Jump to content

Time to clean house in Congress

nappyroots

By nappyroots
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, baddog said:

Oh it's going to be cleaned alright. The republicans already have the majority of the house. Wait till after this election.

I hope you're right but I keep hearing how both of them are crooks, don't like either one (heck, said that myself).   I see a lot of voters staying home, mostly Repubs, unless this newest Email thing makes the Bernie people so mad they stay home.  Saw an article yesterday, prior to the Email release, that Bernie supporters were going to load up on beans prior to the Convention and have a f-rt in.   Hope they wear Depends for that, oops moment :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

I think these throw the bums out, both sides need to be flushed and Congress has horrible ratings are meaningless. 

Representatives are not unpopular. The opposition is unpopular. Since Congress is divided enough to pretty much block each other, nothing gets done. That doesn't mean that San Francisco doesn't love Nancy Pelosi or that north Houston doesn't like Ted Poe. People in those districts might say, "I hate Congress" but in the next breath say, "I love my congressman". 

Let's run by just a few numbers in Texas in the last election in 2014 and see how unpopular Congress is with some of these Republican led districts. Ted Poe wins District 2 with almost 70% of the vote. In 1 Louie Gohmert gets almost 80% of the vote. Yep, lots of hate there. In 3 Sam Johnson gets 82%, 5 wins with 85%, 8 with Kevin Brady with right at 90% (ouch).. but wait, we have some close ones. Districts 6 and 7 get just over 60% votes for the Republicans (a 20% wins looks "close" compared to other districts). Even the Democrats had a few high number districts but not as many as the Republicans but in those districts, they appear to be satisfied with their representatives.

The point is that people don't like representatives that vote differently from them. They claim to hate Congress but they like 50% of it and hate the other 50% so nothing gets done. 

Term limits while it seems enticing, might not do any good. When Kevin Brady wins in this region of the state by 90% and is forced out, do you think the people in his district are going to vote for a Nancy Pelosi candidate? Not in a million years. 

You can force every person out of Congress every term but what will change? Will the uber-ultra-about to fall of the left side of the Earth people in San Francisco going to be voting for change by picking a Ted Poe like person? Again, not in a million years. So what would we accomplish? An far left wing Democrat is replaced with a far left wing Democrat. Yep, that will shake things up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted

I fully agree with your assessment TVC, but I think one of the things that people are fed up with is the alliances that are present in Congress. Congressmen tell other Congressmen "You vote for my crappy bill and I will vote for your crappy bill." And you have to vote (or not vote) for a bill because of your party affiliation, not your conscience. Senior party leaders have too much power over the other party members. Term limits will reduce the need to always vote along party lines. That is the way I think many look at term limits. Whether or not it would be effective...I have no clue.

Term limits would reduce the amount of time Congressmen need to go out campaigning. I think this would be a bad thing. The more time they spend out of office the better. I wish they would just meet for one month a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Englebert said:

I fully agree with your assessment TVC, but I think one of the things that people are fed up with is the alliances that are present in Congress. Congressmen tell other Congressmen "You vote for my crappy bill and I will vote for your crappy bill." And you have to vote (or not vote) for a bill because of your party affiliation, not your conscience. Senior party leaders have too much power over the other party members. Term limits will reduce the need to always vote along party lines. That is the way I think many look at term limits. Whether or not it would be effective...I have no clue.

Term limits would reduce the amount of time Congressmen need to go out campaigning. I think this would be a bad thing. The more time they spend out of office the better. I wish they would just meet for one month a year.

Good post Englebert, and one sentence in there is, imo, the main problem.  "Senior party leaders have to much power over the other party members".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Good post Englebert, and one sentence in there is, imo, the main problem.  "Senior party leaders have to much power over the other party members".

This is exactly why Ted Cruz is hated in the Senate. The party leaders try to whip him into shape and he tells them to shove it up their... If we had 99 more Senators like him, regardless of party affiliation, we wouldn't need to be talking about term limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I am for term limits and I am for term limits for all representatives, not just the ones from the party I don't support.  Minimizing the amount of time spent in Washington could potentially reduce corruption and reduce the likelihood of becoming so firmly ensconced in the ole boy network(s)

Yep, there it is...hard to come in as a newbie with good intentions and overcome 30 - 40 years of good ole boy relationships...on both sides.

Most simply fall in line after a while...some, like Cruz don't, and are hated by the party that should be doing exactly what he is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

If you want to help end corruption in the US Congress, two simple law would help a lot. They won't ever pass though. 

One would be like many or most states and have a balanced budget amendment. You can spend money on pet projects unless the money is in hand. The other would be like TX and a bill has a single issue. It can't be like the US Congress where riders are allowed. It is like a bill that is passed to aid the people in a disaster area in Florida after a hurricane............ and a rider to study the sex habits of the Asian Tiger Mosquitos in CA. That is currently how you close votes with legal bribes. 

But..... Congress that loves that ability so it will not tale place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Just heard about one state having a highway fund put in place and fully funded.   $ were used for other things and now those in power state that the highway fund is low and needs to be replenished.

Replenished...hmmmm.

Only taxpayers fear that word when used by politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,205
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Martez
    Newest Member
    Martez
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...