Abolish the Senate

Abolish the U.S. Senate?

  • For

    Votes: 21 38.2%
  • Against

    Votes: 34 61.8%

  • Total voters
    55

Elta

我不会把这种
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,590
Location
North Vegas
Someone in another thread mentioned that *some Liberals support abolishing the U.S. Senate, which is news to me, but a good idea depending on how it's implemented in my opinion.


*It was implied that this was more or less equal to the number of conservatives who support repeal of the 17th Amendment.


Tell me what you think about this subject and if it is not stated in your location tab, state if you are American or not.
 
No, very bad idea.
The Senate is needed both to counterbalence the House and the Executive and Judicial Branches. Abolishing it would destroy the system of checks and balences and weaken the separation of powers. Very, very bad idea.

American.
 
WASHINGTON—In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year.

According to officials, the decision to cut the national legislative body was reached during a budget review meeting on Tuesday. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the cost of financing U.S. senators far outweighed the benefits they provided.

"Now more than ever, we must eliminate needless spending wherever possible," President Obama said at a press conference Wednesday. "When we sat down to go over our annual budget, we asked ourselves, where can we safely trim back? What programs can we do away with without negatively impacting the American people? Which bloated and ineffective institutions can we no longer justify having around?"

"The answer was obvious," Obama added. "The U.S. Senate just needed to go."

Established in 1789 as a means of overseeing the passage of bills into law, the once-promising senator program has reportedly failed to contribute to the governing of the nation in any significant way since 1964. Last year alone, approximately $450 billion was funneled into the legislative chamber, an amount deemed fiscally unsound considering how few citizens actually benefit in any way from its existence.

In fact, the program has gone unchecked for so long that many in Washington are now unable to recall what purpose U.S. senators were originally meant to serve.

"I'm sure when it was first introduced the U.S. Senate seemed like a worthwhile public service that would aid vast segments of the population and play an important role in the years to come," said Sheila McKenzie, president of the watchdog group the American Center for Responsible Government. "But in reality, this program has been a complete and utter failure."

It simply doesn't work," she added. "We've been pouring taxpayer dollars into this outdated relic for far too long."

An analysis conducted last week revealed a number of troubling flaws within the long-running, heavily subsidized program, including a lack of consistent oversight, no clear objectives or goals, the persistent hiring of unqualified and selfishly motivated individuals, and a 100 percent redundancy rate among its employees.

Moreover, the study found that the U.S. government already funds a fully operational legislative body that appears to do the exact same job as the Senate, but which also provides a fair and proportional representation of the nation's citizens and has rules in place to prevent one individual from holding the operations of the entire chamber hostage until he is guaranteed massive federal spending projects for his home state of Alabama.

Not only have U.S. Senators cost the country billions of dollars in misspent funds over the years, but Washington insiders claim they have also derailed a wide range of other government programs, from social welfare to job creation to environmental protection.

"Even just the space the Senate currently occupies could be put to better use," consumer advocate Michael Dodgerson said. "Were the government to open a day-care center, a homeless shelter, or even an affordable restaurant in that building, it would make more of a difference in the lives of everyday Americans than what's there now."

So far, reaction to the cutback has been overwhelming positive, with many across the country calling it a long-awaited step toward progress.

Still, a small pocket of the nation's populace vehemently disagreed with Tuesday's decision.

"This is outrageous," said Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut-area resident and concerned citizen who makes more than $150,000 a year, enjoys full health care benefits, and lives comfortably in a large, non-foreclosed home. "The U.S. Senate has always looked out for my best interests. It's always done right by me."

Added Lieberman, "Without it, I'll have no choice but to exploit my extensive connections in the real estate, legal, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to obtain strictly honorary positions at large companies that, in exchange for my subservience over the years and the prestige of my name, will compensate me generously and allow me to continue living a privileged life without contributing even a moment of my time to the society that has made it all possible."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-government-to-save-billions-by-cutting-wasteful,17171/
 
The Senate is fine. Including the filibuster and intent to filibuster as they work now.

The problems of the 111th congress were largely caused by a lack of intelligent discourse among American voters and in American mainstream media.
(Well and by both Obama and many Republicans adjusting their behavior with regard to Obama's complexion...)
 
No, very bad idea.
The Senate is needed both to counterbalence the House and the Executive and Judicial Branches. Abolishing it would destroy the system of checks and balences and weaken the separation of powers. Very, very bad idea.

American.

Why is the Senate needed to counter balance the house?

I am not trolling or anything, just looking for the majority opinion on the subject. You may just convince me that your stance is correct, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.
 
If we abolish the Senate, I'm fairly sure that [4-letter word with, the letter S] would happen.
 
Why is the Senate needed to counter balance the house?

I am not trolling or anything, just looking for the majority opinion on the subject. You may just convince me that your stance is correct, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.
Just imagine all the bills Pelosi got passed being in effect right now.
And the rights reaction to that...
 
Why is the Senate needed to counter balance the house?

I am not trolling or anything, just looking for the majority opinion on the subject. You may just convince me that your stance is correct, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.
It has to deal with the separation of powers. The Senate and House have different responsibilities and goals. In the eyes of Federalists like Madison, those differences keep them from becoming one major 'supergroup' of political power that could dominate the Executive and Judicial. The Legislative branch, due to the nature of its job, is already stronger then the other two.

While abolishing the senate would make the political process faster, it also removes major checks on the passing of bills that could ultimately be disasterous.
 
If either of the chambers were to be abolished, it really should be that other one. I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would want the Senate abolished.
 
If either of the chambers were to be abolished, it really should be that other one. I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would want the Senate abolished.

It gives Missouri to much power in relation to it's size.

This is a serious issue, I know because my grandmother is from Missouri ;)
 
If you abolish the senate you might as well give up all pretense of federalism (which is not necessarily bad if you believe in centralism).

But to retain meaningful federalism, there needs to be a federal body that represents the states.

In my opinion the position of the senators should be held directly by the governments of the states. Because a federal power grab is most effectively stopped by letting those who would lose that power having a vote on it.
 
Why is the Senate needed to counter balance the house?
I recall the anecdotal story once told of a senior representative explaining to a new member of Congress the relationship between the parties and the houses:
"Don't refer to [an opposite party congressman] as 'the enemy.' He is our 'opponent.' 'The enemy' is the Senate."
 
No one's calling for abolishment of the senate. Some people (me included) are calling for an abolishment or definitely a weakening of the fillibuster.
 
If someone doesn't wanna abolish the Senate, they tend to want to neuter it to give more power to democracy. They're the same people who don't want the electoral college and such too.

Liberalism leans towards more direct power by the people, whereas conservatism leans towards more power to the states. You can even see it in policy proposals - liberals want things implemented nationally(which requires majority rule), whereas conservatives like things to be implemented state-by-state.

This is a trend, and of course there are exceptions.
 
Back
Top Bottom