It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solution to the debt crisis. Do not vote for republicans or democrats EVER AGAIN!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Spookybelle

Quadrivium

ownbestenemy

grandmakdw


Term limits help to keep corruption away, also helps to keep "lifer" mentality of "I deserve the power, and the people serve me." attitude of our current government.


You mean the term-limits that are already in place that keep the power in the hands of the People rather than a Government telling them they cannot vote for someone they believe in? I know it may seem broken and quite frankly it is, but term-limits; as ascribed by law, won't fix things since we already have them and we just vote people back into office who "bring home the bacon" anyway.

I am by no means an expert here but it seems that many, many voters vote on a straight party ballot.
It's sad to say but many do not know what most candidates stand for. The just look for the "D" or the "R".
This gives career politicians a huge advantage.
The longer these folks stay in office, the more out of touch they become with the people and reality.


Yes but these people are going to vote a straight ticket regardless if the person is a 10 term senator or a first term senator. Your statement in no way address the fact that a new guy coming in is going to be better than the guy going out.

I have yet to hear a credible argument to justify why term-limits are needed at the congressional level.

I believe we can all see where the "old guys" are leading us. Time for some new blood.
I and many others see term limits as the one option we have not tried yet that MAY change or at least help the current situation.
Instead of naysaying, if you have an better alternative lets hear it.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


Even presidential, I do not see the need for the Amendment we have in place, as it now limits the States; and by extension, the People; on who they want to lead the Federal Government.

If we reigned in the notion that the Presidency (Executive Department) has as much power as they have certainly claimed over the past 100+ years, and placed them on the level field of which they belong with the other two branches, a 4-term President isn't a bad thing.

It is when the Legislative (as they have) abdicates and relinquishes its duties to the Executive, does that branch appear to have more power than the other. The notion of three-equal branches has been long diminished since the late 19th century.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Voting out all the incumbents is a good start. Term limits are an excellent idea. We also really need line item voting of any bills. That way only the items that the parties can together on will be passed, eliminating a great portion of pork. Along those lines, I don't think the President should get line-item veto powers as part of this, too much power. Also any time the Congress cannot come to agreement on budgets, etc. they get removed and a special election is held to replace them. Anyone who refuses to act in good faith to their constituents gets charged with treason. This would include things like being fully informed on the matters before the congress. For example not reading and understanding bills before voting on them would be treasonous behavior. For pete's sake most of these people are lawyers. Of course having witnessed many lawyers in action, they usually fail their clients even when they are victorious. It just comes down to which lawyer is less worse.

As for the debt...we shouldn't have any debt. The treasury should be able to "coin" (i.e. create) money without assuming debt. As a part of eliminating debt based money we would also need to eliminate the fractional reserve banking system, thus shrinking the money supply much more than the Treasury printing would grow it. Eventually we would get to an equilibrium with very low inflation. At that time, limit the money creation to a small percentage each year with only a National referendum being able to increase it. Thus the America people would have a voice before we went to war and such things.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Spookybelle

Dianec
You know what - I'm against picking parties over issues but I'm gonna say I'm with you on this. That is "if" there is a Country left when we get there. I feel sick about today (literally). Lets please make a list. Then lets share the list with anyone who will spread it around (if someone knows how to do this).

So far today I have seen evidence of

1. Bribes - Kentucky for a vote and another who voted for obamacare because he was bribed awhile back.

2. The government get their health care paid for - in full.

3. They have been given an open check to do with what they please.


I said it in another thread. People have been conditioned - pot in boiling water scenario. If this would have happened in my grandparents day they would have overtaken the government. If it all happened in the matter of a day or week we would be doing something.

Today it is too difficult to even look at (even I tune it out as a way to cope with what's happening). I see why people feel hopeless. I know because I feel it. I know why we have given up. We made them huge. We gave them power willingly and now its out of control.


This did happen in your grandparents day. In fact, it has happened in every Congress and Presidential Administration since Washington.

I'm speaking of corruption in general, not your specific points of course.


I am not denying that but the corruption along with the size of the government and their imposing on our liberties and choices did not happen in tandem in their day. It's more than just a bit of corruption. It is exponentially larger. They have never been this big and so powerful. That along with corruption is what is dangerous. But it feels as if it isn't such a big issue for people. It is griped about for awhile and forgotten. All while we give away more of our power. I just don't get it I suppose.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Dianec because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Um, you are totally missing the reason the current politicians are not able to solve the debt problem.

There is no politically acceptable solution, so changing the politicians will not change the results. It could have been kept to just a recession 7 or 8 years ago, but not anymore.

What I mean when I say there is no acceptable solution is that we must default on our debt, and entitlement spending must be cut nearly in half. This will put us into a depression.

99 percent of the population will not at all be happy about this, and a small percentage may even result to violence against the elected officials.

Now would a change to a new party after the collapse help? Possibly for a short period of time, but really the vigilance of the citizenry in holding the politicians accountable for their actions, or lack thereof is what is missing. Without that corruption is inevitable and we will be right back where we started.

edit on 16-10-2013 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

ownbestenemy
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


Even presidential, I do not see the need for the Amendment we have in place, as it now limits the States; and by extension, the People; on who they want to lead the Federal Government.

If we reigned in the notion that the Presidency (Executive Department) has as much power as they have certainly claimed over the past 100+ years, and placed them on the level field of which they belong with the other two branches, a 4-term President isn't a bad thing.

It is when the Legislative (as they have) abdicates and relinquishes its duties to the Executive, does that branch appear to have more power than the other. The notion of three-equal branches has been long diminished since the late 19th century.


Yes but the ability of a President to consolidate power is amplified over members of Congress for a number of reasons. As you stated, he is the boss of the largest employer in the nation, he chooses the heads of all the departments that runs this country, and he is allowed to represent the nation in foreign negotiations. Put all that together and its a very strong case for a limit on the term he can serve.

Its funny that the original proposition for the term of President was a one-year term of seven years. It was proposed and adopted with literally no discussion according to Madison's notes. However, just about 2 weeks prior to the completion of the Constitution it was suddenly changed and no explanation given. To this day we don't know the reasons they suddenly flipped on this issue when it had been decided already.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Dianec

Spookybelle

Dianec
You know what - I'm against picking parties over issues but I'm gonna say I'm with you on this. That is "if" there is a Country left when we get there. I feel sick about today (literally). Lets please make a list. Then lets share the list with anyone who will spread it around (if someone knows how to do this).

So far today I have seen evidence of

1. Bribes - Kentucky for a vote and another who voted for obamacare because he was bribed awhile back.

2. The government get their health care paid for - in full.

3. They have been given an open check to do with what they please.


I said it in another thread. People have been conditioned - pot in boiling water scenario. If this would have happened in my grandparents day they would have overtaken the government. If it all happened in the matter of a day or week we would be doing something.

Today it is too difficult to even look at (even I tune it out as a way to cope with what's happening). I see why people feel hopeless. I know because I feel it. I know why we have given up. We made them huge. We gave them power willingly and now its out of control.


This did happen in your grandparents day. In fact, it has happened in every Congress and Presidential Administration since Washington.

I'm speaking of corruption in general, not your specific points of course.


I am not denying that but the corruption along with the size of the government and their imposing on our liberties and choices did not happen in tandem in their day. It's more than just a bit of corruption. It is exponentially larger. They have never been this big and so powerful. That along with corruption is what is dangerous. But it feels as if it isn't such a big issue for people. It is griped about for awhile and forgotten. All while we give away more of our power. I just don't get it I suppose.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Dianec because: (no reason given)


I'm not so sure I agree with that statement. Lincoln literally arrested over a thousand people who were considered political threats and threw them in prison and Roosevelt locked up all the Japanese within 100 miles of the West Coast. I do not think either of those actions would be possible today so do you still believe the government is as powerful today as they were back then?

Do you remember the Sedition Acts when the government made it a crime to put anything negative about them in the press?

Could they get away with that today?

I don't think so.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Yeah, people definitely need to re-examine their ideologies and see what other parties also fit them, if not fit them better. They are, after all, supposed to be representative of the citizens' diversity, so logically, no alternative parties should be scoffed at in favor of upholding an either/or two-party system. That method simply does not compute at all.

As to term limits and such, I absolutely agree. There's no reason (or right) that one person should hold office their entire life. They are not there to make themselves cushy permanently at the cost of integrity. Aside from term limits, I think there should be a law against kickbacks and such. You get something from a lobbyist, you lose your job & are barred from ever holding office again. Actually, I'd prefer to see a politician executed for that (it's dressed up bribery, FFS) but I doubt many would support it, other than in jest & jokes.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 

Dear Spookybelle,


Do you remember the Sedition Acts when the government made it a crime to put anything negative about them in the press?

Could they get away with that today?

I don't think so.
Perhaps not, at least officially. But certainly tradition was violated when Carney refused to take a question from a front row reporter at a press conference, answering questions from those on either side of him. Or, barring "unfriendly" reporters from press conferences all together. That means of course, a damaged career.

Or justifying intercepting a reporters e-mails and calls, even his mother's, hoping to terrify him and his colleagues with an entirely unjustified espionage charge. Or all the subtle pressures brought to bear on editors.

No, there won't be a law, but reporters will be punished for reporting negative news about the administration. Does it work? Well, take out FOX and Rush, both of whom have been personally, individually attacked by the President, and who is regularly reporting negative news? Do they have a national audience? Maybe the Wall Street Journal, kind of, and the Washington Times. But television? Magazines? Most newspapers? They don't need a law. It's working just fine as it is.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Quadrivium

Spookybelle

Quadrivium

ownbestenemy

grandmakdw


Term limits help to keep corruption away, also helps to keep "lifer" mentality of "I deserve the power, and the people serve me." attitude of our current government.


You mean the term-limits that are already in place that keep the power in the hands of the People rather than a Government telling them they cannot vote for someone they believe in? I know it may seem broken and quite frankly it is, but term-limits; as ascribed by law, won't fix things since we already have them and we just vote people back into office who "bring home the bacon" anyway.

I am by no means an expert here but it seems that many, many voters vote on a straight party ballot.
It's sad to say but many do not know what most candidates stand for. The just look for the "D" or the "R".
This gives career politicians a huge advantage.
The longer these folks stay in office, the more out of touch they become with the people and reality.


Yes but these people are going to vote a straight ticket regardless if the person is a 10 term senator or a first term senator. Your statement in no way address the fact that a new guy coming in is going to be better than the guy going out.

I have yet to hear a credible argument to justify why term-limits are needed at the congressional level.

I believe we can all see where the "old guys" are leading us. Time for some new blood.
I and many others see term limits as the one option we have not tried yet that MAY change or at least help the current situation.
Instead of naysaying, if you have an better alternative lets hear it.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)


Presidents have term limits but have you seen any change when we put a new guy in there?

We don't need another alternative because what we have now works just fine. The problem with politicians has nothing to do with the time they served in Congress and changing that won't fix the issues. Its like changing the oil on your car when you get a flat tire.

It doesn't address the problem.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


As you've pointed out, plenty of people speak out against the government and the government is powerless to stop them unlike in days past.

You haven't really proved that the government is more powerful today then they were at other points in our history. Larger yes, but the population has also greatly increased. It can be argued whether that is necessary or not.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Spookybelle
Yes but the ability of a President to consolidate power is amplified over members of Congress for a number of reasons. As you stated, he is the boss of the largest employer in the nation, he chooses the heads of all the departments that runs this country, and he is allowed to represent the nation in foreign negotiations. Put all that together and its a very strong case for a limit on the term he can serve.


