 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Got a constituent survey from my (didn't vote for him) US congressmen in
the snail mail yesterday. Damn right I filled it out ... went to slip it
into the return envelope and damned if it didn't require return postage.
Holy crap ... yet another way for me to have to pay for my opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2017 8:59 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> Got a constituent survey from my (didn't vote for him) US congressmen in
> the snail mail yesterday. Damn right I filled it out ... went to slip it
> into the return envelope and damned if it didn't require return postage.
> Holy crap ... yet another way for me to have to pay for my opinion.
But it ticks the box: Did you ask. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2017 5:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 1/14/2017 8:59 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> Got a constituent survey from my (didn't vote for him) US congressmen in
>> the snail mail yesterday. Damn right I filled it out ... went to slip it
>> into the return envelope and damned if it didn't require return postage.
>> Holy crap ... yet another way for me to have to pay for my opinion.
>
> But it ticks the box: Did you ask. ;)
>
well i answered all the questions as a loyal member of the opposition
should. it seems that they are bent on privatizing veterans care and
well health care in general. funny how the questionnaire didn't include
one of the biggest wastes ... the postal service. great idea when it was
pony express because no one else had the will or means. for years the
postal service has been operating at a multi-billion per year deficit. i
say privatize it and plow the savings back into health care concerns.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanks net> wrote:
> funny how the questionnaire didn't include
> one of the biggest wastes ... the postal service. great idea when it was
> pony express because no one else had the will or means. for years the
> postal service has been operating at a multi-billion per year deficit. i
> say privatize it and plow the savings back into health care concerns.
That's because Congressional Republicans have legislated that the USPS fund
retirement 75 years in advance. In other words, they are required to pay for
employees who won't even be *born* for another 10 years! If the Republicans
find some aspect of government that actually works, they'll find some way to
break it so they can "prove" that government doesn't work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2017 11:35 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
>> funny how the questionnaire didn't include
>> one of the biggest wastes ... the postal service. great idea when it was
>> pony express because no one else had the will or means. for years the
>> postal service has been operating at a multi-billion per year deficit. i
>> say privatize it and plow the savings back into health care concerns.
>
> That's because Congressional Republicans have legislated that the USPS fund
> retirement 75 years in advance. In other words, they are required to pay for
> employees who won't even be *born* for another 10 years! If the Republicans
> find some aspect of government that actually works, they'll find some way to
> break it so they can "prove" that government doesn't work.
>
>
And then, of course, announce a government solution to the problem,
which involves selling everything to corporations, like they are trying
to do with national parks. Just to be clear - these people also tend to
have vastly poor imaginations too, which is why, when there was a drop
off of camping, and the like in said parks, their solution was not to
find a way to draw people in (or rather a new way, that didn't involve
adhering to the same incentives of the great out doors, etc., which
where already being rejected), they cut funding. Then, when that
resulted in less places open, and fewer seasonal visitors (which are
hard to have, when you can't bloody stay open), they cut it more, etc.
Now.. "We can't keep spending money on this, so we should sell it off!"
Yeah.. even when they don't intend to break shit, they break it, out of
sheer incompetence.
Sadly.. that last word has also become the middle name for Democrats,
so.. they haven't either had the ability, or.. to be clear, the guts, to
try anything unexpected either.
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Yeah.. even when they don't intend to break shit, they break it, out of
> sheer incompetence.
>
> Sadly.. that last word has also become the middle name for Democrats,
> so.. they haven't either had the ability, or.. to be clear, the guts, to
> try anything unexpected either.
I say guts. The Democrats have been that way since I've been old enough to
vote.
It seems to me that, at least at the national level, the difference between the
Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans relish our system of
legalized bribery (i.e., privately financed campaigns), and the Democrats merely
put up with it because they can't (or won't) look beyond it.
Fortunately, at the state level, there exist politicians in both parties who are
taking action to ditch this system. Five states have formally called for a new
constitutional convention. (If you're unaware of this activity, it might be
because those who might otherwise report it just happen to be the recipients of
the ad revenue from all those private campaign finances.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/16/2017 1:44 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Yeah.. even when they don't intend to break shit, they break it, out of
>> sheer incompetence.
>>
>> Sadly.. that last word has also become the middle name for Democrats,
>> so.. they haven't either had the ability, or.. to be clear, the guts, to
>> try anything unexpected either.
>
> I say guts. The Democrats have been that way since I've been old enough to
> vote.
>
No, I would say ability too. Why? Because its a really bad idea to
conflate "liberal ideas" with "Democrat ideas". The Democrats... don't
always have any that are any more sensible than the right.
> Fortunately, at the state level, there exist politicians in both parties who are
> taking action to ditch this system. Five states have formally called for a new
> constitutional convention. (If you're unaware of this activity, it might be
> because those who might otherwise report it just happen to be the recipients of
> the ad revenue from all those private campaign finances.)
>
True, and there is hope in that, but.. its going to be the public that
push for this, not the politicians. The question is.. will Trump, and
the current bunch of halfwits in the government going to be enough to
wake up the public. Because, without them voting in more people that
agree with the idea of a rethink of a lot of policy.. its not happening.
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-01-17 08:45 AM (-4), Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/16/2017 1:44 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> Fortunately, at the state level, there exist politicians in both
>> parties who are
>> taking action to ditch this system. Five states have formally called
>> for a new
>> constitutional convention. (If you're unaware of this activity, it
>> might be
>> because those who might otherwise report it just happen to be the
>> recipients of
>> the ad revenue from all those private campaign finances.)
>>
> True, and there is hope in that, but.. its going to be the public that
> push for this, not the politicians. [...]
True. It wasn't of the politicians' initiative to call for a
constitutional convention; it was grassroots activists calling them up
and saying, "Y'know, we've got a better idea for you than spending all
your waking hours (while not in session) on the phone groveling for money."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/17/2017 4:16 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-01-17 08:45 AM (-4), Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/16/2017 1:44 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> Fortunately, at the state level, there exist politicians in both
>>> parties who are
>>> taking action to ditch this system. Five states have formally called
>>> for a new
>>> constitutional convention. (If you're unaware of this activity, it
>>> might be
>>> because those who might otherwise report it just happen to be the
>>> recipients of
>>> the ad revenue from all those private campaign finances.)
>>>
>> True, and there is hope in that, but.. its going to be the public that
>> push for this, not the politicians. [...]
>
> True. It wasn't of the politicians' initiative to call for a
> constitutional convention; it was grassroots activists calling them up
> and saying, "Y'know, we've got a better idea for you than spending all
> your waking hours (while not in session) on the phone groveling for money."
>
Republicans' actions make sense if you keep in mind that they are acting
*for themselves* (ethnically, for the most part) and not their
neighbors; and Democrats--including Obama--have this bad habit of
assuming their opponents are acting in good faith, when in fact this is
not the case.
Also, liberals simply have less power in the US--despite winning the
popular vote in several recent elections--so they spend a lot of time
spinning their wheels and not getting any real traction behind their
initiatives. They have become a perpetual lame duck party.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/18/2017 10:47 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/17/2017 4:16 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> On 2017-01-17 08:45 AM (-4), Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2017 1:44 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>> Fortunately, at the state level, there exist politicians in both
>>>> parties who are
>>>> taking action to ditch this system. Five states have formally called
>>>> for a new
>>>> constitutional convention. (If you're unaware of this activity, it
>>>> might be
>>>> because those who might otherwise report it just happen to be the
>>>> recipients of
>>>> the ad revenue from all those private campaign finances.)
>>>>
>>> True, and there is hope in that, but.. its going to be the public that
>>> push for this, not the politicians. [...]
>>
>> True. It wasn't of the politicians' initiative to call for a
>> constitutional convention; it was grassroots activists calling them up
>> and saying, "Y'know, we've got a better idea for you than spending all
>> your waking hours (while not in session) on the phone groveling for
>> money."
>>
>
> Republicans' actions make sense if you keep in mind that they are acting
> *for themselves* (ethnically, for the most part) and not their
> neighbors; and Democrats--including Obama--have this bad habit of
> assuming their opponents are acting in good faith, when in fact this is
> not the case.
>
> Also, liberals simply have less power in the US--despite winning the
> popular vote in several recent elections--so they spend a lot of time
> spinning their wheels and not getting any real traction behind their
> initiatives. They have become a perpetual lame duck party.
>
> Mike
I mean, passing the ACA seems real impressive until you factor in that
it's just going to get repealed in the next election cycle.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
