Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Government?

I have two changes I would like to see happen to make the government work a bit better.

1) Eliminate the ability to tack anything onto a bill. One bill equals one law/change/etc. If you're voting on a law with regards to medical care for soldiers, you should NOT be able to tack anything about energy regulation onto that bill. You always see in campaigns that X voted against Y! Who knows what else was in that bill! My above statement wasn't an actual bill. I will gladly find examples if people like -- but we all know it happens.

2) I want to see these 75 year old men stop behaving like 8 year olds. An important skill in life is the ability to compromise. They seem to lack that ability. I think members of Congress have lost sight of doing what is best for our country and are just trying to get votes. They bicker like children over what typically shouldn't be a big deal with some negotiation. Each side has to concede some things, but at the end of the day you make our country stronger.

That said, I have lost complete faith in our government. We're starting to see why a republic has never lasted 250 years. The processes for getting things through have become so convoluted and difficult that it's impossible to get anything of substance done. It may be time to simplify a bit. What was relevant when they documentation for the United States was created has changed significantly. It may be time to update some of our basic principles. If you don't adapt, you die.

Here's my suggestion: Make a career in politics a thing of the past. Fill representative posts via a draft and make it a form of service. Make sure the overall assembly is reflective of the demographics of those they are representing; socially, economically, professionally. Cap length of service to 3 or 4 years and make it a one and done situation. Treat it like mf'ing jury duty. Make lobbying illegal and require all those drafted to have publicly posted financials while in office.


of course, none of that stands a chance in hell of happening.

and to the point about what the founding father's intended... who the **** knows and how is it really relevant at this point? I myself have fallen into making that argument many times but really... who gives a **** what they intended when the world has advanced in ways they never could have foreseen? Why limit ourselves to the vision of 18th century colonists?

Here's my suggestion: Make a career in politics a thing of the past. Fill representative posts via a draft and make it a form of service. Make sure the overall assembly is reflective of the demographics of those they are representing; socially, economically, professionally. Cap length of service to 3 or 4 years and make it a one and done situation. Treat it like mf'ing jury duty. Make lobbying illegal and require all those drafted to have publicly posted financials while in office.


of course, none of that stands a chance in hell of happening.

I hate to keep shooting things down, but the problem with this is the bureacracy would become even more powerful. The institutions of the government doesn't just shut and reload with all new characters.

You have to have politicians (ugh I will be sick saying that) but you have to limit influence by reducing bureacratic process. I would put pay caps on that encourage leaving to private sector jobs and possibly have a system where contributions go to a mass general fund with individuals and corporations specifying percentages for funding as opposed to direct contributions.

You have to limit terms, while allowing a sufficient rotation and length of service that our government remains sufficiently stable to encourage business and foreign relations. Personally I put caps at two terms across the board.

I am sure there are other things too.
.

I hate to keep shooting things down, but the problem with this is the bureacracy would become even more powerful. The institutions of the government doesn't just shut and reload with all new characters.

You have to have politicians (ugh I will be sick saying that) but you have to limit influence by reducing bureacratic process. I would put pay caps on that encourage leaving to private sector jobs and possibly have a system where contributions go to a mass general fund with individuals and corporations specifying percentages for funding as opposed to direct contributions.

You have to limit terms, while allowing a sufficient rotation and length of service that our government remains sufficiently stable to encourage business and foreign relations. Personally I put caps at two terms across the board.

I am sure there are other things too.
.

it's all academic obviously, but with enough overlap and by massaging term limits you could account for the points you make.

This is why the central government shouldn't have as much power as they do. 95% of politicians are douchebags. Let them ruin as little as possible.

I think one of the worst things to ever happen to our political system was the ratification of the 17th amendment, it was one of those things that looks good and is easy to sell but once you got it home you realized your just got disenfranchised big time. I doubt that amendment will ever be repealed. But I think term limits for all federal politicians is something both Republican and Democrats like the idea of and could help solve a lot of the lost faith we all have in our Goverment including some of the issues the 17th amendment created.

In the meantime we have this:

Reid uses the ‘nuclear option’ in the Senate, setting stage for more partisan confrontation | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/reid-uses-nuclear-option-senate-setting-stage-more-140312605.html)

more:

Reid rewrites Senate rules with shocking move | Campaign 2012 (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/reid-rewrites-senate-rules-shocking-move)

I think one of the worst things to ever happen to our political system was the ratification of the 17th amendment, it was one of those things that looks good and is easy to sell but once you got it home you realized your just got disenfranchised big time. I doubt that amendment will ever be repealed. But I think term limits for all federal politicians is something both Republican and Democrats like the idea of and could help solve a lot of the lost faith we all have in our Goverment including some of the issues the 17th amendment created.

I am confused by this statement. Who are you asserting was disenfranchised by the requirement that senators be selected by direct popular vote rather than by the State legislature?

I am confused by this statement. Who are you asserting was disenfranchised by the requirement that senators be selected by direct popular vote rather than by the State legislature?

disenfranchised may be a harsh word, but what it has done has nationalized all elections, and the senators rather than being held with their foot to the fire by the state governor/legislature are now "bought" off with the same national lobbyist money that is spent on the house elections. I know why the 17th amendment was important as backroom politics ran rampant. But by putting all the elections to direct vote, you have taken away one level of protection from democracy for democracy sake. The senators now are no different then representatives, and they are beholden to the national PACs far more than they should be.

The biggest problem is that everyone is in it for themself. Here in Va we Have Randy Forbes who says we need to cut gov but the minute it affects Va then he is all up in arms against the cuts. How the hell will we ever make cuts if everyone is not willing to help with those cuts. I'm willing.