srellim234 wrote:Gerrymandering prevents the government from truly representing the majority. Allow the districts to fall where they may and you would find much different representation in this country. Here in California, where major attempts have been made to revise the gerrymandering process, the Republicans and Democrats managed to seize the power on the new "independent" redistricting commission before it ever made it to the ballot. Despite a majority of the electorate now declining to state a political party, the commission is comprised of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and only 4 declared "decline to state" or some other party. Those numbers were written into the law before it ever made it to the ballot.

Without the two parties controlling the gerrymandering process you would see a lot more independent and third party candidates running and winning because they would be in a fair fight.

Which is all why I've advocated for increasing the number of representatives in the House. Get us back to a representative-to-population ratio closer to what it was in 1912, the last time we had such an increase.

IBCoupe wrote:

srellim234 wrote:Gerrymandering prevents the government from truly representing the majority. Allow the districts to fall where they may and you would find much different representation in this country. Here in California, where major attempts have been made to revise the gerrymandering process, the Republicans and Democrats managed to seize the power on the new "independent" redistricting commission before it ever made it to the ballot. Despite a majority of the electorate now declining to state a political party, the commission is comprised of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and only 4 declared "decline to state" or some other party. Those numbers were written into the law before it ever made it to the ballot.

Without the two parties controlling the gerrymandering process you would see a lot more independent and third party candidates running and winning because they would be in a fair fight.

Which is all why I've advocated for increasing the number of representatives in the House. Get us back to a representative-to-population ratio closer to what it was in 1912, the last time we had such an increase.

Makes sense, in fact, why not re-evaluate the amount of representatives every 10 years based on census data?

[sarcasm]
Then also, maybe congress needs "partisan affirmative action", as in, requiring an equal amount of members from each party.
[/sarcasm]

IBCoupe wrote:Which is all why I've advocated for increasing the number of representatives in the House. Get us back to a representative-to-population ratio closer to what it was in 1912, the last time we had such an increase.

I like this idea. The population has grown by 216 million people (roughly) from 1910 to present. Yet the number of congressional seats has remained 435. So basically, as the population goes up you get less representation. People would balk at a number of 1457 representatives in the Congress, but why would that be such an abusive number of Congressional Delegates?

There would be no need to change the structure of the Senate, since the Senators represent the state legislatures and not the people of the state. Since we haven’t accepted any states since Hawaii, they would stay at 100.

But hey, this thread is about Herman Cain and not about reforming the Government. We can create a topic for reforming the Government and hash it all out. Pun intended Hash.

Cold_Zero wrote: There would be no need to change the structure of the Senate, since the Senators represent the state legislatures and not the people of the state.

Is that really the case now? You represent who votes for you, who votes for Senators again? Not state legislatures anymore.

And to IBCoupe
Obama, Harkin, Reid and Pelosi's HCERA act did nothing to help foster competition in student lending. It wiped it ALL out completely. Then again, what do you get from a party that embraces socialism (not using this as a polemic term), exactly that.. the Government running Student Lending in this country. Effectively, except for 4 private companies that service the DOE's portfolio, all private lenders have gotten out of student lending.

I hope everyone sleeps better at night that this country is now responsible for originating 100% of principal (origination) of all student loans in this country instead of 2 basis points. As well as 100% responsible for the guarantee of all student loans (this is much less of an issue as it has been this way since the 1960's). And we have to pay to have all these loans serviced at the TIVAS.

So effectively, we are racking up more National Debt to fund Direct Lending, so that student loans can be made.
Why? Because the Dems had to have some way to fund the blasted bill. So much for discussing the merits of FFELP on its own and operating a 'transparent' administration. You guys can talk all day long about how great O’bummer is, but I know of 3600 jobs (personally) he has killed with his Heatlh Care Reform Act.

stebo0728 wrote:

Cold_Zero wrote: There would be no need to change the structure of the Senate, since the Senators represent the state legislatures and not the people of the state.

Is that really the case now? You represent who votes for you, who votes for Senators again? Not state legislatures anymore.

If the individual states relinquish control of selecting the Senators, then so be it. But the system was setup for the Senators to represent the State Legislatures. Which is, obviously, a representation of the people in your state.

