New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Want to make government more efficient?

Bo-4

Senator
Cool, time to send Teawads packing.
  • End the 60-vote threshold combined with filibuster reform
  • Eliminate corporate welfare
  • Stop lying with bogus terms like "court packing" (up or down vote - elections have consequences)
  • Rich people have been blessed by our great country.. pay a little of it FORWARD
  • Work together to make the ACA fuking WORK
  • Immigration Reform (197 billion SAVED in ten years per CBO)
  • Cut our military budget in half & finally admit that we're crappy world-police
  • Eliminate the dumb-as-rocks "debt ceiling"
That's a good start.. GET SOMETHING DONE!!

Congress-Bills-Passed-till-2013.png
 
Last edited:
REF: "Cut our military budget in half & finally admit that we're crappy world-police"

USGovt is pretty crappy at almost everything it does except spying and borrowing money.

How about our beloved govt pass a BUDGET for once, instead of unconstitutional continuing resolutions?
 
Cool, time to send Teawads packing.
  • End the 60-vote threshold combined with filibuster reform
  • Eliminate corporate welfare
  • Stop lying with bogus terms like "court packing" (up or down vote - elections have consequences)
  • Rich people have been blessed by our great country.. pay a little of it FORWARD
  • Work together to make the ACA fuking WORK
  • Immigration Reform (197 billion SAVED in ten years per CBO)
  • Cut our military budget in half & finally admit that we're crappy world-police
That's a good start.. GET SOMETHING DONE!!

Congress-Bills-Passed-till-2013.png


Sorry, Bo, but only a lefty statist would look at a graph showing less bills and legislation passed and see that as "inefficient". I don't really want my legislators there busy passing new laws and regulation. Really, in a perfect would, there would be so little for them to do - so many few new things to tax or control, that they really would go back to only doing this Senator or Congressperson thing "part-time" as opposed to making a career out of making rules.

connie
 
Sorry, Bo, but only a lefty statist would look at a graph showing less bills and legislation passed and see that as "inefficient". I don't really want my legislators there busy passing new laws and regulation. Really, in a perfect would, there would be so little for them to do - so many few new things to tax or control, that they really would go back to only doing this Senator or Congressperson thing "part-time" as opposed to making a career out of making rules.

connie

WOW Connie, i had no idea you were a TeaFlea.

Congratulations on that ... i guess. ;-)

Apparently you believe that the government that gets absolutely nothing done and even shut the whole damned deal down at a cost of 24 billion -------- governs BEST!!

Oh, that reminds me to add a bullet point.. eliminate the idiotic debt ceiling. Wanna spend less? Great. But we can't be deadbeats and refuse to pay our bills.
 
Last edited:
REF: "Cut our military budget in half & finally admit that we're crappy world-police"

USGovt is pretty crappy at almost everything it does except spying and borrowing money.

How about our beloved govt pass a BUDGET for once, instead of unconstitutional continuing resolutions?

Ya Worldly.. it's just like a household budget huh?.. and Dems have never submitted one! ;)
 
WOW Connie, i had no idea you were a TeaFlea.

Congratulations on that ... i guess. ;-)

Apparently you believe that the government that gets absolutely nothing done and even shut the whole damned deal down at a cost of 24 billion -------- governs BEST!!

Oh, that reminds me to add a bullet point.. eliminate the idiotic debt ceiling. Wanna spend less? Great. But we can't be deadbeats and refuse to pay our bills.


I don't believe that government gets absolutely nothing done. I do not agree with adding a bunch of new rules and regulations year after year after year.

I do not believe in expanding the role of government, I don't believe in putting forth bills to build bridges to nowhere or to fund a congress person's pet cause. If they are going to write a rule or a law, I want it very well thought out, incredibly vetted, have been made available for viewing to the public and allow us to have our say to our representatives prior to voting on the legislation and to end last minute amendments and additions which add on nothing but pork to buy off a vote.

There is absolutely no way you can create a a thoroughly thought out and well considered legislation that provides people the opportunity to read and understand the legislation while it is being considered and voice their thoughts to their legislator and pass thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of legislation in any particularly year. I don't think that Government should be wasting time and resources voting on things like commemorative coins, or any number or extraneous feel good type crapola. I don't think Government should be able to pass unfunded mandates onto individual states. A prime example of that was legislation passed a few years ago requiring all public pools to have a beach entry or a lift for wheel chair bound people. Sounds good in theory but the practical application of that meant that cities and municipalities had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to update their pools. Have you ever been to a pool in the inner city of Baltimore in July? One, there is barely three feet between a person and the next person. And, it is rowdy as all get out. Do you think any person with any motor difficulties wants to find themselves awash in a great sea of people like that? Probably not if they have a brain in their heads. You know how many times they were used all summer long the first year they were put in ( and paid for via a private donation?) according to the news broadcast back then - 4.

Was it a nice idea? Did it make us feel good. Sure. Was it well considered legislation? Was it worth it in terms of people served versus the cost? No. So would I rather our law makers concentrate only the *really* big ticket items such as Interstate Commerce, Currency Issues, Financial market regulations, defense, national security and international relations? YES - that is what they should be dealing with. The big broad items.... not..what amounts to individual public welfare causes.

connie
 
I don't believe that government gets absolutely nothing done. I do not agree with adding a bunch of new rules and regulations year after year after year.

I do not believe in expanding the role of government, I don't believe in putting forth bills to build bridges to nowhere or to fund a congress person's pet cause. If they are going to write a rule or a law, I want it very well thought out, incredibly vetted, have been made available for viewing to the public and allow us to have our say to our representatives prior to voting on the legislation and to end last minute amendments and additions which add on nothing but pork to buy off a vote.

There is absolutely no way you can create a a thoroughly thought out and well considered legislation that provides people the opportunity to read and understand the legislation while it is being considered and voice their thoughts to their legislator and pass thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of legislation in any particularly year. I don't think that Government should be wasting time and resources voting on things like commemorative coins, or any number or extraneous feel good type crapola. I don't think Government should be able to pass unfunded mandates onto individual states. A prime example of that was legislation passed a few years ago requiring all public pools to have a beach entry or a lift for wheel chair bound people. Sounds good in theory but the practical application of that meant that cities and municipalities had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to update their pools. Have you ever been to a pool in the inner city of Baltimore in July? One, there is barely three feet between a person and the next person. And, it is rowdy as all get out. Do you think any person with any motor difficulties wants to find themselves awash in a great sea of people like that? Probably not if they have a brain in their heads. You know how many times they were used all summer long the first year they were put in ( and paid for via a private donation?) according to the news broadcast back then - 4.

Was it a nice idea? Did it make us feel good. Sure. Was it well considered legislation? Was it worth it in terms of people served versus the cost? No. So would I rather our law makers concentrate only the *really* big ticket items such as Interstate Commerce, Currency Issues, Financial market regulations, defense, national security and international relations? YES - that is what they should be dealing with. The big broad items.... not..what amounts to individual public welfare causes.

connie

Okay, i agree with a tiny % of your response.

THIS part:

So would I rather our law makers concentrate only the *really* big ticket items such as Interstate Commerce, Currency Issues, Financial market regulations, defense, national security and international relations? YES - that is what they should be dealing with.

Suggestions?
 
Last edited:
Okay, i agree with a tiny % of your response.

THIS part:



Suggestions?

Term limits for one. No one should be able to make a career out of being a representative. And, I think that the vast majority of people will just vote for the incumbent again, or because they recognize the name if they haven't been particularly controversial or gotten into some trouble. I think that is how our representatives have stayed time and time again. I want people free to speak their minds - and free to represent their constituents. While I disagree with shutting the government down, I agree with the idea that each representative is not there to be part of any party or affiliation but is there to represent his or her people back home. And, I think that if we had a system where the party had less influence because there were nto any seasoned long term people there - then there would be more consideration of laws - as they affected the nation as a whole because no one would have any interest in playing politics with little favors for home districts.

I would also like strict ethics rules. In our county for instance if you work for the county or are a representative of the county - then you can not do business with the county for either 5 or 10 years AFTER your employment ends. I would like to see something like that with regards to the federal government. You can't leave government and then do any work as a consultant or any company you have a majority stake in or control over - can not do any business with the Government for 10 years after you leave office. That would stop a lot of the back-scratching and politicking. That would also make it less lucrative to have been a representative. There will be no old buddies to call on for favor, they will have been forced to move on. You will likely be out of touch with the people in key spending positions by the time you can get back in the game, and in short you won't be taking the position for personal enrichment. I want to eliminate that as a draw for running.

I would also like to see income limitations for elected representatives. They can not make more than pick a number times the poverty line at the time they get elected or have no more than X dollars in net worth. That would end a lot of the rich old boys networking that happens.

I would also like to see an end of negative or personal attacks in adds. Which is tricky because I am a huge free speech advocate. So, I am not sure how to make that work. Maybe expand slander legislation... not really sure. But, a candidate's adds should be about what they think or their experience - not a mud slinging fest. If the press wants to run negative stories however - they should be free to do so of either candidate. In addition to just compltely devaluing our electoral process - I think it keeps a good many good people from running. I wouldn't want leagues of people dedicated to digging around in my past to find some unsavory event, or digging around in my children's background or my husband's. It leaves only those arrogant enough to think the rules don't apply to them as people willing to run.... and I think that in that case we end up with the lunatics we have in office.

connie
 
Cool, time to send Teawads packing.
  • End the 60-vote threshold combined with filibuster reform
  • Eliminate corporate welfare
  • Stop lying with bogus terms like "court packing" (up or down vote - elections have consequences)
  • Rich people have been blessed by our great country.. pay a little of it FORWARD
  • Work together to make the ACA fuking WORK
  • Immigration Reform (197 billion SAVED in ten years per CBO)
  • Cut our military budget in half & finally admit that we're crappy world-police
  • Eliminate the dumb-as-rocks "debt ceiling"
That's a good start.. GET SOMETHING DONE!!

Congress-Bills-Passed-till-2013.png
Congress shall make no law... and that's where it should have ended.
 
WOW Connie, i had no idea you were a TeaFlea.

Congratulations on that ... i guess. ;-)

Apparently you believe that the government that gets absolutely nothing done and even shut the whole damned deal down at a cost of 24 billion -------- governs BEST!!

Oh, that reminds me to add a bullet point.. eliminate the idiotic debt ceiling. Wanna spend less? Great. But we can't be deadbeats and refuse to pay our bills.
Raising the debt ceiling...Isn't paying our bills Jr.
 
I don't believe that government gets absolutely nothing done.

You're absolutely correct connieb!

Our beloved govt's unlimited resources/credit, will eventually get Healthcare.gov website to work. They'll just NEVER get ObamaCare to work.
 
Last edited:
Raising the debt ceiling...Isn't paying our bills Jr.

Correct Al, and refusing to raise it equates to becoming international deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

As i've stated (as have other economists & folks far smarter than I) .. if you want to cut spending.. tell CONGRESS.

I'm good with that (with equal revenue) starting with fair taxation on the wealthy, huge military cuts and ending corporate welfare to those in industries recording record profits.

Your hero Reagan would agree with ME (he raised it 17 times and warned against not doing so mightily!)
 
Term limits for one. No one should be able to make a career out of being a representative. And, I think that the vast majority of people will just vote for the incumbent again, or because they recognize the name if they haven't been particularly controversial or gotten into some trouble. I think that is how our representatives have stayed time and time again. I want people free to speak their minds - and free to represent their constituents. While I disagree with shutting the government down, I agree with the idea that each representative is not there to be part of any party or affiliation but is there to represent his or her people back home. And, I think that if we had a system where the party had less influence because there were nto any seasoned long term people there - then there would be more consideration of laws - as they affected the nation as a whole because no one would have any interest in playing politics with little favors for home districts.

I would also like strict ethics rules. In our county for instance if you work for the county or are a representative of the county - then you can not do business with the county for either 5 or 10 years AFTER your employment ends. I would like to see something like that with regards to the federal government. You can't leave government and then do any work as a consultant or any company you have a majority stake in or control over - can not do any business with the Government for 10 years after you leave office. That would stop a lot of the back-scratching and politicking. That would also make it less lucrative to have been a representative. There will be no old buddies to call on for favor, they will have been forced to move on. You will likely be out of touch with the people in key spending positions by the time you can get back in the game, and in short you won't be taking the position for personal enrichment. I want to eliminate that as a draw for running.

I would also like to see income limitations for elected representatives. They can not make more than pick a number times the poverty line at the time they get elected or have no more than X dollars in net worth. That would end a lot of the rich old boys networking that happens.

I would also like to see an end of negative or personal attacks in adds. Which is tricky because I am a huge free speech advocate. So, I am not sure how to make that work. Maybe expand slander legislation... not really sure. But, a candidate's adds should be about what they think or their experience - not a mud slinging fest. If the press wants to run negative stories however - they should be free to do so of either candidate. In addition to just compltely devaluing our electoral process - I think it keeps a good many good people from running. I wouldn't want leagues of people dedicated to digging around in my past to find some unsavory event, or digging around in my children's background or my husband's. It leaves only those arrogant enough to think the rules don't apply to them as people willing to run.... and I think that in that case we end up with the lunatics we have in office.

connie

Term limits? :cool:

Ban on barring former politicians from lobbying? :cool:

Income & perk limitations? Shit, far as i'm concerned, they should be paid an hourly wage. Do know know how many hours Congress was in session (House under Boehner is worst in history BTW) Answer: Less than a 20 hour per week

Getting slime out of political ads? GREAT.. end Citizen's United. :cool:

Glad i could help! :)
 
Term limits? :cool:

Ban on barring former politicians from lobbying? :cool:

Income & perk limitations? Shit, far as i'm concerned, they should be paid an hourly wage. Do know know how many hours Congress was in session (House under Boehner is worst in history BTW) Answer: Less than a 20 hour per week

Getting slime out of political ads? GREAT.. end Citizen's United. :cool:

Glad i could help! :)

As if any of those SOB's would ever willingly vote to end their gravy train.

connie
 
As if any of those SOB's would ever willingly vote to end their gravy train.

connie

And therein lies the problem Connie.

We agreed on a few things.. good. I'm mercifully yanking you out of the Teawad crowd as you're too smart for such.
 
And therein lies the problem Connie.

We agreed on a few things.. good. I'm mercifully yanking you out of the Teawad crowd as you're too smart for such.


Gee, thanks Bo.

We had an independent run for Senator last time around. I was committing to voting for him JUST BECAUSE he was independent. I would love to fire every single representative in office. But, I couldn't do that - so I researched him and found out - I did actually like what he had to say. So, I voted for him. He lost unfortunately, but I admire the spunk it took to run as an independent. And, he was actually much more libertarian minded than Liberal when it came to social policies. We need more guys like him. Of course, if the establishment had considered him a real threat I am sure we would have heard how he sexually harassed someone 35 years ago, or had a love child or something... but, he actually did seem to be a good stand up, family, guy.

connie
 
If you want to make government more efficient you'd:

1) Limit government to 16% of GDP.
2) Require debt to hover around 50% of GDP.
3) Require that for every new regulation one regulation be removed.

And that would be just the bare minimum that would work. There are a few other ideas that would nail government into a real national asset.
 
Last edited:
Gee, thanks Bo.

We had an independent run for Senator last time around. I was committing to voting for him JUST BECAUSE he was independent. I would love to fire every single representative in office. But, I couldn't do that - so I researched him and found out - I did actually like what he had to say. So, I voted for him. He lost unfortunately, but I admire the spunk it took to run as an independent. And, he was actually much more libertarian minded than Liberal when it came to social policies. We need more guys like him. Of course, if the establishment had considered him a real threat I am sure we would have heard how he sexually harassed someone 35 years ago, or had a love child or something... but, he actually did seem to be a good stand up, family, guy.

connie

Name one honest to God Libertarian currently in Congress.

Rand Paul?

NOT, he objects to personal freedom on the subject of choice for women and in fact supports a national Personhood amendment.

Bunch of Libertarian phonies. Try Gary Johnson and good luck with that. ;-)
 
If you want to make government more efficient you'd:

1) Limit government to 16% of GDP.
2) Require debt to hover around 50% of GDP.
3) Require that for every new regulation one regulation be remove.

And that would be just the bare minimum that would work. There are a few other ideas that would nail government into a real national asset.

Cool, so what are your actual cuts Doc Evil.. can we start with the military please?
 
Back
Top