What belief grounds you the most to your party?

[VolBeef88]

Also there is a HUGE fallacy that lobbyists are bad. They do a very good job the majority of the time. They give valuable information to elected officials that are imperative to good governance. For instance how many legislators know very, very little about guns and say hunting. Yet they will often have to vote on the issue. It is wise to seek council from those who actually have facts and figures to help them learn. In this case you would have the Police (yes they are a HUGE special interest) the NRA and perhaps the National Wild Turkey federation just to name a few. I wouldn’t want an inner city legislator who has never hunted voting on that without the benefit of learning something about it first.

 

[VolBeef88]

Volbeef I understand what you are saying but there are differences between people like me who see the damage that special interest do and those who back a union or group because there is something to be gained from it. Until we all see that the special interest group serve only themselves we will be stuck with the results we have now.

As a citizen you and I have the responsibility to voice our concerns to those elected. I know what many say about the "I'm only one person and they dont care" that dog wont hunt. Because it does make a difference. Go to town hall meetings in your district and let you Congressman know. Make phone calls or email. The group that makes the most noise wins. That is a fact of life.

 

[MG1968]

The group that makes the most noise wins. That is a fact of life.

that is why the ACLU and the environmentalist lobbies have such a stranglehold on policy matters.

 

[KB5252]

As a citizen you and I have the responsibility to voice our concerns to those elected. I know what many say about the "I'm only one person and they dont care" that dog wont hunt. Because it does make a difference. Go to town hall meetings in your district and let you Congressman know. Make phone calls or email. The group that makes the most noise wins. That is a fact of life.

You and I both know congressmen and women read very little of their e-mail and never answer their phones. That being said that is the true meaning of a grass roots movement and the only way for the common individual to effect change.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

You and I both know congressmen and women read very little of their e-mail and never answer their phones. That being said that is the true meaning of a grass roots movement and the only way for the common individual to effect change.

Call their office and you get an intern or schmuck staffer who tells you to go to hell.

I love it!

 

[KB5252]

that is why the ACLU and the environmentalist lobbies have such a stranglehold on policy matters.

The ACLU because of their track record in upholding civil liberties which has been tarnished because of their extreme left wing agenda (over the past 25 years). The envro lunatics are probably the most powerful now. They have gained much more power recently because it is the "in" agenda right now.

 

[utvolpj]

Also there is a HUGE fallacy that lobbyists are bad. They do a very good job the majority of the time. They give valuable information to elected officials that are imperative to good governance. For instance how many legislators know very, very little about guns and say hunting. Yet they will often have to vote on the issue. It is wise to seek council from those who actually have facts and figures to help them learn. In this case you would have the Police (yes they are a HUGE special interest) the NRA and perhaps the National Wild Turkey federation just to name a few. I wouldn’t want an inner city legislator who has never hunted voting on that without the benefit of learning something about it first.

I see now, lobbyists are just educators who pay our reps to take their classes. I guess you also view the NEA as helping improve education and the AARP as moving us forward on SS reform. I learn so much here...

 

[VolBeef88]

You and I both know congressmen and women read very little of their e-mail and never answer their phones. That being said that is the true meaning of a grass roots movement and the only way for the common individual to effect change.

As silly as it may sound. They actually keep a running tab for the most part. When you call they will ask you what you want to talk about and they will either direct you to that staff person who handles it or you can just tell them. They do keep tab.

 

[VolBeef88]

I see now, lobbyists are just educators who pay our reps to take their classes. I guess you also view the NEA as helping improve education and the AARP as moving us forward on SS reform. I learn so much here...

Not at all. Didnt say that and to lump all lobbyists or orginizations into one group is not correct. Think about all the stuff they vote on on a daily basis? There is no human on earth (Even hate) who knows about every issue. Lobbyists can and are a good tool for legislators. Not all but the majority. Most lobbyists are unpaid volunteers who believe in their cause and often take time and use their own money to go lobby on behalf of an issue.

 

[allvol123]

As silly as it may sound. They actually keep a running tab for the most part. When you call they will ask you what you want to talk about and they will either direct you to that staff person who handles it or you can just tell them. They do keep tab.

They really should just outsource this to a company in India.

 

[VolBeef88]

They really should just outsource this to a company in India.

Thats good! lol:

 

[allvol123]

Hello, this is "Eric". What seems to be the problem.

 

[VolinArizona]

I'm not tied to a party.

My problem with the classic Democrats is they in theory make too many decisions for people. Republicans are starting to do it, too, so it ticks me off.

