Why the American People must disband Congress

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
Given that the massive health care reform bill just passed by the House was one of the largest pieces of legislation in U.S. history, you might wonder why you didn't get to vote on it. When it comes to federal legislation, your vote doesn't count in America, didn't you know? You are dictated to by a small band of the political elite who may or may not represent your interests (or even the interests of your fellow citizens).

Those people are called members of Congress. And as you'll read here, they are essentially obsolete. Society no longer has any need for them. Here's why...



Why Congress was created
Consider why the U.S. Congress was created in the first place: Back in the 1700s, there was no internet. There weren't even telephones. Heck, this was pre-telegraph! Long-distance communication was simply impossible, so the people had a very practical need to send a representative to Washington to represent their wishes on the legislative front.

And so the idea of the U.S. Congress was born. Senators and Congresspeople would be representatives of the People from their home states and districts, and they would vote according to the wishes, desires and best interests of the people back home. They would essentially be proxy voters. Sounds good in theory, right?

Fast forward 230 years or so...

Now, instant communication is available to almost everyone. A new law being proposed in Washington could be instantly read -- and voted on -- by the People all across America. The internet has made the whole purpose behind the U.S. Congress obsolete... irrelevant. Why do Americans need someone else to represent them when we can all just read and vote on the bills ourselves? In an age of instant communications, Congress is no longer needed.

But of course, the current members of Congress would heartily disagree with that assessment. If there's one rule about power, it's that those in power always seek more power. And because only members of Congress can vote federal laws into existence -- not the actual citizens of the country -- they hold a tremendous amount of concentrated power... and they're not about to let it go.

Corporations love the current system, too, because they can simply bypass the People and lobby Congress to pass the laws that favor their own interests. This is how the U.S. Congress has become a legislative auction house where new laws are passed to appease whoever raises more money for reelection campaigns. Meanwhile, the People have been abandoned in this equation, and the interests of the People that were supposed to be "represented" in Washington have been long forgotten.

Did you realize that 237 members of Congress are millionaires? (http://www.politico.com/news/storie...) And seven of them have a net worth greater than $100 million. When lawmakers are rolling in that kind of cash, how can they possibly represent the interests of the People, of which 99% earn far less?

Further demonstrating detachment from the people they claim to represent, one new Congressman -- just sworn in yesterday -- managed to break four campaign promises in his first hour of office (http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/inde...).


It's time for Direct Democracy
In a Direct Democracy, the People directly participate in the debate and passage of new laws. All laws are publicly published for debate and discussion -- unlike the current situation where 1,000-page laws like the Patriot Act or the new health care reform bill are covertly written, then often deposited in the federal register just minutes before a scheduled vote.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027439_Congress_democracy_America.html
 

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
NaturalNews) Given that the massive health care reform bill just passed by the House was one of the largest pieces of legislation in U.S. history, you might wonder why you didn't get to vote on it. When it comes to federal legislation, your vote doesn't count in America, didn't you know? You are dictated to by a small band of the political elite who may or may not represent your interests (or even the interests of your fellow citizens).

Those people are called members of Congress. And as you'll read here, they are essentially obsolete. Society no longer has any need for them. Here's why...



Why Congress was created
Consider why the U.S. Congress was created in the first place: Back in the 1700s, there was no internet. There weren't even telephones. Heck, this was pre-telegraph! Long-distance communication was simply impossible, so the people had a very practical need to send a representative to Washington to represent their wishes on the legislative front.

And so the idea of the U.S. Congress was born. Senators and Congresspeople would be representatives of the People from their home states and districts, and they would vote according to the wishes, desires and best interests of the people back home. They would essentially be proxy voters. Sounds good in theory, right?

Fast forward 230 years or so...

Now, instant communication is available to almost everyone. A new law being proposed in Washington could be instantly read -- and voted on -- by the People all across America. The internet has made the whole purpose behind the U.S. Congress obsolete... irrelevant. Why do Americans need someone else to represent them when we can all just read and vote on the bills ourselves? In an age of instant communications, Congress is no longer needed.

But of course, the current members of Congress would heartily disagree with that assessment. If there's one rule about power, it's that those in power always seek more power. And because only members of Congress can vote federal laws into existence -- not the actual citizens of the country -- they hold a tremendous amount of concentrated power... and they're not about to let it go.

Corporations love the current system, too, because they can simply bypass the People and lobby Congress to pass the laws that favor their own interests. This is how the U.S. Congress has become a legislative auction house where new laws are passed to appease whoever raises more money for reelection campaigns. Meanwhile, the People have been abandoned in this equation, and the interests of the People that were supposed to be "represented" in Washington have been long forgotten.

Did you realize that 237 members of Congress are millionaires? (http://www.politico.com/news/storie...) And seven of them have a net worth greater than $100 million. When lawmakers are rolling in that kind of cash, how can they possibly represent the interests of the People, of which 99% earn far less?

http://www.naturalnews.com/027439_Congress_democracy_America.html
 

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
Report: 237 millionaires in Congress

Talk about bad timing.


As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.


Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.


CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.


All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.


“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”


The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.


Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.


But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.


Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.


Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.


He’s hardly the worst off.


Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), freshman Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) each a net worth of less than zero, CRP says.


One caveat on those numbers: Federal financial disclosure laws don’t require members to list the value of their personal residences. That information could alter the net worth picture for many lawmakers.


Even so, Levinthal said, “It is clear that some members are struggling financially.


“Over a calendar year, one’s wealth can change drastically. Many peoples’ investments took a nose dive over night in the last year,” he said.


A number of lawmakers are estimated to have suffered double-digit percentage lossed in their net worth from 2007 to 2008. The biggest losers include Kerry, who lost a whopping $127.4 million; Warner lost about $28.1 million; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lost about $11.8 million; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost about $10.1 million.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html

THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE BACK THE GOVERNEMENT!!!!
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
This is bullshit and the last thing Black folks, a numberical minority, need to subscribe to is anything resembling a "majority rules" type of situation. Ask the gays in California why they can't get married anymore.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
This is bullshit and the last thing Black folks, a numberical minority, need to subscribe to is anything resembling a "majority rules" type of situation. Ask the gays in California why they can't get married anymore.

Ask yourself this, is the internet majority rules?

It is a completely open, anarchic, contributory environment.

Yet, the internet seems to work (certainly a lot better than Congress).
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Ask yourself this, is the internet majority rules?

It is a completely open, anarchic, contributory environment.

Yet, the internet seems to work (certainly a lot better than Congress).

Hmmm. Didn't know the internet has been used to elect members of congress.

QueEx
 

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
We the people really dont know the power we possess once we awake from this un-consiousness we can take back the country. Knowledge is Power!!!!
Congress, Corporations, and the Courts...

the people don't stand a chance.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Hmmm. Didn't know the internet has been used to elect members of congress.

QueEx

Isn't this thread about disbanding Congress?

What is their purpose?

Our opinions can be recorded on the internet, so why not use it in running the government?

In fact, why have a capital? Why have a Washington DC and all these bureaucrats and lawyers chewing up scarce resources?

This can't possibly be the only or best way to run this country.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Congress can be removed pretty easily. It like another poster said knowledge is power, a different consiousness, a different society. The question is what would you replace it with? The elites have done a great job of limiting peoples options or consiousness. It's either black or white, dem or rep, capitalism or socialism etc. Gotta give them credit they did a hellava job. In order to change things we need a different philosophy.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Isn't this thread about disbanding Congress?

What is their purpose?

Our opinions can be recorded on the internet, so why not use it in running the government?

In fact, why have a capital? Why have a Washington DC and all these bureaucrats and lawyers chewing up scarce resources?

This can't possibly be the only or best way to run this country.
I know I'm about to step waaaaaay out of bounds, but, WTH, I'm doing it.
Sometimes you really show the breadth of what I believe is a really good education punctuated by an exceptional brain. And then there are times that make me think, its such a waste. This is one of the latter. On the other hand, maybe the former is really what I'm witnessing, in the form of an idle mind toying with ideas of anarchy when constructive creativity, isn't enough.​

QueEx
 

rNubb

Rising Star
Registered
As already stated, what will be the replace form of government? If you eliminate the law making branch of our present government,then the current government will cease to function.

The check and balance will no longer be applicable.

