Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSUN EDITORIAL:
Tea Party ‘populism’
There’s a push among the movement to take away people’s vote for senators
Saturday, June 5, 2010 | 2:04 a.m.
Despite the rhetoric from the Tea Party about putting power back into the hands of the people, many of the movement’s acolytes are talking about repealing the 17th Amendment, which gives voters the right to choose their U.S. senators.
Take away the vote from the people? Isn’t the Tea Party supposed to be a populist movement?
Well, the Tea Party folks say, the 17th Amendment usurped states’ rights. The Senate was, according to the Founding Fathers, supposed to represent the states, thus the Constitution originally gave state legislatures the power to pick U.S. senators.
The Senate, by its makeup, still does that. All states have equal representation. But there was a serious problem with the way senators were once selected. A series of magazine articles in 1906 outlined bribery and fraud in the Senate and detailed how industries and corrupt legislatures were selecting senators. From 1866 to 1906, there were nine bribery cases brought to the Senate. In response to the corruption, the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.
By putting the vote in the hands of the people, senators were in touch with the voters of their states — and not just beholden to a small group of politicians. Since then, ethics and election laws have raised the standard significantly, so much so that what might be considered unethical today wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in Congress in the 1800s.
Still, the Tea Party types say that senators today are too influenced by special interests, and they try to argue that putting the election back into the hands of state legislatures would somehow change that. But aren’t legislatures influenced by special interests? That was part of the problem in the 1800s. For example, the railroads held considerable power in politics. They were large landholders and were important to the country. As major political players in state legislatures, they were able to control many decisions — such as who the legislature picked to be senator.
The Tea Party movement likes to complain about smoke-filled backroom deals, but how do they think senators were chosen before the 17th Amendment? The Senate’s history office reports that by the 1850s, many legislatures found themselves deadlocked in their attempts to choose senators. Forty-five times legislatures couldn’t pick a senator from 1891 to 1905.
Does the nation really want to return to those “good old days”? Of course not. Those who advocate repealing the 17th Amendment are missing the big picture. In their anger at the nation’s duly elected leaders, they are advocating a destructive course.
It is important to note that the 17th Amendment was advocated by the progressive movement of the early 1900s, reformers who worked diligently to limit the influence of special interests and to bring the government closer to the people. They were successful, particularly with the 17th Amendment. Why anyone would want to repeal that — especially a supposedly “populist” group — is beyond us.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Since we know Dick Armey's FreedomWorks (funded in the past by Sheldon Adelson) is behind the Tea Party fakery, we also know that funding comes from BIG OIL and other large corporations.
It appears to me that Dick Cheney and friends end up being the real Tea Party faces here behind this move. Gee, I wonder why! LOL!
Repeal of the 17th amendment does not take away the votes of the people as much as it makes the Senators dependent on the States rather than the big money special interests in DC. Sure, there's corruption at the State level, but it is at a much lower level than the corruption at the DC level. State corruption can be controlled to some extent, but we can not control the mega dollar DC corruption at all. Look at telecom immunity, 95% of Americans said "NO" to that bill. DC Corruption passed it anyway. So much for the voters. Would you like to discuss TARP, GM and bank bailouts, Fannie and Freddie, or Obamacare? The results were the same. Try those same bills on a more local (ie: state) level and see if they would pass. The people can control more of what happens at state levels than at national levels. The whole idea of the states selecting Senators fits into the Founder's idea of Checks and Balances. The people select Representatives who fight against the ideas of the Senators selected by the States, who both fight against the Administration. It is a much better idea than having the Senators beholden to Wall Street money. They sure aren't beholden to the people after they are elected. Remember what Mark Twain said: Picture a politician, now think of an idiot, oh, but I repeat myself. Have a nice day everyone!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TeaPotters and The Palin Spill - They Don't Mean Much
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Fundamentally, none of the tepotters will get elected just as BimboPalin won't win any election - although we, the American People, are now so dumbed down and stupid we elect people like TheDeciderWarCriminal as a President of the US, we have just enough of our brain remaining not to elect bozos or bimbos like these fruit cakes, but a few nut cases still manage to slip into office.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Did Hannity of FoxPropagandaNews live up to his promise to get waterboarded yet? Nope. Wonder why?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
He's a fake, like Beck , that's why
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thanks For Reading My Post
This is a typical "straw man" argument that is used often by Obama to make opponents seem unreasonable. I'm not surprized the Sun has chosen the same route.
