Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

28th Amendment

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 28th Amendment

    Retribution is less than 1 year away


    U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
    1. They voted to not give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
    2. Your Medicaid premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years and
    You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
    Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
    3. Over 2-yrs they each get $10,000
    4. Do you feel SCREWED?
    5. Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., increase?
    NO WAY . They have a raise and better benefits. Why care about you? You never did anything about it in the past. You obviously are too stupid or don't care.
    6. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you? SEND THE MESSAGE-- You're FIRED.
    IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE SITTING CONGRESS:
    Up to 1/3 OF THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.
    MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND REMIND THEIR REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW UP.
    It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse.




    Maybe it's time for:
    Amendment 28
    "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
    States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives,
    and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or
    Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the
    United States."

  • #2
    Re: 28th Amendment

    I'm still smarting from the mafia type strong arming Tom Delay and Denny Hastert pulled with the Medicare Part D fiasco. Why people aren't in jail for the fraud they perpetrated on the tax payers is beyond me. They all knew the cost of part D was way, way higher than was contained in the bill. Plus they excluded any negotiation with big pharma. It was a big corporate pharma give away.

    I say pull the plug on SSI. I want back everything I have paid into it with 5% interest. Anyone that has drawn more than they contributed owe us some money.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 28th Amendment

      I always believed that the more of our tax money goes into our elected officials' paychecks, the harder it is for private interests to bribe them!

      Afterall, even politicians need to buy things too. So, they hire guys like us to build their multimillion dollar homes and officies. Thus, they are paid the world to do nothing, we keep our jobs on nice prevailing wage work, and there is no incentive for fraud or bribery.

      God damn I am in the wrong line of work.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 28th Amendment

        "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
        States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives,
        and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or
        Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the
        United States."

        Please read the U.S Constituition. Article 1, Section 9:

        "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

        The current congress recently tried to do this recently (September 2009). They took aim at ACORN by writing a bill that would ban federal funds to any organization found guilty of breaking any federal or state laws. The bill passed in the house 345-75.

        Two problems with this bill.

        1. ACORN didn't break any laws. Faux News (lol) certainly broke some laws broadcasting the video of the 'interview'.

        2. This bill would prevent virtually every government contractor (namely defense contractors) from getting any federal funds. So if this bill is passed and signed into law we will see Blackwater (Xi), Lockheed Martin and so on to be out out of business.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 28th Amendment

          I agree with the concept of your 28th amendment but it doesn't work in practice for a number of reasons. Like any motion for the senate to receive access to top secret information would also apply to the average Joe, issues like that could be problematic.

          I wish bills proposed, like the one suspending health care benefits to congress until they actually pass a bill, would make it through. Let them deal with private insurance for a while see how they like it.

          Jefferson's belief that the only way to keep government pure is to overthrow it every 100 years has merit. People should be able to vote people out of office that don't have the peoples interests at heart. We'd see a lot higher turnover in congress. Unfortunately our 2 party system discourages doing so. As it is now if you vote someone out your effectively voting someone who opposes your interests in.

          We need to purge our government of all the dead weight but I don't know a good way to do it.

          I always believed that the more of our tax money goes into our elected officials' paychecks, the harder it is for private interests to bribe them
          I never looked at it that way before. Can't disagree, I guess. I found it pretty amusing.

          SpiffPeters you are correct on the De-fund Acorn acts bill of attainder status but your lists problems are factually incorrect.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 28th Amendment

            boytyperanma - What is incorrect?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 28th Amendment

              Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
              I agree with the concept of your 28th amendment but it doesn't work in practice for a number of reasons. Like any motion for the senate to receive access to top secret information would also apply to the average Joe, issues like that could be problematic.

              I wish bills proposed, like the one suspending health care benefits to congress until they actually pass a bill, would make it through. Let them deal with private insurance for a while see how they like it.

              Jefferson's belief that the only way to keep government pure is to overthrow it every 100 years has merit. People should be able to vote people out of office that don't have the peoples interests at heart. We'd see a lot higher turnover in congress. Unfortunately our 2 party system discourages doing so. As it is now if you vote someone out your effectively voting someone who opposes your interests in.

              We need to purge our government of all the dead weight but I don't know a good way to do it.



              I never looked at it that way before. Can't disagree, I guess. I found it pretty amusing.

              SpiffPeters you are correct on the De-fund Acorn acts bill of attainder status but your lists problems are factually incorrect.
              I will tell you how to do it. Rather than the "One citizen - One Vote" method, which often only works when there is only two people running, instead implement a "First Choice - Second Choice - etc..." method.

              Right now, if you think about it, we have three people running for office. So here would be the results:

              Goon A - 40% of the votes
              Goon B - 35% of the votes
              Goon C - 25% of the votes

              Who wins? Well, Goon A of course, even though 60% of the people didn't want him!

              A runoff vote assures the the person elected was in fact what the majority of the people voted for.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 28th Amendment

                I think it's important to keep in mind that while our democracy has worked well, it has served certain classes far better than other classes.

                "This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day?

