Congressional Loyalties

Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

Where should Congressional loyalties lie?
National Interests	4 (30.8%)
Local Interests	1 (7.7%)
Both/Between	8 (61.5%)
Total Votes: 13

Congressional Loyalties
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 12 2006, 11:04 AM (266 Views)
cmoehle	Feb 12 2006, 11:04 AM Post #1
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	In The Senate's Dr. No, George Will, discussing "Congress' code of comity -- mutual respect for everyone's parochial interests", says: Quote: Coburn is an obstetrician, not a political philosopher, so he may not realize he is acting on the precepts Edmund Burke explained to the Bristol voters who elected him to Parliament in 1774. Burke said: Parliament is not an assemblage of ``ambassadors from different and hostile interests''; its business is the national interest, not ``local purposes'' or ``local prejudices.'' Where should Congressional loyalties lie?
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Stoney	Feb 12 2006, 11:46 AM Post #2
Huntsville, AL Posts: 2,771 Group: Members Member #216 Joined: October 22, 2005	Coburn for President!
	The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau


cascade	Feb 12 2006, 12:05 PM Post #3
Lloyd...Michie,Tennesse Posts: 351 Group: Members Member #45 Joined: July 12, 2004	Tom Coburn seems to be a rare bird, and the voters who put him there, even more rare. How does one garner votes, if your not spending someone else money?
	"[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." --John Adams


cmoehle	Feb 12 2006, 12:26 PM Post #4
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	While I admire his principles, even read his book, don't forget that image of him doing the crossword during the Robert's hearing before sobbing about partisanship.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Stoney	Feb 12 2006, 11:06 PM Post #5
Huntsville, AL Posts: 2,771 Group: Members Member #216 Joined: October 22, 2005	It seems that we want them to bring home the bacon.
	The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau


cmoehle	Feb 13 2006, 06:04 AM Post #6
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Even though I posted this, I'm still stuck for an answer. It's not as simple as it seems. The House is linked more to the people by apportionment and vote, the Senate, at least initially to the states. They are representatives of those people and states. Their powers mainly concern the United States, the nation. Pork seems wrong.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Stoney	Feb 13 2006, 05:42 PM Post #7
Huntsville, AL Posts: 2,771 Group: Members Member #216 Joined: October 22, 2005	Quote: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Ammendment X I'll use the above as a reference. When this topic appeared, I immediately coined a new term; State Welfare. But I don't think that would be fair. Those �Senior� congressmen will get most of the spoils. The money that finds it's way into pork would be better collected by the state in the first place. There it would have less chance of ending up a bridge to nowhere and wouldn't have as much overhead getting to the state. If congress was not able to send money to the states for purposes other than those delineated in the Constitution, then they wouldn't be as able to use our tax money to buy votes and waste our money. I really think that if the federal government left most of what it dose to the individual states, that government in general would be less costly and the services we expect would be of higher quality.
	The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau


cmoehle	Feb 13 2006, 05:59 PM Post #8
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	On that I agree. Originally, the emphasis was on States, now it's on United.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


brewster	Feb 13 2006, 06:03 PM Post #9
Winemaker Extraordinaire Posts: 3,467 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: June 21, 2004	Quote: I really think that if the federal government left most of what it dose to the individual states, that government in general would be less costly and the services we expect would be of higher quality. Why should that be so? Logic would dictate that the less money you waste on administrative overhead, the better, so a National approach should normally be superior... BTW, I have much the same feeling as you, so I'm not disagreeing, I just cannot think of a good reason why it should be so...
	My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta


Stoney	Feb 13 2006, 06:20 PM Post #10
Huntsville, AL Posts: 2,771 Group: Members Member #216 Joined: October 22, 2005	Bruce, I think for one thing large numbers make us numb. We don't respect the dollars at the federal level. It's almost like they weren't ours. Of course pay roll deductions add to that. If we had to write checks... I don't think the administrative costs would be as much. The states now mirror the feds on most if not all agencies. And the other thing is the way the feds budget money. States might do it the same way. But fed budgets are based on SPLY (Same Period Last Year). So those savy administrators make sure they spend every dollar they get, rather they need to or not.
	The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau


cmoehle	Feb 13 2006, 06:24 PM Post #11
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Why so? Simply because individuals are better able to make decisions for themselves as part of a free and competitive market, than big slow centalized collectives. The closer choices are to the people the better. States are closer to the people.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


brewster	Feb 13 2006, 07:46 PM Post #12
Winemaker Extraordinaire Posts: 3,467 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: June 21, 2004	Are there larger numbers of Lobbyists at the Federal level in the US? In Canada, lobbyists are almost non-existant at the provincial level, while in abundance Federally. I've always thought that lack of pressure leads to better government...
	My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta


cmoehle	Feb 13 2006, 07:49 PM Post #13
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	I think it depends on the laws. Tobacco laws were (still are?) adjudicated at the state level thus all the law suit there.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Stoney	Feb 13 2006, 07:55 PM Post #14
Huntsville, AL Posts: 2,771 Group: Members Member #216 Joined: October 22, 2005	That's a good point Bruce. Can you image trying to buy all of the state legislatures plus the feds? They might even go bankrupt.
	The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau


brewster	Feb 13 2006, 08:09 PM Post #15
Winemaker Extraordinaire Posts: 3,467 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: June 21, 2004	This was written about the US Government, but applies equally in Canada... Quote: If you want to understand your government, don't begin by reading the Constitution. (It conveys precious little of the flavor of today's statecraft.) Instead, read selected portions of the Washington telephone directory containing listings for all the organizations with titles beginning with the word National. George Will
	My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2