• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would setting term limits and wages tied to average wage help motivate congress?

Would setting term limits and wages tied to average wage help motivate congress?


  • Total voters
    27
If they were competent, then why are we in the financial mess we're in? We've got people who are so fanatical about their political position that they're willing to hang the whole nation out to dry to maintain philosophical purity. That's not competent people.
You're confusing competence with motive. They are quite competent (read: able) to do what they want. They could be quite able to do wonderful things for the country if they weren't lured by the huge benefits now allowed to them personally. Hence, fix the motivation, yet retain the attractiveness to still bring in able people. Don't make the mistake of tearing the system down so much that able people would rather choose to stay in the private sector. Even without the financial lure, being a Congressperson is an incredibly difficult and complex job. I don't want it left to someone who is less able because we scared all the able people away.
 
You're confusing competence with motive. They are quite competent (read: able) to do what they want. They could be quite able to do wonderful things for the country if they weren't lured by the huge benefits now allowed to them personally. Hence, fix the motivation, yet retain the attractiveness to still bring in able people. Don't make the mistake of tearing the system down so much that able people would rather choose to stay in the private sector. Even without the financial lure, being a Congressperson is an incredibly difficult and complex job. I don't want it left to someone who is less able because we scared all the able people away.

They are elected to do a specific job. They are not doing that job. Therefore, they are either incompetent and are unable to do the job, or they are dishonest and unwilling to do it. Either way, these are not the people who ought to be holding the job. The fact is, I'd much rather these people who cannot or will not do the job stay in the public sector. If making money and gaining influence is their impetus for running, I don't want them to run.
 
They are elected to do a specific job. They are not doing that job. Therefore, they are either incompetent and are unable to do the job, or they are dishonest and unwilling to do it. Either way, these are not the people who ought to be holding the job. The fact is, I'd much rather these people who cannot or will not do the job stay in the public sector. If making money and gaining influence is their impetus for running, I don't want them to run.
Eliminate the financial lure, but retain something that would appeal to those who are able and willing to serve the public good, and you will get your wish.
 
Eliminate the financial lure, but retain something that would appeal to those who are able and willing to serve the public good, and you will get your wish.

And what would you suggest that be? Remember, it has to be something that doesn't appeal to financial or personal gain.
 
As I see it, the primary reasons that longer terms of service are problems are: .... 2) The longer a politician serves in Congress, the more insulated they become from their constituents and the more they adopt the culture of Congress itself...which is rarely a good thing.

Term limits would address both of those problems. ... and they'd increase the turnover rate so that legislators are more in tune with their constituents and have less time to develop a Congress culture of their own.
I think I’m a typical example of US citizen. I don’t have a complete set of abilities to be congressman I’m just thinking about how much I know now of who would be my constituents and how much I’d would know of them if I was elected to congress. As a systems architect I was working with high level engineers, managers, vendors, etc. I was visiting, sometimes in Europe, standards committees with high level staff from competitors. I knew my neighbors, but they didn’t represent the general population. So if I was appointed to congress with my work experience I’d know little of the typical citizen I’d be representing. But, if I was running and elected I wouldn’t be a systems architect any longer and I have time to visit my constituents, develop an understanding of their desires, needs, etc. I think this would take some a few years and would be a big effort on my part. I think most of the posts on this thread have this backwards.
 
...... and I have time to visit my constituents, develop an understanding of their desires, needs, etc. I think this would take some a few years and would be a big effort on my part. I think most of the posts on this thread have this backwards.

No one should run for office if they don't already know the constituents and their concerns. No one should vote for a person they believed did not understand the needs of the constituents. I would also argue the longer a person stays in office, the potential for corruption increases. Politicians that have served for a decade or two have marinated in special interests, quid pro quos, favors, etc. With that said, if the constituents are happy with that reality, they have the right to continue to vote for the compromised hack.
 
No one should run for office if they don't already know the constituents and their concerns. No one should vote for a person they believed did not understand the needs of the constituents. I would also argue the longer a person stays in office, the potential for corruption increases. Politicians that have served for a decade or two have marinated in special interests, quid pro quos, favors, etc. With that said, if the constituents are happy with that reality, they have the right to continue to vote for the compromised hack.

Unfortunately, we all know that people tend to vote for incumbents without thinking about it. Unless the incumbent has done something really, really, really awful, and maybe even if they have, they stand a much better chance of being re-elected, simply because of their name recognition. Most voters don't even know what the incumbent's platform is or what they're supposed to do for the community, they know the name, they vote that way, especially because most districts are specifically set up so that one party gets elected almost without trying.

That's why we need random redistricting often, plus keeping the lifetime politicians off the ballots entirely.
 
No one should run for office if they don't already know the constituents and their concerns. No one should vote for a person they believed did not understand the needs of the constituents. ...
And how long do you think it takes to "know the constituents and their concerns" and to know how to get them what they need? People thought my job as a systems architect was easy, all I had to do was to look up the solution in one of my text books. I suspect that you already know this stuff. Where did you learn it? How long did it take?
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, we all know that people tend to vote for incumbents without thinking about it. Unless the incumbent has done something really, really, really awful, and maybe even if they have, they stand a much better chance of being re-elected, simply because of their name recognition. Most voters don't even know what the incumbent's platform is or what they're supposed to do for the community, they know the name, they vote that way, especially because most districts are specifically set up so that one party gets elected almost without trying.