                What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

                Frederick Douglas, July 5th, 1852

                The Pledge of Alliance speaks of liberty and justice for all. It is not well known that the pledge is actually a socialist manifesto written by Francis Bellamy, a devote and extreme socialist.

                The financial elite, corporate elite have always had the upper hand and always will. The greatest inequity is the disproportionate representation the ruling class enjoys.

                This spring the supreme court will be ruling on whether or not corporations can spend whatever amount of money they want in advocating or attacking political policies and politicians. The argument hinges on whether or not a corporation has the same rights as a person.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 28th Amendment

                  Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                  1. ACORN didn't break any laws. Faux News (lol) certainly broke some laws broadcasting the video of the 'interview'.

                  2. This bill would prevent virtually every government contractor (namely defense contractors) from getting any federal funds. So if this bill is passed and signed into law we will see Blackwater (Xi), Lockheed Martin and so on to be out out of business.
                  The bill as written only applied to Acorn, which is why it would be unconstitutional. We don't correct bills of attainment by rewriting them to apply to everyone. As written it would not affect other contractors at all. The judicial branch kicks the bill back to congress and says fix it or lose it.

                  The bill was already voted into law as far as I know. It is now in the court system waiting to be taken out of law.

                  The argument that if you rewrote it to apply to everyone is would also have to de-fund military contractors comes from the fact Acorn has broken laws and violated contracts(the Faux News story not being one of those). If they want to pass a bill that does not specifically target Acorn they would have to use specific language citing reasons to de-fund a contractor that would also include other government contractors.

                  The problem is any law broken by Acorn has also been broken by a military contractor. In the grand scheme of things, Acorn's problems with the laws, have nothing when compared to that of our military contractors. Every violation Acorn has been found guilty of they have already suffered appropriate consequences for. Our military contractors on the other hand have broken hundreds of laws and often are never even prosecuted. There is not a single law Acorn broke that they haven't as well, so a bill that specified any of Acorn's transgressions wouldn't work.

                  Acorn was simply under fire for a number of reasons.
                  1. They don't have the same capitol to bribe politicians that the military contractors have.
                  2. They register and educate voters in ethnic and/or poor neighborhoods.
                  3. Republicans know the votes Acorn effectively ads to elections will hurt them.
                  4. People with money don't want people without money empowered to vote.
                  5. Faux News had excellent timing finding a few morons in Acorns ranks.(sadly when most your employees volenteer or work at minimum wage you get morons and when a news agency dedicated to finding the dumbest of them comes in they are likely to find some)

                  I don't think there should have been any bill against Acorn. The complaints against them just didn't add up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 28th Amendment

                    Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                    This spring the supreme court will be ruling on whether or not corporations can spend whatever amount of money they want in advocating or attacking political policies and politicians. The argument hinges on whether or not a corporation has the same rights as a person.
                    As of 1886 corporation have enjoyed person-hood status. Because of this and their ability to buy advertisement as a corporation they have effective been granted more rights then a person. When it comes to campaign finance a person has a cap on how much they can give to a campaign. A corporation can pump any amount of funds towards a candidate.

                    In the US the amount of money spent on a campaign has a direct correlation to it's success. So we don't get elected officials the people want. We get elected officials the corporations want. Corporations don't want officials that represent their constituents, those ones are too hard to bribe.

                    My hope is the current case would strip person-hood status but am skeptical anything that good will come of it.

                    Personal I think we need to get out the anti-trust axe and go to town on any company that thinks it has some innate right to screw over America for it's own interests. If a company is to big to fail it is to big to exist. Get out the ax chop it into pieces the government can manage and regulate. Right now it is our government that gets regulated and managed by corporations.

                    My attitude could be devastating to the American economy when the companies under fire decided to pick up and go elsewhere. I'd be interested to see where they go however. In the US they enjoy the weakest anti-trust laws in the world.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 28th Amendment

                      Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                      As of 1886 corporation have enjoyed person-hood status. Because of this and their ability to buy advertisement as a corporation they have effective been granted more rights then a person. When it comes to campaign finance a person has a cap on how much they can give to a campaign. A corporation can pump any amount of funds towards a candidate.

                      In the US the amount of money spent on a campaign has a direct correlation to it's success. So we don't get elected officials the people want. We get elected officials the corporations want. Corporations don't want officials that represent their constituents, those ones are too hard to bribe.

                      My hope is the current case would strip person-hood status but am skeptical anything that good will come of it.

                      Personal I think we need to get out the anti-trust axe and go to town on any company that thinks it has some innate right to screw over America for it's own interests. If a company is to big to fail it is to big to exist. Get out the ax chop it into pieces the government can manage and regulate. Right now it is our government that gets regulated and managed by corporations.

                      My attitude could be devastating to the American economy when the companies under fire decided to pick up and go elsewhere. I'd be interested to see where they go however. In the US they enjoy the weakest anti-trust laws in the world.
                      Sounds like a good idea and yet in some cases such as the phone company breaking it up didn't benefit the consumer. I worked for the "Bell System" and when it was broken up into the seven baby bells, it all went to hell for the consumer. What a mess. I'm not defending the existence of a monopoly as much as a well managed, maintained and secure communications network that provided good service to the customer. Now we have everybody and their mother popping into once secure manholes, cheap telephones that break and cause the customer a service call or the added expense of replacement, and pay phones that are more like slot machines.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 28th Amendment

                        Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                        Sounds like a good idea and yet in some cases such as the phone company breaking it up didn't benefit the consumer. I worked for the "Bell System" and when it was broken up into the seven baby bells, it all went to hell for the consumer. What a mess. I'm not defending the existence of a monopoly as much as a well managed, maintained and secure communications network that provided good service to the customer. Now we have everybody and their mother popping into once secure manholes, cheap telephones that break and cause the customer a service call or the added expense of replacement, and pay phones that are more like slot machines.
                        I agree with you on that. I don't so much have a problem with the actual listed monopolies in the country. Power companies cable companies etc in some cases a monopoly actually makes sense. Allowing anyone that wants to be in the power supply business in results in a set of power lines for every company that wants to sell power. We heavily regulate existing monopolies as a trade off. ABC power may be the only guy allowed in a town but in trade for that they can't just double their rates because they want more money.

                        The problem comes from the American attitude that we should not regulate business. The concept that the 'invisible hand' will keep things in check. I'd much prefer government hands over the invisible one.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 28th Amendment

                          Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                          I agree with you on that. I don't so much have a problem with the actual listed monopolies in the country. Power companies cable companies etc in some cases a monopoly actually makes sense. Allowing anyone that wants to be in the power supply business in results in a set of power lines for every company that wants to sell power. We heavily regulate existing monopolies as a trade off. ABC power may be the only guy allowed in a town but in trade for that they can't just double their rates because they want more money.

                          The problem comes from the American attitude that we should not regulate business. The concept that the 'invisible hand' will keep things in check. I'd much prefer government hands over the invisible one.
                          I don't know how it works with the power companies, but with telephone, the lines underground and on the poles are owned and maintained by one company and all the "players" set up their switching equipment in the central offices. When a customer reports no dial tone, it has to be determined if the problem is the switch, feeder lines, aerial, local, in home or the telephone itself. All that mess aside, in the name of "free" trade America lost a lot of manufacturing businesses along with the taxes they paid and the jobs they provided. Many countries prevent that from happening by passing laws, we did just the opposite and look where it got us! I like to look at the end game and work back. We have growing unemployment and an economy in shambles while china, india and other countries that supply us have grown. Working back wouldn't it have been wiser to keep those jobs here? Sure we would be paying more for our consumer goods, even much more, but we would not be having our current problems. I'm for saving the environment, but is now the time to be pushing cap and trade, or giving businesses a pass on conforming to certain EPA rules as an incentive to keep them here? Unfortunately, while we debate these ideas, our government is busy passing costly and ineffective health care, and theoretically saving the planet.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 28th Amendment

                            'The Defund ACORN Act' and was a republican amendment to HR 3221. The amendment is so broad that virtually any organization that has dealings with the federal government could easily be defunded.

                            From the Defund ACORN Act:

                            (1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.
                            (2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.
                            (3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.
                            (4) Any organization that--
                            (A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity;
                            (B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or
                            (C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization's behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization.

                            Yes, a judge recently put a hold on this law (December 12th). So the act can not go into effect until the courts make a ruling on it. When this bill came up in the house, Rep. Alan Grayson (D) had a list of organizations that this amendment would apply to included in the legislative record so that judges would be able to discern congresses intent on just who the law applies to.

                            Personally, I don't see anything wrong withholding federal dollars to organizations that have been fraudulent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 28th Amendment

                              Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                              'The Defund ACORN Act' and was a republican amendment to HR 3221. The amendment is so broad that virtually any organization that has dealings with the federal government could easily be defunded.

                              From the Defund ACORN Act:

                              (1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.
                              (2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.
                              (3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.
                              (4) Any organization that--
                              (A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity;
                              (B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or
                              (C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization's behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization.

                              Yes, a judge recently put a hold on this law (December 12th). So the act can not go into effect until the courts make a ruling on it. When this bill came up in the house, Rep. Alan Grayson (D) had a list of organizations that this amendment would apply to included in the legislative record so that judges would be able to discern congresses intent on just who the law applies to.

                              Personally, I don't see anything wrong withholding federal dollars to organizations that have been fraudulent.
                              You sir are correct and I was wrong on that one. The original language specifying Acorn didn't make it into the bill. We should withhold federal dollars from fraudulent companies but the most fraudulent of them are using the federal dollars they've already received to pay bribes and keep getting contracts. Haliburton has killed American soldiers and billed us for 30,000 dollars for 10 dollar meals, you would think we'd stop paying them after that.

                              Here is a Clip of Grayson teaching a Broun a few things. I always find Grayson amusing because he demands the speaking time he has a right to while the Republicans are always frantically trying to shut him up. Grayson doesn't exactly make fair augments all the time he kinda ambushes people and hopes they stumble like Braun did. When the ambushes come his way he ducks and runs(probably a better political strategy though)

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwl3u-e3SmE

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X