The Seventeenth Amendment, Bud, means that at least 3/4ths of the States decided for everybody that the Senators, while still apportioned by State (rather than by population) are to be elected by popular vote.

Stebo's still a bit butt-hurt about it.

And, Bud, I don't know that the HCERA intended to foster competition, but I do know that backing student loans is not what's hurting us: one number I saw, pre-HCERA, was $85 billion/year. In the 2008 budget, we were pre-TARP, pre-Stimulus, and we spent $90 billion on student financial aid support: $15 billion in Pell Grants, and $73 billion in student loan guarantees and direct loans, which, like all student debt, can never be escaped except by death (and even then, I'm pretty sure they'll still go after you), by guarantee of federal law. So that $73 billion? We're getting it back.

But, if we say that roughly 10% never gets paid back (probably extremely generous), then we can throw $7 billion on top of the $15 billion in grants. So, the government loses $22 billion on student financial aid assistance. And in 2008, that would have been a whole 0.75% of the federal budget.

You're crazy, confused, and/or dishonest to suggest that student loans are what's "racking up" our national debt.

Issac,
My point was that HCERA did not foster competition in Student Lending, it eliminated it. I apologize if that was not clear as at the time as I was fighting a migraine. I grew up in an age where my teachers taught us (students) that the Government’s job was to help foster competition or economic activity where a certain need, needed to be met. And you are right the guarantee (backing) of student loans not the Origination is not what is hurting us, that has been going on since 1965. But I think my point really goes to that fact that FFELP has existed since 1965, to help students with their post secondary educations. The Federal Government eliminated the program and effectively (through the Direct Lending) took over student lending, not because the program or the market was broken. If that were the case, we could blame the democrats for it because of their bill the College Afford-ability and Accessibility Act 2006? and the yearly Reauthorization which all took place under a Democratically controlled Congress (prior to the Bill). No, student lending was taken over by the government because it had to be used to fund Obama Care. But what really pisses me off about the whole thing, is that the student lending piece was attached to the Reconciliation Bill and it was never debated on its own merits. So much for O'Bummer's claim that his administration would be 'transparent', to put an end to back door dealing and to sign a bill 5 days after it is passed so that everyone has a chance to read it.
Trying to expand this to a bigger scale. Hypothetically, would you be ok with the Federal Government taking over all oil production and distribution in this country to pay for (say) a green energy program? Especially when they would turn around and grant ExxonMobil, BP and Dutch Royal Shell the exclusive contracts to administrate the distribution? Effectively, driving out of the market all medium to small gas stations and oil producers? Well that is what happened in Student Lending. Only the ‘Big Guys’ survived because they could weather the storm and pay for the startup costs to service the Governments portfolio (the RFP). I would love to see the CBA after this is all said and done.

Obviously, I was not implying that all our National Debt woes have been or will be incurred by this take over. But I think your post speaks volumes to the bigger problem. When we throw around billions of dollars in discretionary funding like it 'aint no thing'. This is why the TEA Party is so popular because we have all become 'comfortably numb' to these numbers and the past spending spree of our government from 2000 to present. When we are arguing over trillion dollar programs, the billions just dont seem as significant. That is what is appalling to me. Especially, as I pointed out, there was no clear and present danger (reason) to take over said industry. No, it was used to fund a pet project for the President, in hopes to secure his re-election. I'm sorry, the guy is in constant campaign mode and it really bothers me. (But this is not a debate about Obama, but Herman Cain so sorry to hijack it).

Bud, I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously when you write "O'Bummer." If you must make a pun in your rants, at least be humorous about it. Try this instead: "President" Balrog Hussein Sombrero Fartbongo. That's the meme Fark users came up with for people like you.

And healthcare reform was Obama's pet project? It was a central campaign issue and has been a major political issue from Richard Nixon to Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton to Mitt Romney to Michael Moore. You're being silly. Stop it.

I can't claim credit for the term. It is a Savage term to be honest. I lifted it from him, but it somehow encapsulates how I feel towards our president, let down. If you don’t find it funny, so be it. It is certainly not the worse polemic term lodged against our President.
And if you want to dismiss me for 'being silly' so be it. I feel really let down by my government (specifically Senator Evan Bayh) on how this bill was passed and signed into law. It was more important for Bayh to tow the party line instead of looking out for his State’s needs (jobs) and work to amend the Bill to remove the student loan legislation. He didn’t even seek re-election because of his vote and Dan Coates won his seat back for the Republicans, in the next election. The only personal assurance I got from the man was that Arne Duncan would be looking out for jobs in Indiana. Representative Carson is a stooge of the Democrat party and wouldnt even return my letter or phone calls. I have written the guy off and every campaign cycle I give money to his opponents. Previously, I have only once ever given money to a political candidate.
I would not debate that Health Insurance Reform was needed, even though I dont think Health Care Reform was ever touched with this piece of legislation, which is the bigger issue in some people's eyes. I still maintain that eliminating FFELP should have been done and debated on its own merits. Not snuck in by Tom Harkin.
With President Obama winning the election, I thought we were going to begin a new era where we could ‘trust our government again.’ Apparently, nothing has changed and worse, the Executive branch is operating as it if is ‘Amateur Hour.’ Which is kind of ironic as the Internationalist President Obama really isn’t working out for him domestically or internationally. I expect he will need fall back on, again the cult of personality bit to recover.

Im not 'butt-hurt' by the 17th Amendment, I see it as a mistake. It seems, and correct me if Im wrong, that you dont perceive a difference in constituency between the people of a state and the state legislature. As to say that both are the same. This is not correct, and thats my point, one has been disenfranchised by the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment came about after some states failed to appoint Senators for a period of a few years. For some reason it became common thought that this was bad for the people, so they passed the 17th Amendment. But a lack of Senators does not harm the people of a state, at least not directly. The people have their voice in the House of Congress. If a state fails to appoint senators, its at the loss of the state legislatures, they will fail to have a voice that term, and they should live with that, not have their voice permanently removed. If you cant distinguish the difference between the people of a state's concerns, and the state government's concerns, then I just cant help you and there's no point arguing this further. But if you can, and then you feel that everything is just peachy now that the state government's concerns no longer matter on the federal level, then we have deeper problems.

Stebo, I recognize the difference, but I also recognize the problem the 17th solved, too. Honestly, there've been more than 10,000 constitutional amendments proposed and that we've had less than 30 ratified should tell you something.

Getting 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, the President, and 3/4 of State Legislatures to all agree to a thing is not an easy task, and maybe, just maybe, you should really think about why they're doing a thing.

Once again (and I'm going to explain this every time you bring up this issue), the problem with the initial framing of the election of Senators was this: the Elected officials became more beholden to the personal interests of a majority of their State legislators than they did the interests of the State or the State Legislature. We made it a popular vote because it's harder to buy the votes of 51% of the voters in a State than it is to buy the votes of 51% of the legislators in a State.

If you've got an alternate proposal as to how to address that issue, go ahead and offer it. Until then, you're sounding an awful lot like Winston Churchill's criticism of democracy: "the worst form of government, except for all the others."

There was a Jeopardy question last week that asked when the longest period our country went without an amendment to the US Constitution.

Bud, I won't presume to debate your personal dissatisfaction. I don't know nearly enough about your local politics to comment on them, and your expectations of President Obama are what you made them to be, and you have a right to them. The only things I can debate are the comments and claims about things external to your own thoughts.

And I'm not prepared to delve into the legislation, either, and I'm not going to s*** you. I am, however, going to take advantage of an easy opportunity to play out the instincts left over from my past life as a sheep-dog: what, exactly, gives you the impression that this administration is "Amateur Hour?" The White House has been showing great political skill at home and abroad (refusing to be at the forefront of the Libya action, making Ryan show his crappy hand first, etc.), and so that seems to me to be a peculiar criticism.

Cold_Zero wrote:There was a Jeopardy question last week that asked when the longest period our country went without an amendment to the US Constitution.

Heard about that yesterday afternoon. 61 years between the 12th and 13th, though I wouldn't have had enough time to think about it on the show.

I would have preferred not getting involved at all in Libya. I would have rather seen our priorities shift to remove ousted President Gbagbo in Cote d'Ivoire, or easing the suffering of the population in the Congo. No, we got involved in an insurrection, by justifying that it would ease the population’s suffering and bombed Libyan forces. This was either done as a vendetta against Gaddafi (due to our rich history with the man) or because it is an oil producer for our friends in Europe. Take your pick.
We sit out our hands with the uprisings in Syria and Bahrain, but meddle in Libya. I just don’t understand it. You know how we have a truth in lending law. We need a truth in military intervention law. We as a country need to put on the table the actual cost (last I saw $608 million for out part in bombing Libya) and the actual time it will take to keep troops committed in the theater. We still have World War II, Cold War, Global War on Terror and Korean Conflict commitments going on, we don’t need another commitment.

I don't think we did much of the bombing of Libyan forces. Pretty sure it was the toad-suckers.

In the first part of the bombing campaign, we performed SEAD, AAW and went after Command and Control targets. It is what we (as a Military) do very well. Once this was done, our forces took a lesser role in Support for Air operations.

I wouldnt make fun of the French military. Their Air Force and the Marine Nationale are very good at what they do and are very well equipped.

Oh, I know. I'm not picking on the French military as much as I'm picking on the French in general.

IBCoupe wrote: Loathe as I am to side with Telco, Greg, your claims here are a bit specious.

Let the bumper stickers fight to the death. You'll just get sticky stuff on you, and you'll still end up backing (no pun intended) the wrong retard.

Cold_Zero wrote:I would have preferred not getting involved at all in Libya. I would have rather seen our priorities shift to remove ousted President Gbagbo in Cote d'Ivoire, or easing the suffering of the population in the Congo. No, we got involved in an insurrection, by justifying that it would ease the population’s suffering and bombed Libyan forces. This was either done as a vendetta against Gaddafi (due to our rich history with the man) or because it is an oil producer for our friends in Europe. Take your pick.

Outstanding! Pretty much the point I made in one of my other threads.

Thanks!

Cold_Zero wrote:We sit out our hands with the uprisings in Syria and Bahrain, but meddle in Libya. I just don’t understand it. You know how we have a truth in lending law. We need a truth in military intervention law. We as a country need to put on the table the actual cost (last I saw $608 million for out part in bombing Libya) and the actual time it will take to keep troops committed in the theater. We still have World War II, Cold War, Global War on Terror and Korean Conflict commitments going on, we don’t need another commitment.

More good points!

Z

Happy Memorial Day to all those in the armed forces. that is, except you dirty muslims, because Herman Cain doesn't believe you really love this country enough to defend the Constitution.

heliochrome85 wrote:Happy Memorial Day to all those in the armed forces. that is, except you dirty muslims, because Herman Cain doesn't believe you really love this country enough to defend the Constitution.

stebo0728 wrote:

heliochrome85 wrote:Happy Memorial Day to all those in the armed forces. that is, except you dirty muslims, because Herman Cain doesn't believe you really love this country enough to defend the Constitution.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65 ... r_embedded[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgD74d44 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

stebo0728 wrote:

you are right, it is a bit of a reach to make that argument isnt it.

No, just tired of rehashing it repeatedly. If its the only arrow in your quiver, I understand you might pull it out a bit more frequently, but still, we've dealt with it here, and I'm moving on. Further references will be met, at least by me, with subsequent facepalms.

We've dealt with it? I know we discussed it, Stebo, but it seems like, in response to Tariq calling him a racist and me calling him a moron, you sort of said "whatever," and went back to lovin him.

He's a nobody candidate. If he gets the nomination (he won't), he'll lose the election. I will personally go out and hold up signs against him. For people paying attention to him and weren't already lusting after his crotch, this is the one issue that defines him.

I understand, Stebo, that you shouldn't be put in a position to defend Cain's despicable and idiotic statements/beliefs, but he's not really making an effort to do it either, and as last we could tell, you were still carrying his banner.

You and T have both made your angst on the issue quite clear. I've aknowledged it, decided that I somewhat disagree with your assessment and that it doesnt change my endorsement. I dont have a problem with it bothering you, and I especially understand T's offense to it, and dont blame him for it. If you feel necessary to keep drilling on it, that means theres no other real opposition, and thats fine. Otherwise lets find some other reasons why he might not measure up.

I also disagree that he's a nobody candidate. He has 33% name recognition, true that's a bit low, but growing daily, but of that 33%, 24% of them support him. If he doesnt make it, I wont be devastated, I'll shift my support to the next best candidate that's in the running, but time will tell how this plays out.