That's why we need random redistricting often, plus keeping the lifetime politicians off the ballots entirely.

No we don't. Who do you think you are to declare that incumbents aren't good enough? The voters are choosing them alot. That's democracy.
 
No we don't. Who do you think you are to declare that incumbents aren't good enough? The voters are choosing them alot. That's democracy.

Which is why Thomas Jefferson introduced public education, because he said that in order to be a democracy, it must be well educated and intelligent. When the public is ignorant, the system fails. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Jefferson set forth four standards for a healthy electorate:

1. "that democracy cannot long exist without enlightenment.
2. that it cannot function without wise and honest officials.
3. that talent and virtue, needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental condition.
4. that the children of the poor must be thus educated at common expense."

Unfortunately, we have the poor dropping out of school at an alarming rate, greater than 50% in many urban areas, we have dishonest officials and people are not enlightened or educated concerning political issues. You can put a pen in the hand of a chimp and get a random vote. Most people are hardly that intelligent.
 
Which is why Thomas Jefferson introduced public education, because he said that in order to be a democracy, it must be well educated and intelligent. When the public is ignorant, the system fails. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Jefferson set forth four standards for a healthy electorate:

1. "that democracy cannot long exist without enlightenment.
2. that it cannot function without wise and honest officials.
3. that talent and virtue, needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental condition.
4. that the children of the poor must be thus educated at common expense."

Unfortunately, we have the poor dropping out of school at an alarming rate, greater than 50% in many urban areas, we have dishonest officials and people are not enlightened or educated concerning political issues. You can put a pen in the hand of a chimp and get a random vote. Most people are hardly that intelligent.

Then impose some kind of intelligence test for voting eligibility.
 
Then impose some kind of intelligence test for voting eligibility.

I'm all for that. Until we do though, term limits and financing limits achieve many of the same goals.
 
I'm all for that. Until we do though, term limits and financing limits achieve many of the same goals.

No it doesn't. It just takes more choices away from all of us. You're just assuming that the smart choice is always a non-incumbent, which is silly.
 
No it doesn't. It just takes more choices away from all of us. You're just assuming that the smart choice is always a non-incumbent, which is silly.

I'm not saying that at all, but since I don't think we have *ANY* good choices currently in power and we all seem to agree that politics corrupts absolutely, I don't think there's much of a defense in continuing to do things the same way we have, especially since the original intent of the system demonstrably no longer applies.
 
I'm not saying that at all, but since I don't think we have *ANY* good choices currently in power and we all seem to agree that politics corrupts absolutely, I don't think there's much of a defense in continuing to do things the same way we have, especially since the original intent of the system demonstrably no longer applies.
No we don't "all seem to agree that politics corrupts absolutely,". I've observed corruption in the military, small private businesses, large corporations and in government; but, none of it absolute.
 
Sure, but so is everyone else. Why do you think you are entitled to make the rest of the world revolve around you?

Why not? If there is nothing that proves that anyone is more worthy than anyone else, why should I allow others to make the world revolve around them?
 
This is an idea I keep hearing thrown about, and was wondering DP's opinion on it.

Would setting term limits for congresspeople (4 for Representatives, 2 for Senators) as well as changing their wage to one in line with the average income of an American citizen help force congress to be more focused on serving the people rather than simply serving themselves? Or would it simply make them more likely to seek out more cash from lobbyists and make it easier to insert shills for a specific group in a race?

Doubt it. They're primarily motivated by prospects of reelection, and for the most part, that's what constituents have already been giving them. While Congress's overall approval rating may be low, folks love their own congressperson.
 
Why not? If there is nothing that proves that anyone is more worthy than anyone else, why should I allow others to make the world revolve around them?

It's called civilization. You agree not to demand that the world revolve around you, and so does everyone else.
 
Just one term for everyone period. Since most of them are millionaires, they should work for free because they love America so much...it is what they say right? let them prove it! To top it all off, never again let any lobbyists into the congress under threat of prison. They wag too much under the noses of the legislators. It's like letting a naked woman walk into a locker room saying "come on boys, it's yours for the taking"!
 
Just one term for everyone period. Since most of them are millionaires, they should work for free because they love America so much
.

About half are millionaires.

To top it all off, never again let any lobbyists into the congress under threat of prison. They wag too much under the noses of the legislators. It's like letting a naked woman walk into a locker room saying "come on boys, it's yours for the taking"!

You have no idea how lobbying works.
 
e
.

About half are millionaires.
You have no idea how lobbying works.

I'm so glad that you know all about me and how my mind works. It will save me so much trouble in the future. Try this on for size...Pffffst!
 
I'm so glad that you know all about me and how my mind works.

I didn't say I did. Based on what you've said here, I think you have no idea how lobbying works.
 
Back
Top Bottom