Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,

Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,

Over 30,000 were wounded.

This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.

On the other side of the ledger we have:

Saddam Hussein is gone,

No WMDs were found,

No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,

In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,

We built our largest embassy.

As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"

Off the box.

Lew

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:31:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,

I would argue that one doesn't exist here either.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,

Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,

Over 30,000 were wounded.

This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.

On the other side of the ledger we have:

Saddam Hussein is gone,

No WMDs were found,

No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,

In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,

We built our largest embassy.

As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"

Off the box.

Lew


Shouldn't it be:

on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
Over 30,000 were wounded.
No WMDs were found,
No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,

On the other side of the ledger we have:

Saddam Hussein is gone,
We built our largest embassy.

But that's only in your terms and is taking a pretty favourable view of the
outcome.

Why ffs do americans think only american lives count? The Iraq body count is
now around 100,000 civilian deaths.
You don't mention the wrecked cities, the polluted waters, the unexploded
ordnance.
You don't mention the total loss of respect that america has suffered world
wide from abu graib, from videos on youtube of marines killing civilians,
from the top level idiocy and deceit of it all, so that US citizens abroad
often pretend to be canadian rather than have taxi drivers and waiters
incessantly telling them what jerks they are, so that if there actually was
a reason to form invade a foreign country nobody, not even Tonga would join
you or support you.
You don't mention the cost to servicemen who come home uninjured who will be
spending the rest of their lives mentally unhinged.

And actually it was all totally predictable. Look at what Gen Norman
Schwarzkopf had to say about invading Iraq a few short years before Bush jr
did it.:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...arzkopf/7.html

Tim W

And with Obama's actions we fall short again.


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,

Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,

Over 30,000 were wounded.

This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.

On the other side of the ledger we have:

Saddam Hussein is gone,

No WMDs were found,

No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,

In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,

We built our largest embassy.

As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"

Off the box.

Lew

On Sep 1, 5:42*am, "Tim W" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

...





Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,

Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,

Over 30,000 were wounded.

This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.

On the other side of the ledger we have:

Saddam Hussein is gone,

No WMDs were found,

No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,

In fact, at this point, Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,

We built our largest embassy.

As a lyric from long ago goes, "When will they ever learn?"

Off the box.

Lew

Shouldn't it be:

on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,
Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,
Over 30,000 were wounded.
No WMDs were found,
No democratic form of gov't exists in Iraq,
Iraq still does not have a functioning gov't,

On the other side of the ledger we have:

Saddam Hussein is gone,
We built our largest embassy.

But that's only in your terms and is taking a pretty favourable view of the
outcome.

Why ffs do americans think only american lives count? The Iraq body count is
now around 100,000 civilian deaths.
You don't mention the wrecked cities, the polluted waters, the unexploded
ordnance.
You don't mention the total loss of respect that america has suffered world
wide from abu graib, from videos on youtube of marines killing civilians,
from the top level idiocy and deceit of it all, so that US citizens abroad
often pretend to be canadian rather than have taxi drivers and waiters
incessantly telling them what jerks they are, so that if there actually was
a reason to form invade a foreign country nobody, not even Tonga would join
you or support you.
You don't mention the cost to servicemen who come home uninjured who will be
spending the rest of their lives mentally unhinged.

And actually it was all totally predictable. Look at what Gen Norman
Schwarzkopf had to say about invading Iraq a few short years before Bush jr
did it.:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...arzkopf/7.html

Tim W

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...toy/ajntsa.jpg

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,

Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,

Over 30,000 were wounded.

This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.


Actually, about $740 billion.

And no lives were sacrificed. Our volunteer military is made up of people
who knew the risks - the same as mountain climbers or sky-divers or race car
drivers - and eagerly enlisted for the opportunity to kill people and blow
things up. The military is our warrior class: They were born to do this,
they were trained to do this, they need to do this.

Fully 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan reenlist at each
opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were invalided out, or married
harridans.

If you get a chance, watch the movie "Hurt Locker." Fairly boring, but the
screen periodically interjects "330 days remaining," "200 days remaining,"
"35 days remaining." Then we get to the last five minutes of the movie as
the main character gets back home.

Various scenes of him helping with the dishes, mowing the grass, feeding the
baby.

Then the last scene: The BDU-dressed main character walks down the ramp of a
C-130 carrying his gear as the screen says "365 days remaining."

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

And actually it was all totally predictable. Look at what Gen Norman
had to say about invading Iraq a few short years before Bush jr did it.:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...arzkopf/7.html



This was what Schwarzkopf was told to say. He had originally said that he
wanted to go after Hussein. He said this publicly, on TV. The next day he
retracted that.

On the other side of the ledger we have:

A few thousand potential underwear bombers buired face down in the
sand and not dropping planes out of our skys.

