Congresswomen's Voicemail: Where's My Bribe?

Why in the hell would anyone bribe err I mean contribute to a non-voting member any way. No wonder she's not getting her share of the cheese.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles


The ONLY thing about this that is even slightly surprising, is the fact that some of you seem to actually believe that the release of this voicemail might possibly bring about some sort of change from her other supporters.[color=888888](or whoever. whatever. doesn't matter. this is nothing new. nothing will change.)

edit on 8/19/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)

Thats because Americans have been brainwashed into believing that nothing will change, its easier to play dead....or whatever it is that everyone does when faced with a dilemma.

Its a full time job to lie. make one lie up, and the rest of the story becomes a big lie, and becomes a bigger job to keep it going. Now I know why congress is so busy. Talleying up what has been paid and what hasnt.

You don't get it guys...it's all for you people.

And don't go and suggest that any one person of such character could be a liar. No siree...

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by BrokenCircles


The ONLY thing about this that is even slightly surprising, is the fact that some of you seem to actually believe that the release of this voicemail might possibly bring about some sort of change from her other supporters.[color=888888](or whoever. whatever. doesn't matter. this is nothing new. nothing will change.)

Thats because Americans have been brainwashed into believing that nothing will change, its easier to play dead....or whatever it is that everyone does when faced with a dilemma.

I don't really care why. I was just saying that this is nothing new.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
We need some serious campaign finance reform in this country. Now, I don't think we need to ban companies from contributing, but we should seriously limit them amount. Companies have interests in what the government does, so their voice should be heard -- it just shouldn't run the show.

Perhaps only a certain percentage of a politician's campaign can be funded by private companies and corporations? The rest would have to come from their own wealth, and their political party.

I don't know ... just throwing ideas out there to see if anyone else has some too?

an even better idea, is to get rid of ALL "campaign contributions", end of story. get rid of "corporate contributions".all that will happen is the RICH people in charge of those companies will contribute, no change at all, they will still expect the same "services" for their companies.

by ending all contributions you completely get rid of the issue. the companies WILL have a voice in politics, that voice will be the way the ceo's, owners etc vote.

i would go as far as PROHIBITING ANY PERSONAL FINANCES to be used as well. that gives the "rich/elite", a MAJOR unfair advantage compared to a "little guy" trying to run. the "little guy" has no real chance to get his message out as well as the "rich" since he can't do things like "buy" advertising and such, that the "rich" can.

all moneys used should come from public coffers, and EVERYBODY RUNNING would receive the SAME AMOUNT. you could even do it fairly cheap if you were to do things like give "tax breaks" to media running and producing political ads, provided of course each person running was given EQUAL, time, add placements, etc. sign companies could get the "same tax breaks" as well again by giving equal treatment to ALL candidates.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by Montana

 

The only thing we should be focusing on is how to fix the problems.

It has been what's kept me from voting ---with confidence; not having a no-confidence box next to each name on the ballot will give me confidence in the electoral process.

So, when what's his/her bucket receives a number of no-confidence votes, their career ends; simple?

Instead of term limits, how about the longer someone serves, the higher % of the vote the candidate needs to win. After two terms, the candidate would have to get at least 51% of the vote, next time 55% and so on.

This might help encourage the politicians to keep their constituents happy, even if a lot of money is being thrown at them. These politicians wouldn't be able to keep their seats unless they work harder each successive term. Eventually, they'd have to forfeit their position, as getting more and more votes would become impossible.

This story is from 2010?

More here...
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Term limits? Why? Replace? Recall? Why??? Just so we can replace one thief with a new thief????

Why not institute campaign finance reform?

Whatever happened to McCain-Fiengold???

Oh..that's right...the GOP fought to have it overturned and the conservative Supreme Court dumped the key provisions.

Supreme Court Overturns Key Part of McCain-Feingold
www.humanevents.com...

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

What about being supported by ordinary citizens like us.

What? I don't think that matters. This is sickening.

A lot of these posts are correct, but only partially to really solve the problem.

Our government needs complete reform inside and out. For starters, we need to:

#1 End the FED

#2 Do away with ALL lobbyists (make bribing illegal, as it should be)

#3 Enact strict term limits

#4 Remove all currently in government and replace with new and legitimately voted in representatives under these new rules.

#5 Pass strict laws that prohibit the media from ever being involved in politics again; ie, swaying votes, picking and choosing who to cover during debates etc. The media should ONLY report what is going on, nothing more, nothing less.


The above would be a good start IMO. Without those changes, we are just going to keep seeing more of the same..

The higher up the ladder, the greater the stench....that's how it goes in poly-tics. Morals of righteousness and ethics have minor place in it's primarily corporate/self-serving arena.

By the people for the people?? Ideally yes, though reality is a different matter.

How can you call it justice when the playing field is so Damn steep that the little guys have no ground to stand on? WTF?

