Draining the Swamp

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Mon May 04, 2009 8:03 am

545 People

Commentary by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of 300+ million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300+ million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.


I've been saying this for a long time. Congress could balance the budget tomorrow, if they wanted. They merely have to say "This is how much revenue we have, so this is all we're going to spend", but they won't. They won't because it would require hard choices: Cutting entitlements, cutting favoured programmes, perhaps raising taxes, most definitely restructuring taxes. They don't want to make those choices, so they pass the buck, rather trillions of bucks, on to our children and grandchildren.

Barfle has commented several times about Congress' shirking its duty to declare war in Iraq and handing that authority to the President. The President exercised that authority when he was given it, and many in Congress, including many who voted to give it to him, expressed outrage that he would do so. But that has become the way Congress does its business, by not doing the business. Congressmen then express outrage at the way the people they've authorized to do it, do it. They are cowards and worse, but they apparently represent the will of the people, who also don't want to face hard choices. President Bush made hard choices, and the people turned against him for it.

Choices have to be made, but we have a Congress that refuses to make them. As the commentary notes, this is not a partisan issue, Congress has been shirking its responsibility for decades, regardless of which party was in charge.

I wouldn't look to President Obama to make the hard choices, either. He wouldn't make them when he was a Senator, what makes anyone think he will make them now? He claims to have stood up against the war in Iraq, yet the only opportunity he had to actually make a differnce was his vote on the appropriation to continue funding the war, and he voted in favour of it. That's not exactly the profile in courage we're looking for.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue May 05, 2009 9:16 am

Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Wed May 06, 2009 11:22 am

Specter's switch costs him his seniority

The Senate has passed a resolution naming him as the most junior member of the committees on which he serves.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed May 06, 2009 11:58 am

Shapley wrote:Specter's switch costs him his seniority

The Senate has passed a resolution naming him as the most junior member of the committees on which he serves.


Actually, this switch has worked out well for the Republican senators. They got Jeff Sessions in Spectre's old position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Democrats lost in this exchange. In Specter, they had an adversary who didn’t take many adversarial positions. During the Bush administration, he was more a thorn in the side of Republicans than Democrats in confirmation hearings.

Additionally, his humiliation will make Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins think twice before following Specter into rookie status.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Wed May 13, 2009 9:23 am

Democrats Block Republican Efforts To Force Ethics Probe

This marks the eigth time they have blocked the effort to look into the issue. Methinks all of this tranparency and openness is somewhat opaque.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed May 13, 2009 10:26 am

Shapley wrote:Democrats Block Republican Efforts To Force Ethics Probe

This marks the eigth time they have blocked the effort to look into the issue. Methinks all of this tranparency and openness is somewhat opaque.


Thanks for draining the swamp, Nancy!! :rofl:

Exit question: Do you think politicians ever feel shame??
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby piqaboo » Wed May 13, 2009 10:36 am

Only at losing an election.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed May 13, 2009 4:52 pm

Murtha Rival Says Congressman's Top Aide Threatened to Have Him Court-Martialed.
“Talk about hardball politics.

Rep. John Murtha's opponent in the 2008 election claims the Pennsylvania congressman's chief of staff has threatened to have him recalled to active duty and court-martialed for campaigning while in the military, which is in violation of military code.

Bill Russell, an Iraq war veteran who served with the Army, told FOXNews.com that Murtha's chief of staff, John Hugya, made the threat on two occasions -- first to his former commanding officer and then to his face in March.

"It's a terrible, terrible threat to make," said Russell, a Republican who lost to the Democratic powerhouse in November but plans to challenge him again in 2010. Asked if Murtha is trying to bully him out of a rematch, Russell said: "It was a direct intent to intimidate."

…Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey wrote in an e-mail that his boss is "absolutely not" trying to intimidate Russell to get him out of the race.

"We take every challenge seriously, even challenges from people who have already been defeated by double-digits," he said, referencing Murtha's 16-point margin of victory last year.

But Murtha's office did not deny Russell's charge. Instead, the congressman and Russell offered conflicting accounts of the most recent encounter, in which Hugya broached the topic of Russell's active-duty stint at an NRA dinner in March.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Wed May 13, 2009 5:01 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:Exit question: Do you think politicians ever feel shame??


They run around with their hands out asking people to give them money so they can get a new job, promising things they know they can't deliver. When they get the new job, they immediately start asking for more money so they can either keep the job or get a new one.

You can't do that, and have a sense of shame.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Thu May 14, 2009 8:44 pm

House Majority Leader Refuses To Back Up Pelosi's Claim That CIA Misled Congress

... when asked directly whether he shares Pelosi's belief that the CIA misled Congress, he backed off.

"I have no idea of that. I don't have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief," Hoyer said. "And I certainly hope that's not the case. And I don't draw that conclusion."
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Thu May 14, 2009 9:09 pm

Sen. Lieberman also disputes Pelosi's Claim That The CIA Misleads Congress:

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell: “Speaker Pelosi came out today and essentially when asked if the CIA is lying, she said, ‘they mislead us all the time.’ Do you agree with that? Does the CIA mislead Congress all the time?”