On Sep 1, 5:57*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
On the other side of the ledger we have:

A few thousand potential underwear bombers buired face down in the
sand and not dropping planes out of our skys.

Was the KoolAid at least chilled?

Was the KoolAid at least chilled?

Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this **** up all by
myself.

I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
game in an imperfect world.

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
Was the KoolAid at least chilled?

Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this **** up all by
myself.

I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
game in an imperfect world.

We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.

A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.

I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
or the Democrats.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

Over $1 trillion of borrowed money was spent,

Over 4,000 lives were sacrificed,

Over 30,000 were wounded.

This is only the USA and doesn't include our allies or the Iraqis
themselves.


Actually, about $740 billion.

And no lives were sacrificed. Our volunteer military is made up of people
who knew the risks - the same as mountain climbers or sky-divers or race
car drivers - and eagerly enlisted for the opportunity to kill people and
blow things up. The military is our warrior class: They were born to do
this, they were trained to do this, they need to do this.

Fully 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan reenlist at each
opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were invalided out, or married
harridans.

If you get a chance, watch the movie "Hurt Locker." Fairly boring, but the
screen periodically interjects "330 days remaining," "200 days remaining,"
"35 days remaining." Then we get to the last five minutes of the movie as
the main character gets back home.

Various scenes of him helping with the dishes, mowing the grass, feeding
the baby.

Then the last scene: The BDU-dressed main character walks down the ramp of
a C-130 carrying his gear as the screen says "365 days remaining."

You saw the film, huh. Whooosh.........!!!

Max

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:38:03 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
Was the KoolAid at least chilled?

Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this **** up all by
myself.

I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
game in an imperfect world.

We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.

A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.

Long before the last of our troops left, the Demonrats cut funding to
the war and thousands of our soldiers died as a result of being over
there without any way to defend themselves.


I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
or the Democrats.

Demonrats. When will they ever learn?


--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Let's see, on one side of the ledger we have:

A pretty lame troll. Almost qualifies as chumming.

On 9/1/2010 9:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:38:03 -0500,
wrote:

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
Was the KoolAid at least chilled?

Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this **** up all by
myself.

I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
game in an imperfect world.

We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.

A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.

Long before the last of our troops left, the Demonrats cut funding to
the war and thousands of our soldiers died as a result of being over
there without any way to defend themselves.


I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
or the Democrats.

Demonrats. When will they ever learn?

In all fairness, that was rank stupidity, not perfidy.

Just Wondering wrote:


I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North
Vietnamese or the Democrats.

Demonrats. When will they ever learn?

In all fairness, that was rank stupidity, not perfidy.

In a legislative body, the difference between incompetence and malice is
undetectable. Often it is both.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:19:28 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/1/2010 9:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:38:03 -0500,
wrote:

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
Was the KoolAid at least chilled?

Nobody has provided me my talking points. I dream this **** up all by
myself.

I remember back when I was so anti-war during the Vietnam era (luckily
I was a little to young to die). Then I learned about the millions of
Cambodians that paid the price of us giving up too soon. Just one
example of the outcome of childish simplistic "can't we all just get
along" thinking. I've grown up now and come to realize that America
cast her lot back at the time of the Civil War. We will forever line
up to die to try and right wrongs in the world wherever they exists.
We have been pretty good at it although it is clearly an imperfect
game in an imperfect world.

We didn't give up too soon. We concluded a Peace Treaty with the North
Vietnamese, complete with handshakes and everything. Henry Kissenger got the
Nobel Peace Prize for the effort.

A year after our last combat troops had left South Viet Nam, the Democrats
in Congress cut off all military assistance and funding to the country. The
North Vietnamese invaded the South again. With no bullets, the South fell.

Long before the last of our troops left, the Demonrats cut funding to
the war and thousands of our soldiers died as a result of being over
there without any way to defend themselves.


I'm still conflicted over who was the most perfidious: The North Vietnamese
or the Democrats.

Demonrats. When will they ever learn?

In all fairness, that was rank stupidity, not perfidy.

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we
know it survives until then.

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie

etc.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie

etc.

Perhaps it's time to bring back the crusades...

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
we know it survives until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie

But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:

* Less than 5% unemployment
* Negligible inflation
* Stock market above 12,000
* Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all other
forms of welfare
* 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
we know it survives until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie

But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:

* Less than 5% unemployment
* Negligible inflation
* Stock market above 12,000
* Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all
other forms of welfare
* 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

While the Dems aren't blameless, the Housing bubble and banking thefts
occurred on the Repubs watch. When that is corrected somewhat, things
WILL be well again. In fact, the pace of housing sales/new building etc
is already at the average level from before the housing bubble. Yes,
there are many people unemployed, and that is terrible. But what if
there hadn't been so many seduced to work in the housing field? Cars -
part of the bankruptcy of the car industry has come about because
suddenly the "false" equity we had in our homes fell away, and we
couldn't buy that fancy big SUV anymore.

