PDA

View Full Version : 545 people vs 300 million people



STANG RED
04-15-2010, 09:05 AM
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be - read it!!

The article below is completely neutral, ...not anti Republican or Democrat.

Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinal and 49 year journalist has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgements made that impact each one of us every day.

It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

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, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, 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 equates to 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? Nancy Pelosi. 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!

Vote the straight Anti-Incumbent ticked!!!

Emerson1
04-15-2010, 03:19 PM
I am doubting a lot of people don't know what fiscal and monetary policy are.

BleedOrange
04-15-2010, 04:36 PM
Interesting article written with some naiveity but I agree with a lot of it. I also think the correct number is 536. Supreme Court Justices shouldn't have anything to do with fiscal/monetary policy.

STANG RED
04-15-2010, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by BleedOrange
Interesting article written with some naiveity but I agree with a lot of it. I also think the correct number is 536. Supreme Court Justices shouldn't have anything to do with fiscal/monetary policy.

The article never says Supreme Court Justices have anything to do with fiscal/monetary policy.

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

BleedOrange
04-15-2010, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by STANG RED
The article never says Supreme Court Justices have anything to do with fiscal/monetary policy.

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

Not my point. How are they responsible for domestic problems? They are there to, in essence, keep Congress and the President in check to make sure they abide by the Constitution. I will say that at times I wonder what they are smoking on some of their rulings.

sinton66
04-15-2010, 06:39 PM
Last time I checked the nine Supreme Court Justices are considered to be THE final authority on any and everything. If they have the power to keep the President and Congress in check, why don't they do that? Obviously, they ARE part of the problem. Only problem with this piece is those Justices are appointed, not elected. No way to vote them out. So, in effect, the people have no control over the court. Although several have needed to be, when's the last time one was actually impeached?

Txbroadcaster
04-15-2010, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
Last time I checked the nine Supreme Court Justices are considered to be THE final authority on any and everything. If they have the power to keep the President and Congress in check, why don't they do that? Obviously, they ARE part of the problem. Only problem with this piece is those Justices are appointed, not elected. No way to vote them out. So, in effect, the people have no control over the court. Although several have needed to be, when's the last time one was actually impeached?

name a time when a Supreme Court Justice needed to be impeached

sinton66
04-15-2010, 06:58 PM
That's simply a matter of opinion and always an arguable point, so I'm not going there. The point is that's the only way to get rid of them. It takes an act of congress (from the very people who confirmed the Justice in the first place).

Txbroadcaster
04-15-2010, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
That's simply a matter of opinion and always an arguable point, so I'm not going there. The point is that's the only way to get rid of them. It takes an act of congress (from the very people who confirmed the Justice in the first place).

impeaching a Supreme Court is not a matter of opinion..you dont do it because you dont like their ruilings, it can only be done if they break the law..any other reason to even try would cross a very dangerous line.

sinton66
04-15-2010, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
impeaching a Supreme Court is not a matter of opinion..you dont do it because you dont like their ruilings, it can only be done if they break the law..any other reason to even try would cross a very dangerous line.

So what you're saying is it will NEVER happen. There is NO justification for impeachment they can't overule (since they are the final authority).

Txbroadcaster
04-15-2010, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
So what you're saying is it will NEVER happen. There is NO justification for impeachment they can't overule (since they are the final authority).

If a Supreme Court Justice gets caught committing a felony then he would be impeached..and dont think the others would rule JUST to protect the one accussed

Like them or not they hold the honor of the court abover reproach and would not dishonor it just to protect one of their own IMO

sinton66
04-15-2010, 07:42 PM
So you're saying MORALS and misdemeanor CRIMES don't count, just felonies?

Blastoderm55
04-15-2010, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
Last time I checked the nine Supreme Court Justices are considered to be THE final authority on any and everything. If they have the power to keep the President and Congress in check, why don't they do that? Obviously, they ARE part of the problem. Only problem with this piece is those Justices are appointed, not elected. No way to vote them out. So, in effect, the people have no control over the court. Although several have needed to be, when's the last time one was actually impeached?

They are indeed part of the problem because the politicians put judges in place to interpret the Constitution for their own interest. Consider the court's decision on free speech regarding corporations and campaign contributions. Life-time appointment has got to go.

Txbroadcaster
04-15-2010, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
So you're saying MORALS and misdemeanor CRIMES don't count, just felonies?

