Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wade Joseph

Solving ALL our countries problems

32 posts in this topic

Got this from my dad. Thought I'd share.

If we ALL followed this, it wouldn't matter who we each voted for, for POTUS, as we would have fresh faces to get things done where it mattered.

RE-ELECT NOBODY!

Worthy of your time and attention regardless of your Party Affiliation

545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses

provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you, though you appear to have several choices.

1. You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope they do something about it.

2. You can agree to vote against everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.

3. You can decide to run for office yourself and agree to do the job properly.

4. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sit back and watch in amusement. All my friends and neighbors really believing that their president is going to change things....

I laugh. They get offended. World keeps spinning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I just sit back and watch in amusement. All my friends and neighbors really believing that their president is going to change things..

I am way more concerned about who gets elected to Congress and Senate than President. Way more power in those two houses than the President. The President may be what we consider the head of the country, but most everything has to go through the senate and congress and if need be they can over rule the President if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sit back and watch in amusement. All my friends and neighbors really believing that their president is going to change things....

I laugh. They get offended. World keeps spinning

a lot of these young kids believe that hope and change is really going to bring them hope and change. i have seen it. you can never convince them otherwise. thats why i get a kick out of things like so and so is going to cut/raise taxes, increase/decrease spending, make/repeal laws. that all depends on what congress does, the president can either just oppose or propose

this the year i vote against every incumbent. coleman, oberstar, no on the sales tax, no on the duluth school tax levy. I'm Dr. no this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said that this year I am going to vote for anyone that is new. The old can go as they have had their chance and it doesn't seem to change.

I doubt changing the whole staff this election will probably make any difference but it would send a message for future politicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better plan.

Let's form the "Sportsmans" party and run it like we want to and address issues that are important to us.

Oh wait.....we can't agree on anything........and some of us here aren't really sporstman, just here to argue politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dtro, I disagree that there are those here to argue about politics. Just kidding!

Interesting that some of you aren't as concerned about the Prez as Congress.

He's got a lot of power. Our current Prez started two wars, initiated huge tax cuts, appointed Supreme Court justices, & jump-started a $700 billion bailout. And that's just for starters.

The imperial presidency is back. They don't call the President of the United States "Leader of the Free World" for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our current Prez .... initiated huge tax cuts

How dare he grin

If I'm going to start putting together some foundations of the "Sportsmans" party.

One of them will be no Taxation without Representation.....LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
He's got a lot of power. Our current Prez started two wars, initiated huge tax cuts, appointed Supreme Court justices, & jump-started a $700 billion bailout. And that's just for starters.

But I do believe he needed the backing of Congress to do that. There is not a whole he can do on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything listed in that quote, with the exception of the justices, needed the approval of congress so get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do believe he needed the backing of Congress to do that. There is not a whole he can do on his own.

Well, that's the way it should be but presidents have been ursurping congresses power for a long time and congress hasn't done much to stop it. It's well past time for congress to stand up and assert its constitutional authority over the executive branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont supreme court judges have to also be approved by the senate in a majority vote, also??????????????????????????/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
He's got a lot of power. Our current Prez started two wars, initiated huge tax cuts, appointed Supreme Court justices, & jump-started a $700 billion bailout. And that's just for starters.

But I do believe he needed the backing of Congress to do that. There is not a whole he can do on his own.

You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there.

Maybe, but that is not the way it went they approved and that makes them just as culpable as Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but I'm just pointing out that the president has plenty of power. The prez can do an end around congress if he wants to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he could have. But so many blame only him and he did get congresses approval, so the blame is all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: upnorth
Quote:
He's got a lot of power. Our current Prez started two wars, initiated huge tax cuts, appointed Supreme Court justices, & jump-started a $700 billion bailout. And that's just for starters.

But I do believe he needed the backing of Congress to do that. There is not a whole he can do on his own.

You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there.

Now I have heard it all from the Bush bashers. So congress declared war because if they didn't Bush would have just declared it a conflict anyway so why not just declare war? Are you kidding me!!!!!

[Admin Note: Don't skirt the Forum Policy on language. Thanks]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Well, that's the way it should be but presidents have been ursurping congresses power for a long time and congress hasn't done much to stop it. It's well past time for congress to stand up and assert its constitutional authority over the executive branch.

I'd have trouble saying it better myself. wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
Originally Posted By: upnorth
Quote:
He's got a lot of power. Our current Prez started two wars, initiated huge tax cuts, appointed Supreme Court justices, & jump-started a $700 billion bailout. And that's just for starters.

But I do believe he needed the backing of Congress to do that. There is not a whole he can do on his own.

You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there.

Now I have heard it all from the Bush bashers. So congress declared war because if they didn't Bush would have just declared it a conflict anyway so why not just declare war? Are you kidding me!!!!!

[Admin Note: Don't skirt the Forum Policy on language. Thanks]

Give me a break!

Please read my post more carefully and stop jumping to outrageous assumptions. I DID NOT say congress only approved the war becuase Bush was going to do it anyways.

Here is my post again

"You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there."

It merely states that the president can go around congress if he wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Well, that's the way it should be but presidents have been ursurping congresses power for a long time and congress hasn't done much to stop it. It's well past time for congress to stand up and assert its constitutional authority over the executive branch.

I'd have trouble saying it better myself. wink

Congress has no authority over the President, and more than the President has over Congress. Likewise for the Supreme Court, they are three seperate and distinct branches from each other providing checks and balances for each other. No one branch has any authority over the other. This is Jr. High Civics stuff guys..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is JR High type stuff. You don't learn until later that the system doesn't always work just like the text books say it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: fishorgolf
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman

You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there.

Now I have heard it all from the Bush bashers. So congress declared war because if they didn't Bush would have just declared it a conflict anyway so why not just declare war? Are you kidding me!!!!!

[Admin Note: Don't skirt the Forum Policy on language. Thanks']

Give me a break!

Please read my post more carefully and stop jumping to outrageous assumptions. I DID NOT say congress only approved the war becuase Bush was going to do it anyways.

Here is my post again

"You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there."

It merely states that the president can go around congress if he wanted to.

No you did not merely state that the president can go around congress if he wants to. You stated he WOULD go around congress if they did not declare war. And this is and assumption on your part. Your whole point of the post was to deflect any wrongdoing on the war from the dem. congress onto the Pres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress has no authority over the President, and more than the President has over Congress. Likewise for the Supreme Court, they are three seperate and distinct branches from each other providing checks and balances for each other. No one branch has any authority over the other. This is Jr. High Civics stuff guys..

We have three branches of government but they are NOT coequal. Congress has the ultimate authority over the other two branches. Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any member of the executive branch as well as the Supreme Court. You might want to look up the impeachment in 1805 of Justice Samuel Chase. The Senate ultimately decided not to remove him from office but he was impeached by the House. The executive and legislative branches of government have no corresponding power over a member of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fishorgolf, I guess becuase you think it then it must be true. I guess you know the intent of all my posts better then I do.

I think you need to go back and reread the entire sequence of posts between Upnorth and myself. I think you must have skipped the posted when I agreed with Upnorth that Congress was just as culable for approving the war as Bush was.

Please read everything more carefully before telling me what my intent was. I prefer to speak for myself instead of listening to you tell me what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

You need congress to declare war, but to declare a "Conflict" you just need the president.

If Bush couldn't get his "Iraq War" through congress we would instead be talking about the "Iraq Conflict" which wouldn't need congress. Same result different way of getting there.

Maybe, but that is not the way it went they approved and that makes them just as culpable as Bush.

I believe the president does have some authority with regard to war powers act. in the Iraq situation, congress either repeatedly votes to continue supporting what is going on or fails to vote to stop it. Because congress did not declare war, the president's powers have some limits and congress can decide at any time to force him to end hostilities.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0