Sorry for the rant, but in spite of what my buddy the bank examiner and
ultra right winger says, it's not really the Dems fault, but much more
likely the Repubs. I agree with my buddy that it would be better to fire
the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch. Give them a good
slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes, campaign contributions and
loose women and men.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:19:19 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie

etc.

Perhaps it's time to bring back the crusades...

Inquisition starting ON the lawyers, not by them.

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

On 02 Sep 2010 20:39:30 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they
don't care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer
beheadings or drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to
them in November will at least help stop our losses. IF America as
we know it survives until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Iraq = 9/11
WMD
Mission accomplished
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie

But in SPITE of the disturbances you mentioned:

* Less than 5% unemployment
* Negligible inflation
* Stock market above 12,000
* Immense reduction in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and all
other forms of welfare
* 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

While the Dems aren't blameless, the Housing bubble and banking thefts
occurred on the Repubs watch.

Han, the Democratic Black Caucus, overseeing wing of Fannie and
Freddy, et al, aren't Republicans.


Sorry for the rant, but in spite of what my buddy the bank examiner and
ultra right winger says, it's not really the Dems fault, but much more
likely the Repubs. I agree with my buddy that it would be better to fire
the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch. Give them a good
slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes, campaign contributions and
loose women and men.

Right, start electing from the rank and file, including the homeless.
Buddha knows they -couldn't- do a worse job, and even the mildly
insane are closer in touch with reality than anyone in D.C. now.

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:48:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Yes, there are so many signs the the fine Democrats got this right. This,
for example:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...ernment_folly/

And don't forget the new repercussions from said folly:
http://www.tfgi.com/201008/cash-for-...-investigated/

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:36:08 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:48:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Yes, there are so many signs the the fine Democrats got this right. This,
for example:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...ernment_folly/

And don't forget the new repercussions from said folly:
http://www.tfgi.com/201008/cash-for-...-investigated/

....and this one:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/01/news...st_auto_sales/

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:36:13 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

Fairness my ass. They continue to know what they're doing and they don't
care. It's beyond perfidy, it's treasonous. I'd prefer beheadings or
drawing and quartering, but what's going to happen to them in November
will at least help stop our losses. IF America as we know it survives
until then.

Ah yes, the voice of moderation. perhaps we've forgotten why the
Bu****es got kicked out in the last election. Herewith a reminder:

Perhaps you missed the amendment, but for several decades the President has
only been allowed Two Terms. Bush completed his Two.

Han wrote:


I agree with my buddy that it would be
better to fire the whole crowd in Washington, and start from scratch.

Agreed.

Give them a good slary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
campaign contributions and loose women and men.

You want to give them more than they're getting now?

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:e7cf3$4c80e895
:

Give them a good salary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
campaign contributions and loose women and men.

You want to give them more than they're getting now?

I want to prohibit them from accepting any income (directly or indirectly)
other than their salary.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:e7cf3$4c80e895 :

Give them a good salary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
campaign contributions and loose women and men.

You want to give them more than they're getting now?

I want to prohibit them from accepting any income (directly or
indirectly) other than their salary.

That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and things
like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of generating income that
your broad brush would be precluding. My original comment though was in
surprise at what I thought you were suggesting - that they need a better
salary. I could not believe anyone would suggest such a thing...

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote

That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and
things like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of generating
income that your broad brush would be precluding. My original comment
though was in surprise at what I thought you were suggesting - that they
need a better salary. I could not believe anyone would suggest such a
thing...

Salary is one of the problems with many potential politicians. Unless
you've made your fortune, running for office is a big pay cut for many
potential well qualified candidates. The mayor in our town gets something
like $42k. Fine for a retired guy, but sucks for a qualified, educated
administrator making twice that at his private sector job.

IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
responsibility.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:e7cf3$4c80e895 :

Give them a good salary and prohibit them from accepting bribes,
campaign contributions and loose women and men.

You want to give them more than they're getting now?

I want to prohibit them from accepting any income (directly or
indirectly) other than their salary.

That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and
things like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of
generating income that your broad brush would be precluding. My
original comment though was in surprise at what I thought you were
suggesting - that they need a better salary. I could not believe
anyone would suggest such a thing...

I don't know exactly what a congress critter's salary is, but I doubt
that it is enough to live on as he/she is expected to in both DC and at
the home front, at the moment. I wouldn't tell them that they can't have
any income from assets they already had before, but accepting any funds
or fringe benefits from any individual or company with the potential to
gain from the actions of said congres critter should be excluded.

