I think people in Congress are acting like big babies. Why does it take them so long to agree on common sense and basic need bills. I've been raised as a Democrat but lately they are getting just as bad as the other guys. I'm starting to just listen too whom ever makes the best sense. Does anyone else feel the same way? What type of examples are we setting for our kids if the grown ups can't get along, are stubborn, and rude to one another. Can't we just take the simple good things from one person and the simple good things from the next and make some real changes? Why does it have to be all or nothing with these guys? Give us a BREAK CONGRESS!!! Get it together!
You're not suppose to try and make sense out of it all, just keep sending money!
Our elected officials may appear to be acting like babies, but they are playing some very adult games. Nevertheless, I agree they are behaving badly. Admittedly, nothing seems to make much sense right now, eh? Anytime something makes absolutely no sense, look for the money trail.
Take old Holy Joe Lieberman, who says he is only following his conscious, just for an example. He's from the great state of Connecticut where Aetna is head quartered. He has received some major cash from them over the years. It's not just him. Follow the money.
OMG, you poor thing! People should never, ever be raised as a Republican or a Democrat. People should be raised to think for themselves. The two major parties have changed, in major ways, a number of times over the years and, even given the lock-step marching of the Republicans as of late, I imagine they will change again. Also, over the years we have seen many instances of the two major political parties not being representative of their so-called base, just as we are now.
Some say that the answer is in the European model in which there are a number of viable parties who stand candidates for elections and win seats in whatever body functions for them as our Congress does for us, or should.
It would be more honest, would it not? There could be the Christian Republicans, the Christian Democrats, The Green Party, the American Likud Party (for Neocons and others who like their various manifestos), Conservative Democrats, Conservative Republicans.
We could have the propertarian Libertarians and the non-propertarian Libertarians (or we could put them all in the same Libertarian Party and allow then to fight out the property issue in-house.
There could also be the Liberal Democrats and the Progressives, in the same or different parties. If there are still any liberals Republicans, they are so far underground by now I doubt any would come out to vote let alone form a political party.
We could have the Corporatist Party. That was tried years ago by Benito Mussolini. He called his party "Fascist" and said that it was the same as corporatism. Wonder how many votes they would get in 2010?
If people are "true believers" in the Communist Manifesto, they should be honest about it and call themselves the Communist Party. People like Bernie Sanders should be able to call himself a Socialist Democrat and have a party he can call his own.
I like the idea that members of congress, both chambers, would actually have to talk to one another to get things done.
The sad thing is, however, no matter what else we do, if we do not demand publicly funded elections, the same problems will prevail.
I don't know about you, but I have never looked to Washington for examples of good behavior, let alone selfless, courageous, moral or Right Action. Yes, there have been examples of it but they are far too rare.
Parents, however, can surely use the over-paid, over-insured, puppets of corporations, for whom we may or may not have voted, as examples of why we should all think for ourselves and demand publicly funding of elections in the U.S.
It is never too early for a little American to learn that a government such as ours cannot be left on automatic pilot between presidential election years. A liberal democracy, which is what G.W. Bush said we were pushing in the Middle East, cannot function without good, reliable information based on fact getting to the voters, mass involvement in electoral politics (meaning vote, at the least) every two years or more often if necessary.
Americans simply must learn to pay attention. Paying attention means having more than one news source on television, on the Internet and in the printed press.
It seems to me that, depending on the age of your kids, this nightmarish time could provide a great teaching opportunity.
It sounds like you are wondering why we all can't just get along, for Pete's sake. I can relate.
The reason we can't just all get along and get something done about our long broken healthcare system is the same reason that kept us at each other's throats for a very long time now. The government and the two major political parties and quite a few issue organizations have become quite efficient at manipulating us with deceit and fear-mongering, among other things.
1)Saddam is going to spray Small Pox all over the eastern seaboard of the U.S./ give a suitcase-nuke, made with Iraq's "newly re-constituted nuclear arms program" to Osama bin Laden or some Al Qaeda character, since the secular Sunni Saddam is such good friends with the hyper-religious, fatwa slinging, phony,holy man, from some really out-there religious cult known as Wahhabism, Osama bin Laden.
2) Health care reform under Barack Obama and a democratic Congress is the biggest threat to freedom in anyone's memory; yes, bigger than 9/11 type terrorism, the old Soviet Union and Hitler, for that matter. (Obama is Hitler? Or is he Stalin or Pol Pot? I get confused.) Health care reform will be the absolute downfall of the nation. The flag is falling and we are all going to die.
There are two examples of how people are manipulated with deceit used to fear-monger to a vulnerable crowd, whip up wrathful desires for vengeance and in every other way possible, appeal to the reptilian brains of the masses. Of course, it is not always that obvious, but it is pretty damned obvious more often than it used to be.
Some of the statements made by elected officials these days are nothing short of jaw dropping.
The facts paint a very different picture, do they not?
The all-or-nothing crowd are the "authoritarians". They are mostly found in the GOP but not exclusively by a long shot.
People in Congress not only "try" to listen to their voters but they also have to listen to the companies feeding them money to vote a certain way. It makes no sense.
Everyone in Congress should do continuous polls of the people in their districts/states to see what THE PEOPLE want in their areas! I mean, that makes the most sense, right?
They shouldn't be influenced by their own agendas, lobbyists or the President's agenda.
It sounds good if the politicians would even try to listen to both the electorate and big business but the plain truth is that they first listen to big business and let the party take care of the electorate. More money for the party will go a lot farther than doing what they were elected to do. It is a greed based system now and the guise of representative action is the face we are led to believe.
I'm not in favor of nothing getting done; but in fairness to them, they're supposed to be acting on behalf of a few million people, as well as "whoever/whatever" else. Besides, if you think of how much trouble two people who don't agree have coming to an agreement, multiply that by the numbers in Congress.
Again, I'm not a fan of getting nothing done, but I don't even think it's necessarily a bad example for kids. We want our kids to see that in this country one person, or just a few people, don't ever have too much power. The negative side of not having one person, or a few people, getting to just make the quick decisions is having "a zillion" people putting their two cents in and slowing up the process. It may be an unfortunate side-effect of our government, but I'm not sure it's really a bad example.
I tend to agree with you, although the logical part of my brain reminds me of all the steps necessary to actually make a bill or law come to fruition, so no one person has all the power to act on their own, which is a good thing. I believe it is a good thing to have all the input from all sides, but I also think sometimes it comes down to personal agendas instead of really being a case of concern for what is best for us as a whole country. Plus, I am really getting tired of all the partisanship. With everything that is going on in our country these days, I would love to see us pull together as AMERICANS to solve problems, without the titles and lines of Democrat or Republican or whatever coming between us.
Pelican, I think you are right in so many ways. Money is the basis for all decisions made by politicians through lobbyist corruption. The elections are bought and paid for and legislation and contracts are slanted towards those who are owed the biggest favor(money).
The problem remains on two fronts as I see it. One is convincing the general electorate that the problem of money influenced decision making is at the core of the issue. And two is that they have to vote out the politicians that propagate it.
Publicly funded campaigns would be a great way to stop the influence by buisiness and exterminating lobbying would be the answer to intelligent and fair legislation.
How do we start when all you get is party politics in your face when you discuss it with others?
There's one huge problem. We're supposed to be a representative democracy. We aren't. Somewhere along the line we started electing people that were going to 'vote their conscience'. That means they're going to vote the way they want to and to hell with us. Take health care reform (government using the word reform is a joke anyway). Why is it when we elect someone they suddenly become a genius regarding every facet of life. If they didn't know a stinking thing about health care before they were elected, they're don't become an expert just because they got a title. As the percentage of Americans that do not want this proposed health care reform approaches 60%, you'd think an elected representative would listen. Are they listening?
I think you cleared up why things are so messed up in your own answer when you said: I'm just starting to listen to whoever makes the best sense!
Apparently political party lines have kept people from voting for the person who makes the most sense for a long time in this country.. Its best to be sensible and vote Independant of party lines for the guy who is sensible. Thats why there are so many idiots in congress bcuz when someone sides with just a name or ideal thats starts with an R or D than the few good ones on either side get the same votes as a lot of idiots as well when punching the ticket straight down for one party. Let the vetoing power and internal house struggles work themselves out by voting for the most sensible and let the amount of chairs held by either side be beacuse they are all sensible. If Economics is higher on your priority than lets say Defense outlook than go with the person who best represents your economic views. And if a moral stance issue gets in the way of electing that particular person than go to the next person who represents your main prioriy/ies. I always throw a green or libertarian or independant in the mix of my voting and on one occassion voted for a state governor who was not my usual party preference. Make your party affiliation a (preference) but not an (absolute) in all cases or you'll be walking with the herd like cattle to a slaughter.
as tobey100 said . We are supposed to be a reresentative democracy rather than the representative voting for their conscience. but that never happens. a good way for the rep to handle it would be to ask each individual to vote online to their website on paticular issues and vote whatever the majorioty turned out to be. most of the time reps only notice when people are sending emails against an issue , demanding action or not getting their vote next time and probbably dont' get many emails showing support of an issue. With the internet becoming used moreover by newer and younger reps we might see this type of representative democracy come back rather than by conscience..younger peoople would easily be able to post a quick few votes ,on a few issues ,on a reps website provided they could easily find it with a link imbeeded in the latest software like twitter or facebook. Not everyone would vote but at least it would show where support lies or doesnt lie with a particular issue up for vote in congress and the representative could represent the majority view.But how many old white haired reps are setting up websites and posting links to facebook. not many and possibly none at the moment. That wont be for until a short furure away. Although i've seen a few use the interbet for "moneybombs". If it has to do with campaign money you bet they'll use the internet as a medium.. too bad they wont use it for voting to show majority representation views. The only problem would be to disclude all IP adresses that are not within that district or state in polling the votes. Not sure how that would work but a wemaster could handle that task for the rep.
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_ … h_overhaul"President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when...
by Charles James4 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come...
by Evan G Rogers5 years ago
Why aren't liberals angry at Obama for 1) not closing Guantanamo2) expanding our wars3) executing US civilians without trials4) ignoring Congress to pass legislation through executive orders5) not leaving Iraq according...
by ahorseback18 months ago
You wanted Christians and lions in the coliseum , you got it . You want a circus in the political debates , there you go ! The last election amounted to a ...
by tobey1007 years ago
The Federal government has sued a sovereign state, Arizona, claiming its law and policy regarding illegal immigration usurps the authority of the Federal government and violates Federal Law and guidlines. At the...
by C.J. Wright6 years ago
So much for toning down the rhetoric.http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 … -much.html
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.