I'm a firm believer that people, in general, are smart enough to live their own lives without too much government intervention. For those people too stupid or too selfish, let them face the consequences of their actions.

That's why I'm not happy if the government bails people out of these home loans. Do your damn research on loans and what not and you wouldn't have had the issue. The government should possibly do something to the lenders, but I'm unsure on what they could actually do legally.

Overall, Democrats are too full of bleeding hearts for me, and Republicans are a bit too socially conservative to me.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Overall, Democrats are too full of bleeding hearts for me, and Republicans are a bit too socially conservative to me.

I think you would find this not to be true, but Rs stay put because of fiscal worldview.

Many more Rs act like W on the fiscal front and you might find a new party coming to prominence.

 

[Lexvol]

What? Many wanted to make Washington King? They were overwhelmingly devistated when he informed them that he would not serve a 3rd term.
Ask Tom Daschle about that. If people keep voting a person in then who are we to tell them they cannot have that representative?

I submit to you that you, I and everyone else in this nation are special interests.

It is very clear that there is a two term limit for presidential candidates. After FDR's stint, the rules were amended. Are you suggesting that that particular rule now be eliminated?

It was put in place to cure some of the very same problems we are dealing with today, and on some level it worked. Yet, we are still stuck with the social burdens put in place by that administration.

I admire what FDR did on some level. He certainly helped pull this country out of a 30 year economic funk (with the help of WWII). I even give him a pass on some of his social programs. In context, I don't think he ever intended to create the modern welfare system as it exists today. People in that era didn't want handouts. They wanted to work for what the government offered.

I do agree at some level we are all "special interests" to some degree. We all have an agenda. Some people on the board have jobs tied to government contracts. I grew up in a town completely dependent upon a military base. If they were ever to close the base the town would go belly up without a doubt.

To pretend that we have the same power as someone personally handing a senator a check is misconstrued. The longer he or she stays in power, the more checks they receive.

If term limits fix that, I am all for them. To a man, the founding fathers would admit that creating a "career politician" was not something that they ever intended when the government was being established. There is precedent for this with elected officials.

 

[KB5252]

Most of the founding fathers were successful business men who had enough put away to take time off to serve the country. Unfortunately career politicians have found the political arena affords them much more leisure time, travel accounts, and the power that so many of them need to feed their ego. They have everything they want so why go back to life in the corporate world?

 

[VolBeef88]

It is very clear that there is a two term limit for presidential candidates. After FDR's stint, the rules were amended. Are you suggesting that that particular rule now be eliminated?

It was put in place to cure some of the very same problems we are dealing with today, and on some level it worked. Yet, we are still stuck with the social burdens put in place by that administration.

I admire what FDR did on some level. He certainly helped pull this country out of a 30 year economic funk (with the help of WWII). I even give him a pass on some of his social programs. In context, I don't think he ever intended to create the modern welfare system as it exists today. People in that era didn't want handouts. They wanted to work for what the government offered.

I do agree at some level we are all "special interests" to some degree. We all have an agenda. Some people on the board have jobs tied to government contracts. I grew up in a town completely dependent upon a military base. If they were ever to close the base the town would go belly up without a doubt.

To pretend that we have the same power as someone personally handing a senator a check is misconstrued. The longer he or she stays in power, the more checks they receive.

If term limits fix that, I am all for them. To a man, the founding fathers would admit that creating a "career politician" was not something that they ever intended when the government was being established. There is precedent for this with elected officials.

I give more credit to WWII than I do to FDR, be that as it may.

However I do not want you or anyone else telling me who I can or can’t have as a representative. Term limits would do just that. If I have a person that is doing a bang up job why should we take a chance on losing him/her?

Also if you check with states that set term limits with their state legislature you will find after several elections the bureaucrats and lobbyists actually have more influence due to lack of experience in leadership.

 

[Lexvol]

I give more credit to WWII than I do to FDR, be that as it may.

However I do not want you or anyone else telling me who I can or can’t have as a representative. Term limits would do just that. If I have a person that is doing a bang up job why should we take a chance on losing him/her?

Also if you check with states that set term limits with their state legislature you will find after several elections the bureaucrats and lobbyists actually have more influence due to lack of experience in leadership.

WWII and the industry surrounding it was certainly the driving force.

Term limits tell you who you can have as a president. Does that bother you? You would still have a choice of candidate.

Nepotism inherently corrupts state legislatures. They operate on a much smaller scale, and hardly compare to the beltway.

You and I have a similar view of lobbyists. I understand the necessity of their participation in the political process. But... they all have to spend entirely too much money to bend political ears. You know as well as I do that when big money is thrown around corruption is not far behind.

At a national level, I cannot imagine a rookie congressman attaching millions of dollars of pork barrell spending to a bill and getting it passed. It simply isn't going to happen that often. Why? He hasn't done any political favors and he has no political equity. Whereas an entrenched legislator can attach that same wasted spending and call in enough favor to pass it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Without a third party option term limits are the only way I can see to curb corruption.

 

[VolBeef88]

WWII and the industry surrounding it was certainly the driving force.

Term limits tell you who you can have as a president. Does that bother you? You would still have a choice of candidate.

Nepotism inherently corrupts state legislatures. They operate on a much smaller scale, and hardly compare to the beltway.

You and I have a similar view of lobbyists. I understand the necessity of their participation in the political process. But... they all have to spend entirely too much money to bend political ears. You know as well as I do that when big money is thrown around corruption is not far behind.

At a national level, I cannot imagine a rookie congressman attaching millions of dollars of pork barrell spending to a bill and getting it passed. It simply isn't going to happen that often. Why? He hasn't done any political favors and he has no political equity. Whereas an entrenched legislator can attach that same wasted spending and call in enough favor to pass it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Without a third party option term limits are the only way I can see to curb corruption.

The President covers the nation not a region and no I dont like that either. Im a firm believer in that people should have a choice and when corruption is found crash it hard with tough penalties and Jail time.

I would rather have a senior ELECTED person having influence than an unelected bureaucrat which experience shows us happens with term limits in the houses of states with term limits. If term limits are problems on small scale what makes you think they would be different on a larger scale?

 

[Lexvol]

The President covers the nation not a region and no I dont like that either. Im a firm believer in that people should have a choice and when corruption is found crash it hard with tough penalties and Jail time.

I would rather have a senior ELECTED person having influence than an unelected bureaucrat which experience shows us happens with term limits in the houses of states with term limits. If term limits are problems on small scale what makes you think they would be different on a larger scale?

Term limits are not the problem. Nepotism is. State legislatures work entirely differently.

At least your consistent.

 

[VolBeef88]

Term limits are not the problem. Nepotism is. State legislatures work entirely differently.

At least your consistent.

You could not be more wrong Lex. If you think Nepotism doesn’t exist on the national level I would offer these as a few examples.

Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Rockefeller etc...

I can honestly say that I don’t know about the Commonwealth of KY but most states have 2 houses and a Governor and a Supreme Court.

Thus a legislative branch, an executive branch and a Judicial branch. For some reason that form of government sounds awfully familiar.

 

[UT IE 95]

I want a party that upholds the Constitution and ensures our country is a properous world leader.

The Republican party has failed miserably at that for the last eight years.

 

[Lexvol]

You could not be more wrong Lex. If you think Nepotism doesn’t exist on the national level I would offer these as a few examples.

Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Rockefeller etc...

I can honestly say that I don’t know about the Commonwealth of KY but most states have 2 houses of government and a Governor and a Supreme Court.

Thus a legislative branch, an executive branch and a Judicial branch. For some reason that form of government sounds awfully familiar.

Nepotism is everywhere but it consistently thrives in state government. I have had two different family members serve in the same seat in the Georgia house of representatives and seats on my hometown city council as well as the mayor office was occupied by a family member of mine for a combined total of about 30 years.

Small town politics thrives at the state level. While nepotism is everywhere, dollars speak much louder than kin folks in the beltway.

 

[Lexvol]

I want a party that upholds the Constitution and ensures our country is a properous world leader.

The Republican party has failed miserably at that for the last eight years.

hmy:

Individuals and individual freedom ensure prosperity...the government should have nothing to do with it.

I never have really gotten the whole world leader thing....why is that our responsibility?

 

[VolBeef88]

Nepotism is everywhere but it consistently thrives in state government. I have had two different family members serve in the same seat in the Georgia house of representatives and seats on my hometown city council as well as the mayor office was occupied by a family member of mine for a combined total of about 30 years.

Small town politics thrives at the state level. While nepotism is everywhere, dollars speak much louder than kin folks in the beltway.

I just think that depriving the citizenry of the representative that THEY want is wrong at any level of government. There is no way to argue that Term limits do not do as much. Therefore I will not support them.
And Nepotism is alive and well in DC my friend and at a MUCH higher level than you realize.