This nation is not a democracy, was never a democracy and was never meant to become a democracy. It has always been a representative form of government. Congress was actually created to be populated by informed stewards of a political district to protect and serve the interests of land owners and business community. It was not created to serve all the people.

The framers didn't want a mob-rule form of government.

If you want an internet or public law making system, then who will propose the laws to be voted on?

Most of the federal focus and funds will be diverted to places like NYC, LA, Chicago and Houston. The folks in New Mexico and Wyoming will be 2nd class citizens. Less than desirable group will be targeted for abuse. I can't see how you could craft a public law making system that will be any better than the current law making body.
 
Last edited:

Cruise

Star
Registered
I know I'm about to step waaaaaay out of bounds, but, WTH, I'm doing it.
Sometimes you really show the breadth of what I believe is a really good education punctuated by an exceptional brain. And then there are times that make me think, its such a waste. This is one of the latter. On the other hand, maybe the former is really what I'm witnessing, in the form of an idle mind toying with ideas of anarchy when constructive creativity, isn't enough.​

QueEx

This is nothing extraordinary.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...” - Thomas Jefferson

If enough people feel the current system is insufficient, it's time for a new one. The people who wrote the Constitution knew this (it was their 2nd attempt, the Bill of Rights was their 3rd attempt).

I belive the current government impedes life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it's time for a new one.

This government is old and creaky and out-of-touch. It is still trying to operate like it's the 19th century.

As Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq have shown, it is not about centralized power and standing armies. That died with the Korean War.

This is a new day of decentralization. Capital cities with central governments and an assembled Congress is the old-way of thinking.

It's time to step out of the past and into the present.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
As already stated, what will be the replace form of government? If you eliminate the law making branch of our present government,then the current government will cease to function.

The check and balance will no longer be applicable.

This nation is not a democracy, was never a democracy and was never meant to become a democracy. It has always been a representative form of government. Congress was actually created to be populated by informed stewards of a political district to protect and serve the interests of land owners and business community. It was not created to serve all the people.

The framers didn't want a mob-rule form of government.

If you want an internet or public law making system, then who will propose the laws to be voted on?

Most of the federal focus and funds will be diverted to places like NYC, LA, Chicago and Houston. The folks in New Mexico and Wyoming will be 2nd class citizens. Less than desirable group will be targeted for abuse. I can't see how you could craft a public law making system that will be any better than the current law making body.

There you go. But it sounds good to certain people because they know it will never happen.

The internet? Check the Comment section on Yahoo! or YouTube. See how much traffic is generated by stupid topics about whether Jay-Z is gay on the Main Board than by anything on this one. This is how the lives and livliehoods of almost 400 million people, plus our relationship with the rest of the world, would be decided.

If people really want to take back their government, they can do that by voting. Not just every four years for President, but every year in your local elections, your state elections and your national elections. That includes primaries. When citizens vote, they take the power from corporate lobbyists by making their elected officials accountable.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
There you go. But it sounds good to certain people because they know it will never happen.

Never say never. :D

The internet? Check the Comment section on Yahoo! or YouTube. See how much traffic is generated by stupid topics about whether Jay-Z is gay on the Main Board than by anything on this one. This is how the lives and livliehoods of almost 400 million people, plus our relationship with the rest of the world, would be decided.

Well, you just explained how it would work. The people who care would make the decisions and the rest would be fixated on Rihanna or fantasy football or dancing with the stars.

In my system, those who care get access, rather than artifically restricting it with a Congress or Legislature or what have you. Anyone who wants to make a difference is able, without the unnecessary barriers in place due to an outdated Constitution and outmoded political process.

If people really want to take back their government, they can do that by voting. Not just every four years for President, but every year in your local elections, your state elections and your national elections. That includes primaries. When citizens vote, they take the power from corporate lobbyists by making their elected officials accountable.

Well, we see how well that's worked (wars, fraud, corruption, waste).
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Well, we see how well that's worked (wars, fraud, corruption, waste).

It works fine when people participate. There's no need to recreate the wheel, just use it to it's fullest. These same corporations need low voter turnout to continue to have their undue influence. The same way people turned out last November, they should have turned out this November.

I take that back. They should have turned out for the primaries, so they could get the candidates they wanted.

