The Obama Administration thread

[Jdog0830]

How to fix Congress


I know many of you will say, "this is impossible".  Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us. 

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House.  These people will become American heroes.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010


1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms


2.  No Tenure / No Pension:

  A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.


3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.


4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.


5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.


6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.


8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 . 

    The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.


Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

A dam great idea but you have to concider that you would need to actually have a member of Congress willing to give up his/her "privlages" and then convince both Congress and all the "people" who are involved with them to give up these things.

I think the media would try to ignore it since payments from certain "people" will convince them to just ignore it.

But who knows one of the failing news stations might try to get that story out but in the end I think it will not be noticed untill after the bill would be dead.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

How to fix Congress


I know many of you will say, "this is impossible".  Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us. 

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House.  These people will become American heroes.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010


1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms


2.  No Tenure / No Pension:

  A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.


3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.


4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.


5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.


6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.


8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 . 

    The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.


Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

This is a great post  If something like this does not happen the disconnect between government and the people it is supposed to serve will only get worse.

[D]

This may sound stupid, but i think one of the biggest problems is the 2 term limit for a President.

If u have someone in there doing an excellent job and our country is thriving and doing great, its a damn shame he has to leave because of some 'rule" that I,for one, don't understand.

[freedom78]

This may sound stupid, but i think one of the biggest problems is the 2 term limit for a President.

If u have someone in there doing an excellent job and our country is thriving and doing great, its a damn shame he has to leave because of some 'rule" that I,for one, don't understand.

And the framers of our Constitution would have agreed with you.

Then again, they also thought that blacks were worth 3/5 of a person, so what can ya do?

[Nostradamus]

This may sound stupid, but i think one of the biggest problems is the 2 term limit for a President.

If u have someone in there doing an excellent job and our country is thriving and doing great, its a damn shame he has to leave because of some 'rule" that I,for one, don't understand.

And the framers of our Constitution would have agreed with you.

Then again, they also thought that blacks were worth 3/5 of a person, so what can ya do?

The ironic thing -- and the thing that most don't understand -- is that recognizing blacks as 3/5 of a person, instead of no person at all, was actually a negative thing for blacks.  The 3/5 compromise related to counting persons for the distribution of House reps, etc.  The South and slave owners wanted blacks counted as a whole person, while the North didn't want them counted at all.  Remember, they could not vote at that time.  Thus, as it relates to the distribution of reps, it would have been better for blacks if they weren't counted for a person at all instead of 3/5 of a person.

[freedom78]

This may sound stupid, but i think one of the biggest problems is the 2 term limit for a President.

If u have someone in there doing an excellent job and our country is thriving and doing great, its a damn shame he has to leave because of some 'rule" that I,for one, don't understand.

And the framers of our Constitution would have agreed with you.

Then again, they also thought that blacks were worth 3/5 of a person, so what can ya do?

The ironic thing -- and the thing that most don't understand -- is that recognizing blacks as 3/5 of a person, instead of no person at all, was actually a negative thing for blacks.  The 3/5 compromise related to counting persons for the distribution of House reps, etc.  The South and slave owners wanted blacks counted as a whole person, while the North didn't want them counted at all.  Remember, they could not vote at that time.  Thus, as it relates to the distribution of reps, it would have been better for blacks if they weren't counted for a person at all instead of 3/5 of a person.

Yes, and the Constitution was very clear on this.  It's only about representation and taxes...not about them getting 3/5 of all rights afforded to "full" people or anything like that. 

You really can't find a bigger slap in the face, though, than the Dred Scott decision, wherein it was declared that blacks were "beings of inferior order" and thus incapable of availing themselves of our legal system. 

These are the things I consider whenever someone uses the "it's what the founding fathers wanted" excuse.  It's an inherently flawed reason to do anything. 

[Mal Brossard]

What's funny about the two-term limit is the Republicans pushed it through so there would never be another FDR holding power for 4 terms.  Ironically, the first to be limited by the change was a Republican-- Eisenhower.

[Jdog0830]

This may sound stupid, but i think one of the biggest problems is the 2 term limit for a President.

If u have someone in there doing an excellent job and our country is thriving and doing great, its a damn shame he has to leave because of some 'rule" that I,for one, don't understand.

Its all about what happened with FDR.
If he hadnt died who knows how many times he would be relected. Eventually his mind would deteriorate as it does with everyone and who wants a president that even might have altimers?
And lets remember people absolute power corrupts absolutly.

I am a FDR fan hell we would not have been in WW2 if a republican was in office at that time I think. Or we would just be at war with Japan and not Germany, and Italty. But who knows what could have happened.

[D]

on he flip side of that though, if a President wasn't locked into certain restrictions with time, he would have more time to get things done and wouldn't have to try to rush everything into that 8 year sometimes 4 year window.

also, they couldn't come up with short term solutions that worked but made a giant mess for Presidents down the line.

[Jdog0830]

on he flip side of that though, if a President wasn't locked into certain restrictions with time, he would have more time to get things done and wouldn't have to try to rush everything into that 8 year sometimes 4 year window.

also, they couldn't come up with short term solutions that worked but made a giant mess for Presidents down the line.

Yeah D if that happened then Congress would have to be more careful when the people think the president is doing a horrible job and the facts even say that he is then we need some way to get him out of office.

I would not want to give someone like Bush more time as president thats for sure.


Joe

[Bodhi]

From the Washington Times....

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground Rate this story

By Joseph Curl

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin -- 51 percent to 41 percent -- Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama's presidency.

"This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office," said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

"The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin," the pollsters said in their findings.

A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent.

The Democrats' gap on national security has widened on several other fronts:

? "Keeping America safe": Democrats now trail by 13 points (34 percent to 47 percent.) The gap was just 5 points in July 2008.

? "Ensuring a strong military": Democrats trail by 31 points (27 percent to 58 percent.)

? "Making America safer from nuclear threats": Democrats trail by 11 points (34 percent to 45 percent,) "despite the president's strong actions and speeches on steps to reduce nuclear dangers," the pollsters said.

The poll, conducted late last month, found "the administration's response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion."

"While public polling showed that initial approval of Obama's response was above 50 percent, two months of Republican criticism have taken a toll. Now a narrow 46 to 42 percent plurality of likely voters say they feel less confident about the administration's handling of national security because of how it responded to the incident," the pollsters said.

In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president's approval ratings.

"Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects," the pollsters found.

Democracy Corps calls itself an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people." It was founded in 1999 by former Clinton adviser James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster.

Third Way calls itself "the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement."

[Skeba]

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago...

A majority of the rest of the world probably say something different... But I think it's not that important. What the rest of the world thinks of the US.... What's more important is what Americans think the rest of the world thinks of the US.

[pilferk]

From the Washington Times....

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground Rate this story

By Joseph Curl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

Remember, the Washington Times is hardly the equivalent of the Washington Post.  They are unabashedly  a conservative paper...owned by the Moonies (or, rather, the head Moonie).

Now, I'm not saying that doesn't make them reputable, but realize you're getting one very narrow viewpoint....and that taking things (espeicially things like the article you posted, which is a bad "Cliffs Notes" version of the polls results) at face value isn't such a great idea.

Below is a little bit more in depth, more complete (and more factual) interpretation of the survey, from one of the groups who commissioned it:

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2010/03/the-politics-of-national-security-a-wake-up-call/

[JuicySwoos]

Did you hear Lindsay Vonn was stripped of her gold medal?  It was given to Obama after it was determined he went downhill faster. 

Heeeeyyyyyyoooooooooooh!

NOTE: Just a stupid joke, and not an endorsement of any particular ideology, politician, and/or political party.

[Jdog0830]

From the Washington Times....

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground Rate this story

By Joseph Curl

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin -- 51 percent to 41 percent -- Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama's presidency.

"This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office," said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

"The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin," the pollsters said in their findings.

A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent.

The Democrats' gap on national security has widened on several other fronts:

? "Keeping America safe": Democrats now trail by 13 points (34 percent to 47 percent.) The gap was just 5 points in July 2008.

? "Ensuring a strong military": Democrats trail by 31 points (27 percent to 58 percent.)

? "Making America safer from nuclear threats": Democrats trail by 11 points (34 percent to 45 percent,) "despite the president's strong actions and speeches on steps to reduce nuclear dangers," the pollsters said.

The poll, conducted late last month, found "the administration's response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion."

"While public polling showed that initial approval of Obama's response was above 50 percent, two months of Republican criticism have taken a toll. Now a narrow 46 to 42 percent plurality of likely voters say they feel less confident about the administration's handling of national security because of how it responded to the incident," the pollsters said.

In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president's approval ratings.

"Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects," the pollsters found.

Democracy Corps calls itself an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people." It was founded in 1999 by former Clinton adviser James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster.

Third Way calls itself "the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement."

I am sure that these polls were "selective" on whos voice they wanted to be heard COUGH (republicans)

And its sad they cant see that we are doing better off then what someone like Bush would do to us.

[TheWalkinDude]

From the Washington Times....

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground Rate this story

By Joseph Curl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

Remember, the Washington Times is hardly the equivalent of the Washington Post.  They are unabashedly  a conservative paper...owned by the Moonies (or, rather, the head Moonie).

Now, I'm not saying that doesn't make them reputable, but realize you're getting one very narrow viewpoint....and that taking things (espeicially things like the article you posted, which is a bad "Cliffs Notes" version of the polls results) at face value isn't such a great idea.

Below is a little bit more in depth, more complete (and more factual) interpretation of the survey, from one of the groups who commissioned it:

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2010/03/the-politics-of-national-security-a-wake-up-call/

Would you offer the same advice had the article come from the NY Times or Washington Post?

[pilferk]

I am sure that these polls were "selective" on whos voice they wanted to be heard COUGH (republicans)

And its sad they cant see that we are doing better off then what someone like Bush would do to us.

Actually, the POLL is pretty good....read the link I provided.

But the interpretation in the article?  Not so much.  It's a skewed "Cliffs Notes" version.

[pilferk]

Would you offer the same advice had the article come from the NY Times or Washington Post?

Comparing the Washington Times to the NY Times or the Post isn't accurate, so likely not, or at least not in the same way.  Because the NY Times and the Washington Post have a rich history of journalistic heritage, integrity and credibility. Yes, they both have a viewpoint but that's in their editorial pages, mostly.  And neither seems likely to engage in the type of misrepresentaiton that was in the article we're discussing. 

They also don't have an owner who all but stated the reason he bought the Times was to stem a tide of bad publicity against his cult. 

But even so, if I saw an obviously bad interpretation of a poll or piece of information I'd seen elsewhere then, yes, I'd likely provide a clarifying link.   Do you have a particular NY Times or Washington Post article you'd like discussed?  Because otherwise, really, it's a moot point.

 I see where you're TRYING to go here....but insinuating my "questioning" the article is because the source is conservative and I'm not won't really work out, here. First, because it's simply not true.  There's plenty of liberal papers out there who do similar things and I'd question them, too. But second (and perhaps more importantly) I provided a link to the ORIGINAL pollster and their interpretation....which really removes "political leanings" from the conversation.  No matter what the source of the article was, liberal or conservative, it was misleading, incomplete, and not entirely accurate.

[Jdog0830]

I am sure that these polls were "selective" on whos voice they wanted to be heard COUGH (republicans)

And its sad they cant see that we are doing better off then what someone like Bush would do to us.

Actually, the POLL is pretty good....read the link I provided.

But the interpretation in the article?  Not so much.  It's a skewed "Cliffs Notes" version.

Ok but was the poll nation wide?





Joe

[pilferk]

Ok but was the poll nation wide?


Joe

Yes.  The polling methodology and even the QUESTIONS are listed in the link I provided to the pollster's (Democracy Corps) analysis.   

The survey was based on telephone interviews with 1,001 2008 voters, conducted between February 20-24, 2010. The survey included interviews with 851 respondents who are likely voters for the 2010 elections, and all figures in this report refer to the ?likely voter? results unless otherwise noted. The margin of sampling error is approximately +/-3.1 percent for results from the full sample, and approximately +/- 3.4 percent for results from likely voters.

 In this and the upcoming national security surveys by Democracy Corps and Third Way, we are including a set of questions that will form the basis for a ?Security Confidence Index,? which we will compute and publish after each of these polls. The index will be calculated as follows: we will start with the average percentage of the approval levels for the president?s job performance on four indicators ? ?national security,? ?foreign policy,? ?fighting terrorism,? and ?improving America?s standing in the world?; then we will add or subtract the average of two net percentages ? the net percentage who feel America is more-minus-less safe than two years ago; and the net percentage who feel America is more-minus-less respected in the world than it was two years ago. Given these inputs, the resulting single-number metric will combine perceptions of America?s current performance on security issues with its relative performance compared to two years earlier; and it will combine perceptions of both the country?s ?hard power? (terrorism, national security) and ?soft power? (America?s standing in the world). Using this formula, the Security Confidence Index for February 2010 stands at 48.0 for likely voters.

The POLL is actually a good one, but it doesn't say EXACTLY what the Times says it does.  So while the poll is good (and offers some interesting insight), the article talking about it, isn't.