Actually, nobody is advocating the position that the Sun argues against and that's why they are not quoting anybody so we could judge whether such people (if they exist) are typical of the "tea party" movement participants. Instead, this piece is a lame effort to feed the Dems who the Sun hopes will still come out and help Reid. Cheap shot!
The repeal of the 17th amendment is a move back toward a Republic form of Government and away from our current path to an Oligarchy. I for one do consent to a limited government but will never give my consent to an absolute one.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
One more thing, why hasn't the Progressives eliminated the Patriot Act, in its entirety as promised? Or is the story, once a government gets power, they will never give it up . . .
Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a giant step back in time.
Far too many of those who sleep over on the right (Tea Party members in particular...) would like to see this country turn the clock back to 1900....
The passage of the 17th Amendment was a great victory for the American people, and it put the selection of U.S. Senators directly in the hands of the voters...
Before that happened, the selection of U.S. Senators was a power given to the state legislators who were often bribed by big money interests such as the railroads and big oil...
Senators were bought and sold by special interests groups and the nickname of the Senate was the "Millionaires Club."
Does that sound familiar to you? It should, because some of those things are going on today despite the existence of the 17th Amendment.
The key to changing what is going on is not to repeal the 17th Amendment, however, but to bring about campaign finance reform, and limit the number of terms that both Senators and House members can serve......
We need to pass legislation controlling what lobbyists can and can not do, and we need to limit the amount of money that can be spent in a political campaign....
Putting the power to select U.S. Senators back in the hands of the state legislatures will not solve the problem, but will simply make things far worse than they already are....
We need to move forward in time, not back in time.
another sarah palin inspired idea of how to wreck our country. those teabaggers are out of their minds!
El Lobo wrote:
"We need to move forward in time, not back in time."
Do any of us have a choice . . . naturally we will move forward in time.
The question we should be asking is to where. Do we want a limited government, called a Republic where our Freedoms and Libertys are kept intact? Or do we want an Government that has unlimited powers, that we will always be subject to? Even the concept of a Democracy will eventually come to an end, as historicall they have always ended. Put another way, our Mob Rule Democracy has run out of people to redistribute from, and we are now simply printing money that will never be paid back. But we are not alone, nearly every progressive "Socialist" country has made the same greivous mistake, and we are all collectivally in dept to eachother.
My argument is that Woodrow Wilson put this country, and much of the world, on an unsustainable "Progressive" track that led us away from the concepts of limited government and put us solidly into the unstable form of Governmnt called a Democracy. The end result of a Democracy has always historically been one where the people rob the treasury and in the end the government morphs into an Oligarchy.
We are well down that path, and the signs are clear . . . if we continue we will not of progressed, we will have thrown away our Freedoms and Liberty and we will all be subjects of whomever currently has the powers of our Government.
The repeal of the 17th admendment is a positive move back to a Republic form of government, and I do support that move.
In the Sun opinion section of today, the following column was reprinted under the title:
"Progressivism at odds with Constitution" -- By George Will
Excellent column, printed the Sun, that helps explain why we need to un-do the harm done to States rights with the enactment of the 17th amendment.
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_1521...
Anyone with an IQ of 50 and under shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Sorry democrats.
Wasn't it JD Hayworth that said something to the affect that gay marriage will lead to marrying horses. There are morons on both sides of the aisle.
Grekko,
Buying a state representative is much less expensive than buying a member of the US House of Representatives.
I believe lemahj is living in the past. He is hoping for a situation that has not existed for over 200 years..
I wonder how lemahj came up with the idea that a Republican form of government is always truly representative government? I wonder if he really believes that nonsense?
Representative government for just who? The rich & the elite? The property owners only? White males only?
That was, to a large degree, the nation that was established by the Founding Fathers in 1787. Thank god that we did not stay the course with that set-up!
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, most of the political power of the country was vested in a very small minority....
Very few people could vote or run for public office. Probably not more than one person out of five or six could actually participate in government at any level........
I wonder if that is the type of government that lemahj believes we should have?
Yes, it's possible that a republic might keep government from growing in size, but there's no guarantee that the freedom and the liberties that lemahj speaks of will stay in tact under that set-up!
lemahj's belief that Woodrow Wilson took us down the wrong road with his progressive approach to governing is total nonsense.
The progressive era was not something that Woodrow Wilson and Wilson alone imitated or led. The progressive movement started before Wilson became president, and continued after Wilson left office.
Some historians say that Wilson was the leader of the progressive movement, and to a certain degree he was, but Wilson himself did not believe in or endorse all of the progressive ideas that were part of that era..
The progressive movement was an extension of the "populist" movement and consisted of many, many different reform groups.
The movement would have happened with or without Wilson. Don't forget that Teddy Roosevelt was also a progressive....
In some respects, TR was far more progressive than Wilson.....
And would these strict constitutionalist Tea Baggers also want blacks to be considered 3/5 of a man?
The constitution is a document that was written to allow the possibility of progress. The 17th amendment reflects this type of progress!
notacon....
Thank you for your post! You have hit the nail on the head!
The Founders knew that change would be needed if the Constitution and the nation was going to survive. That's why they added the amendment process to the document.....
El_Lobo appears to be experiencing cognitive dissonance when being confronted by a world view other than his own.
At least the seed of another world view have been sowed . . . and that world view has already germinated in the hearts and minds of millions who seek to progress this Nation, forward.
It is only natural and just for government to exist only to protect the natural rights of each and every person. No other legitimate reason exists for Government. Those who support unlimited government, are truly supporting the idea that they, through an absolute power of government, should have absolute power over you, your property and your children.
El_Lobo, I don't give my consent to be governed by you, or anyone like you.
You are not my keeper. You are not my master. I am not your slave.
The one concept that those on the right refuse to accept is the concept that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that has been changed over time and will be changed in the future....
They would have you believe that we should still have the same exact document that was agreed upon by the Founders...absolutely no changes, no admendments other than maybe the Bill of Rights!
If those on the extreme right had their way, woman would not be voting and the ownership of property would be a requirement for voting in all elections...
Some on the extreme right believe that the Emancipation Proclamation should never have been issued.....of course, no 13th, 14th or 15th amendments would have been added to the Constitution...
In the minds of many on the right, South Africa has the right idea when it comes to government, when it comes to society....
lemahj.....
I see no evidence on your part that you believe in any type of real progress or change. Progress to people like you, is merely walking backwards, embracing the past, and being fearful of the future...
I'm not for unlimited government, but at the same time, I'm not for a government that is run only for the benefit of the rich elite...
I don't want a government run by big business and big corporations.... I don't want the rich enjoying more power than the poor. I want a large and thriving middle class....I believe a democracy is the best form of government ever devised by man...
Its not perfect but then man is not perfect...
Unfortunately, government is a necessary evil. The role of government is always up for debate with people such as you actually believing that the government that we had in 1800 is the same exact government that we should have today....
That's total nonsense......that's silly!
I realize that the government that we had in 1800 would not work today simply because the country is many, many times larger than it was when Jefferson was walking the halls of the White House.
With that being said, yes government is too big! We need to limit the rate of growth and do a better job of governing with what we have, but a continued growth in population will see a continued growth in the size of government...
I would never wish to be your slave or your master...
I find it interesting that both parties have allowed government to grew in size and both parties have allowed more and more of the tax dollars to be spent on many things that we probably could do with out....
The war in Iraq comes quickly to mind....
Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know about this constitutional change in the selection process. Shame on me!
It WAS better in "olden times," as long as you had plenty of chickens.
Winston Churchill said it best....
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
"It is only natural and just for government to exist only to protect the natural rights of each and every person. No other legitimate reason exists for Government." lemahj
El_Lobo is wrong. lemajh must be on the left, not the right. He obviously supports the idea that the government has no business in defining who is allowed to marry whom, or interfering with what a women does with her own body.
The 17th Amendment should be repealed and the 100 senators should be appointed to office, much like the electoral college in each state appoints the US president and vice-president.
The original people who wrote the US Constitution knew something about human nature, and put in checks and balances for a Divinely inspired reason. The poor and common man will always be exploited by socialist radicals and "progressives" who are, in actuality, "regressives". The result of the exploitation are hinderances and obstacles to the class of people who make the system work: capitalists and conservatives.
StanG,
Not Left or Right . . .
Classic Liberal, I would say.
Or based on the following video clip a . . . Constitutional Moderate.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
It looks as Pierre has again fallen off of one of his cotton bales and landed on his head....
Poor, poor pitiful Pierre!
His statement saying that "the poor and common man will always be exploited by socialist radicals and "progressives" who are, in actuality, "regressives" is very funny!
Does Pierre actually believe that the Founding Fathers were guided by "Divinely inspired reason?"
Hmmmmm.....that's not exactly the route taken by Charles A. Beard in his all time best selling book, "Economic Interpretations of the Constitution."
Of course, what would a historian such as Beard know about the founding of this country?
Pierre, I'm sure, knows more.....Ha! Ha! Ha!
lemahj and Pierre....
Don't hold your breath waiting for the 17th Amendment to be repealed....it's not going to happen!
The amendment has been on the books for almost 100 years (1913) and has stood the test of time.....its ratification was a victory for the American people against big business and the power of the monopolistic railroads....
The only distinction between the Democrats and Republicans are they each desire only a slightly different blend of private sector and public sector activity in our economy. Quite frankly, the similarities between the two parties are stunning, as both support Big Government, and neither supports a limited Constitutional Government. To call the Democrats the Left and the Republicans the Right simply does not accurately represent the nature of politics in our country today. If we want to call Big Government the Left, then the Republicans and the Democrats are both to be found on the Left. As we leave the Left moving toward the Right, we more accurately find ourselves going to a limited government and when we get to the far right we find the impossible and unacceptable form of Government called anarchy. In summary, I think it is time to eliminate this Left -- Right distinction that is so common when we speak of the Democrat and Republican Party. The Tea Party movement's intent is to move us away from the mistake called a Democracy -- already truly an Oligarchy - and to move us back to the Rule of Law form of government called a Republic. The government we have today amounts to an unholy alliance of Big Business and Big Government where the Government runs a protection racket like the Mob . . . for its big business buddies. In the end, it is the people that are getting the short end of the stick and are getting stuck with the bill. Wall Street and the Auto bailouts represent nothing more than government theft of the taxpayer's money, where it is known plenty of that money will be funneled back into their political war chests. And to heap the big lie onto grievous injury our politicians tell us that it is all for our own good! Our politicians tell us that this bailout had to be done, because Big Business and Big Government are simply too big to fail. I think everyone knows what I think.
Now, exactly what do you think?
Wow! Wow! What a rant....
A guy who thinks we should revert back to the stone age! No surprise there!
Sorry, but there's very recognizable differences between the Democrats & the Republicans.
The Democrats are for people.......
The Republicans are for big business and rich people....
Both spend too much money, but at least with the Democrats, some of that money helps the middle & lower class...
Social Security, Medicare, federal aid to education, the GI Bill, the FDIC, the federal highway act, and unemployment insurance are all Democrat sponsored programs that have greatly help the average American.
Because of those programs, the current recession is only a recession and not a depression...Thank god!
How many seniors would be standing in a bread line today with out the benefits of Social Security & Medicare? Can we count that high?
The Middle Class in America must never forget that the Democrats have done much to help built the Middle Class....take away our Middle Class and we are no longer a democracy.....
Obama's economic recovery program is patterned after FDR's New Deal program, but the situation we find ourselves in is not nearly as bad as it was during the 1930's.....Thank god for that!
The economy is slowly getting better...
The stimulus is working!
Those on the right & especially those on the far right, don't want to hear that bit of information, but I would be surprised if they did...
You appear to be straight from the "Ron Paul School of Thought." Of course, an argument can be made that the Ron Paul followers actually do very little thinking.... A lot of talking but very little thinking!
They actually believe that all the problems that we face can be solved by using very simple solutions....
To most Ron Paul followers, everything is either black or white.
The teabaggers" are nothing more than confused (in most cases senior citizens..) frustrated tax payers who know little about government and want the government to get out of their lives....
At least they say that, but what they're really saying is that the government shouldn't touch their Social Security or their Medicare.
And under no circumstances should the government do anything about Americans who have no health care coverage. In other words, don't help anyone else but continue to help me!
This country is clearly divided and is going to stay divided.... Cable 24/7 news has not helped the situation....the reason being that cable news is pretty much on the extreme right or the extreme left.......not much in between.
Unfortunately, people believe what they see and hear!
"I know its true, I saw it on FOX NEWS." "It's true, MSNBC reported that very thing...."
El_Lobo
Truly, all those entitlements that you spoke of are bankrupting this country.
The world view you hold is flawed.
Your world view replaced the traditional authority and responsibility of the multi generational extended family unit and private sector community with Big Corrupt Government. A Big Government that by its nature was a one size fits all monstrosity that encouraged people to game the system. Guess what, the nuclear family experiment has failed and has put this country into the economic toilet.
So, be very proud of what you are defending as you are certainly one of those zealots that cannot see how your world view has truly damaged the economic future of generations to come.
What we have today is a battle of ideas . . . and personally, El_Lobo, I have not seen a cogent argument from your corner that measures up.
Your arguments thus far have been lacking.
Try again, if you please.
lemahj........
I'll say one thing about you & your buddies. You never give up the rant based on your unvalidated belief that Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke.
And by going broke, you believe they're going to take the country down with them as they fall....
Its simply not going to happen...that's nonsense and you know it but you will never admit it.
Your argument is so "lame" that I don't even argue against it any more. It's not worth my time or effort.
Both Social Security and Medicare will still be around long after both you and I are long gone....
I've heard all the silly arguments make by people like you and none of them hold water....
Social Security has been around for over 75 years and Medicare has been around for some 45+ years and guess what? Both are going strong.....
You're wasting your time trying to make an argument about the failure and demise of Social Security and Medicare.
Throw out another issue that you feel strongly about and I just might take the time to debate you......other wise, go away and talk with one of your Ron Paul buddies who has the same weird beliefs that you have....
Good day!
Yes, El_Lobo
No surprise here . . . just take your ball and leave.
Honestly, I didn't expect any rational argument from you.
You gave what I expected . . . I was not disappointed.
It was all you had, why should I expect anything more?
So very common are the progressives . . . so very vulgar.
I'll have a State appointed Senator with a side order of poll tax, a literacy test and a racial covenant for desert at the segregated lunch counter..oh and we reserve the right to serve anyone. pass the ax handles please.
Another bit of lunacy from the NutJobs.
Never in a million years.
Do you NutJobs hear me???
Not
Going
To
Happen.
Ever.
Dear God, where DO they come up with this stuff???
That Constitution...
Malleable as hell when the NutJobs want to finesse it.
Etched IN STONE AS IF FROM MOSES HIMSELF if they don't.
i think they need 2/3 of the states to overturn an amendment; am too busy to look it up but they did overturn prohibition, so do your own leg work. teabaggers are a unique group; not much time is needed to see these people are going nowhere.
First rule of good government: Whatever position the teabaggers take, do the exact opposite.
To address the point of the article, some of the corruption and influence might be reduced if candidates were not allowed to accept contributions from outside of the district they are running for. SCOTUS screwed the pooch with its recent ruling on corporate speech, so this idea would probably be shot down, but it is worth examining.
boftx There isn't any way to limit speech or campaign contributions..except with an educated electorate who researches the speaker of all speech..who recognizes bias and motive and who researches the candidates..voting for the one who represents the country and the voter's interest..not the candidate with the most ads, most endorsements, and biggest war chest.
An Educated Electorate ..is the key..and why we have public education..which is now..public indoctrination..
botfx
This article is a case in point. Who are the purported "tea party activist" who want to repeal this amendment?
Every day I see "tea party" this or that..but anyone can call themselves the "tea party" and endorse anything they want..
There isn't any tea party..It was officially dissolved at the time of Palin's rally at Searchlight..
All that is left is coat tails and claim jumpers..
El Lobo
Postcard from Hungary:
Economy has collapsed, send money..but not Euro's.
" We have the best congress that money can Buy "
Now with that said money doesn't buy one party and the other refuses it......The ones who Yell the loudest are the ones that want to be in on the action!
So who ever has the majority are the ones getting the lions share and the others want to take it away from the lion so they can be the same.
Special interest spend or give to those who can actually do something thats why the always spend with the ones in power regardless what party it is.
The parties fight for the special interest money not for you.
@lemahj YOU are so wrong, the Tea Party is pretty close to 100 percent republican. Theres been a party since 1971 that embodies all you said, its called Libertarian and after a long conversation with the head of the party he made sure I knew THEY were not republican, so if the tea party is as you say it, why are there no libertarians? why are all the candidates republican? You have been had....the tea party is just another republican tactic to overcome the majority's animosity with them, thats all. Its easy, put the fear of socialism and communism into the people and then create a constitutional hype. SUCKERS. The truth is, if half you people believed what you said, you'd drop the tea party BS and join the libertarians.
lectrocuda, you and I usually disagree, but what you just said is 100% correct. Few people have any idea what the Libertarian Party believes, let alone what libertarian philosophy is. (And for those who don't know, Ayn Rand is NOT a libertarian, she said so herself.)
There is no doubt that our elected representitives do not represent us once they are elected and this needs to be changed. Repealing the 17th Amendment and returning to the original method for selecting senators would be good in theory so far as the composition of government, but I fear it would do little if anything to improve the quality of our government.
It is impossible to eliminate greed. Instead, we must find a way to negate the effects of greed.
@boftx I think the real heart of the matter is so convoluted with this divisive rhetoric that most people dont even see it. Campaign Finance and Lobbying has built a major economic dependency in our government, exactly what the framers intended to eliminate.
Case in point. Republicans preach lower taxes and less government but 28 of the last 32 years has had either republican congress or a republican president and government along with spending has continued to grow. Am I saying they are liars? Absolutely not, Im saying the dependencies of campaign finance and lobbying has created an atmosphere where politicians need to worry more about their re election and their suupporters rather than the heart of the issues. Look at how screwed up healthcare reform became and not 1 republican voted for it.
Its crazy, while we debate social programs, taxes, immigration, war, allies we are missing the real reason. Add to that the power of the federal reserve and the IMF and our politicians are almost victimized by the dollar. Look up "Iceberg theory on campaign finance"
In my eyes we must eliminate campaign finance, eliminate lobbying, and eliminate any form of a central bank, and focus on building a currency that is not an instrument of debt.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
In this pamphlet you will see the Federal reserve uses banks to create money. That is unconstitutional, yet it happens daily. Where is the outcry? Where is the marches on DC? Where is the conservatives? Where are the liberals?
lectrocuda wrote:
"the Tea Party is pretty close to 100 percent republican. Theres been a party since 1971 that embodies all you said, its called Libertarian"
From my point of view . . . you have gotten part of the truth.
You see, there is a difference between what the typical Republican Party politician does once he/she is in office, and what lip service it gives the traditional Republican voter. The Barry Goldwater type Republican politicians are very rare, as are the Ron Paul types. What we have today are mostly RINO's . . .
With regards to the Libertarian Party . . . first recall that it was Ann Rand, and Objectivism that was the cause for the re-creation of the Libertarian Party. I know, because I was there, and because I did supported the cause. The Libertarian Party should have been known as the Liberal Party, but as the Progressive movement has already "stolen" the Liberal brand it adopted its present name. To this day, I still prefer to be thought of as a Classic Liberal.
Enough . . .
Many in the Libertairian, Constitutional and Moderate type Parties soon recognised that third party politics don't work well when putting people into office. So they took a page out of what the Christian Coalition gamebook and desided to change the Republican Party from within.
And the process is working, as we have seen in the past two election cycles. On both sides of the isle, the encumbents are being shown the door. And on the Repblican side of the isle the RINO's are getting slaughtered.
Hope you enjoyed this small snippet of current affairs.
lectrocuda wrote:
"In my eyes we must eliminate campaign finance, eliminate lobbying, and eliminate any form of a central bank, and focus on building a currency that is not an instrument of debt."
We can only hope . . . and work toward such a goal.
The only way you are going to achieve this goal, is to force government into being a Constitutional Limited Powers Government. Once that is done, the need to lobby the government for special priviliges goes away . . . as do the lobbists.