And what makes you think these things you pointed to would magically disappear with another system in place. Who would oversee "the internet" when votes were placed? What checks and balances would be in place?
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
It works fine when people participate. There's no need to recreate the wheel, just use it to it's fullest. These same corporations need low voter turnout to continue to have their undue influence. The same way people turned out last November, they should have turned out this November.

I take that back. They should have turned out for the primaries, so they could get the candidates they wanted.

Are you saying there are checks in place now?

A check on what?
Unlimited Federal government power?
Unlimited corporate power?
Unlimited Presidential power?
Unlimited Congressional power?

The people have the power and all they do is just grab more and more of it. Nothing is checking them.

The only real check is on the courts. If the courts do something no one likes, Congress changes the law or the President ignores it. The people are dominated by multiple masters (corporations, Congress, the President), rather than it being the other way around. All this power flows from one place, Washington DC.

First, you need to get rid of the Federal government.
Then, you need to establish a strong court system with a truly independent jury. You get rid of the Federal courts but keep state/local courts. You get rid of the Constitution, and in my opinion, keep the Bill of Rights.

From there, people can build a charter for the country through the internet. Each city, county, and state can send representatives to a conference (in a different city, no established capital) to decide on matters affecting the nation.

There are a lot of ways this could work but the first step is getting rid of the Federal government and the concept of a President.

And what makes you think these things you pointed to would magically disappear with another system in place. Who would oversee "the internet" when votes were placed? What checks and balances would be in place?

There would be no secret law-making process on the internet.

The internet would be monitored by anyone interested. They could report their findings to the local court, if something were wrong, by way of lawsuit.

Power needs a base. You destroy the base, you destroy the power. The power base is in Washington DC. You get rid of it, the power will come back to the people.

I'm not saying physically destroy the city. My point is the institutions (Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House, the Fed, the IMF need to be disbanded).
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Wealth Gap Between Congress and Average Americans Widens

Wealth Gap Between Congress and Average Americans Widens
By Bernice Napach | Daily Ticker – 2 hours 17 minutes ago

According to a new report in The Washington Post, the median net worth of the current Congress rose 5% during the recession while it fell 39% for the average American. The wealthiest one-third of lawmakers saw their net worth rise 14%.

The Washington Post disclosed these statistics in a recent story on the wealth gap between Congressional members and the American public.

"These are supposed to be our representatives," says The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task. "If they're not living the same lives or understanding the lives that the average American is living, how can they really represent our interests?"

The Post analyzed the financial disclosure forms and public records for all Congressional members from 2004 to 2010. Some key findings of the report are:

  • By 2010, the median estimated wealth for members of the House of Representatives was $746,000; for senators it was $2.6 million.
  • There was virtually no difference between the wealth of Republicans and Democrats in 2010. Just six years earlier, the net worth of Republicans was 44% higher than the net worth of Democrats.
  • 28% of Congress, or 150 members, reported earning more income from outside jobs and investments than from their Congressional salary of $174,000.
  • 27% of Congressional members saw a decline in their net worth between 2004 and 2010.

Lawmakers acquired their wealth in a variety of ways but real estate, institutional funds and the wealth of their spouses were the top three sources.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi increased her wealth by an estimated $60 million between 2004 and 2010. The gains primarily came from the commercial real estate holdings of her husband, according to The Post. Representative Darrell Issa made his reported $448 million in commercial real estate as well as other financial investments.

"We have this huge disparity that's only getting worse in terms of inequality in this country," says The Daily Ticker's Henry Blodget. "If it continues, the country will begin to break apart and get more and more antagonistic class warfare. It's something we have got to solve not only in Congress but in the American public at large."

Is Congress pursuing policies that benefit middle and lower income Americans? The Washington Post found that 73 lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that could benefit businesses or industries that involved those Congressional members or their families.

"It's just outrageous that our legislators could be profiting directly from the legislation that they're making," says Aaron Task.

Top 10 Wealthiest Members of Congress (by household assets, 2010) according to The Washington Post:

  • Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) $448.1M
  • Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) $380.4M
  • Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) $231.7M
  • Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) $143.2M
  • Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) $136.2M
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) $101.1M
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. VA) $99.1M
  • Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) $85.6M
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) $73.2M
  • Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) $69.0M

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...een-congress-average-americans-164000800.html
 
Top