I really don't know all that much about how this works, but I'm imagining that the #1 reason why nothing gets done these days is because money has clogged the system like a bad grease ball in the plumbing. These people are spending 75% of their time with lobbyists, but not for the right reason. It is an absolute crime for this kind of thing to go on in a community level, why is it allowed on a National one???

Take the money out, and I bet that these guys would actively and willingly straighten up. I bet most of them hate the fact that once they get in, they have to join the "RAT" race in order to keep up with the rest of the kids on the playground...

It'll come to a close one day, and you can bet that the history books will see them and their actions as criminal. The ones left standing will point fingers at the rest and say "They made me do it!" there isn't enough room left for someone to take the stance and keep the others in check. Something big across the board is going to have to give before anything changes at this point.

Originally posted by Montana
This should trigger a recall from her constituents tomorrow. In my opinion there should be NO professional lobbyists, and NO corporate political "donations" allowed to the members of what is supposed to be the CITIZEN's government. Hang your head in shame, congresswoman. You ARE the problem!

I agree but I would go as far as to ban all lobby groups/corporations donations in government.

And nothing shall happen.


Another blatant finger to the peoples eye. see how normal it was for her to ask about it....


I'm a senior member blah blah blah.


We shouldn't be saying recall, or term limits or any crap like that

We should be saying:

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS

because that is the only thing that will end this.

Being an elected representative of the people should be a volunteer position,no paycheck or money for expenses.
If the people from a representatives state want to financially support their representative than they can make ANONYMOUS donations to a fund that the representative can use.

Being a representative of the people used to be a volunteer job,they would go to washington for a few months take care of business and then return to their homes and their jobs as printers,farmers,blacksmiths etc.
They did it without pay because they actually cared about their country,being a representative now is seen as an easy way to become a millionaire in 4 years or less.it attracts the worst sort of people who are only in it for the money.

At least she didn't go Full-Stewie, lol.

I Live in Scotland, but this still affects me because I am a resident of this planet and we are all in it together, more and more recently I am starting to feel that i just want to kill myself, it angers me so much but at the same time i know deep down there is nothing going to be done about it, I feel helpless and want to stop it but what am I to do, a violent revolution seems the only viable option to me now but people don't care. really I'm not even talking about just this story but the whole god damn mess, I think its just got to the point when enough is enough, humans are disgusting, i don't want to be part of this, i know we're not all bad but even that thread i was hanging on too is about to break as I am at a loss why we are not marching into government and removing these vile, horrible, greedy cancers on society and the earth as a whole.

Originally posted by Montana
This should trigger a recall from her constituents tomorrow. In my opinion there should be NO professional lobbyists, and NO corporate political "donations" allowed to the members of what is supposed to be the CITIZEN's government. Hang your head in shame, congresswoman. You ARE the problem!

And in addition to what you've said above about no corporate donations and no 'single-source' donations over a certain threashold, anyone who serves in political office, or in positions of power and responsibility such as the judiciary, ought to be barred from taking up positions within large corporate and financial sectors for a minimum period of time after leaving office..say 5 years.

This will avoid 'incentive sweeteners' like juicy jobs or directorships in corporations or banks from becoming a concern.

Originally posted by generik

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
We need some serious campaign finance reform in this country. Now, I don't think we need to ban companies from contributing, but we should seriously limit them amount. Companies have interests in what the government does, so their voice should be heard -- it just shouldn't run the show.

Perhaps only a certain percentage of a politician's campaign can be funded by private companies and corporations? The rest would have to come from their own wealth, and their political party.

I don't know ... just throwing ideas out there to see if anyone else has some too?

an even better idea, is to get rid of ALL "campaign contributions", end of story. get rid of "corporate contributions".all that will happen is the RICH people in charge of those companies will contribute, no change at all, they will still expect the same "services" for their companies.

by ending all contributions you completely get rid of the issue. the companies WILL have a voice in politics, that voice will be the way the ceo's, owners etc vote.

i would go as far as PROHIBITING ANY PERSONAL FINANCES to be used as well. that gives the "rich/elite", a MAJOR unfair advantage compared to a "little guy" trying to run. the "little guy" has no real chance to get his message out as well as the "rich" since he can't do things like "buy" advertising and such, that the "rich" can.

all moneys used should come from public coffers, and EVERYBODY RUNNING would receive the SAME AMOUNT. you could even do it fairly cheap if you were to do things like give "tax breaks" to media running and producing political ads, provided of course each person running was given EQUAL, time, add placements, etc. sign companies could get the "same tax breaks" as well again by giving equal treatment to ALL candidates.

If only I could give you more stars fot this post!

That's also what I think should be done. One thing though, how do we determine the maximum number of candidates? I don't want 100k people getting the $$ from public funds to run for congress or presidency. That's the only missing point i see in your idea.

Peace out