The problem is only partly to do with the parties. The main problem is how Capitol Hill works. Anyone remember the Contract with America from the freshman Congress of 1994? They seriously underestimated the old boys club in Washington. I disagree with term limits, but I admit, its time to clean out the halls of Congress.

Of course if we paid framers, dry wall hangers and roofers $15 an hour, we'd have no problem filling those jobs, but of course we'd pay a lot more for our homes and buildings and of course all the other service providers would also need to pay a lot more to keep and attract their workers, which means those costs to the consumers would go up also.

Or perhaps profits to the contractors and their suppliers would just go down -- as free-market forces come into play.

 

 

...as opposed to the illegals that leave their families in another country, swim a river, cross a fence, etc to go to a country that speaks another language...

Since when?

 

I think this says it all:

 

 

Leatherneck, you're the first person to ever suggest political correctness in relation to me... :lol:

 

I realize I've simplified... I have to, or I need to write a book... :lol:

 

I respect you and your opinion. The problem in my eyes is we're gonna have to pay for illegals one way or another. Like the Fram Oil Filter commercials, we pay a little more now, or a lot later. I understand your point, but since we can't ship the manufacturing of our homes and buildings outside our borders to where the cheap labor is like we do tennis shoes, computers and TVs... I'm all for paying more for my next home or office instead of paying more into social entitlements for the rest of my life. :thumb:

 

The truth of the matter is, if we cut off illegal workers to all contractors and construction companies we level the playing field for all of them to compete fairly. Yes, they will pass on added labor costs to their customers, but we are not all going to be soaked whether we ever buy another home/building or not. We adopt all these illegals, we're paying for them without their income tax contributions to our system.

 

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with anyone from any country in the world wanting to come to America and become Americans. I just think they should do it within the law. I'm all for eager new citizens who want to add to our society. I'm 100% against lying, sneaking, thieves who want to come to America, skim the benefits of citizenship without contributing the way all citizens should.

 

 

I think you are very pc, just like me:ylsuper:

 

As to the paying of taxes, with the very low hourly rate they get, most of them probably wouldn't pay much if any income tax anyway, would they?

Actually, I think it's a little "Pollyanna-ish" to expect the congress to fix itself. For the reasons that you mentioned yourself, the powerful parties and congressional members would never allow such a thing to happen. This is afterall, the congress that just voted itself another hefty raise.

 

Independents -- by definition -- would not be beholden to any party. There would be no such thing as the "independent party leadership" because there would be no single "Independent Party." And it really isn't about having clout to get things done. The purpose of the legislative branch is to give each region, and each state an equal voice in national affairs.

 

I would suggest that voting for independent candidates is better than doing nothing at all, or hoping for the system to volunteer to change itself.

 

 

Sure there would. Eventually when enough independents were elected that they could influence whom would chair certain committees ( and get in the powerful positions in Congress), what bills were going to be assigned to what committees, what bills were actually going to have hearings, etc, then there would be a de facto party, if not one in name. There would have to be some meeting of the minds by the Inds. as to whom is going to be supported for leadership positions etc., etc., and when that happens, the horse trading begins. And we end up back where we are.

 

Perhaps you are right. Maybe fixing the current system is impossible. Then again, electing a couple of Inds isn't going to fix it either in my opinion. I'd rather try to get Congresspersons to pledge to term limits and vote them out if they renege on their committment. Same pledge on wages/salaries and same result if they renege.

 

I do believe that if enough people expressed support for those issues, candidates would listen to the public. Elected officials, for the most part, listen to polls and surveys. The falling support for the Iraqi war is driven in large part, again in my opinion, by public sentiment, and not by anything else.

Sure there would. Eventually when enough independents were elected that they could influence whom would chair certain committees ( and get in the powerful positions in Congress), what bills were going to be assigned to what committees, what bills were actually going to have hearings, etc, then there would be a de facto party, if not one in name.

No they wouldn't. To do so would be to contradict the very philosophy which got them elected. I just don't see the independent legislators suddenly congeeling into another giant party. And I don't think a few independents would do much good either -- so we should elect a whole bunch of them! :banana:

Why do you think someone running as an Independent would be any different than a Rep. or a Dem.? While I admit that as an Ind., a Congressperson would not be "beholden" to the party leadership of the Dems. or Reps., then again, they would have zero political clout to get anything positive done. Such would be the case until enough Inds. got elected to make a difference. Of course, when that happened, the Inds. would then be beholden to the leadership of the Inds. in Congress.

 

To me, its not the two party system that is at fault, its the people leading them in part at fault and the citizens electing them in part at fault.

 

While I appreciate (and agree with) your dissatisfaction with our political leaders, in my opinion its a little pollyannish to think all of the problems you listed will go away if we just start electing Inds.

 

Me personally, I think lifetime term limits (two terms as a Senator and three terms as a Rep. with no switching back and forth) and cutting the pay to nothing over living expenses to be in Washington during session would solve a lot of the problems we encounter. But there are good reasons for no term limits (loss of experience and knowledge of people in Congress and the need for a much improved federal bureacracy) and there are understandable reasons for paying considerable wages to our Congresspeople (otherwise only the wealthy could afford to be in Congress). Nonetheless, I think those disadvantages would be minor to the advantages of term limits and wage elimination.

 

Fire away everyone and tell me why I am wrong. I have an open mind and can certainly learn from other's thoughts on the subject.

 

Who said we just start electing only Independents? I merely stated that I registered Independent for the reasons above.

 

Call it a bit of rebelliousness, or whatever. But, I flatly refuse to align my name with a (D) or an ® when I absoultly loathe with every fiber in my being what each of the parties have become.

I've suggested this before, but...

 

We should change the primaries so that everyone votes for all candidates, regardless of party. Then the top two vote earners (again regardless of party) run off against each other in the general election.

I’m tired of being told I don’t pay enough in taxes… I work nearly five months out of the year to pay my fair share as is. The only recourse is for my family to economize more and budget more tightly to provide our government another month’s worth of pay to squander on more vote getting pork we don’t need and cannot possibly benefit from.

 

Why can’t our government economize, by cutting wasteful programs that do nothing but buy votes for weasels we don’t need guiding our nation?

 

It’s time for a major revolution in the IRS and our tax structure. We’re getting hosed.

 

This is the greatest nation the world has ever known. We didn’t get here by giving handouts. It’s time for everyone in reasonable health and mental acuity to get a job and help pull the load. It’s time to give the boot to lazy bums milking the system for handouts. It’s time to punish employers who bend the rules by paying ridiculously low wages to illegal residents who pay no income tax and soak up many of our free social services.

 

I could go on, and probably will, but this is a good start… :lol:

Amen! and Amen!:banana:

I've suggested this before, but...

 

We should change the primaries so that everyone votes for all candidates, regardless of party. Then the top two vote earners (again regardless of party) run off against each other in the general election.

This is a pretty good idea!:thumb:

No they wouldn't. To do so would be to contradict the very philosophy which got them elected. I just don't see the independent legislators suddenly congeeling into another giant party. And I don't think a few independents would do much good either -- so we should elect a whole bunch of them! :banana:

 

Oh, I forgot. Politicians don't vote and act contrary to what they campaigned on to get elected.:laugh:

Who said we just start electing only Independents? I merely stated that I registered Independent for the reasons above.

 

Call it a bit of rebelliousness, or whatever. But, I flatly refuse to align my name with a (D) or an ® when I absoultly loathe with every fiber in my being what each of the parties have become.

 

 

Not me, as to the bolded question. You either that I recall. I was merely making the point that electing someone whom states he/she is an independent is not going to be the cure-all for the problems you listed. And I agree with the problems you listed.

I think you are very pc, just like me:ylsuper: ?

Yeah right... :lol:

 

At least you picked me up by lumping me in with you... :thumb:

 

 

As to the paying of taxes, with the very low hourly rate they get, most of them probably wouldn't pay much if any income tax anyway, would they?

So... what then is our incentive to "adopt" 12 million societal dependents that will ultimately burden our already overburdened entitlement programs? It just doesn't add up...

 

Are we actually seeking to recruit an entirely new social strata that are not quite slaves, (I understand that's illegal too...) but not much above share-croppers?

 

Does anyone actually think that these newly arrived "cheap" laborers will remain content to toil for menial wages for more than a generation... if even that? The reason low wages work now is that illegal workers can send much of it home and support their families in a country where the cost of living is a fraction of ours. If they become citizens and bring their families here, low wages won't cut it anymore.

 

How am I supposed to buy into supporting these folks and paying for the share of medical, legal, law enforcement, national defense, etc. programs they cannot possibly earn enough to help pay for?

 

I'd rather pay 25% more for my next home built by expensive American citizens, than be stuck paying for social services for 12 million citizens, their soon to arrive families and their new born "American" offspring.

 

Show me how we can seal our borders. Show me how we can get back to the days of screening out miscreants. Show me how we can get M13 gangbangers and other poisonous individuals deported, and then we can talk.

 

Until then, no thank you. :thumb:

Oh, I forgot. Politicians don't vote and act contrary to what they campaigned on to get elected.:laugh:

That's what the two parties do best.

 

 

Yeah right... :lol:

 

At least you picked me up by lumping me in with you... :thumb:

 

 

So... what then is our incentive to "adopt" 12 million societal dependents that will ultimately burden our already overburdened entitlement programs? It just doesn't add up...

 

Are we actually seeking to recruit an entirely new social strata that are not quite slaves, (I understand that's illegal too...) but not much above share-croppers?

 

Does anyone actually think that these newly arrived "cheap" laborers will remain content to toil for menial wages for more than a generation... if even that? The reason low wages work now is that illegal workers can send much of it home and support their families in a country where the cost of living is a fraction of ours. If they become citizens and bring their families here, low wages won't cut it anymore.

 

How am I supposed to buy into supporting these folks and paying for the share of medical, legal, law enforcement, national defense, etc. programs they cannot possibly earn enough to help pay for?

 

I'd rather pay 25% more for my next home built by expensive American citizens, than be stuck paying for social services for 12 million citizens, their soon to arrive families and their new born "American" offspring.

 

Show me how we can seal our borders. Show me how we can get back to the days of screening out miscreants. Show me how we can get M13 gangbangers and other poisonous individuals deported, and then we can talk.

 

Until then, no thank you. :thumb:

 

 

Keep in mind that in one of my original posts I stated that illegals should not be eligible for the social programs. They shouldn't.

 

As for their off spring, if they become legalized citizens and pay taxes, then they should be eligible for the social benefits.

That's what the two parties do best.

 

 

 

 

The next time you need help from a politician, tell them what your feelings are about them and remind them of that little information you have at BGP. I'm sure you'll get lots of help.

 

I know a few politicians. Almost all them are hard working people who are doing what they think their constituents want them to do. The contempt for politicians displayed in this forum is way out of touch with reality.