ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Senator's Vote With Money

In order to reduce political deadlock, how about assigning each Senator or representative with not only a vote but each voter would have control of an equal share of the budget money for a season? One votes with one's money, so a bill passes as much as money gets voted into it.

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Financial Bible Quiz
 ---willie_c: on 2/28/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

Mark E, I saw the special on tv concerning how the corporations like Golden Sachs and other stole all that money, every bank and institution was in ca-hoots together. until they had it all. They showed film where Obama and a special group decided, all by themselves, to give money to this corporations, all of Mirrill Lynch executives received 1 million each, right befor they were bought off by BofA, and the members involve with Obama were former presidents of Golden Sachs, now working for the goverment. All this news came out and I know millions saw the special, and what has really happen to those people? Nothing. They are all covering up for each other. What can a small person like us do? Not much. We can vote but sin seems to always prevail.
---Mark_V. on 3/4/13

And of course, YOU are never a special interest, are you, Mark?
---Cluny on 3/2/13

No. I am a citizen of the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I wonder if Lincoln would have voted to save the "too big to fall" corporations?

I call corporate bailout special interest.
---Mark_Eaton on 3/4/13

Willie, it doesn't matter what action is taken, sin will never go away. We can have more people involve and we have more sin. Have less people we still have sin but fewer means they have more power. We all have many ideas, but what is in place is very hard to replace. I remember a representive once said if elect he would do this and that. When he went out he said he tried to do so many things, but the system in place did not allow him. If he did not play the game, no one would vote for what he wanted. Sometimes a little is given, but some other method will be found to make up for what was given. Always a sinful action, but this happens everywhere.
---Mark_V. on 3/2/13

\\Do you think the House would be more efficient if it had more members?
---Cluny on 3/1/13

I believe if the House and Senate was closer to me it would be more effective for me, and less effective for special interests. \\

And of course, YOU are never a special interest, are you, Mark?

Glory to jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/2/13

Mark Eaton, I think people didn't want the UN monitoring our elections because that makes it appear as though we answer to the U.N., which is unconstitutional. The United States are sovereign. We are not supposed to answer to any outside government, including the U.N. I agree with you about the corporations and labor unions buying the elections. People ought to be more outraged over that. That's the kind of corruption that has ruined our government.
---Jed on 3/1/13

Never going to happen.
---Jed on 3/1/13

You are probably right.

Its funny, many people were outraged by the UN wanting to monitor our last presidential election. I do not understand why. Why are we insulted about the UN merely observing and not insulted about corporations and labor unions influencing our candidates?

Goldman-Sachs gave 6 mil in 2012, how much will that return for them and how much will it cost to the rest of us?
---Mark_Eaton on 3/1/13

Mark Eaton, you are right, that is exactly what needs to happen. The very idea of lobbyists in congress and congressmen getting paid by companies and special interest groups is nothing short of total corruption. Unfortunately, that will never happen because the people who would vote on such an amendment are the ones who would be hurt by it. A senator or representative would be shooting themselves in the foot to pass legislation that prevents them from receiving money in exchange for favors. That would be the equivalent of a welfare recipient voting for a president who wants to reign in welfare spending. Never going to happen.
---Jed on 3/1/13

Do you think the House would be more efficient if it had more members?
---Cluny on 3/1/13

I believe if the House and Senate was closer to me it would be more effective for me, and less effective for special interests.

I believe we need to do two things. First, we need to amend the Constitution and declare that Corporations are not citizens and have no place in our elections. Therefore, they cannot contribute to elected officials.

Second, we need to remove all special interests from our politics. Therefore, we need to remove all lobyists from the House and Senate.
---Mark_Eaton on 3/1/13

I don't really see a problem with the number of senators and representatives. But I do agree they are too far removed from the people they supposedly represent. They are paid by special interest groups and get monetary "kick-backs" and rewards from huge companies and lobbyists in exchange for passing legislation that benefits these companies and special interest groups. They make millions on the side for voting the way they are told to vote. They use our tax dollars to fund the start up of new companies like Solyndra and then those companies reward them with a chunk of that tax payer money. It's corruption at it's finest. This happens on both sides of the isle so I'm not blaming either party for this. All of them do it.
---Jed on 3/1/13

Mark Eaton, the U. S. Constitution ALSO gives to congress the right to determine the size of the House of Representatives.

The "one for every thirty thousand" was when we were getting started.

Do you think the House would be more efficient if it had more members?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/1/13

I believe the issue is our elected officials are too far removed from their elected constituents.

The size of the US House of Representatives should not "exceed one for every thirty thousand". Our population is now 314 million.

By my calculation, if we use thirty thousand per Representative, the US House should be over ten thousand, not 435.

Too much power and too far away.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/28/13

I like it. So if I was big into "topic A" I could put a significant portion of my money (money term changed into tokens) into a yea or nay vote. It would definitely be harder to hide behind the party line and your passionate cause would be clearer.
problem-Whether 100 votes or 100,000 tokens it is still a limited resource. The majority party would spend the least amount of tokens to pass a bill. the minority party would be obsolete because it could not put forth enough tokens ever to pass a bill. The majority party would then have complete domination of the government when essentially the country is about 50/50. Deadlock is not a bad thing and it tempers the extremes in both parties to reach a compromise.
---Scott1 on 2/28/13

That would be incredibly complicated. And how long is "a season" in your plan here? You did not specify.

And according to the Constitution, revenue raising bills are supposed to originate in the House.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/28/13

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.