While Charlie Rangel may have done much good for his constituents, NY
state and the nation, he should really go now.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marlow" wrote

That would be less than the American way. I can see no kickbacks and
things like that, but there are plenty of legitimate ways of generating
income that your broad brush would be precluding. My original comment
though was in surprise at what I thought you were suggesting - that they
need a better salary. I could not believe anyone would suggest such a
thing...

Salary is one of the problems with many potential politicians. Unless
you've made your fortune, running for office is a big pay cut for many
potential well qualified candidates. The mayor in our town gets
something like $42k. Fine for a retired guy, but sucks for a qualified,
educated administrator making twice that at his private sector job.

IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
responsibility.

As near as I can tell, a Senator's staff does all the Real Work and the
Senator merely Pontificates and enjoys the perks of the most expensive
country club in the nation. I would like to see them do something For the
country instead of To the country. All of them.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote

IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
responsibility.


I'd be tempted to work for just the fringe benefits.

Max

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote

Salary is one of the problems with many potential politicians. Unless
you've made your fortune, running for office is a big pay cut for many
potential well qualified candidates. The mayor in our town gets
something like $42k. Fine for a retired guy, but sucks for a qualified,
educated administrator making twice that at his private sector job.

IIRC, Senators are in the $170k range. While that is more than most of us
make, it is far less than an executive in a big corporation with lots of
responsibility.

I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy to
work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal Joe, and
not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would perhaps not be out
of touch with what is going on out there, for all of us normal Joes that
these same politicians are supposed to be representing.

First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign contributions as
a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum of money (small) to be
used on elections, and make them stick to that amount as what they can spend
on getting elected.

Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote
I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy to
work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal Joe, and
not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would perhaps not be
out of touch with what is going on out there, for all of us normal Joes
that these same politicians are supposed to be representing.

We have people willing to work for that salary. They are the
multi-millionaires spending tens of millions to get that job too. We need
reform as you suggest below. Given the current state of DC life, the second
home, etc. I don['t think you can do it on the 170k. I know they have
budgets for expenses and such that may be helping in some ways.


First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign contributions
as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum of money (small)
to be used on elections, and make them stick to that amount as what they
can spend on getting elected.

Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
--
Jim in NC

Lobbyists provide us with the best Congress money can buy.

As for campaign funding, that is a very sad state of affairs. Fund raising
is a big part of daily life for a politician.

On 9/3/2010 11:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Morgans" wrote
I would suggest that perhaps we need to get people that would be happy
to work for 170k. We might have a person that was more of a normal
Joe, and not all hung up on power and prestige. That person would
perhaps not be out of touch with what is going on out there, for all
of us normal Joes that these same politicians are supposed to be
representing.

We have people willing to work for that salary. They are the
multi-millionaires spending tens of millions to get that job too. We
need reform as you suggest below. Given the current state of DC life,
the second home, etc. I don['t think you can do it on the 170k. I know
they have budgets for expenses and such that may be helping in some ways.

First rule should be that wanting the job is an automatic disqualification.

First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign
contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain sum
of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to that
amount as what they can spend on getting elected.

Lots of other tweaks are possible, but that would be a start.
--
Jim in NC

Lobbyists provide us with the best Congress money can buy.

As for campaign funding, that is a very sad state of affairs. Fund
raising is a big part of daily life for a politician.

Morgans wrote:

First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign
contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain
sum of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to
that amount as what they can spend on getting elected.


The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine the
railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak industry?

Do you want our country to suffer a yak-fat gap?

As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama and
McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
candidacies.

Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!

The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech. Attempts
to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to curtail
political speech.

George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
* No cash
* No foreign contributions
* Instant disclosure

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

How about a system like jury duty - you get selected randomly for 2
years in the House as a matter of civic duty. No running for office
and no second term. I cannot believe that a random selection of
citizens could be worse than the bottom-feeding algae that is today's
US Congress...

Tim, do you really want to have people assigned to Congress mostly against
their will? Who would they represent other than themselves?

I have no idea what would be a good system, other than idealists.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the
ramifications of pending legislation. Do you really want a
congress-critter to determine the railroad tariff on hydrogenated
yak-fat with no input from the yak industry?

Do you want our country to suffer a yak-fat gap?

As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between
Obama and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support
of their candidacies.

Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!

The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
curtail political speech.

George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
* No cash
* No foreign contributions
* Instant disclosure

I agree with the last 3 lines, and that lobbyists are experts on the
proposed legislation. However, the essential word left out there is the
word self-serving. The lobbyists are NOT being paid to serve the coomon
good, but need to satisfy their bosses, or else ...

I don't know how to get out of the conundrum either.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in
:

As near as I can tell, a Senator's staff does all the Real Work and
the Senator merely Pontificates and enjoys the perks of the most
expensive country club in the nation. I would like to see them do
something For the country instead of To the country. All of them.

I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator and
the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by the
taxpayer or by the lobbyists?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid