GOP Lawmaker Says Country ‘Being Run by Idiots’

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

neither the democrats or the republicans give the people in 10 percent of what would be best for their constituents. They are all sellouts to the people who have money.


Hatch has been in the Senate the longest of republican ever and he has accomplished virtually zero, zip, nada nothing. Talk about lack of leadership. Really not only can I not think of anything... if you look his wasted life up on wikipedia it says he pushed for balanced budgets. (he really led the way on that.)

if you take a look at his accomplishment section it looks almost as weak as hillary clintons...
if you read it pretty much adds up to zero...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch

So our politicians need money to run their campaigns in order to convince voters to select them. The largest single source of funds is from large businesses. Therefore, to get the money the politician needs to represent the business donors interests. To get the votes, the politician says they represent the interests of their constituents.

Thus the primary tool of politicians will need to be used when business interests conlict with voter needs: The Lie.

It sounds like we need to modify this system such as this situation is reduced. Lets explore this idea in future posts on this subject.

 

[RRY16]

So our politicians need money to run their campaigns in order to convince voters to select them. The largest single source of funds is from large businesses. Therefore, to get the money the politician needs to represent the business donors interests. To get the votes, the politician says they represent the interests of their constituents.

Thus the primary tool of politicians will need to be used when business interests conlict with voter needs: The Lie.

It sounds like we need to modify this system such as this situation is reduced. Lets explore this idea in future posts on this subject.

Go to JC or back to remedial high school and report back after you get at least a C+... thank you in advance.

 

[OddTrader]

So our politicians need money to run their campaigns in order to convince voters to select them. The largest single source of funds is from large businesses. Therefore, to get the money the politician needs to represent the business donors interests. To get the votes, the politician says they represent the interests of their constituents.

Thus the primary tool of politicians will need to be used when business interests conlict with voter needs: The Lie.

It sounds like we need to modify this system such as this situation is reduced. Lets explore this idea in future posts on this subject.

* 40 charts that explain money in politics - Vox
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/.../money-in-politics-charts-explain - Cached
30 Jul 2014 ... Unions spent over $4 billion on politics between 2005 and 2011. Unions are important financial powerhouses in elections, but much of their spending is done in such a way that it doesn't show up on FEC reports — it involves getting out the vote or internal communication with their members rather than paid ...

* International campaign finance: How do countries compare? - CNN
www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/world/global-campaign.../index.html - Cached
5 Mar 2012 ... Krishnan, citing Scandinavia as a model, believes increased public funding would cut down party dependence on large donations and give the election system more credibility. In Norway, government funding accounted for 74% of political parties' income in 2010, according to Statistics Norway. And unlike ...

* 7 Other Nations That Prove Just How Absurd U.S. Elections Really Are
https://mic.com/.../7-facts-from-the-around-the-world-show-how-absurd-america-s-elections-really-are - Cached - Similar
19 May 2015 ... Campaign season has just begun. ... The U.S. ranks near the bottom in terms of voter participation when compared with other developed nations. ... The New York Times reported that the combined spending of both major British political parties in 2010 came out to around the same amount as the American ...

* What countries have the most expensive election campaigns in the ...
elections.pajhwok.com/.../what-countries-have-most-expensive-election-campaigns-world - Cached
4 Apr 2013 ... If we start with the first, a comparison between the US 2012 spending with the estimated amounts spent for the multiple elections in Brazil in 2010, we find ... it is useful to compare the total spending with the size of the GDP, showing how large the campaign spending is in comparison with the economy as a ...

* Election 2016: Where the parties stand on the big issues - Australia ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/election-2016...big.../7387588 - Cached - Similar
12 May 2016 ... Here's what you need to know about how the major parties' policies stack up. ... It is traditionally seen as a strength for the Coalition, which is campaigning on its ' jobs and growth' budget in 2016, centred on a cut to the company tax rate — initially for small businesses, before gradually being phased in for ...

* How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries
prospect.org/.../how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries - Cached - Similar
4 Apr 2014 ... But that doesn't mean that these countries' wealthy are writing million-euro checks to parliamentary candidates. It's important to keep in mind that the role money is able to play in politics is determined by multiple factors, many of which serve to hold down both contributions and spending, even when the law ...

* We could learn a lot from the U.K. election - tribunedigital ...
articles.chicagotribune.com/.../ct-oped-0514-british-20100514_1_campaign-spending-candidates-election-day - Cached - Similar
14 May 2010 ... 10 Downing St. The campaign lasted one month and virtually nothing was spent by either campaign, compared with U.S. standards. The national election ... Campaign spending in this country is out of control. ... But the major difference between elections in the two countries is the duration of the campaigns.

* Why American elections cost so much - The Economist explains
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist.../economist-explains-4 - Cached
9 Feb 2014 ... That is small change compared with that year's presidential contest, in which $2 billion was spent (the total cost of the 2012 elections, including congressional ... Not every country shells out so much on its democracy: in France, for instance, presidential candidates' campaign spending is capped at $30m.

 

[OddTrader]

Beating the odds
Why one bill made it through a gridlocked Congress — and so many don't
By Andrew Prokop May 22, 2014

Thousands of bills are introduced during each Congress. Vanishingly few of them end up becoming law — fewer each year, as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction worsen. Out of 7,207 bills and joint resolutions introduced during this Congress, only 103 have become law — fewer, by this point, than in any other Congress since at least the 1970s.

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5723878/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law-in-2014



4. Find a way to pay for it

On September 20, 2012, Warner introduced his revised the DATA Act, along with a new Republican co-sponsor, Rob Portman of Ohio. With outside groups on board and the Treasury Department newly helpful, he hoped he could get a markup by the Homeland Security Committee before the end of the year.

Yet there was one crucial problem the senators hadn't yet solved. According to the CBO, Issa's bill was very expensive — its cost was estimated as $575 million over five years. Issa and Hollister believed that, because of conservative budget scoring rules, the CBO was underestimating how much money the new database could save the government. They argued that, because federal inspector generals had access to the RAT board's website, they had recovered over $100 million in stimulus money that would've been improperly spent otherwise.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Go to JC or back to remedial high school and report back after you get at least a C+... thank you in advance.

Good idea. Can you help me get a voucher? I’ll gladly repay you after I graduate with an Obama vibrator, batteries included.

 

[jem]

I have told this story before but I was at a dinner once with one of my parents friends. He was the number 2 guy at a major oil company. We were talking politics one night. He was retired but he said the problem with Congress is that they are not our crooks anymore. I think that about sums it up perfectly. Our could be the people, it could have been oil companys, it could have been even Americas best interests. But, the work for someone else now and it not good for Americans.

What we need to do is take the money out of politics from both sides.

So our politicians need money to run their campaigns in order to convince voters to select them. The largest single source of funds is from large businesses. Therefore, to get the money the politician needs to represent the business donors interests. To get the votes, the politician says they represent the interests of their constituents.

Thus the primary tool of politicians will need to be used when business interests conlict with voter needs: The Lie.

It sounds like we need to modify this system such as this situation is reduced. Lets explore this idea in future posts on this subject.

 

[piezoe]

What we need to do is take the money out of politics from both sides.

you'll either need to flip the balance on the supreme court or a constitutional amendment to do it. the later, though virtually impossible would be preferable.

 

[OddTrader]

you'll either need to flip the balance on the supreme court or a constitutional amendment to do it. the later, though virtually impossible would be preferable.

Perhaps a better way is anyone when making donation to politics must also donate twice of that donation amount to charity organisations.

1. Reduce the total amount in influencing politics.

2. No matter what election outcome, at least some needy groups would be benefited first before getting worse treatments (usually by the powerful) after election (each time).

3. Result: An obviously better nation (by each election)!

lol

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

An idea might be to create certain metrics the politician would have to meet in order to be eligible for re-election.

These metrics might include job performance as measured by attendance, percentage of times they vote, continuing education as related to his responsibilities, and possibly the relative economic and crime, performance of their region versus an average performance.

Ultimately, the voter should be able to decide who they want to represent them, but many times we are presented a choice of awful and worse.

Ethics as measured by compliance with congressional rules and our nation’s laws.

Additionally, should a politician meet the requirements of his office, extra compensation could be unlocked as a performance incentive.

No other compensation, in most forms should be allowed. All politicians should have their financials automatically audited and changes in their financial position must be accounted for by their salaries, investments, and other allowable forms of compensation.

Violations to these requirements or efforts to reduce the requirements of their position should be delt with severly and swiftly.

 

[OddTrader]

In addition, the top leaders including both sides / aisles, president, VP, etc. once elected should officially give up their original party membership declared by oath that would be judged by voters from time to time in order to swap one to another nominated by voters as if required:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore

Executive

* He or she must not be a member of any political party on the date of his or her nomination for election.[26]
* He or she must have for a period of not less than three years held office
— as Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or Permanent Secretary;[27]
- as chief executive officer (CEO) of a key statutory board or government company: the Central Provident Fund Board, the Housing and Development Board, the Jurong Town Corporation, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Temasek Holdings, or GIC Private Limited (formerly known as the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation);[28]
- as CEO of a company with an average of $500 million in shareholders' equity for the most recent three years in that office, and which is profitable after taxes;[29] or
- in any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President.[30]