Someone just tried to assassinate Trump

sm31 said:
I have to point out that there's a shit ton of republicans just as guilty... they're just keeping their heads down, hoping the dems will force it to "blow over".
Click to expand...
yep, there needs to be an only "clean bills" on shit like this and it requires a vote from the taxpayer.

Politicians are too accustomed to justifying their own greedy waste requests by saying it's less than 1% of the total budget and they keep churning out taxpayer ass fuck after taxpayer ass fuck.
 
sm31 said:
And while I'm complaining... when is Trump going tackle (IMO) the biggest single threat to our nation today... bigger than the southern boarder, DOGE, or even Chyna:

(lack of) f*cking T.E.R.M L.I.M.I.T.S

The lack thereof is actually what has caused 95% of this shit in the first place. I heard a comment or 2 about it awhile back but it's been virtual radio silence on the topic since 1/20.

My hope: They're working on something and keeping it secret till complete so the "old guard" can't stop it.

My fear: Even Trump isn't willing to tackle it.

All the wonderful things happening right now can mostly be unwound in 1 bad presidential term. But term limits will have an impact even my grand children will appreciate.
Click to expand...

I like where your head is at but it won’t work and it is unconstitutional.

Even with one term the corruption would exist as long as the money is there. We have been witness to the fact that the majority of corruption is from unelected bureaucrats.

The founders wrote about this subject and most were not in favor of term limits. They were, however in favor of a part time and highly limited Fed-Gov that had little effect on your life.
 
AZVAJKU said:
I like where your head is at but it won’t work and it is unconstitutional.

Even with one term the corruption would exist as long as the money is there. We have been witness to the fact that the majority of corruption is from unelected bureaucrats.

The founders wrote about this subject and most were not in favor of term limits. They were, however in favor of a part time and highly limited Fed-Gov that had little effect on your life.
Click to expand...

I may be (probably am) delusional...

but it seems like it would make the corruption process significantly more "complex", and therefore less profitable. While those bureaucrats are unelected, they rely on elected officials to get at the purse strings. If their accomplices change a max of every 8 years, that will cause them to work harder to achieve their schemes, and make it harder to perpetuate those schemes long term.

And... the constitution can & has been amended plenty over the years, to reflect changing times. The big problem is that the root of the corruption (long term elected types) will have to vote against their own livelihood. Never going to happen unless some other course of action is taken... and that's when my delusions kick in.
 
I just wish I had known about this years ago, I could've had a fleet of 392's or LS swapped Jeeps, huge barndo to study the effects of what emotion has to climate change and the usage of fossil fuel.... guessing that's gotta be worth at least 25.5 million a year in government funding.
 
AZVAJKU said:
Several events led to the massive increase in Fed-Gov power. In no particular order.

The 16th Amendment. Fed Gov bypasses states and goes straight to your pocket for cash. Fed-Gov has states by the balls! Nothing will change until that’s repealed.

The 17th Amendment. States no longer control their Senators. Majority of senate political donations come from out of their states. How does the Military Industrial Complex get its $$$. (Rhetorical)

Lincoln. Yes, slavery is an abomination and should be eliminated (it still exists in Africa)
but Lincoln drove a stake through the heart of states’ power by militarily attacking them for leaving. The states created the Fed-Gov and have supremacy unless otherwise noted in the Constitution. It’s a fact, fight me!!
Click to expand...
I’d only add the creation of the feral reserve to this.
 
sm31 said:
I may be (probably am) delusional...

but it seems like it would make the corruption process significantly more "complex", and therefore less profitable. While those bureaucrats are unelected, they rely on elected officials to get at the purse strings. If their accomplices change a max of every 8 years, that will cause them to work harder to achieve their schemes, and make it harder to perpetuate those schemes long term.

And... the constitution can & has been amended plenty over the years, to reflect changing times. The big problem is that the root of the corruption (long term elected types) will have to vote against their own livelihood. Never going to happen unless some other course of action is taken... and that's when my delusions kick in.
Click to expand...
I think that you are indeed delusional. 😀

Once the laws are passed, the elected officials are bypassed by the law and are not involved with individual spending provisions. Many provisions are perpetual and remain in place unless action is taken to strike them.

It is common to pass spending-related bills with over three thousand pages which only come to formation the night before voting.

The people who orchestrate formation of the laws already have tens/hundreds of thousands of provisions and paragraphs, which are pasted together into a huge document using special software.

A tiny minority of the House (and then the Senate) are involved with making all of the decisions. The rest of the members are faced with up/down votes for the whole thing. If they give a down vote due to one topic, then they are accused of blocking some other popular provision.

It has been like this since at least the '90s.

A constitutional amendment limiting the number of words or pages in a law would be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom