America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by wheelrite. 110 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
The Proposal
Kawak Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025


When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.



Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and the board of directors gives upper corporate management big bonuses..

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore:

Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)

$437,100,000 for elimination of their staff. (Estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (Those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies.. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (Telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators who were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year. These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (That's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it.

"Downsizing."
wheelrite Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Why do you hate America ?
Mrs.Tank Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-15-2005
Posts: 10,047
You can add the golden parachute costs too... those slots not filled won't have the annual salary for life...


Man, I gotta get a job like that.
z6joker9 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
Okay I'm all about reducing the size of the government, but 7.5 of your 8 billion in savings are just cuts to pork projects. Cutting staff doesn't mean there will be a cut to this kind of spending.
frankj1 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
not so sure corporations should be the ideal structure to emulate for government.

We all have our thoughts on what government is supposed to be accomplishing and where it should be limited, but being a for-profit organization is not in the platform of any party.

The second sentence is off the top of my head, but has there ever been a viable party advocating a profit seeking government? I mean, other than the bonuses going to upper management as cited in the opening of the op?
dubleuhb Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Never gonna happen, who is going to vote themselves out of a job?
JadeRose Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
dubleuhb wrote:
Never gonna happen, who is going to vote themselves out of a job?





Any poor person who votes Republican.
wheelrite Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
JadeRose wrote:
Any poor person who votes Republican.


poor people don't vote,,

ya big old queer..ram27bat
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
JadeRose wrote:
Any poor person who votes Republican.



Who are all the people lining up to pay 45k to spend a minute with the President?

Please...your slip is showing.

The whole Dems are for the little guy and Rep are for the rich should've been dispelled when you found out the unions vote into the 90% for dems...even after NAFTA legislation was signed into law! Talk about screwing yourself. Now the Kenyan King has what, 2 auto companies with the UAW (6 seats on the BOD) in firm control and deeply still in debt with their retirement funds.

Corruption doesn't know party from party. It's a human thing and we as an electorate body keep voting in trash that doesn't represent US!

JadeRose Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Who are all the people lining up to pay 45k to spend a minute with the President?

Please...your slip is showing.

The whole Dems are for the little guy and Rep are for the rich should've been dispelled when you found out the unions vote into the 90% for dems...even after NAFTA legislation was signed into law! Talk about screwing yourself. Now the Kenyan King has what, 2 auto companies with the UAW (6 seats on the BOD) in firm control and deeply still in debt with their retirement funds.

Corruption doesn't know party from party. It's a human thing and we as an electorate body keep voting in trash that doesn't represent US!




Without even bothering to read this....I still know one thing.......You're wrong and Van Halen still sucks.

Flapper
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Obama's DNC speech could move to Bank of America stadium

Report: Democrats struggle with raising cash

President Barack Obama's re-election campaign is considering moving the final day of the Democratic National Convention to Bank of America Stadium to sell more skyboxes to wealthy donors, three Democrats involved in the fundraising told Bloomberg News.

The 74,000-seat home of the Carolina Panthers also would have room for the convention to sell more floor passes close to the stage. Planners are struggling to meet a $36.6 million fundraising goal, according to the Democrats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter.

Other Democrats involved deny fundraising problems.

In a Tuesday night statement, convention CEO Steve Kerrigan said: "Decisions about convention planning are driven by engaging more people in the process, not by money."

Also Tuesday, some Democrats told the Observer that they hope Obama gives his acceptance speech at the stadium so that more people can see it in person.

Obama advisers are aware of the political downside of the president delivering his nationally televised acceptance in a stadium named for a bank that considered imposing a fee that he said would have "mistreated" customers, sources told Bloomberg. That would be outweighed, they said, by the chance to lure more big-dollar contributors to cover the convention's costs.


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/11/2915251/obama-may-move-dnc-speech-to-bofa.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy


Ya just can't make the stuff up!
jpotts Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
JadeRose wrote:
Any poor person who votes Republican.



Lots of poor people in Detroit. They all vote Democrat. The same goes for the people in Flint.

Lots of unemployment too.

Lots of crime.

No hope for economic prosperity...at all.

How anyone these days can vote Democrat and claim they have a conscience or a soul is well beyond me.
JadeRose Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
jpotts wrote:
Lots of poor people in Detroit. They all vote Democrat. The same goes for the people in Flint.

Lots of unemployment too.

Lots of crime.

No hope for economic prosperity...at all.

How anyone these days can vote Democrat and claim they have a conscience or a soul is well beyond me.



HA!! See what happens when you stir the punch bowl? A turd floats to the surface!! Hi Pottsy!!
tweoijfoi Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
tweoijfoi wrote:
Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.



So...we should start shooting more people? Where's Dexter when you need him? REALLY need him?
wheelrite Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
tweoijfoi wrote:
Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.


not a bad idea..Herfing
tweoijfoi Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
More politicians, and term limits. That's what we need.

If you have to bribe 10x more people to get the job done, and they will be replaced in 2 or 3 terms, there will be less room for special interests. And there will be less temptation (and less time) to become corrupt.

We need more regular joes and less millionaire, life-time politicians in congress.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
tweoijfoi wrote:
More politicians, and term limits. That's what we need.

If you have to bribe 10x more people to get the job done, and they will be replaced in 2 or 3 terms, there will be less room for special interests. And there will be less temptation (and less time) to become corrupt.

We need more regular joes and less millionaire, life-time politicians in congress.



Think


I like it.


Just get the house and senate to pass this and the President to sign it and by Jove...we just might have a law!
tweoijfoi Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Think


I like it.


Just get the house and senate to pass this and the President to sign it and by Jove...we just might have a law!


Yeah haha, that's the problem. It'd be like asking a CEO who recieved multi-million dollar bonuses to take a pay cut. It's UNAMERICAN!
FuzzNJ Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
Actually, we need to go in the OPPOSITE direction. You want to solve the problem of people with too much power by condensing that power into the fewer people?

Think about this... when the constitution was signed in 1787, there were only about 4 million people living here at the time.

They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power.

Imagine if we had 1000 senators and 4350 reprensatives. That'd still be far proportionally less per capita
than when the constitution was signed, but how much harder would it be for special interests and lobbists
to personally influence that many people?

We need to spread the power out, not combine it into a fewer number of corrupt politicians.


Wow, someone needs a freakin' civics lesson.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
tweoijfoi wrote:
Yeah haha, that's the problem. It'd be like asking a CEO who recieved multi-million dollar bonuses to take a pay cut. It's UNAMERICAN!



That doesn't matter anymore!

You don't need a real birth certificate.

We can just fake it now!

I always thought the whole "Contract With America" was a big sham when they couldn't or wouldn't get term limits passed.

The States just need to do it one by one. Flush the system.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
FuzzNJ wrote:
Wow, someone needs a freakin' civics lesson.



From you?


LOLOLOLOL!!!!!


You can't even make it to an Occupooper rally much less get off a couch!


BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!


Go yell at your family some more...really!Frying pan
tweoijfoi Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
FuzzNJ wrote:
Wow, someone needs a freakin' civics lesson.


Elaborate?
FuzzNJ Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
From you?


LOLOLOLOL!!!!!


You can't even make it to an Occupooper rally much less get off a couch!


BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!


Go yell at your family some more...really!Frying pan


Well, since you don't see the problem with the post, yes, from me, but I'll let you figure it out.
FuzzNJ Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
Elaborate?



A person with remedial history knowledge should notice it immediatly.
tweoijfoi Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
FuzzNJ wrote:
A person with remedial history knowledge should notice it immediatly.


Good input on the conversation.
FuzzNJ Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
Good input on the conversation.


Thanks, it is a lot better than your error riddled screed. Bad facts, bad conclusions.
tweoijfoi Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
You didn't point out any incorrect facts. By the way, your grammar and spelling are terrible.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
tweoijfoi wrote:
Good input on the conversation.



He's a partisan moron with nothing to add to any conversation.

Think of him as a fly in the ointment.

He goes thread to thread with his family as an audience parading his lack of interpersonal relationship skills...sad really, but don't feel pity for him. He'll mistake it for attention and then you'll NEVER be rid of him!
FuzzNJ Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
You didn't point out any incorrect facts. By the way, your grammar and spelling are terrible.


Thanks, I'll work on it. Dude seriously? I thought as soon as I said something you or someone else would go 'Oh yeah'! I didn't expect everyone to miss it.

K, here you go:

"They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power."

Double check your facts here.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
FuzzNJ wrote:
Thanks, I'll work on it. Dude seriously? I thought as soon as I said something you or someone else would go 'Oh yeah'! I didn't expect everyone to miss it.

K, here you go:

"They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power."

Double check your facts here.



Yeah...a real Civics lesson...Thanks Einstein!


Here's your sign.Gonz
HockeyDad Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
In your face!
tweoijfoi Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
FuzzNJ wrote:
Thanks, I'll work on it. Dude seriously? I thought as soon as I said something you or someone else would go 'Oh yeah'! I didn't expect everyone to miss it.

