The fact that politicians don't do their actual jobs?

If you look at the constitution, the people that we vote for to represent us, are actually supposed to represent US. What we let them do is represent THEIR values and basically ignore ours.

The only person that I know of that works for their district maybe Scott Brown.

As long as being a "professional politician" remains the cushy job that it now is, that's not going to change.

(03-12-2010 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  What we let them do is represent THEIR values and basically ignore ours.

Focusing on just this part, I've thought about this, and I don't believe it to be the Founder's intent that politicians simply vote the same way as the majority in his district (otherwise, you'd constantly be voting). We elect them based on their values, which we in theory share, but give them flexibility to make judgment calls. If we feel they stray to far from their promises over the course of a term, or have had a shift in values, then we are suppose to vote them out. I find your problem to be more representative of voters than politicians. Hopefully that made sense.

Part of the problem is the blatant hypocrisy of the constituency.

Cut government waste! Cut government waste! Cut government waste!

The problem is, what's pork in your community is the lifeblood of mine.

We all want the gub'ment to cut every perceived waste, so long as their guy keeps bringing the goods home.

(03-12-2010 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  The fact that politicians don't do their actual jobs?

That and we let a handful of people decide what 360,000,000 get and don't get. Those politicians never see us but they do meet the lobbyists and that ain't fair. And some things are so large they can't be put in the hands of a few so I think things like socialist health care and cap and trade should be put on a national referendum - we the people should be voting on these issues in November.

(03-12-2010 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As long as being a "professional politician" remains the cushy job that it now is, that's not going to change.

This. We need term limits. BAD.

(03-12-2010 08:11 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(03-12-2010 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  What we let them do is represent THEIR values and basically ignore ours.

Focusing on just this part, I've thought about this, and I don't believe it to be the Founder's intent that politicians simply vote the same way as the majority in his district (otherwise, you'd constantly be voting). We elect them based on their values, which we in theory share, but give them flexibility to make judgment calls. If we feel they stray to far from their promises over the course of a term, or have had a shift in values, then we are suppose to vote them out. I find your problem to be more representative of voters than politicians. Hopefully that made sense.

I don't agree with that. It was the job of the representatives to represent the people. Not do what the f--k they wanted to do. It was the job of the Senators to represent the State's interests (not just a district), where they were nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature. That was completely f'ed with the 17th Amendment. If representatives don't listen to their constituents, they need to have their asses jackbooted out of D.C.

(03-12-2010 10:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-12-2010 08:11 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(03-12-2010 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  What we let them do is represent THEIR values and basically ignore ours.

Focusing on just this part, I've thought about this, and I don't believe it to be the Founder's intent that politicians simply vote the same way as the majority in his district (otherwise, you'd constantly be voting). We elect them based on their values, which we in theory share, but give them flexibility to make judgment calls. If we feel they stray to far from their promises over the course of a term, or have had a shift in values, then we are suppose to vote them out. I find your problem to be more representative of voters than politicians. Hopefully that made sense.

I don't agree with that. It was the job of the representatives to represent the people. Not do what the f--k they wanted to do. It was the job of the Senators to represent the State's interests (not just a district), where they were nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature. That was completely f'ed with the 17th Amendment. If representatives don't listen to their constituents, they need to have their asses jackbooted out of D.C.

This...I think we're having a breakthrough

I love state's rights.

(03-12-2010 10:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I don't agree with that. It was the job of the representatives to represent the people. Not do what the f--k they wanted to do. It was the job of the Senators to represent the State's interests (not just a district), where they were nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature. That was completely f'ed with the 17th Amendment. If representatives don't listen to their constituents, they need to have their asses jackbooted out of D.C.

It seems we agree that its up to the constituents to determine whose in office and whether they are representing them. If they spend the whole time doing what they want, they won't get re/elected. But they should establish how they will vote during the campaigns, so what they do in office shouldn't be a surprise.

I guess, you do have to differentiate Senators and Reps with regards to their responsibilities. But either way, they still should not be expected to simply follow public opinion.

This is way too much work to try and explain in writing.

(03-12-2010 08:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Part of the problem is the blatant hypocrisy of the constituency.

Cut government waste! Cut government waste! Cut government waste!

The problem is, what's pork in your community is the lifeblood of mine.

We all want the gub'ment to cut every perceived waste, so long as their guy keeps bringing the goods home.

I think you're hitting on the real problem. There has been a gradual erosion in limits set by the US Constitution on what the federal government is allowed to do. This has occurred incrementally, and has been done, for the most part, with good intentions. Who doesn't want to give the elderly some security in their old age, give medicine to the sick, protect our interests around the world? Americans consider all of these things to be birthrights.

Unfortunately, a state that provides a large army AND a welfare state doesn't grow in the long term. It's that simple. The US has postponed the inevitable by abusing its reserve currency status, which will end in inflation and lower living standards. And the more people struggle, the more they will look to their politicians to "do something," even if it steals even more from future generations.

(03-13-2010 09:20 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Unfortunately, a state that provides a large army AND a welfare state doesn't grow in the long term. It's that simple. The US has postponed the inevitable by abusing its reserve currency status, which will end in inflation and lower living standards. And the more people struggle, the more they will look to their politicians to "do something," even if it steals even more from future generations.

BINGO!!!

I think the whole problem started with LBJ deciding to have guns AND butter--the Great Society AND the Vietnam war.

Since that time we have just been staving off the inevitable. Reagan and Clinton did better jobs of staving it off than others, primarily because each was willing to bite off a bit of the bullet. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Shrub each saw things get worse on their watch. We're circling the bowl, and Obama is getting ready to flush.

I think we'll bottom out somewhere around Argentina, maybe Zimbabwe if external events are not kind. The good news is that, at my age, I probably won't live long enough to see the worst. The bad news is that, at my age, I definitely won't live long enough to see the recovery--if there is one.

(03-13-2010 11:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2010 09:20 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Unfortunately, a state that provides a large army AND a welfare state doesn't grow in the long term. It's that simple. The US has postponed the inevitable by abusing its reserve currency status, which will end in inflation and lower living standards. And the more people struggle, the more they will look to their politicians to "do something," even if it steals even more from future generations.

BINGO!!!

I think the whole problem started with LBJ deciding to have guns AND butter--the Great Society AND the Vietnam war.

Since that time we have just been staving off the inevitable. Reagan and Clinton did better jobs of staving it off than others, primarily because each was willing to bite off a bit of the bullet. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Shrub each saw things get worse on their watch. We're circling the bowl, and Obama is getting ready to flush.

I think we'll bottom out somewhere around Argentina, maybe Zimbabwe if external events are not kind. The good news is that, at my age, I probably won't live long enough to see the worst. The bad news is that, at my age, I definitely won't live long enough to see the recovery--if there is one.

This is about the character of a people. It boils down to people wanting something for nothing. Our people, US, we have lost the understanding there is no free lunch.

You see this with posters on this board, who constantly harp that the government should do this, do that, etc ...etc..... What they don't understand (maybe they do?) is that they want you and you and you to pay for what they want. They want something for nothing. They are free lunchers. They want to impose their will upon you and if you do not willingly submit,they use the force of the state.

(03-13-2010 01:45 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(03-12-2010 10:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I don't agree with that. It was the job of the representatives to represent the people. Not do what the f--k they wanted to do. It was the job of the Senators to represent the State's interests (not just a district), where they were nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature. That was completely f'ed with the 17th Amendment. If representatives don't listen to their constituents, they need to have their asses jackbooted out of D.C.

It seems we agree that its up to the constituents to determine whose in office and whether they are representing them. If they spend the whole time doing what they want, they won't get re/elected. But they should establish how they will vote during the campaigns, so what they do in office shouldn't be a surprise.

I guess, you do have to differentiate Senators and Reps with regards to their responsibilities. But either way, they still should not be expected to simply follow public opinion.

This is way too much work to try and explain in writing.

That's the reason that the House is the lower chamber of Congress. They are given a smaller constituency just so you can operate based on your people's opinion. They are not meant to be decision makers. If there's something that enough people want in your district then it is your duty to see that you bring it up in Congress.