Senator Joe Lieberman: “No, on that specific point, I totally disagree. You have to have confidence in the CIA. And over the 20 years I've been here, I've been briefed constantly by the CIA and I'd say that they've told me the truth, as they see it.”
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Fri May 15, 2009 8:54 am

Pelosi Admits She Puts Politics Ahead Of Performance

On Thursday, Pelosi protested that when she moved to the top spot in the Democratic caucus, her priorities necessarily changed and a letter of complaint was not her responsibility.

"My job was to change the majority in Congress and to change --- to fight to have a new president because what was happening was not consistent with our values, certainly not true and something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture," she said.

"But no letter could change the policy," Pelosi said. "It was clear we had to change the leadership of the Congress and the White House. That was my job."

Republicans' jaws dropped at her statements.

"Excuse me, we are elected to do public policy," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told FOX News. "We are not elected to use our positions only to elect a new majority or a new president. There's nothing more important than national security."

Hoekstra later said at a news conference, "You would think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we would be focused on making sure we have the right policy in place -- and not focusing on the next election. ... Basically what the speaker said is that up until 2006, it was all about politics."

"The idea that a 10-year veteran of the Intelligence Committee would just rubber-stamp a program she thought was illegal or morally wrong is frightening, especially when the claim comes from a member who has never been afraid to challenge publicly the Bush administration. As members of Congress we have the constitutional authority and responsibility to take serious our oversight role," Bond said in a statement.


I'm stunned. I've made that charge all along, that Pelosi was more concerned with winning elections than legislating effectively. Now, she has admitted it on the House floor. I hope the voters of California are listening.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby piqaboo » Fri May 15, 2009 9:30 am

Me too.

Its depressing - 1st female speaker of the house = annoying twit
1st black president = frightening twit
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby analog » Fri May 15, 2009 1:41 pm

Its depressing - 1st female speaker of the house = annoying twit

:#1:
Speaks volumes with economy of words. Mark Twain couldn't have said it better.

RIGHT ON ms Boo !!!!!

a.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby BigJon@Work » Mon May 18, 2009 10:54 am

Darn! You are crankin' them out lately, Piq. Take a creative writing course recently? You are inspired.
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue May 19, 2009 11:23 am

Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby jamiebk » Tue May 19, 2009 11:31 am

analog wrote:
Its depressing - 1st female speaker of the house = annoying twit

:#1:
Speaks volumes with economy of words. Mark Twain couldn't have said it better.

RIGHT ON ms Boo !!!!!

a.


It may be concise, but I might argue over the use of "Twit" which generally describes an insignificant and bothersome person. While they may be bothersome to some, they (like it or not) are hardly insignificant...they can have a major impact on the way things go (good or bad)
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby analog » Tue May 19, 2009 2:31 pm

i dunno, seems perfect to me.

i always go to Webster's first:
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twit">twit</a>

Main Entry:
twit
Pronunciation:
\ˈtwit\
Function:
noun
Date:
1528

1 : an act of twitting : taunt
2 : a silly annoying person : fool


'twerp' implies insignificance.
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twerp">twerp</a>


Main Entry:
twerp
Pronunciation:
\ˈtwərp\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
origin unknown
Date:
circa 1923

: a silly, insignificant, or contemptible person
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue May 26, 2009 3:50 pm

About the only good news Roland Burris has today is … the news. After all, on a day when Barack Obama picked a Supreme Court nominee, the UN is considering sanctions against North Korea, and California’s Supreme Court upholds a controversial referendum barring gay marriage, who will pay attention to a ruling that releases key wiretap records of his conversations with Rod Blagojevich’s brother? Unfortunately, the Senate Ethics Committee:

A federal judge said Tuesday he would allow the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to have a federal wiretap of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother having a phone conversation with U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.

The conversation between Burris and the former governor’s brother occurred while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat.

Burris has been under intense scrutiny because of the circumstances of his appointment by the disgraced former governor and for changing his story multiple times about whether he promised anything in exchange for the appointment.

The Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation. The Sangamon County State’s Attorney is determining whether perjury charges are warranted.


Burris has more to fear from the US Attorney than the Ethics Committee. All they can do is toss him out of the Senate, which it appears they will want to do quickly in order to allow Democrats to hold the seat in the next election. The US Attorney wants a crack at putting Burris behind bars for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the conversation may give him overwhelming odds at success.

Two questions arise from this decision. How long until the wiretap record becomes public? And at what point will Burris throw in the towel and resign? I’d guess that he tries riding it out until the wiretap transcript hits the press, because he has nothing left in his future, except perhaps a plea bargain that will keep him out of Club Fed.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed May 27, 2009 8:58 am

Burris on tape offering a check for Blagojevich.

There was a time when I believed that a revelation of this kind would result in a resignation. After watching other Democrats in similar circumstances I no longer believe that way.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron