General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Boehner Joins Hands with Pelosi to Defeat Conservatives
SS_N_NE:
One thing that needs to happen is further limit of political office. Too many incumbent politicians have too much power. It is obvious that these incumbents are puppets of other powers. There never was intention of providing for lifetime political careers. It would not eliminate the problem but definately remove some figure heads.
depserv:
When the Democrats select a House Speaker they select a hard core liberal bigot like Nancy Pelosi; when the Republicans select one they pick a more moderate liberal who pretends to be a loyal American. And even though relative opposition to illegal civilian disarmament has been good for the Republicans, they have not nominated a patriot on that issue for a long time. So I agree: not a lot of difference between the two parties.
This seems to be a natural course for politics to take: those who buy votes with stolen money will beat a loyal American every time. Or at least often enough that they end up in control. And a professional political class likes the idea of having as much power as it can get concentrated in its hands. Arms and wealth are both forms of power. And if you look at other forms of power you see the same dynamic. This is why it's the natural state of a government to grow, until it eventually crushes those it governs.
What we need is some kind of written law that limits what elected leaders can do, so that even the sleaziest of sleazeballs can't steal our money and disarm us. Oh wait a minute I forgot; we already have that: it's called the Constitution. Well ok then, what we need is for our elected leaders to obey the law. What we should have is some kind of government entity that has the power to enforce the law. Oh wait a minute, we have that too: it's called the Supreme Court.
So what's the problem? Here's my take on it: the Supreme Court members are appointed and approved by the same people whose laws they will be overseeing. This situation can't help but fail: it's like letting inmates appoint and approve their own guards. This was not so much of a problem under the original Constitution because the Senate, which has to approve of judges for the High Court, was appointed by the respective states rather than elected, so it was much less of a political body. This was changed in 1913 by the 17th Amendment. Given the idiocy of so much of the electorate and how easily voters can be bought, as well as manipulated by the big lie machine called the liberal press, I'd say an amendment repealing the 17th could do a lot of good. Or, amend the Constitution so that Supreme Court judges have to be approved by state governors or legislatures instead of the Senate; since states presumably want federal power limited, this might do some good.
GreyGeek:
--- Quote from: depserv on December 15, 2014, 12:04:05 PM ---This seems to be a natural course for politics to take: those who buy votes with stolen money will beat a loyal American every time. Or at least often enough that they end up in control.
--- End quote ---
Exactly. The Dems have a base of voters composed of government welfare recipients who vote to keep their benefits flowing. Adding 5 to 11 million illegal aliens to the mix will only insure the conversion of our government to Socialism. Thirty five states do NOT demand proof of citizenship before allowing someone to vote. For the remaining 15 states the "Dream Act" carries provisions which allow illegals to get a drivers license and a social security card. With those they can register to vote even though they are not even legal citizens.
The biggest SCAM right now is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. It used to be that when the non-profit social agencies, primarily Catholic, sponsored immigrants they had to guarantee their support for several years, until they could assimilate, learn the language and culture, and find a job. Otherwise, those non-profits had to pay to send them back to where they came from. Then, legislation was passed that allowed the sponsored immigrants to apply for SSI based on some claimed disability. To appose it labeled one as a heartless, greedy individual, usually a Republican.
Here is a report from 1995 which reviewed the history behind SSI payments and its abuse until then.
--- Quote ---SSI Is an Open-Ended Entitlement Program with Limitless Costs
At the heart of SSI lies an inexhaustible engine of growth: the open-ended impairment concept that allows people to file claims for an infinite variety of reasons. No condition is categorically excluded, even if it is self- inflicted, disputed by experts, or invented just yesterday. As if 22 million substance abusers were not a large enough pool of potential applicants, the open-ended impairment concept will allow claims to be made for all supposedly disabling conditions that become fashionable in the future. Obesity, compulsive gambling, and repressed memory phenomenon are just some of the possibilities for new claims on the horizon. There are currently 48 class-action lawsuits pending or threatened with respect to SSA's disability programs.
Particularly worrisome is that SSI has begun to resemble Medicaid--the fastest growing entitlement program. SSI has shown the same unanticipated growth, vulnerability to fraud, relentless advocacy, class-action lawsuits, cost shifting by the states, use of children as a wedge to expand the program (illegal immigrants -GG), and numerous expansions in eligibility criteria.
SSI Does Not Truly Differentiate between Those Who Can Work and Those Who Cannot
Disability has long been viewed with suspicion and skepticism. Officials in England, as far back as the 15th century, expressed concern that street beggars might be duping the public by pretending to be crippled or blind; manufacturing fake body sores; inflicting lacerations on themselves; or feigning epileptic seizures, dropsy, and leprosy. Fraud is a systemic problem with any public disability program no matter how well constituted.
The 1938 Advisory Council on Social Security stopped short of recommending a disability program, warning that "disability insurance would introduce many administrative problems of great difficulty, and . . . would necessitate intensive and sustained local investigation to prevent abuse."
Proponents of socialized disability programs found a way to overcome that skepticism. According to the 1948 Advisory Council, objective medical testing would sweep away all administrative difficulties and stand "as a safeguard against unjustified claims."(71) The medical model enabled proponents to sell the DI program in 1956 as well as the SSI program in 1972. A supposedly workable definition of "disability" had been found, and the problem of making disability programs politically acceptable was thereby solved through "objective" medical tests.
There is, however, no reliable way to separate the deserving from the undeserving, or to differentiate between those who can produce income and those who cannot. In the hearings on the 1956 legislation, one doctor asked, "Is the delivery boy who loses both legs totally and permanently disabled? Or is the certifying doctor supposed to point out that he can still run a drill press and probably make more money?"
SSI and DI use medical impairment as a substitute for disability, not because impairment is necessarily disabling but because impairment is supposed to be "objectively" determinable and therefore of unquestionable validity. The intellectual foundations of SSI have pretensions to scientific precision where no such precision exists.
There is no necessary connection between medical impairment and inability to work.
--- End quote ---
During the last 20 years 76 "means tested" programs have been used to validate SSI disability payments. "Means" testing is just a smoke screen now. The purpose is to flood Federal welfare system so that it sinks under its own weight, forcing a "righteous" switch to federal programs which control who works and where, how much they are paid, etc... Later on, it will force "rules" which will dictate where people can spend their money, how much they'll pay, and for what. Just think of the economies of the USSR and Iron Curtain counties. It's what the Liberals love because it puts them in complete control.
Oh, btw, SSI payments will soon swamp social security for the elderly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version