I might have some faith in this new Congress after all

[lohman446]

I don't trust our government to stick to the contract that was created when our forefathers embarked on this new experiment in democracy.

   

   However, this is a step in the right direction.  The House will now require all new bills to have a Constitutional authority statement with them citing the section(s) of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to propose such legislation.  

   

   Ironically some of our lawmakers will have to attend a class titles Constitution 101 in order to understand it... but at least its a step in the right direction.

[westerly1965]

LOL

[wiseguy]

If you need to put this in a bill It really makes me wonder what qualifies them for their position, B.S. I think.

[lohman446]

Have you seen some of the recent bills?  The fact they have to now be trained to do it worries me.  The fact that it has gotten so far out of hand that we need them to do it worries me.  

   

   Is it a stunt?  Probably.  But still, its not a bad idea to cite the source of your authority.

[westerly1965]

I know kinda scary that we even have to think about that.....unfortunately I am afraid it is going to get worse instead of better.  Lets hope I'm wrong...

[niterider]

Congress is nearly irrelevant. The Departments, Bureaus, agencies and courts make the laws (just call them "regulations") and enforce the same. Even the "administration in the white house" knows if it can't fly in Congress just get a Bureaucrat to regulate it the way they want.  Wait until you see what the BATFE has in store for us this year.

   

   I have no faith that we can stop the snowball toward socialism....Rome and history showed the natural progress of power.

[lohman446]

Baby steps.  The first thing you have to do is grab the brake and hang on, stopping what has been started is not always easy.  Stop it first, then worry about getting pointed in the right direction. Its not going to be possible all at once, and more than one attempt at that brake may be needed.  I know its being overly optimistic (hope for the best, prepare for the worst) but its some hope

[bud]

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

   1. Term Limits.

      12 years only, one of the possible options below..

     

     A. Two Six-year Senate terms

     B. Six Two-year House terms

     C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

     

   2.  No Tenure / No Pension.  

   A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.  

     

   3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the

   

    Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.  

   

   4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

     

   5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

     

   6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

     

   7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

   

   

   8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.  

     

   The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.  Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

     

   Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

[westerly1965]

Good plan Bud I will vote for that!!  I think most americans will but probably not the congressmen lol.

[heyjoe]

Do you guys really expect fundamental change from this congress including the House? The house is being led by the same insider politicians, this time Republicans, who have been entrenched there for years and who will still play ball with their own set of special interests who finance their campaigns and set them up in jobs when they are no longer congressman. Boehner,Issa, Kantor and McConnell are just the other side of the same coin of selling out the nations self interests.

[bud]

Yes Heyjoe, I am counting on it!

   

   I want to see what the newly elected Tea Party Congressmen will do. I hope they make a difference.

   They sure can't do worse than the old Congress did!

   If they do, we are in a world of hurt.

   I'm anxious to see what happens,and what and how they do.

[justdon]

Too bad it won't happen bud but i agree with you 100%..

[westerly1965]

Heyjoe I am afraid you are right.  As I have said before...it is no longer left vs right or rep vs dem.  It is us against them and we are losing....

[heyjoe]

If the economy doesnt improve by 2012 and political games are still being played, they will all be on the outside looking in. There is not patience out there for the nonsense anymore. IM not sure those in power get it yet.

[jswi2374]

It was disappointing that when the new House of Representatives read the Constitution aloud, sever portions were skipped over. The entire section on slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person was left out. The 18th Ammendment banning the manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol was aslo ommitted. The apparent infallibility of the Constitution was preserved by leaving out its obvious compromises and mistakes.  

   I support the goals of the new Congress and Tea Party but wonder if this is the right way to begin....

[newguy]

They left out the parts that had been altered by amendment, and read the amended constitution as it IS TODAY.  Why read how it WAS?  That was about adhering to what the U S Constitution IS.

   

   They did not read the document that preceeded the Constitution either, as the Constitution replaced it.

   

   newguy

[bud]

> A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so

   > many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and

   > among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to

   > support more government programs, in other words redistribution of

   > wealth.

   >

   > She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch

   > conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures

   > that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor,

   > she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire

   > to keep what he thought should be his.

   >

   > One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes

   > on the rich and the need for more government programs.

   >

   > The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be

   > the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how

   > she was doing in school.

   >

   > Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and

   > let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was

   > taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which

   > left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She

   > didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many

   > college friends because she spent all her time studying.

   >

   > Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

   >

   > She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy

   > classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so

   > popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to

   > all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes

   > because she's too hung over."

   >

   > Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's

   > office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend

   > who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly

   > that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

   >

   > The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired

   > back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really

   > hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard

   > work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played

   > while I worked my tail off!"

   >

   > The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the

   > conservative side of the fence."

   >

   > If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between

   > conservative and liberal or progressive or neocon I'm all ears.

   >

   > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   > If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a

   > great test!

   >

   > If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

   > If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

   >

   > If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.

   > If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for

   > everyone.

   >

   > If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

   > If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

   >

   > If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his

   > situation.

   > A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

   >

   > If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

   > Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

   >

   > If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

   > A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

   > (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

   >

   > If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have

   > a good laugh.

   > A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

   >

   > Well, I forwarded it to you.

   

   

   >

[ashevillian]

In regards to the opening post;

   

   Constitutional republic, not a democracy ...  

   

   But I get what you are saying

   

   At Niterider; it ain't over, agencies don't make the rules, the rules were written well over 200 years ago.  All that needs to happen is for the people to enforce those rules held within the Constitution.  Never assume every cop, soldier, government employee or public servant simply obeys the rule of men, and not the rule of law.    

   

   Only 10% of the population won the American Revolutionary War.  

   

   Over the hill from me is one of the most crucial turning points of the American Revolutionary War - won by a group of pissed off angry mountain men who were tired of brutal, bloodied European tyrants who thought to enforce their own form of royal socialism down the throats of good, hardworking people.

   

   Those fancy pants European folks lost miserably by the way - and the rest was history.

   

   The American Revolution, despite popular belief, never ended ... and it won't, even when the times get tough, God willing.

   

   

   

[bud]

Someone in Tucson AZ. didn't trust Congressmen either!

   To bad someone would be so stupid.

[jswi2374]

Someone in Tuscon didn't trust reality so he left it. Nothing political about that at all. Crazy happens

[cedarview kid]

I believe the incident in Arizona was more of a case of mental incapacity rather than one of politics. Too bad the Demoncrats are grabbing onto this tragedy for their own purposes.

   

   The sheriff in charge of this case in Arizona was on our local TV news here in Utah last night. He really scares me. To prove his point and show how much Arizona has gone off the deep end, he cited a new bill that the Arizona legislature was working on that would allow teachers and students to carry concealed weapons on campus.

   

   Well, that's already legal in Utah, so I think his "proof" fell on deaf ears.

   

   (I read in online news reports that he blamed people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck for the shootings. WOW.)

   Dar

[lohman446]

The danger in today's conservatism (and I would argue I am fiscally conservative) is the same dangers of lasseiz fair capitalism that has been around "forever".  As business get large and unregulated we require them to continue to be altruistic.  They are not and tend to protect there own interests.  There comes a point where personal interests overcome business interests and those purchasing the service our overrun.  

   

   Minimum wage in this country is $7.25

   We can argue that a CEO is worth 100 times this - keep in mind that I am discussing CEO compensation in this discussion, not return on entrepurnerial investment, which is far different.  

   

   $725 X 40 hours = $29,000 X 52 weeks = $1,508,000

   

   Yes, but as a CEO I put in a lot more hours and am always considering it

   

   Ok.  24 hours a day X 7 = 168 - 40 hours = 128

   

   Its only fair to expect compensation at over 40 hours at double time because thats what most companies do.  

   

   128 hours X 2 (double time) X $725 = $185,600

   

   $92,802 X 52 weeks = $9.651,200

   

   $9,651,200 + $1,508,000 = $11,159,200

   

   As soon as someone can explain to me how CEOs are taking over $12 million in compensation (not counting entrepernurial return on investment ala Steve Jobs or Bill Gates) and argue there should be no regulation on the system effectively I will consider it.  Especially considering that many of those CEOs taking more than this (and often much more) are in basic need industries such as healthcare.  

   

   You will forgive me I expect if I do not trust in the altruism of large corporations any more than the federal government.

   

   Edited due to math error

[wildtim]

The problem with your argument is the assumption that the Ceo is only worth 100 times as much as a minimum wage employee.  

   

   If a skilled trade worker is worth 10 times minimum wage and a company employees a hundred of them then wouldn't the CEO be worth a hundred times the skilled trade worker?  or to borrow your math 120 million.

   

   What is he is in charge of a thousand minimum wage workers, a hundred supervisors at 5 times that much, 20 skilled trade workers to keep the plant running, 10 scientists,five executives to run planning?  You know a simple medium sized manufacturing concern.  Now he could be making even more by your formula.

   

   This is why he market is best at regulating this stuff.  It actually saves money.

   

   By the way anyone that would value a CEO based, not on his unique contribution, but based on the number of workers he supervises is a central planner not a fiscal conservative.

[lohman446]

If responsibility over meant anything perhaps the argument would be valid.  Raskind continued to proclaim ncc collapse was not his fault while taking his golden parachute.  His previous pay required no responsibility.  He is not the exception.  I would say the market has pretty well failed at regulating it, especially at the top.  Large stock holders select who they want, and pay them extravagently as that same person then selects the person who elected them to another position, with equal extravagant pay.  What do I care about the stock price if I can take 30 million in pay?  Interestingly enough the board of NCC negotiated better prices per share in the buyout for the people who elected them (Corsair capital) than the common shareholders... this in itself is major fault in the system.  A common share of stock is supposed to have a common value, large holders are given more value to sway their vote leaving the smaller voting blocks with less value.  

   

   No, I was not invested in NCC.