Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do to, however, it's most of them in there...so what can we do about it? How bout one line veto items, they would have to vote on one single bill, with no other hidden agendas in it...that would be a start?
They tried the Line Item Veto in 1996. The GOP controlled Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto authority, and Clinton abused it. As a result, the Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional.
The President can always veto any of the twelve appropriation bills, and many Presidents have. However, Congress can also override those vetoes, and many have. Clinton regularly vetoed the GOP appropriation bills during his second term, and they were all overridden by two-thirds of Congress, which included Democrats. But those were the days when we actually had a fiscally responsible Congress. That ended after Speaker Gingrich left and Hastert became Speaker. Another serious blow to fiscal responsibility occurred when Rep. John Kasich, Chairman of the Budget Committee (now Governor of Ohio) did not seek reelection in 2000. From that point on, we have had nothing but irresponsible morons in charge of our federal budget.
Do not settle for any one's interpretation, read it for yourself. You know that the Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party (a.k.a. mainstream media) is going to put their spin on it, so do not buy anything they have to say. Fox News always has a counter-spin to the mainstream media, so they are just as worthless.
I canceled my satellite subscription five years ago this month, and I think I am better informed now than I ever was then. I may not have as much information as I did before, but the information I do have is far better quality.
so what would be the answer from your point of view, how can we take back Washington? And polize, don't say by voting....that doesn't work....and just so you know, I'm not going to "not vote..."
we the people have to hold our elected representatives feet to the fire. we have to bombard them with letters, telegrams, emails, phone calls, etc. and let them know in no uncertain terms our wishes on various pieces of legislation. understand though that they will be pulled in many directions at once by everyone. we also need to eliminate lobbyists, that alone will make things easier for the people at large to deal with their congress people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee
I do to, however, it's most of them in there...so what can we do about it? How bout one line veto items, they would have to vote on one single bill, with no other hidden agendas in it...that would be a start?
unfortunately the line item veto was declared unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergoingback
The disenfranchised are 50% of the voting population. They don't vote because they think it doesn't matter. I don't know the whos and whys. I was just stating a fact.
then they are not disenfranchised by anyone but themselves. and that is their problem not mine.
Quote:
We need to get private money out of politics period. All of that extra money should be going to charity or something that really benefits the country, not in a politicians "war chest" for obtaining power over the opposition.
the problem is that all money in politics, regardless of whether it comes from individual donors, or the government, comes from the same source, the people. either voluntarily or through taxes. personally i would prefer that the government NOT spend money on political campaigns, that is not their domain. we pay enough in taxes now, if we had to pay for political campaigns, imagine how much more money the government would be wasting each day.
They tried the Line Item Veto in 1996. The GOP controlled Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto authority, and Clinton abused it. As a result, the Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional.
The President can always veto any of the twelve appropriation bills, and many Presidents have. However, Congress can also override those vetoes, and many have. Clinton regularly vetoed the GOP appropriation bills during his second term, and they were all overridden by two-thirds of Congress, which included Democrats. But those were the days when we actually had a fiscally responsible Congress. That ended after Speaker Gingrich left and Hastert became Speaker. Another serious blow to fiscal responsibility occurred when Rep. John Kasich, Chairman of the Budget Committee (now Governor of Ohio) did not seek reelection in 2000. From that point on, we have had nothing but irresponsible morons in charge of our federal budget.
Do not settle for any one's interpretation, read it for yourself. You know that the Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party (a.k.a. mainstream media) is going to put their spin on it, so do not buy anything they have to say. Fox News always has a counter-spin to the mainstream media, so they are just as worthless.
I canceled my satellite subscription five years ago this month, and I think I am better informed now than I ever was then. I may not have as much information as I did before, but the information I do have is far better quality.
Clinton didn't abuse the line-item veto. There were legal and legislative challenges immediately upon passage of the line-item veto law. And a review of the items he vetoed might be a lesson to some on fiscal responsibility.
Each State law is not that different. As I previously pointed out, Alaska and Arkansas have the exact same criteria for any political party to get on the ballot. The Green Party tried in Alaska during the 1990s, failed, sued the State of Alaska, and lost. Now they are trying to pull the same nonsense in Arkansas.
