Who owns your Congressman (or woman)?

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I find this entertaining. I have no idea how accurate it is. But it's an interesting breakdown and further evidence just how badly this country needs a reset button. Sorry it's too big to post here, you have to check out the link for the infographic.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/infographic-who-owns-your-congressman

[Thondalar]

Wait wait wait...are you trying to tell me that both Republicans AND Democrats are possibly influenced by having reelection campaigns funded by corporations and special interests?

I don't really see this being an issue at all...I mean, it's not like our elected congresspersons are able to stay in office for 20 or 30 years.

...

[Jeril]

Wait wait wait...are you trying to tell me that both Republicans AND Democrats are possibly influenced by having reelection campaigns funded by corporations and special interests?

I don't really see this being an issue at all...I mean, it's not like our elected congresspersons are able to stay in office for 20 or 30 years.

...

It is funny that you think turn over rate is an issue in regards to buying people like that, not like there is anything that would stop them from buying people even with term limits.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

It is funny that you think turn over rate is an issue in regards to buying people like that, not like there is anything that would stop them from buying people even with term limits.

Right. We're doomed.

6374

[Wrathbringer]

It is funny that you think turn over rate is an issue in regards to buying people like that, not like there is anything that would stop them from buying people even with term limits.

Exactly. The only way to fight this other than lawless rebellion is for the people to start contributing to third parties and stop contributing to the r's and d's. As you can see here, the r's and d's don't need our money.

[waywardgs]

Publically funded campaigns, no donations. Everyone out of the pool, party's over.

[Latrinsorm]

This strikes me as lazy research. Take John Boehner - show me how he is disproportionately in favor of bills for the retired, securities and investments, or oil and gas. This isn't even a correlation vs. causation thing, as it stands this doesn't even rise to the level of correlation.

When I get paid by my boss, that doesn't require me to agree with his politics, let alone actively pursue them.

[waywardgs]

This strikes me as lazy research. Take John Boehner - show me how he is disproportionately in favor of bills for the retired, securities and investments, or oil and gas. This isn't even a correlation vs. causation thing, as it stands this doesn't even rise to the level of correlation.

When I get paid by my boss, that doesn't require me to agree with his politics, let alone actively pursue them.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/000/681/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg

[Thondalar]

It is funny that you think turn over rate is an issue in regards to buying people like that, not like there is anything that would stop them from buying people even with term limits.

It couldn't hurt. Perhaps we would have a higher chance of getting in some people of principle every now and then.

If they knew that at some point they couldn't get reelected regardless of the money, perhaps more of them would do what's best for the Country instead of what's best for their reelection.

[waywardgs]

It couldn't hurt. Perhaps we would have a higher chance of getting in some people of principle every now and then.

If they knew that at some point they couldn't get reelected regardless of the money, perhaps more of them would do what's best for the Country instead of what's best for their reelection.

Perhaps, but it takes time to do some things. I'm not sure term limits are necessarily the biggest problem. 2/4/8 years isn't a heck of a lot of time to move a giant ship like the US of A.

[Thondalar]

Perhaps, but it takes time to do some things. I'm not sure term limits are necessarily the biggest problem. 2/4/8 years isn't a heck of a lot of time to move a giant ship like the US of A.

Which gets to the other problem.

Make it a smaller ship, it'll be a lot easier to move.

[Jeril]

Which gets to the other problem.

Make it a smaller ship, it'll be a lot easier to move.

It isn't so much the size of the ship but we've got too many chiefs and too much damn red tape in the way.

[Archigeek]

Publically funded campaigns, no donations. Everyone out of the pool, party's over.

Because incumbents would never give themselves an unfair advantage, just because they were the ones deciding how the funding was going to be handed out would they? Kind of like they wouldn't control the nature of debates to the exclusion of third party candidates...

[Thondalar]

It isn't so much the size of the ship but we've got too many chiefs and too much damn red tape in the way.

That's pretty much the analogy I was making. The ship is the red tape.

Our government is a gigantic refuse barge floating down the Hudson. We have so many rules and regulations that not even the lawmakers know what the laws are.

[Jarvan]

That's pretty much the analogy I was making. The ship is the red tape.

Our government is a gigantic refuse barge floating down the Hudson. We have so many rules and regulations that not even the lawmakers know what the laws are.

Well, as we have seen, they don't read the laws. Most of the time, they don't even have much to do with the law. Except for their little carve out or pork.

[Thondalar]

Well, as we have seen, they don't read the laws. Most of the time, they don't even have much to do with the law. Except for their little carve out or pork.

Ah, yes, like Nancy Pelosi so eloquently stated about the ACA...."we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."

Nancy Pelosi has been in office since 1987. You'd think she'd be able to read a bill.

[Jarvan]

Ah, yes, like Nancy Pelosi so eloquently stated about the ACA...."we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."

Nancy Pelosi has been in office since 1987. You'd think she'd be able to read a bill.

That's what staff is for.

First the staff reads the bill for them (after having written it most of the time) Then their respective parties tell them how to vote.

Pelosi to her staff - "What is this bill about again?"

Boehner to the RNC - "How are we voting on this again?"

[Wrathbringer]

Ah, yes, like Nancy Pelosi so eloquently stated about the ACA...."we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."

Nancy Pelosi has been in office since 1987. You'd think she'd be able to read a bill.

Nah, she's a CA liberal. I'd be surprised if she can read at all. What a ditz. But hey, that's a plus when you're liberal.

[Ker_Thwap]

I stopped reading when I noticed they varied the graph heights to fit them into the space allowed. That makes me twitchy.