Problem with the ideas of getting away from the current fiat currency to let's say a gold standard, is that we don't have enough gold.
That said I find the concept of:
"building a currency that is not an instrument of debt."
Interesting . . .
I would like additional comments how that system could be made to work.
@lemahj you have shown your true cluelessness. I do believe I explained the reason for the Republican parties shortcomings in my last post.
I do believe that you agree with my statement that the "tea party" is another face of the "republican party" because you said nothing to refute it.
That being said, if the "republican party" is so out of touch with their actual philosophies, why identify yourself with it? Why not just be a "tea party" politician? Ahhhh I know why, manipulation, they believe that a 3rd party cant win, so, your saying, they use the republican party to get votes. hmmm thats not very honest, more of the same BS if you ask me. Where is the integrity in that?
lectrocuda wrote:
First, let's attempt to have a civil discussion.
"I do believe that you agree with my statement that the "tea party" is another face of the "republican party""
Yes, I do agree that the tea party is another face of the Repbulican Party, but it is also the face of the Conservative Democratic Party, the Constitutional Party and much of the Centrist and Moderate type voters. Being active in going to these events, as I have been, I have spoken to people of all political stripes. It is also important to understand this movement . . . as it truly is not a political party . . . but it is a movement that exists within each and every political party . . . including the Democratic one. Who do you think the Democratic Party voters align with on issues when they are activally throwing out the encumbents?
"That being said, if the "republican party" is so out of touch with their actual philosophies, why identify yourself with it?"
Because it the voters that are not out of touch, it is the politicians are out of touch with the American People, as they have been corrupted by the Politics and Big Business interests in Washington.
"It is impossible to eliminate greed. Instead, we must find a way to negate the effects of greed."
This is the most important thing that has been posted on this board.
All the parties involved are guilty. Throwing darts at whatever or whomever isn't going to resolve this.
I think you misuderstood me lemahj, if the "Tea Party" is truly about change, why even play the republican card? I completely disagree with your statement. I think alot of people are disillusioned as to the truth about the tea party. I think that collectively we all agree that we are no longer represented and we all are desperate to cling to some kind of hope because a true revolution seems almost impossible. The Democrats clinged to Obama and his promise of "Change" the Republicans, who cant deny the shortcomings of Bush/Cheney, they are clinging to the Tea Party. The truth is until we change the methods of operation, buisness will be as usual.
I for one do not see any of the real issues openly being discussed. Tax Law, Elimination of Campaign Finance, Elimination of Lobbying, End of the Central Bank, Corporate Greed. Instead I see one side trying to further their intrests and the other trying to further their intrests.
I agree, less taxes, less government. You cannot just flip a switch and kapow. You have to change the whole system.
Why is the tax code not written insuch a way to reward fiscal responsibility with less taxes?
Why is the tax code not written so that industries pay taxes for their own regulation and those that operate honestly and safely with the peoples best intrest first, rewarded with tax credits so that only those that choose to push the line pay for their own regulation?
Why is not the average family awarded tax credit for saving a percentage of their net income?
First sentence in any tax book will tell you that tax code is used as a stimulus for social behavior, yet all I hear being discussed is BS rhetoric by both sides, and the tea party is not exempt. I dont hear solutions. I hear make abortion illegal, not why do people live in situations where abortion becomes an option, and what are we as a society doing that contributes to that situation?
We all have to take responsibility because in order for some to have the good life, some must have it bad, according to our economic structure, and our socio economic policies are drafted so that some will either choose to be poor and milk the system or some will have no choice.
There is more to life than feeling more superior than everyone else.The human heart was made for compassion and understanding, the mind was made for logic and common sense. Look at the education system, I was never taught about buying a house, yet we hold the individuals responsible for the misleading greedy practices of the banks. Have you read the pamphlet "Money Mechanics"? I mean c'mon we are at odds with each other while the media plays divisive politics and we buy it hook line and sinker, every media outlet is out for their best intrests and to further their ambitions.
Harry! Hey Harry, Senator Reid.. Do you hear that clock ticking? Kinda like captain Hook in Peter Pan. That's right, the election day crocodile is coming towards you... Only 148 days till your retirement officially starts....Courtesy of the smart voters in Nevada!!!