The States control the elections, not the federal government. As a result, every political party must comply with each State's requirements. It does not matter if they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or any other political party. If they cannot meet the State's criteria, they will not be officially recognized.
It does not matter what those minimum standards are, as long as every political party is required to meet those minimum standards before they will be officially recognized by the State. If those minimum standards do not change depending upon the political party, which they do not, it blows your Republican/Democrat "dominance" conspiracy theory out of the water.
Which is a huge failure on the part of fair elections. Why should the state even endorse some parties over others? Why should they have regulations on what parties get recognized? It should be about the candidate, not the party. Parties are private organizations, and should not have any bearing on a state's official election rules.
I think its very clear that the two party system is not working. The parties are dividing America more and more with each political cycle and this divided government will lead to the demise of our country. Lets vote for people not parties. And while we are at it, get rid of the electoral college and decide our elections with the popular vote!
Abolishing the two party system will not change as long as the average voter will remain uneducated on important issues.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,870,316 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You're a citizen of the USA who lives in Arkansas. Your DL or proof of residence are not your citizenship papers. But then, we may be arguing the semantics, so getting back to the point, whatever it takes to abolish party system works for me. Why do you believe having a party system is a necessity (much less driven by the whims of politicians who make the laws and sign up for "purity tests"... I assumed just the kind of things the US Constitution has well covered)?
But the point rbohm made was very much valid... that electoral college and having a party system are separate matters. Do you not agree to that?
Yes, I absolutely agree the electoral college is not wedded to a 2 party system.
I feel that the current ineptness displayed by both parties on the debt ceiling talks, is really starting to wear thin on the public.
The bickering is still ongoing,and both sides are digging in , and the nation and international community are quickly doubting our ability to solve problems-----close to 70% of Americans are fed up with our legislators---that they dont get it or dont care.
Eventually a solid and responsible member from either the dems or repubs is going to throw up his or her hands and splinter away. It wont be the same as Eugene Mccarty or Ross Perot, because this time I believe enough citizens are thoroughly disgusted by the incompentence, ineptness, and arrogance of our leaders. There just may be enough of a groundswell here for some movement.
If our bobbleheads dont start to seriously discuss and negotiate our problems, and the international and national condition continues to detoriate, momentum for a responsible third may well come to fruition.
Which is a huge failure on the part of fair elections. Why should the state even endorse some parties over others? Why should they have regulations on what parties get recognized? It should be about the candidate, not the party. Parties are private organizations, and should not have any bearing on a state's official election rules.
Because if they did not establish a minimum criteria there would be literally thousands of political parties on the ballot. Just how many hours were you planning on spending in the voting booth?
By requiring at least 3% of the popular vote support the political party's candidate they weed out all the "Tom, Dick, & Harry" and "Bozo The Clown" political parties. The State is not endorsing any political party, they are officially recognizing those political parties that at least 3% of the voters consider "legitimate."
The Green Party, for example, was never able to get even 3% of the vote in Alaska, despite years of trying. Which makes them a fringe political party, not worthy of being recognized by the State or appearing on the ballot.
Glitch;
The President can always veto any of the twelve appropriation bills, and many Presidents have. However, Congress can also override those vetoes, and many have. Clinton regularly vetoed the GOP appropriation bills during his second term, and they were all overridden by two-thirds of Congress, which included Democrats. But those were the days when we actually had a fiscally responsible Congress. That ended after Speaker Gingrich left and Hastert became Speaker. Another serious blow to fiscal responsibility occurred when Rep. John Kasich, Chairman of the Budget Committee (now Governor of Ohio) did not seek reelection in 2000. From that point on, we have had nothing but irresponsible morons in charge of our federal budget.
Yes, I do remember that, we were completely out of debt, and Clinton got recognized for that, a lot of people thought we became debt free b/c of him. While he was a road scholoar, and yes, those were the days...and yes, they were indeed fiscally responsible.
Thanks so much for the link, I will in fact read it...and thanks so much for your willingness to participate nicely and offer some great enlightenment.
Considering that the real power is in the financial elite that own or bribe both parties why would anyone thing we have a "two party system"? We have the two wings of the American Property Party dedicated to the wealth and aggrandizement of the actual owners of America’s financial wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.