Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Like an old-fashioned Chinese Menu…pick one from column A, pick one from column B and get a free get-out-of-jail fortune cookie.
     
     
    Andrew Breitbart calls for Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) to resign from Congress in light of revelations that the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee personally profited by shorting financial stocks after being briefed on the impending financial crisis in 2008. The revelations were made public in Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Throw Them All Out,” and was broadcast on CBS News’ 60 Minutes this evening.
     
     
     
    Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.
     

  2. jj says

    Time for term limits.  Past time.  Sorry, DQ, I want every single one of these sons of bitches gone – all of them, sweep the board.  Hillary can hand out “reset” buttons, because it is damned well time for a national reset. 
     
    And while I carry no water for “60 Minutes,” the idea that any one of these bastards thinks they don’t have to tell us what gives, don’t have to answer questions, and don’t owe us – their goddam employers! – any explanations, well… time to start kicking asses around the block.  We could begin with the Bird-brain of Alcatraz, who has needed her ass kicked around the block for years.
     
    Why the hell we tolerate offal like this for years I do not begin to understand.

  3. Mike Devx says

    I used to be against term limits and balanced budget amendments.
    I am now 99% in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and currently sitting at about75% on term limits.

    Keep it up, Congresscritter assholes, and term limits is gonna go a 100% gusher right through the top of my skull soon.
     

  4. SADIE says

    Time for term limits.
     
    Ditto and no limits on the term of incarceration for them.
     
    I’d read them the riot act, but I know it would go through three dozen committees, get watered down to pretty please stop and some finger pointing. In the meantime, we’ve all flipping them the bird and they have been thumbing their noses at us.

  5. Mike Devx says

    Just seen this morning in a political article:

    Conservatives gave Republicans control of the U.S. House with the understanding those Republicans would stop President Obama’s agenda in its tracks and begin laying the groundwork for repealing it come 2013. But now, when it comes to spending, some lawmakers seem unwilling to even try. According to Roll Call, “Republican leadership sources” now “concede there is not much left in the domestic discretionary spending pot to cut.”

    If such a quote really came from Republican leadership in Congress… if that is their consensus, then it truly is time for a third party.  We (the USA) are doomed if we stick with the GOP and cannot purge the leadership.

     

  6. Old Buckeye says

    Amen Mike Devx on the 3rd party option. The GOP keeps calling me for a handout and I keep telling them they are not acting conservatively enough for me to give them a dime. What really fries my fritters about the pass that Congress is allowed for insider trading is that people like Martha Stewart were made to serve time for less egregious offenses. It’s past time for term limits. They’ve all been handed the keys to the kingdom and we peasants have been paying the price.

  7. Mike Devx says

    If GOP leadership *meant to say* that the American people are not yet committed to discretionary spending cuts, then I could agree with them:  To go against the American people and severely slash what they do NOT want slashed, is a recipe for political (voting) disaster.

    But the statement, as it stands now, is worse.  It is surrender; giving up on cutting the size and power of government.  It suggests that the current size and power of the national government is perfectly fine!  I cannot accept that in any way.

     

  8. Duchess of Austin says

    I used to think term limits was the answer but if you think about it….limiting the terms of the actual *elected* politicians will end up concentrating the power in the hands of the *unelected* career bureaucrats that work for them.  Congresscritters don’t actually write legislation anymore…if they ever did.  The legislation is written by their staffs, consisting of unelected people who don’t lose their jobs when the elected guy loses his latest election.
     
    How do you think they had Obamacare up and running in no time flat?  It was already mostly written and waiting for elective action.  We need to just do it the Roman way and decimate (every 10th government employee fired) the government employees who are not military, and do it again every 3 to 5 years. 
     
    Eliminating a few cabinet departments would be a good idea too.  Energy and Education to start, with a review of the constitutionality of all others.

  9. jj says

    That bridge you cross when you come to it, Duchess.  In the meantime, I’ll settle for never having to look at Henry Waxman’s nostrils again; never having to listen to Barney Fwank spitting and drooling all over some interviewer; never having to wonder how come whoever castrated Harry Reid didn’t just go ahead and kill the son-of-a-bitch; never having to expend energy wondering if Shelia Jackson Leigh really is the dumbest person in North America – with the possible exception of Patty Murray; and we can all stop wasting energy in speculation about what planet Pelosi’s really from.
     
    I don’t know the career civil servants well enough to despise them.  Yet.  One step at a time.

  10. says

    I think the Left has already gained control of the upper echelons of the Republican party given recent events. Everybody else just isn’t aware of that yet. Like most people aren’t aware of the Left’s evil. They don’t think in big enough terms for one thing.

     4 years ago, it was hard to tell because of Bush and the war. The Republicans were more leery about stepping outside the pack, for fear patriotism and pro-Bush sentiments would put them in the pit. Now it is much easier to tell, with McCain’s failed bid for President, who is or isn’t on our side. From my analysis, there is too much collusion between Republicans and Democrats. Not as much as in Chicago, but much more than might be expected if the Republican party was as pure as people say it is.

    The Left has gained such power and influence that they can even March Through the Institutions of their political rivals, without anyone noticing. 

  11. says

    Let’s have term limits to be rid of career politicians, though it doesn’t work so well in California where the termed out merely run for a different office or get themselves appointed to something – anything – until they can run for their old office again.

    Last week, Bill Clinton was making noises about not limiting a President to two consecutive terms only, suggesting that a former two-timer should be allowed into office after a respectable period which, I suppose, to him would have been four years. The current two terms prevented Clinton’s return from the dead, but so too Reagan; a sword the cuts both ways.

    Term limits inevitably let the voters off the hook for doing what we know to be the right thing every two, four, and six years which is to vote the bums out – except my guy who is the only good, decent, and public-minded civil servant ever elected to the various viper dens.

    Also, return to the old spoils system to get rid of career bureaucrats, a system which has the additional benefit that, in the end, we all know exactly who is to blame for whatever good or ill befalls the country – can’t blame Party R if all the officers and bureaucrats are Party D and vice versa. Besides, it’s what we do anyway for the leadership offices.

    Republican Democracy is such a damned messy thing that can cause a body to wish for an old fashioned benevolent dictatorship because those have always succeeded so well.

  12. Mike Devx says

    > That bridge you cross when you come to it, Duchess.

    I agree with jj.
    In fact, in Tea Party mode, you would then elect congressional candidates who *promise* to bring in their own (reduced) bureaucratic staff.  I don’t think congressional staffs are guaranteed independent civil servant jobs.  I believe you only have that kind of shenanigan (er, protection against nepotism) in the Executive Branch – eg, the State Department; and perhaps in the Judicial Branch.

    If two elected terms is good enough for the president, wouldn’t twelve years (six elected terms for the House, and  two elected terms for the Senate) be enough?  Heck, that would give certain effective politicians 24 years of “service” in Congress, if they still wanted to try to make a career out of it.

    You could argue that this removes choices from the people.

    Well, so would a balanced budget amendment, and I am now *strongly* in favor of one.  The Founding Fathers instituted a wide variety of checks and balances into our system.  They did worry about the growth of a corrupt and tyrannical national government, but I don’t think they worried enough about it.  We need a few more checks built into the national government.  Amendments to cover term limits and a balanced budget would certainly help curtail the errors we’ve seen develop over the last 150 years.
     

Leave a Reply