545 vs 300,000,000

[pescatore]

Apathy is obviously the problem. It's proven here. only 185 persons viewed the post. 9 responded. those 9 quite probably,were the only ones to read the entire article.

[Cane Pole]

Ima just suffering from a little progressive supranuclear palsy.

[reelcrappie]

I read every word posted and I am not apathetic. I'll make my statement at the polls.

[Shellback]

It sounds like a simple solution to throw all the bums out, but in reality, they are elected to represent the will of the people. One persons will might be more interested in free health care for America. Another persons will might be more interested in a strong defense for our country. Both require lots of money, and that means lots of taxes. When you look at the political maps where states are divide by blue and red according to their voting, and even more so when divided by county, you can see how diverse America is.
Personally I think the federal govt is too involved in issues that should be state regulated. What's good for California isn't necessarily good for Nebraska. What's good for a person living in an inner city isn't necessarily good for a person in a rural area. It seems now the will of the people in more densely populated urban areas are over riding the will of folks in suburban or rural areas. The will of folks that believe in getting ahead by hard work and savings are being overridden by the folks that think our govt should take care of them. We each have our ideas on who is right or who is wrong. If we bring govt back to more local levels people will have more say it how they want to live. Another point in more govt at local levels, is the ability to have more watchful eyes on how your govt spends your money. You can probably go to your local govt and get a good idea on where your tax dollars actually go, but I doubt anybody has a clue where our federal tax dollars go.

[Cane Pole]

If we had all beginners in congress, things would be worse than it is at present with the "beginners" in the White House. It is apparent that they don't know what they are doing.

[pescatore]

It sounds like a simple solution to throw all the bums out, but in reality, they are elected to represent the will of the people. One persons will might be more interested in free health care for America. Another persons will might be more interested in a strong defense for our country. Both require lots of money, and that means lots of taxes. When you look at the political maps where states are divide by blue and red according to their voting, and even more so when divided by county, you can see how diverse America is.
Personally I think the federal govt is too involved in issues that should be state regulated. What's good for California isn't necessarily good for Nebraska. What's good for a person living in an inner city isn't necessarily good for a person in a rural area. It seems now the will of the people in more densely populated urban areas are over riding the will of folks in suburban or rural areas. The will of folks that believe in getting ahead by hard work and savings are being overridden by the folks that think our govt should take care of them. We each have our ideas on who is right or who is wrong. If we bring govt back to more local levels people will have more say it how they want to live. Another point in more govt at local levels, is the ability to have more watchful eyes on how your govt spends your money. You can probably go to your local govt and get a good idea on where your tax dollars actually go, but I doubt anybody has a clue where our federal tax dollars go.

Very well said, Thank You Sir.
Pescatore

[Downwind]

Solution to some of the problems would be to set term limits.

[hnd]

until votes are cast for the good of the people and not self preservation, congress will continue to be in gridlock for the foreseeable future.

also, until the people of this great country get the "its not our guy" mentality out of their heads, true change will never happen.

2 little facts. october 2008, congress's approval rating was 15%. elections were held. 75% of incumbents were REELECTED!!! my theory was that it was a "congress is crap but its not my guy thats the problem"

a few weeks back people were asked 2 questions :

do you approve of the direction congress is heading?

do you approve of your congressman and their votes?

the 1st question? 30% approval rating

the 2nd question? 55% approval rating.

everyone though congress was dungbutter but over half were pretty sure it wasn't because of their guy

D.U.M.B.

[hnd]

Solution to some of the problems would be to set term limits.

who would make that decision? the executive and judicial branch? or do the legislative branch get a say?