Individual perceptions

RenegadeCJ wrote: I can't speak for Heartless, but I would like to see the country taken back to a point where the govt isn't so huge, and our politicians actually "served" as was intended by the founders. No more career politicians. A govt that works for us, instead of one that rules over us. A place where journalists do their job...being the 4th rail. Investigating everyone, instead of just the ones who are opposite their political leanings. I'd like to go back to a point where we thought about the future. Where our parents and grandparents would do anything to make sure we would have a better life. Today, current society is a "screw the future...I want mine. I deserve it" society. I'd like to go back to a point where our president was a leader. Not one who checks polls, but lead, and the people followed because they were a leader.

You pretty much had me until your last sentences regarding our current leader. Obama may, in fact, not be the leader you, and others, desire. I won't argue that point at all. Being a "leader", however, is open to interpretation and is, arguably, very subjective.

It could also be said Obama's administration has carried on the policies started and implemented by the Bush administration in some cases. A prime example of that is the Patriot Act. That act has, in my opinion, done more to allow the government to "rule over us" than anything else. Presidents come and go. They have term limits. If our other elected officials were also subject to term limits, the other items on your list might just become reality.

BlazerBob wrote: People are demanding it. They are called Tea Party People. Unfortunately they are a small minority, persecuted by despotic government tactics and vilified by the political class of both parties.

I would respectfully ask "which" Tea Party people are you referencing? Or is your post in regard to the Tea Party platform, in general.

The reason for my question is based on the assumption there are some good things in the platform. It's up to the individual to sort out the good from the not so good. The problem with the Tea Party, from what I've seen, is that the face of the Party is made up of people like Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachmann, and the like. If the more radical element of the Tea Party could be convinced to tone down the rhetoric and try to work with others across the aisle, they might just get somewhere.

I don't know of anyone anywhere that "likes" the size of our government, be it Federal, state, or local. The problem comes in when no one seems willing to work toward a common consensus on what actually needs to be trimmed from any of those levels as being "fat".

ZHawke wrote: . . . what would you take this country back to?

I would like to take the country back to having two equal votes cast for president by the electors chosen by the States (Repeal of the 12th Amendment).

I would like to take the country back to having the Senators of each State chosen in a manner decided by the individual States (Repeal of the 17th Amendment).

Since the federal government is (incorrectly) denying the ability of the States to set term limits for their own representation in Congress, I would like to see an amendment permitting a State to choose whether or not they wish to limit those terms added to the Constitution.

I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution that required 2/3 of both houses of Congress to vote in the affirmative to incur (additional) public debt.

In short, what I want to take the Union back to is a Union of States, plural, instead of continuing down the pathway to a United State (singular). That means a federal government limited to the very few powers expressly delegated to it by the Constitution and absent the ones it has created for itself through creative "interpretation" of the compact. The only time there exists a "United States Citizen" is when the citizen of one of the States is currently outside the boundaries of the Union itself where the federal government has been delegated sole authority to represent all of the States and their Citizens. I am not a citizen of all 50 of the States, there is no person who is. We are all citizens of only one of the 50 States that belong to the Union.

This, then, is the mindset that I want the Union, and its laws, returned to.

ZHawke wrote:
You pretty much had me until your last sentences regarding our current leader. Obama may, in fact, not be the leader you, and others, desire. I won't argue that point at all. Being a "leader", however, is open to interpretation and is, arguably, very subjective.

It could also be said Obama's administration has carried on the policies started and implemented by the Bush administration in some cases. A prime example of that is the Patriot Act. That act has, in my opinion, done more to allow the government to "rule over us" than anything else. Presidents come and go. They have term limits. If our other elected officials were also subject to term limits, the other items on your list might just become reality.

Leadership is something that some people are gifted with. They don't just talk, they walk the walk. Certain corporations have great leaders. People believe they are always making the decisions that need to be made. Leaders make hard decisions. Obama, Bush Jr, Bush Sr. not so much. Clinton had some flashes of leadership (signing the Welfare reform act, which he knew wasn't politically popular with the democrats, but he was well aware that it was the right decision). Reagan was a leader. Kennedy was a leader.

Yes, Obama is carrying out policies from previous administrations. If he were a good leader, he would have stopped those in their tracks. At some point, we need a president who, regardless of poll data, does the right thing. Even if it means being a one term president.

Yes, term limits would solve a lot.

I respectfully decline. I do not want to get into a lengthy back and forth that this would surely become. Perhaps someone else would step up on behalf of the tea party.

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: People are demanding it. They are called Tea Party People. Unfortunately they are a small minority, persecuted by despotic government tactics and vilified by the political class of both parties.

I would respectfully ask "which" Tea Party people are you referencing? Or is your post in regard to the Tea Party platform, in general.

The reason for my question is based on the assumption there are some good things in the platform. It's up to the individual to sort out the good from the not so good. The problem with the Tea Party, from what I've seen, is that the face of the Party is made up of people like Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachmann, and the like. If the more radical element of the Tea Party could be convinced to tone down the rhetoric and try to work with others across the aisle, they might just get somewhere.

I don't know of anyone anywhere that "likes" the size of our government, be it Federal, state, or local. The problem comes in when no one seems willing to work toward a common consensus on what actually needs to be trimmed from any of those levels as being "fat".

BlazerBob wrote: People are demanding it. They are called Tea Party People. Unfortunately they are a small minority, persecuted by despotic government tactics and vilified by the political class of both parties.

While I understand your reluctance to engage a discussion of the Tea Party...the very REAL concern of
most people is this...CREDIBILITY...I am from Alaska and my brother born/raised there. Palin's pursuit of a political seat in the White House left Alaskans "abandoned and awash in UNfinished matters..her
LACK OF INTEGRITY was there from the start...she is the WORST kind of leader to represent your
"cause" and the Tea Party is suffering for it....I am an INDY and IF you could present a plausible platform
for the cause I would listen...Palin does NOT enhance your "cause"...nor does "burn the landscape and poision the wells".JMO

Sorry Home as far as I am concerned Palin is old news. I might as well say that the dem party has no credibility because of all the elected dems currently doing time . Discussing either is a waste of time.

Thank you for this post, PrintSmith. I mean that sincerely. My response is not meant to challenge you or your assertions. I do not view this thread as "having" to be adversarial. If I pose a question you, or someone else, interprets as being adversarial, I'd appreciate a heads up as to why that perception has been given by me. I'd like that to be made very clear right up front. Given our past head butting, it would be easy for us to continue that trend which is something I would prefer not to do.

So, with that, I'll get on with my response(s).

PrintSmith wrote: I would like to take the country back to having two equal votes cast for president by the electors chosen by the States (Repeal of the 12th Amendment).

From my understanding, the 12th Amendment was passed to help address the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College when they vote for a President (and the Vice President). How would you address that possibility should it occur again? Along those same lines, there's some support for doing away entirely with the Electoral College and relying solely on the popular vote to elect the President. How do you feel about that?

PrintSmith wrote: I would like to take the country back to having the Senators of each State chosen in a manner decided by the individual States (Repeal of the 17th Amendment).

How would you have the individual states choose their senators? Again, I'm simply asking. I don't see the individual states being very consistent in this process simply given the reasons for passage of the 17th Amendment in the first place. Prior to passage, weren't senators elected basically by the state legislatures? My understanding of the reason for the 17th amendment was because of the possibility legislative election could be fraught with problems

such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests

( constitution.findlaw.com/amendment17.html ).

Here I include the link because I've taken a quote directly from the 17th Amendment Annotations this site provided. They go on to talk about how some of the states, prior to ratification, had tried to address this issue. Whether every state would have eventually done so is, apparently, still in question, hence my question to you regarding how the states, themselves, should elect their senators.

PrintSmith wrote: Since the federal government is (incorrectly) denying the ability of the States to set term limits for their own representation in Congress, I would like to see an amendment permitting a State to choose whether or not they wish to limit those terms added to the Constitution.

Agreed.

PrintSmith wrote: I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution that required 2/3 of both houses of Congress to vote in the affirmative to incur (additional) public debt.

The only potential problem I see with this is regarding conduct of war. As you and I have already discussed, wars are never fought with adequate funding being allocated up front. It's all added to the national public debt after the fact. How would this issue be addressed?

PrintSmith wrote: In short, what I want to take the Union back to is a Union of States, plural, instead of continuing down the pathway to a United State (singular). That means a federal government limited to the very few powers expressly delegated to it by the Constitution and absent the ones it has created for itself through creative "interpretation" of the compact. The only time there exists a "United States Citizen" is when the citizen of one of the States is currently outside the boundaries of the Union itself where the federal government has been delegated sole authority to represent all of the States and their Citizens. I am not a citizen of all 50 of the States, there is no person who is. We are all citizens of only one of the 50 States that belong to the Union.

On the face of it, your posit makes sense. We've discussed this one before, too. I'm concerned, however, with the "sovereignty" issue you appear to want to delegate to the states from the perspective of secession from the Union. There has been significant coverage of movements in several states to actually secede from the Union and to form new countries. How should this possibility be addressed as a Union, and how should individual states address the issue?

PrintSmith wrote: This, then, is the mindset that I want the Union, and its laws, returned to.

Again, thank you for providing this post. Very thoughtful and well written from my perspective.

BlazerBob wrote: Sorry Home as far as I am concerned Palin is old news. I might as well say that the dem party has no credibility because of all the elected dems currently doing time . Discussing either is a waste of time.

NOT old news...THIS is why the Tea Party has a perception problem

www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/palin...annoy-haters-n235866

homeagain wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Sorry Home as far as I am concerned Palin is old news. I might as well say that the dem party has no credibility because of all the elected dems currently doing time . Discussing either is a waste of time.

NOT old news...THIS is why the Tea Party has a perception problem

www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/palin...annoy-haters-n235866

But it really is old news and Palin is far less relevant than someone who is actually serving currently, like Wasserman Schultz who is doing nothing but damage to the Dems therse days. If you want to say the Tea Party is tainted by a few, you have to use that same logic for the party you most likely vote for. I know you say you are an Indy, but your history of posts say you side with Democrats most of the time.