. They have obscene amounts of money. That's all the protection that they need. Sure they'll use the government as best they can, but if the government doesn't have the money to enforce minimum wage laws, our vestigial media regulations, overtime laws (mostly overturned anyway, thanks repubs), social security, food stamps, public education, etc. the more that people will depend on corporations for their bread and butter.

Do you know how much money Walmart looses having to compete with Social Security money for hiring greeters? How much money did AT&T lose by getting broken up because of monopoly laws?

Christian values ;-D

*Smacks own forehead* I must be asleep at the wheel. How the hell could I have missed that one?

Wrong. It grew under Clinton, too. Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to U.S. History by Dr. Thomas Wood, Jr., specifically the last chapter, "Clinton," and then check out his bibliographical references. The only two 20th century governments under which the government shrunk are Harding and Coolidge.

Of course, look at the governments of Harding and Coolidge-- not exactly the sort of thing to emulate. Though Alaskan oil drilling is a lot like Teapot Dome...

Do you know how much money Walmart looses having to compete with Social Security money for hiring greeters? How much money did AT&T lose by getting broken up because of monopoly laws?
Do you know how often Walmart gets government to strip people of their land under emminent domain and sell it to Walmart CHEAP? How much land with given to the telecommunications companies under emminent domain so that they could run their lines without having to pay people fair market prices or rent for land use? How many corporations are given corporate welfare just to survive (while smaller companies are still making profits -- think Amtrak and Delta vs Southwest)? How many corporations are given tax abatements that small business don't get? How many corporations have tax loopholes especially written to promote big business that small business doesn't get?

If you truly think that corporations want all those protections and advantages gone, you're hopeless.

Republicans are not the party of small government and personal responsibility; they're the party that knows what they want and knows how to get it. If this means telling the people that you're the party of small government and personal responsibility, so be it. They're still pretty socially conservative, but they're some of the biggest spenders I've ever seen--at least the ones that are in power now. They control all branches of government so I think it's pretty safe to say that they're actually showing us now what they stand for.

I, for one, don't like it one damn bit.

Can anyone else think of something, off the top of their heads, that Republicans claim to be the party of, but clearly aren't?
The common man.

Because unlimited terms causes power bases to be built up, pandering to special interest groups (this includes big business) and the impetus to do nothing more than keep the status quo.

That's one scenario. We don't have term limits in the UK and I think you'd be hard pressed to find an MP who has built up a power base or conspicuously pandered to special interests.

As I say, I can see why having them for the President could be argued (I disagree, mind you) but I can see why they could be argued. However, I'd say if there's a problem with congress that you describe, it's not down to the length of service.

The bigger problem is the "closed-shop" of the two party system.

However, I'd say if there's a problem with congress that you describe, it's not down to the length of service.
You're right. It's not down to the length of service -- it's down to lack of ethics and abuse of power. BUT, unlimited terms DIRECTLY FACILITATE that abuse of power.

You're right. It's not down to the length of service -- it's down to lack of ethics and abuse of power. BUT, unlimited terms DIRECTLY FACILITATE that abuse of power.

Erm, did you read the first sentence about other systems with unlimited terms?

Then why don't they all just resign? It would cut government down by 1/2..... :fluffle:

because they wan't to be the small government.

Erm, did you read the first sentence about other systems with unlimited terms?
I wasn't referring to the UK, I was referring to the US.

No offense, but I could give a s**t less about the UK system of government because it doesn't directly affect me. I'm about trying to fix the US government.

IN THE US, unlimited terms are a direct facilitator of the corruption present in our government.

IN THE US, unlimited terms are a direct facilitator of the corruption present in our government.

And I was saying that other systems have unlimited terms and don't have the problems you describe. Therefore other factors must be involved, so simply changing that one thing won't help. Perhaps greater congressional accountability is needed? Perhaps a government watchdog? I don't know, but it's obviously not down simply to that one issue of terms.

Possibly there might even be something to learn from other systems? Or is that unthinkable?

You want to go a long way towards making government smaller? Institute two-term limits for Congress members.

That's a damn good idea! I only wish it was feasible. Congressmen guard the Term Coop :(

Funny fact: every few years congressmen vote to give themselves a salary bonus :p. I wonder who'd vote against that one in the Senate.

And I was saying that other systems have unlimited terms and don't have the problems you describe. Therefore other factors must be involved, so simply changing that one thing won't help. Perhaps greater congressional accountability is needed? Perhaps a government watchdog? I don't know, but it's obviously not down simply to that one issue of terms.

Possibly there might even be something to learn from other systems? Or is that unthinkable?
No, term limits will not solve all the problems of our government, but I NEVER said it would. Abuse of power and lack of ethics/morals are the biggest problem with our corporatist government. We already have government watchdog organizations and they haven't helped fix the problem at all. There are tons of measures in government for Congressional accountability, but those measure are not enforced and are, at present, useless.

You're ignoring the obvious argument: Unlimited terms, in the US, allow for building of power bases and abuse of that power. Since we can't just brainwash politicians and change their ethics/morals, then the next best measure is to limit their ability to consolidate and abuse power. Hence, term limits.

It won't solve everything, but it WILL be a very good starting place.

I can see the argument, unfortunately it also ends the political career of anyone who's not corrupt at the same time. Perhaps a simpler system for identiftying and removing corrupt individuals would be better.

I can see the argument, unfortunately it also ends the political career of anyone who's not corrupt at the same time. Perhaps a simpler system for identiftying and removing corrupt individuals would be better.
We already have means of identifying corruption through watchdog organizations. We already have a way of removing them through voting. Idiotic and ignorant voters still keep reelecting them, though. What do you do when the voters keep electing corrupt politicians? Term limits.

We already have means of identifying corruption through watchdog organizations. We already have a way of removing them through voting. Idiotic and ignorant voters still keep reelecting them, though. What do you do when the voters keep electing corrupt politicians? Term limits.

Disqulifications from standing for public office. Then you don't harm the good ones.