Well, we're going to dissagree on that one, so I'll let it go. However, I've been crunching some numbers and while I'm rounding, it seems that expanding the house to 10000 members would cost over 2.15 billion dollars a year in salaries and pensions alone. That doesn't include all the extra infrastructure that would need to be built to house those people, staff their offices, and the offices themselves. We'd also need a new capital.
I think I'm getting off the elevator here. I'm tired of my taxes going up and up year after year and all we have to show for it is never ending worldwide war and a surveillance state determined to tax every human activity for all it's worth. In fact, I think taxes are basically theft. I see one of your older posts you don't agree, but I wouldn't pay them if I wasn't afraid some thugs would show up at my house with guns to kidnap me and put me in a cage.
Thanks for your input. Because of your input I've added the following to my post about taxes:
Good government needs to spend money to operate and the House of Representatives is supposed to manage the budget. It doesn't do that properly because it was capped in 1929. (See my other post on that). Dealing with government costs have turned the merrygoround into a cyclone of spending, we need to get off and slow down but not close the circus down.
If we increase the house numbers we'll have to stop treating it like a full time job, lower the salaries and end the eternal post office benefits. It was never the intention of the founders to have full time masters in the house.
Yeah, well we've strayed a long way from the founders intention. It was never the founders intention that we would have a central bank. (with the exception of Madison and a few others) It was never the intention of the founders to be involved in foreign entanglements. It was never the intention of the founders to have such a huge tax burden. (they rebelled over a relatively minor luxury tax) And, it was never the intentions of the founders that the states should cede powers not specifically enunciated in the Constitution to the Federal Government, like regulating plants, waterways, having a standing army (DHS) and many more. (tenth amendment)
If we could somehow go back to strict Constitutionalism, I'll drop the pipe dream of anarchy in a heartbeat.
We will have to expand congress to get there because the special interests are too rich and powerful and can control each and every election as it is this is our only hope to take back control or become rich and lobby for the way we want it to be.
Well, I'm not advocating it but if you read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence...
We aren't just facing musket balls anymore. ;)
Musket balls were pretty nasty. Plus, with basically no battlefield medicine a shot to the big toe might kill you! I take your point, though.
To be fair, I was in the army for 15 years and I can't see our military using tanks and artillery on their own families and friends. If there was a coup, it would probably be more like the one that happened in Egypt.
Interesting you mention that. This just came out the other day: (We had a coup already by Johnson when Kennedy was assassinated then the rise of Kissenger empowered the MIC.). THe only way back is to empower the people via expanding the house to cut off their budget).
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/egypt-worse-indicator-2013-coup-170702072016494.html
Any government runs on spending tax money to operate it. The House is supposed to control the budget. They don't because the house was capped. It's a circle and we have to get off the merrygoround but that doesn't mean we close the circus... ijs.
I agree. That's why I'm an anarchist. I do however, support any initiatives that shrink government or move it into a direction closer to my own views. I don't need instant victory.
Personally, I think we'd be better off limiting terms to one, and going back to the framers idea of the state legislatures electing the senate.
Anyway, we're both dreaming here. None of this will happen in our lifetimes because the average American believes whatever the TV tells them to believe, and we know who runs the TV.
1 two year term and if he wins reelection then another 1 6year term. But no more than that. We need continuity and stability but not a full time job either. No more traveling to D.C. Either. It's all got to be goto meeting electronic voting. Since it's not a secret ballot security doesn't have to be as tight as secret ballot elections.
I'll take it. Make it happen, captain!
Resteem the post; call your congressman. Someone has to sponsor a bill to do it. Lol.