IS IT TIME TO VOTE THE BUMS OUT IN 2012?

Question

The so called "super committee" (career politicians) has to come up with 1.2 trillion in spending cuts by Wednesday. Both the GOP and the DEMS at this point won't budge on their ideological beliefs and we the Americans are the victims of this horrible economic crisis. Is it time to "vote these bums out" in 2012 and bring all new blood to Washington to get something done once and for all?

Answer 1

The problem is the fact that voters continue to return their Senators and Representatives back to the Congress even if Congress has a 14% approval rating. It's as if voters think "all the Senators and Congressmen are bad except mine", and they tend to keep incumbents. That is the problem is that a few people in a Congressional district or small state can keep their representatives while hating the others. It would be good to bring new blood to Washington but these politicians have set it up so they can stay in power. Just look at Nevada last year. Harry Reid is one of the most polarizing figures in the Senate yet voters there sent him back to the Senate even though he was behind in the polls all the way up to election day. There were several others just like Reid, so it shows how hard it is to break the power base.

Answer 2

Most of my Senators and Congressmen are Republican....so, yeah, I'll vote to throw the bums out.



Don't worry so much about the "super committee". Their recommendations were not even supposed to take effect until 2013. Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire will make a big difference in the deficit. Republicans are doing all they can to strangle the economic recovery, but I do think it's happening....slowly. So by 2013, the deficit won't be the driving force in voters minds that it is today.



And, of course, it's all hypocrisy on the Republicans' part. When Bush was running up the deficit according to Cheney "Deficits don't matter."

Answer 3

Seems like is what we heard last year and things got worse! Until elected officials start thinking America rather than party it will not make any difference who is in Washington!



To Ogley:... Reid would have been voted out had the Republicans fronted anyone with just a little common sense, or any intelligence. They backed Sharon Angle who is just a few grains of salt short of being an old McDonald's tater tot! Many of Reid's votes came from senior Republicans in Nevada as they were smart enough to keep Tea Party candidate Angle out of Washington!



To Denial Runs Fast: - - I will tell you and then you can go look it up yourself. The national debt does not start over with a new President, it is inherited. Since World War II five presidents have overspent our national GDP; four have been Republicans, and Obama is the first Democrat to do so since WWII!

Little Bush (GS) over spent by 20.7% the highest of them all, his father (G.W.H) has the second highest overspending at 13&, Reagan has the third highest at 11.3% and Nixon has the lowest overspending of both Dems and Repubs at .0.2%. Obamas overspending is 9%



So in reality Obama has added to the national debt but the majority has come from the overspending of previous Republican presidents.

Answer 4

wish we could, but we're stuck with Cameron, the Tory bastards and their Liberal poodles until 2014... and the galling thing is, even if we got the Tories out we'd only get the bloody Labour Party back in and they were as useful as a chocolate teapot last time, so bloody right-wing they might just as well have been Tories...



isn't the moral of the story "don't vote, it only encourages them"?



EDIT - interesting, just read the rest of your question and it's about the American elections, so I'm in the wrong country... just check this is Yahoo Answers Great Britain and Ireland, as I'm sure that's where I came in...



I wish you luck there. Can't be much fun living in a country where all the parties are right-wing and conservative and whoever you vote for, your wellbeing and welfare and best interests are ignored because you simply don't count, next to the big business and vested interests that bankrolled the winning campaign and want something in return. And America is *worse* than Britain in that respect... Obama and the Democrats might be less right-wing and obnoxious than the Republicans, just as Tony Blair was slightly less right-wing than Thatcher and the Tories. But in both cases, only just...

Answer 5

'Vote the bums out' is an anti-incumbent message, like we hear from Republicans whenever they're out of power. When the Republicans don't have majorities in both houses, they push these anti-incumbent campaigns, but never when they're in power. Remember the 'Freshman Class' of 1994 were all about term limits, another anti-incumbent measure. Several of them promised to voluntarily limit their own terms. But when the time was up and the Republicans found themselves in power, they forgot all about these promises. They also have a campaign called DRIP - Don't Re-elect Incumbent Politicians. But, of course, only when the Democrats are in control. Because when they're out of power they figure anti-incumbent sentiment hurts the Dems more than themselves.



The problem is not this particular set of bums, it's a more systemic problem. It has to do with how important we've made money in our elections. If we throw the bums out, the same money will elect more bums that are about the same. These days it doesn't even really matter which party they are, the agenda and the results are about the same. Both parties desperately need tons of money to run campaigns, and they both get their money from the same sources, so how can you realistically expect their real agendas to be any different?

Answer 6

Careful - that is what people thought they were doing in 2010 and look what has happened.



What people need to do is stop relying on million dollar adds to tell them who to vote for. Take time to research the candidate; look at their background, what they really stand for, what have they backed in the past and what have they accomplished FOR AMERICA - not their party!



Look at the candidates running - which of them can honestly show what they have done for America; most spend their time talking Republican talking points about what is wrong, ow Obama has made it bad, and what they will do. They are selling the same GOP crap we have seen in the past year; put the party first!



We need to get rid of the "Bums" but we need to be sure we don't just replace them. We need to be sure we get what we are paying for and we sure don't have them in Washington now.

Answer 7

Yes, however, voting is set up in such a way that everybody can't be thrown out at once.

Because of this, the ones that keep their seats have time to corrupt the newcomers. Then the vicious cycle starts over again.

Answer 8

Yes. And people can't just vote out the President. People have to look harder at the jerks they've kept in Congress for DECADES. Those people have lost touch with the people who put them in office.

Answer 9

By "bums" do you mean Obama and the Democrats or ALL the politicians? The Democrats need to go, they caused this economic mess and refuse to take responsibility. I think it's more likely that they [Republicans] will gain more power in Congress, but it is unlikely Obama will be voted out of office. People like to have balance, they'd rather have a Democratic president with a Republican Congress than having both branches controlled by the Republicans, or vice-versa. It's a bit unfortunate but at least with the Republicans in control of Congress they'll be able to limit the amount of damage that oaf [Obama] can do to our country before his next four years are up.

Answer 10

Vote out the old bums so we can vote the new bums in.



Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

Answer 11

Yea you right! Vote and elect RON PAUL 2012

Answer 12

Yes Republicans got to go right back to Mid-Evil Europe were they belong.

Answer 13

The asd truth is, no matter what type blood you use in your transfusion, nothing will change~!

Answer 14

Friends don't let friends vote republican.



If my state representatives do not address the problems, I will vote for the candidate that opposes them.

Answer 15

Yes, it's time for Ron Paul!