To risk dancing around a common point, I still view what you have said a abdication of power of Congress. For instance, you stated that he "chooses the heads of all the departments that runs this country..." While true, that the President does nominate, it is still beholden to the consent of the Senate. Sadly, this power was diminished by the 17th Amendment.

You also stated "...he is allowed to represent the nation in foreign negotiations..." Yes he can represent, but any and all treaties are still beholden to Congress; in which I have highlighted that they have nearly emaciated themselves with legislation and the 17th Amendment to hand up the power to the Executive.

So in a sense, I agree that the Executive has much "power" and there is a solid case for the term limit Amendment in place; my point was it is moot if Congress didn't abdicate and capitulate.


Its funny that the original proposition for the term of President was a one-year term of seven years. It was proposed and adopted with literally no discussion according to Madison's notes. However, just about 2 weeks prior to the completion of the Constitution it was suddenly changed and no explanation given. To this day we don't know the reasons they suddenly flipped on this issue when it had been decided already.


Madison is my favorite. I am a descendant of Adams and his staunch and unwavering stance on the notion that "we are created equally" makes him a close second. But Madison was a genius.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   

charles1952
Perhaps not, at least officially. But certainly tradition was violated when Carney refused to take a question from a front row reporter at a press conference, answering questions from those on either side of him. Or, barring "unfriendly" reporters from press conferences all together. That means of course, a damaged career.


The whole notion of a "pool" is ridiculous to the notion of a Free Press as is. So tradition in that sense is false. Why do I need approval from the White House and so called "credentials" to ask my president questions? Heck, it isn't even the President most of the time.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 
Text

Solution to the debt crisis:

Is to change the way the government gets paid etc. Do away with there health care, pensions, the people that work for them and there benefits. They can only serve one term in office, there done, and no benefits when there done. Pull the plug on them all. Make them pay there share in this , with no free ride after there terms are up and all those support staffers to. A lot of those people who are in office have all there family, friends working to. This is got to stop now.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

The only 1 who knows the
Solution to the debt crisis:


You offer an idea so lets examine it:


Is to change the way the government gets paid etc.


This notion needs to stop then; the government doesn't "get paid"; it collects taxes via legislation and the threat of force. We the People are not paying willfully.


Do away with there health care, pensions, the people that work for them and there benefits.
Agreed, they should have to engage in the private sector and negotiate their own deals regarding the above mentioned.


They can only serve one term in office, there done, and no benefits when there done. Pull the plug on them all.


I agree to the "no benefits when there[sic] done." portion. I do not however agree to the one term in office notion. That isn't up to the Government to decide, that is up to the framework of the Constitution, the States and the People to decide. If they are willing and we know they are not -- but democracy is ugly right?



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Of course you are right about Congress having to confirm but I don't think you will argue with me that the President has more power than any single member of Congress.

It was this power of the President that the founders worried about, not the power of individual congressmen. The Executive Order, the Power to Pardon....issues like this makes the office of the president a very close one to monitor.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


Agreed and one closely scrutinized via the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for us to heed; save we, meaning the People; did not.

But I do agree.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Spookybelle

Dianec

Spookybelle

Dianec
You know what - I'm against picking parties over issues but I'm gonna say I'm with you on this. That is "if" there is a Country left when we get there. I feel sick about today (literally). Lets please make a list. Then lets share the list with anyone who will spread it around (if someone knows how to do this).

So far today I have seen evidence of

1. Bribes - Kentucky for a vote and another who voted for obamacare because he was bribed awhile back.

2. The government get their health care paid for - in full.

3. They have been given an open check to do with what they please.


I said it in another thread. People have been conditioned - pot in boiling water scenario. If this would have happened in my grandparents day they would have overtaken the government. If it all happened in the matter of a day or week we would be doing something.

Today it is too difficult to even look at (even I tune it out as a way to cope with what's happening). I see why people feel hopeless. I know because I feel it. I know why we have given up. We made them huge. We gave them power willingly and now its out of control.


This did happen in your grandparents day. In fact, it has happened in every Congress and Presidential Administration since Washington.

I'm speaking of corruption in general, not your specific points of course.


I am not denying that but the corruption along with the size of the government and their imposing on our liberties and choices did not happen in tandem in their day. It's more than just a bit of corruption. It is exponentially larger. They have never been this big and so powerful. That along with corruption is what is dangerous. But it feels as if it isn't such a big issue for people. It is griped about for awhile and forgotten. All while we give away more of our power. I just don't get it I suppose.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Dianec because: (no reason given)


I'm not so sure I agree with that statement. Lincoln literally arrested over a thousand people who were considered political threats and threw them in prison and Roosevelt locked up all the Japanese within 100 miles of the West Coast. I do not think either of those actions would be possible today so do you still believe the government is as powerful today as they were back then?

Do you remember the Sedition Acts when the government made it a crime to put anything negative about them in the press?

Could they get away with that today?

I don't think so.



No I didn't know about the sedition act but I am aware past presidents weren't saints. Roosevelt was president during a world war, and the Japanese were not popular. Lincoln reigned during the civil war, and I'm under no illusions about him either. In fact, I correct my own child's version of past presidents (the ones he gets at schools which glorify them).


The biggest difference lies in the fact that the war on terror has been exploited beyond comprehension. Every president has used war to justify unjust deeds. But when, in history has it led to the stripping away of privacy and choice; the infiltration of our personal lives to this extent? When in history did it use war as an excuse to grow into something so large that its sheer size and complexity make it impossible to navigate, understand, and overcome?

The point is:

The government has never been this large.
The government had never had this much power... or influence over the people
Corruption is rampant - not new....but far more extreme and widespread.

I can add some peer review on this later if you want. Having a slow moment at work so not quite enough time to do all of that now.

It is important to know our history but it should not distract from or justify this as a norm. Nothing from our past excuses this sort of behavior from our government. The people did not revolt with Lincoln's arrests and maybe that is what should be looked at to understand people's behaviors when injustices happen.

I will look up the sedition act but will also say this - if anyone does not believe the government controls our press through bribes and manipulation they need to dig deeper. Control today does not have the same venue as the sedition act you speak of but controlling the press is alive and well. And I do not doubt for a moment that it could happen again (direct laws) - where those who tell the truth in the press are silenced, and where laws sneak themselves back into the books with the justification of "protecting classified this or that".

The control is growing and it is covert and gradual. If all that has happened in the last few years became public knowledge today (rather than gradually over the last 10-12 years), people would know we are in trouble.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


I am 100% on board with this. They are all of the same color.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


While I have a few more moments I felt I should clarify control. When I speak of more control I mean control which is psychological in nature. That is why it is so dangerous.

Here are a few points as quick examples:

1. Manipulation through media is one way to do this and has been quite effective.

2. Controlling people's income creates a state of dependence. When people rely on a source for basic needs they weigh their grievances with that source more carefully. Basic needs are the most prevalent on Maslow's hierarchy - prioritized by people (in western cultures especially), before self actualization or any other need. Example: welfare has been a positive thing in every way except for the fact that it has been overused and "can have" a psychological side effect of learned helplessness, and loss of motivation for anything other than basic needs. This also comes in the form of taxes and how powerful the IRS is - add in controlled healthcare now.

3. External rather than internal locus of control - do we control our fate or has the government begun to take over more decision making for us? The scale is largely tipped to external and there is no end in sight. Too much external locus of control you begin to see things like giving up and clinical disorders such as depression and anxiety. One of many examples - the patriot act capitalized on our feeling of helplessness.

If the psychological control stops - then you will see the physical control under things like martial law and the like.

Sorry I'm out of time. I would like to put more examples but I hope this clarifies what I mean by control. My fear is - people don't realize it because it is not overt.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join