I was just making the point that if need be a Justice can be impeached and I dont think the other Justices would simply protect that one if they truly had done something that warranted impeachment

SintonFan
04-15-2010, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Blastoderm55
They are indeed part of the problem because the politicians put judges in place to interpret the Constitution for their own interest. Consider the court's decision on free speech regarding corporations and campaign contributions. Life-time appointment has got to go.

Corporations aren't the only source of evil. That is sooo "Avatar"...

Babies are born evil and have to be taught to be good.:nerd: :D

sinton66
04-15-2010, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I was just making the point that if need be a Justice can be impeached and I dont think the other Justices would simply protect that one if they truly had done something that warranted impeachment

And I was just making the point that Impeachment of a Supreme Court justice is a "pipe dream". It hasn't happened and never will because the people who would WANT to do it don't have the power to do so.

Txbroadcaster
04-15-2010, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
people who would WANT to do it don't have the power to do so.

Thank Goodness they dont

LE Dad
04-15-2010, 09:10 PM
The entire 545 are the entire problem. The checks and balances are unchecked and unbalanced. The States do not possess the power that the founding fathers intended for them to have. The Federal system was designed to keep the States united not run their affairs. That is why we are United and not Federal States. Unfortunately we are being controlled as Federal States at present.

sinton66
04-15-2010, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Thank Goodness they dont

You still don't understand. Even if a vast majority of the people wanted it, it still won't happen.

Txbroadcaster
04-15-2010, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by sinton66
You still don't understand. Even if a vast majority of the people wanted it, it still won't happen.

no I understand..and I am saying thank goodness it cannot happen...I dont want Surpeme Court Justice in a position to be removed on the whim of the people. You think partisan politcs is in play now make the Supreme Court a revolving door and they will basically just constantly rule/roll back issue after issue after issue. It will be a merry go round

you have to have stability somewhere in the Government and IMO that is the Supreme Court

sinfan75
04-15-2010, 09:59 PM
I thought we weren't supposed to talk politics on here.:stirpot: :1popcorn:

BEAST
04-15-2010, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by SintonFan
Corporations aren't the only source of evil. That is sooo "Avatar"...

Babies are born evil and have to be taught to be good.:nerd: :D

Corporations are no more evil than guns. It's the person behind them. In the control of the correct people, they are not only good but needed.




BEAST

sinton66
04-15-2010, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by sinfan75
I thought we weren't supposed to talk politics on here.:stirpot: :1popcorn:

This is anti-government, et al, and we're trying to discuss the article this man wrote.

sinton66
04-15-2010, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
no I understand..and I am saying thank goodness it cannot happen...I dont want Surpeme Court Justice in a position to be removed on the whim of the people. You think partisan politcs is in play now make the Supreme Court a revolving door and they will basically just constantly rule/roll back issue after issue after issue. It will be a merry go round

you have to have stability somewhere in the Government and IMO that is the Supreme Court

I have some faith in my fellow Americans to NOT do things on a "whimsy". Some of them maybe, but not a majority. This article is asking a very basic question. "Whose country is this?" Does it belong to the citizens or to their "representatives"?

WOS87
04-15-2010, 11:53 PM
I disagree... I think this is TOTALLY a political thread...

The guy who wrote this article is essentially disagreeing with the US Constitution. The 545 representatives are "representatives" of the 300 million people that voted them into office as set forth by our founding fathers in the Constitution. If you don't like it... vote someone else in. Trying to start a movement to vote ALL incumbents out of office is not going to fix anything... you'll have 545 new people trying to please the same 300 million people and there will again be several million that will not be happy.

Ugh!

:speech:

Keith7
04-16-2010, 01:20 AM
Neutral? :confused:

Charley Reese (born January 29, 1937) is a syndicated columnist known for his plainspoken manner and conservative views.

DDBooger
04-16-2010, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Keith7
Neutral? :confused:

Charley Reese (born January 29, 1937) is a syndicated columnist known for his plainspoken manner and conservative views.
That assures it being left on here, huh Keith? lol

Pick6
04-16-2010, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by DDBooger
That assures it being left on here, huh Keith? lol

Not only are you on the wrong side now you're keeping bad company...lol

DDBooger
04-16-2010, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Pick6
Not only are you on the wrong side now you're keeping bad company...lol LOL being told I'm wrong rather than proven by people as you all tells me I'd doing something right! ;)

Keith is hilarious, he yanks almost everyone's string here at will.

Pick6
04-16-2010, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by DDBooger


Keith, he yanks


:eek: