• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans plan sweeping rules changes in new Congress

Oh to the contrary. They are indeed pushing the same old ideas that contributed to the financial meltdown. And the entire social issue dragon has yet to raise its ugly head ... but I expect that will happen at some point in the next year. Don't be so quick to declare a new beginning when the same old people still are in charge.

Same OLD PEOPLE? Did you sleep through Nov. 2?
 
I read those too... so you know how detailed they are with all the costs and liabilities.. assets and where revenues are coming from, and who owns the debt, how much.... how much was paid off, how much debt they own..

It's not just showing the budgets... Our government should be that open too.. I don't like having to dig around and trying to find all the different documents..

It seriously causes me to question the knowledge of the people forecasting the budget. Do they actually know that much about the accounts, and our debts, who owns them, how well they are managed? Probably not...

I have no doubt the "minions" who write the budgets within each executive department know exactly what they are writing,

The problem is our elected officials casting the budget votes don't have a clue. They rely on the various committee chairs to tell them "all is ok"
 
I think this is an outstanding start to changing how things are done in DC. I look forward to hearing the Democratic ideas for new House rules as well. Maybe they can expand on the start the GOP is trying to make.

Republicans plan sweeping rules changes in new Congress - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com


Just curious, anyone else think this has been the longest month ever? I am so ready for the new congress.
Ok, to the topic at hand. This looks like a very good start. I really think they will keep their word too, or put up a hec of fight trying.
One thing I didn't notice here though, that was in the Pledge or Promise to America (forgot the name) They said that each bill that passes would have something attached saying that it was found to be Constitutional and why. I really liked that idea.
When they were cramming through the HC bill, they really didn't know or didn't care if it was constitutional.
I don't remember where I heard or read that things like that have become common. They don't always worry about the constitionality of something, they just leave it up to the courts to figure it out.
Anyway, I'm all exited about hopefully getting things on the right track again.
To me, since they swore to uphold the constitution, that is a huge part of their job.
 
I have no doubt the "minions" who write the budgets within each executive department know exactly what they are writing,

The problem is our elected officials casting the budget votes don't have a clue. They rely on the various committee chairs to tell them "all is ok"

but don't the "minions" frequently change.. and if the people elected to vote on the budgets and proposals are not held responsible for knowing the status of all the accounts and debt management... why would those minions bother in knowing it either? As long as they are all getting paid, and bailed out, bailing out their friends... why does it matter how the taxpayers really fare and the younger generations?

Perhaps SOME of them know.. but telling the president that what they doing isn't good in the long run.. say you need to make cuts, raise taxes, raise revenue, this program is too expensive.. is too difficult. I don't think either party wants to be truthful with the people.. just tell them what they want to hear and get elected... The fact is, republicans didn't complain when Bush ran up the debt.. and liberals would be whining right now if Bush was the one running it up
 
Last edited:
Eliminate the defense budget. Now it's your turn to tell us where you would cut the budget.

Create savings by abolishing all no-bid contracts and force all government contractors to competitively price their services to the government.
 
Create savings by abolishing all no-bid contracts and force all government contractors to competitively price their services to the government.

I was thinking more along the lines that the left would counter my offer by suggesting something like the conversion of all public employee pensions into defined contribution plans. If the left had done something like that I would have responded to them by offering to do something like reducing the mortgage interest deduction.
 
Same OLD PEOPLE? Did you sleep through Nov. 2?

Are you aware of how many people are Congresss? Of the 535 Congressmen who went into the 2010 elections, only 69 did not return. So 466 are still present, thats a 87% return right.

So yes, same old people is pretty accurate.

Now, as you were saying?
 
I think this is an outstanding start to changing how things are done in DC. I look forward to hearing the Democratic ideas for new House rules as well. Maybe they can expand on the start the GOP is trying to make.

Republicans plan sweeping rules changes in new Congress - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com


I cant argue! I like all these changes! Im actually proud of the Republicans

Same as the old day.

Seriously, every time there is a significant change in congress, it starts like this, then right back to the same old thing.