K, here you go:

"They created a government with 435 representatives and 100 senators.

We now have a population of about 300 million... about 75 times the number of people,
but the same number of congressmen. That essentially means that, even disregarding the
growth of the power of congress, each individual there has 75 times more power."

Double check your facts here.


Thank you. Ah yes, the number of representatives did grow, but has been capped since 1911.
tweoijfoi Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
So they are only 15 times as powerful. My point stands, and especially for senators.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
tweoijfoi wrote:
Thank you. Ah yes, the number of representatives did grow, but has been capped since 1911.



"THEY" did "CREATE" the government...if our resident Occupooper wants to split hairs on the numbers that's his problem...your idea has merit...just like Owedumba adding exponentially to the debt to pancake the system and destroy it instead create more senators and representatives...I thought it was brilliant.
FuzzNJ Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Yeah...a real Civics lesson...Thanks Einstein!


Here's your sign.Gonz



That would be the moron sign? Yeah, it's me here. You're too lazy to even check your own freakin' facts and I'm the moron? How many facts were in those sentences? Two? And you're too lazy to check them to prove your point?

Holy sh*t people. We did not have that number of representatives maxed 'til 100 years ago.
FuzzNJ Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
Thank you. Ah yes, the number of representatives did grow, but has been capped since 1911.



There we go!!!!!

Awesome!!
HockeyDad Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
If the math is wrong, the entire argument is invalid this rendering the only option viable is the reelection of President Obama. Case closed.
FuzzNJ Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
"THEY" did "CREATE" the government...if our resident Occupooper wants to split hairs on the numbers that's his problem...your idea has merit...just like Owedumba adding exponentially to the debt to pancake the system and destroy it instead create more senators and representatives...I thought it was brilliant.


Split hairs? It was the major 'fact' that he based his argument on. /rolls eyes.

FuzzNJ Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
If the math is wrong, the entire argument is invalid this rendering the only option viable is the reelection of President Obama. Case closed.



We have 2 people, they have 2 people so let's make a reservation for 22 people.

Math doesn't matter? Quit trolling.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
FuzzNJ wrote:
That would be the moron sign? Yeah, it's me here. You're too lazy to even check your own freakin' facts and I'm the moron? How many facts were in those sentences? Two? And you're too lazy to check them to prove your point?

Holy sh*t people. We did not have that number of representatives maxed 'til 100 years ago.



So the framers didn't sign the Constitution in 1787?

Oh, you were just quibbling on the numbers we have now versus then?

Sorry, the point stands...they created the nation...that we still have in place today...regardless if we have 50 or 57 states! They did create the government we have now.

Thanks for trying to make some sort of point that was lost on everyone but yourself.Applause
DrMaddVibe Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
FuzzNJ wrote:
We have 2 people, they have 2 people so let's make a reservation for 22 people.

Math doesn't matter? Quit trolling.



When did Math become a Civics class?
tweoijfoi Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
FuzzNJ wrote:
Split hairs? It was the major 'fact' that he based his argument on. /rolls eyes.



It doesn't change that the number of senators has always been fixed, and that the representatives per capita is 1/15 what it was.

And that doesn't change that term limits would a beneficial.
tweoijfoi Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
By the way, I appreciate fact checking, Fuzz. If it actually negated the point, I would conceed. It does weaken it, but doesn't destroy it, and having accurate facts are always important.
HockeyDad Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
FuzzNJ wrote:
We have 2 people, they have 2 people so let's make a reservation for 22 people.

Math doesn't matter? Quit trolling.



I'm on your side. I said math matters and the argument is null and void.
FuzzNJ Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
It doesn't change that the number of senators has always been fixed, and that the representatives per capita is 1/15 what it was.

And that doesn't change that term limits would a beneficial.



Always been fixed? C'mon, we were almost there.

Honestly, would you have been happier had I just taken the usual tact and called you a freakin' moron egomaniac idiot mouth breather, etc. . . . .? Cause I could do that now with this post.
HockeyDad Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
Dang....did you burn a batch of cookies today?
FuzzNJ Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
Dang....did you burn a batch of cookies today?


Yes, like 40 batches. Your trolling, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it, well maybe not DMV, he doesn't notice much, just shouts incoherently. Next time I won't say anything and let you all live in your own little ignorant world where facts don't matter. We all know that facts have a liberal bias anyway.
HockeyDad Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
You're just full of piss and vinegar today! Maybe take another pill.
ZRX1200 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
Such an angry guy......you need a snickerdoodle!
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
3 Pages123>