Well that IS true and this is basically a nice piece of strategic marketing by the Reps but I like it either way. Somehow though Im going to see big spending on their issues and to repay their lobbyists. It would be great if they actually worked M-F 8am to 5pm
 
Last edited:
The rule changes I want to see are as follows.

1. Term limits of 12 years for both Houses.

2. Benefit packages equal to but not to exceed those of an Army Pfc.

3. All pay in Both houses to be equal to but not exceed that of an Army Major, the President would receive the pay of a 4 Star General.

4. SSI to be turned over to or sold to private industry with strict rules that include all members of both houses.

5. All gifts from lobbyists that exceed lunch cost are banned.

6. Congress should meet no more than 2, 3 month periods, Jan. thru Mar. and then July thru Sept. Unless there is an emergency.

7. No bill should contain more then 20 pages be written in plain English and no attachments are permitted.

8. At any time a petition containing 1,000,000 signatures can force a no confidence vote of any elected official and force them from office, for any reason.

It's not perfect but it might be a starting point to save money.


any law that exempts congress from its application is unconstitutional.
 
but don't the "minions" frequently change.. and if the people elected to vote on the budgets and proposals are not held responsible for knowing the status of all the accounts and debt management... why would those minions bother in knowing it either? As long as they are all getting paid, and bailed out, bailing out their friends... why does it matter how the taxpayers really fare and the younger generations?

Perhaps SOME of them know.. but telling the president that what they doing isn't good in the long run.. say you need to make cuts, raise taxes, raise revenue, this program is too expensive.. is too difficult. I don't think either party wants to be truthful with the people.. just tell them what they want to hear and get elected... The fact is, republicans didn't complain when Bush ran up the debt.. and liberals would be whining right now if Bush was the one running it up

I should have been more specific when I used the term "minions" I was speaking of the non-elected government employees. They actually see the details that build the big numbers. They can tell you down to the individual person the cost of benefits for example. No they do not change position often - these are government employees who tend to stay through all the changes of elected people.

When I worked for the Comptroller of a large (fortune 100 size) reinsurance company, I ran the accounts payable and treasury department and one of my functions was to "build" the corporate budget. Each division would come to me and I would report all their previous years expenditures by line item (travel, salary, health care, office supplies etc). The division head would then use the guidance he was give - example - flat budget for next year, and then see what needed to be reduced or dropped to meet that goal, or given the other objectives for the coming year (expanded market penetration, or a new product launch), make the case for why his division need more not less in the budget in the coming year. When it got to the Comptroller, I provided only a summary by division at first, showing if we were or were not meeting the budget goal, and why or why not by division. He would then ask for the details he needed to decide if those below him had made acceptable decision.

The other part of the puzzle was revenue projections, which I think is the missing part in Federal Gov. Budgeting. They focus on the expenditures WANTED and then go find a way to tax more to raise revenue. That is an option a private party does not have - command revenue growth
 
but don't the "minions" frequently change.. and if the people elected to vote on the budgets and proposals are not held responsible for knowing the status of all the accounts and debt management... why would those minions bother in knowing it either? As long as they are all getting paid, and bailed out, bailing out their friends... why does it matter how the taxpayers really fare and the younger generations?

Perhaps SOME of them know.. but telling the president that what they doing isn't good in the long run.. say you need to make cuts, raise taxes, raise revenue, this program is too expensive.. is too difficult. I don't think either party wants to be truthful with the people.. just tell them what they want to hear and get elected... The fact is, republicans didn't complain when Bush ran up the debt.. and liberals would be whining right now if Bush was the one running it up

Yes, many did and then Obama and the dems escalated the spending. Dems were also in control of congress for two yrs before Obama.
I don't know why people think republicans, conservatives didn't have a problem with Bush spending when they did.If you watched Fox or listened to talk radio you'd know that. Sorry, if you expected everyone out in the street protesting at the time. No one realized just how out of control the spending was going to get at that time. Besides, if this administation had taken the paid back Tarp money and put it toward the deficit, Bush's record wouldn't look near as bad as everyone tries to make it out to be.
 
Are you aware of how many people are Congresss? Of the 535 Congressmen who went into the 2010 elections, only 69 did not return. So 466 are still present, thats a 87% return right.

So yes, same old people is pretty accurate.

Now, as you were saying?

There are like 87 new people coming in Jan. including new dems.
 
Are you aware of how many people are Congresss? Of the 535 Congressmen who went into the 2010 elections, only 69 did not return. So 466 are still present, thats a 87% return right.

So yes, same old people is pretty accurate.

Now, as you were saying?

Along with the 87 I should have mentioned that some of the old Congress is very much worth keeping. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. You can poo poo on the new congress all you want. I'm willing to give them the second chance they asked for.
 
Hopefully, you've told your congressmen. I don't like #8, by the way. It would be too easy for a special interest group to behind-the-scenes finance such a move.

The average size of a congressional district from the 2000 census was about 650k people. 1,000,000 is way too many signatures since it would require people outside the district to have a say.
 
That may hurt people who can least afford it. You need to do something across the board that hits everyone with something they can live with.

I thought the people who could least afford it were parasites living off the right or somesuch nonsense.
 
That may hurt people who can least afford it. You need to do something across the board that hits everyone with something they can live with.

That may be true - but what right does anyone have to force me to make what is in essence a charitable donation of my taxes? These are tax credits, we already provide such economic support through the various safety net programs, this is a cash give away. IMHO it goes way beyond the role of government to direct tax dollars from one person's pocket DIRECTLY into another's pocket in the form of cash.

The National Debt is and was incurred purportedly for the benefit of all. We have to make choices as to how we utilize any "revenue" the government takes into the common coffers. It does not make sense to simply hand it out through tax credits
 
I think this is an outstanding start to changing how things are done in DC. I look forward to hearing the Democratic ideas for new House rules as well. Maybe they can expand on the start the GOP is trying to make.

Republicans plan sweeping rules changes in new Congress - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

With the elections of 2010 I thought that Republicans were finally getting serious about cutting the national debt; but, replacing PAY/GO with CUT/GO loosens the current rules.

 
With the elections of 2010 I thought that Republicans were finally getting serious about cutting the national debt; but, replacing PAY/GO with CUT/GO loosens the current rules.


From your link...
Under the old rule, if you wanted new spending, you had to either raise taxes or cut other spending. Now you can only cut spending.
Why is the idea of paying for new spending by cutting other spending, instead of simply raising taxes, abhorant to you? I think cutting the crap spending and using that money, instead of new tax money, to cover the cost is a fantastic idea.
 
Along with the 87 I should have mentioned that some of the old Congress is very much worth keeping. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. You can poo poo on the new congress all you want. I'm willing to give them the second chance they asked for.

I wasn't talking about the new Congress, I was just commenting on how you seem to think there's been some sweeping change of membership in Congress when in fact it is almost all the same.
 
… Why is the idea of paying for new spending by cutting other spending, instead of simply raising taxes, abhorant to you? I think cutting the crap spending and using that money, instead of new tax money, to cover the cost is a fantastic idea.

Under the old rule new spending or reduced taxes must be offset either by reduced spending or new tax revenue. But under the proposed rule you can pass a new tax cut without paying for it, hence, adding to the deficit and the national debt.
 
Last edited:
I know that, but it's not transparent in the same way statements are for publicly traded company's.. they attach hundreds of pages explaining financial debts, law suits, costs of ethical investigations, numbers subject to change, outstanding stocks/bonds, etc.. Those statements aren't that clear, and doesn't show all the spending in the government.

Correct. For example, the Pentagon and the CIA have black budgets, which go into covert operations, R&D and whatnot and are all hidden into the defense budget under currently active programs, thus we may never know the true defense budget.
 
Correct. For example, the Pentagon and the CIA have black budgets, which go into covert operations, R&D and whatnot and are all hidden into the defense budget under currently active programs, thus we may never know the true defense budget.

And there are good reasons related to National Security for that to be the case. There is so much more total waste in all the other Departments that is readily identifiable. There are limits to transparentcy when you are talking about government operations that provide for our security.
 
Back
Top Bottom