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

apdst said:

Term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, it would be a way to insure that some hoople-head--Kennedy, Byrd, Frank--doesn't spend 30+ years in Congress. On the other hand, it would insure that great statesmen--Landry, Beohner, Gingrich--aren't allowed to do great things for the country.

Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:

Actually, I see it the opposite way. Term limits WOULD allow idiots like Gingrich to not harm the country over the long haul, but have forced good people like Kennedy out.

Click to expand...

Then which, when it comes down to it, would you prefer? Hoople heads or no hoople heads?

apdst said:

Term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, it would be a way to insure that some hoople-head--Kennedy, Byrd, Frank--doesn't spend 30+ years in Congress. On the other hand, it would insure that great statesmen--Landry, Beohner, Gingrich--aren't allowed to do great things for the country.

Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about elections.

How about you simply let the voters decide who they want to choose to represent them?

And hey, there have been plenty of complete losers who didn't last long in Congress, which is how it should be.

jamesrage said:

That is a problem with the system. This saying "oh if you don't like someone then just vote them out" is a idiotic idea.The vast majority of voters are politically illiterate. ... So the idea that people who barely pay attention to politics are somehow going to get rid of a dirt bag in office is absurd. This is why there is so much corruption its because most of the registered voters are not paying attention.

Click to expand...

If that is indeed the case-- and I certainly agree with you that it is-- I still don't see how term limits are going to improve the situation. If we can't trust the voters not to re-elect old scumbags, how can we trust them not to just elect shiny new scumbags to replace them? How is electing shiny new scumbags every couple of years better than re-electing the same old scumbags year after year?

Viktyr Korimir said:

If that is indeed the case-- and I certainly agree with you that it is-- I still don't see how term limits are going to improve the situation. If we can't trust the voters not to re-elect old scumbags, how can we trust them not to just elect shiny new scumbags to replace them? How is electing shiny new scumbags every couple of years better than re-electing the same old scumbags year after year?

Click to expand...

Now that I think of it, you would think the shiny new scumbag may be more enticed to do the exact problematic things faster in their last term because it's not like they have to worry about bad publicity for the next election. The information we as voters recieve is much more important to holding our representation accountable than forcing a service ceiling.

apdst said:

I've been drinking tequila all evening, so you could get my agree to damn near anything.

Damn near! :rofl

I'm even pushing Al Swearengen for president. :lamo

Click to expand...

every state of the union would be profanely prolific and phenomenal.

LaMidRighter said:

No, it wouldn't do much at all. In Louisiana we term limit our state reps and they get around it by changing service, basically they will term out in the congress and then run for the senate, then when they term out there they find another elected position available. You would constantly have to pass new laws every time these reps found a loophole. The pay issue I would have thought was good until it was reported that these reps inside trade, money is already not a discouragement and their unique ability to do what we legally cannot in the market has immunized them from any monetary disincintives to make bad decisions.

Click to expand...

I'd make it impossible to hold any elected position whatsoever once you term out, until you have worked in the private sector for at least a decade. Politians are totally out of touch with the American public and what it means to work for a living.

Cephus said:

I'd make it impossible to hold any elected position whatsoever once you term out, until you have worked in the private sector for at least a decade. Politians are totally out of touch with the American public and what it means to work for a living.

Click to expand...

How about you let the voters decide instead of imposing your own personal ideas about what makes a good representative?

misterman said:

How about you let the voters decide instead of imposing your own personal ideas about what makes a good representative?

Click to expand...

Let's be honest, the voters are uneducated idiots. They vote for buzz words or who looks best on television. Sometimes they need to be protected from their own stupidity.

LaMidRighter said:

The information we as voters recieve is much more important to holding our representation accountable than forcing a service ceiling.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not the answer that anybody wants to hear... but I don't think the problem is the news media or the Congress. The problem is the people, and it's always been the people. Most people are just too stupid for democracy. Most people are too stupid to vote, and this last century was the first time in human history that most people were allowed to. Consequently, last century was when all the democratic governments started to go tits up.

Cephus said:

Let's be honest, the voters are uneducated idiots. They vote for buzz words or who looks best on television. Sometimes they need to be protected from their own stupidity.

Click to expand...

The only way to protect the voters from their own stupidity is to not let them vote. There's no difference between a 40 year old scumbag and a 70 year old scumbag.

Cephus said:

I'd make it impossible to hold any elected position whatsoever once you term out, until you have worked in the private sector for at least a decade. Politians are totally out of touch with the American public and what it means to work for a living.

Click to expand...

Which is the way it should be under a limit system. The big problem is the same guys who wrote the legislation know the loopholes and are more than happy to use them.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Well, it's not the answer that anybody wants to hear... but I don't think the problem is the news media or the Congress. The problem is the people, and it's always been the people. Most people are just too stupid for democracy. Most people are too stupid to vote, and this last century was the first time in human history that most people were allowed to. Consequently, last century was when all the democratic governments started to go tits up.

Click to expand...

I think there is a majority of stupid voters, some don't want to learn the politics but simply vote themselves more goodies, some people are so wrapped up in trying to survive that they don't have the time to be informed, and some people don't care. Either way there are many unqualified voters.

rocket88 said:

Term limits are just a cop out for the voters. There are term limits - they're called "elections." If you feel that strongly about the incumbent, vote for the other guy.

Click to expand...

Yet the Founders disagreed with you when it comes to Presidential Term Limits... why?




EDIT: I want to change this due to utter stupidity, but I will leave it as a testament towards humility instead.

conservativeguy said:

Let me suggest that 2/3 majority should also apply to tax cuts.......would that make you feel better? What this proposal would do is bring LONG OVER DUE certainty to everyone and dramatically reduce the power of congress and the corruption.

Click to expand...

No it would not. 34 should not be able to trump 66 anywhere but Wonderland at a Mad Hatter tea party.

Bodhisattva said:

Yet the Founders disagreed with you when it comes to Presidential Term Limits... why?

Click to expand...

They didn't. George Washington chose to retire after two terms while the whole damn country was begging him to stay. The 22nd Amendment wasn't ratified until 1951.

Viktyr Korimir said:

They didn't. George Washington chose to retire after two terms while the whole damn country was begging him to stay. The 22nd Amendment wasn't ratified until 1951.

Click to expand...

Smacks head into wall.

Time to make a stupid sound now... you are right, obviously. Can't believe that I forgot about FDR. Duh!!!

Cephus said:

Let's be honest, the voters are uneducated idiots. They vote for buzz words or who looks best on television. Sometimes they need to be protected from their own stupidity.

Click to expand...

You're a voter too.

If you think voters are stupid (but not you, of course) why do you let them vote at all?

If you make this "the voters are stupid and need to be protected from themselves" argument, it means you don't believe in democracy at all. And it means you believe you're special, in other words, you're arrogant.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Well, it's not the answer that anybody wants to hear... but I don't think the problem is the news media or the Congress. The problem is the people, and it's always been the people. Most people are just too stupid for democracy. Most people are too stupid to vote, and this last century was the first time in human history that most people were allowed to. Consequently, last century was when all the democratic governments started to go tits up.

Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that you might be one of the stupid people. And you can't just declare that you aren't, because you might be too stupid to know it. Most of the people you think are stupid don't think so either.

Bodhisattva said:

EDIT: I want to change this due to utter stupidity, but I will leave it as a testament towards humility instead.

Click to expand...

Oops, now you're too stupid to vote.

Cephus said:

Let's be honest, the voters are uneducated idiots. They vote for buzz words or who looks best on television. Sometimes they need to be protected from their own stupidity.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially when they are voting. Other nations have solutions for this, right?
(Oh, but I keep on thinking that the minority of voters that do think critically and analytically will typically decide the election in spite of the more or less evenly divided others.)
(Did you call the others stupid?)

misterman said:

Oops, now you're too stupid to vote.

Click to expand...

I am just as stupid as I have always been... I wonder what those like Cephus would suggest? An minimum IQ pre-requisite to vote? I agree that there are many easily swayed voters and "sheeple" just as there are those that don't educate themselves prior to voting, but voting bills and ads and politicians are so misleading, they lie and twist everything that they can. How are "the common people" or even those that educate themsleves supposed to see past the bull**** and make a good educated vote?

Kandahar said:

What would your amendment say? I bet I can either find a loophole and drive a truck through it, or be horrified at its free speech implications.

Click to expand...

I was being facetious in my post. Anyway, of course there would be loopholes. There will always be loopholes in literally any legislation. There would be loopholes with term limits. Big enough to drive a truck through, as you state. There is no such thing as perfect legislation.

apdst said:

Term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, it would be a way to insure that some hoople-head--Kennedy, Byrd, Frank--doesn't spend 30+ years in Congress. On the other hand, it would insure that great statesmen--Landry, Beohner, Gingrich--aren't allowed to do great things for the country.

Click to expand...

"A statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen." :lol:

I read that about 25+ years ago and it has stuck with me ever since. In Bloom County (I think). Cracks me up every time.

jamesrage said:

That is a problem with the system. This saying "oh if you don't like someone then just vote them out" is a idiotic idea.The vast majority of voters are politically illiterate.This is why there is there this funnel effect with the presidential elections being the wide part of the funnel and the city council and local school board being the really skinny part of the funnel.Most registered voters only know what the mainstream media chooses to tell them assuming they do not go oh politics who wants to watch this boring **** and changes the channel. So the idea that people who barely pay attention to politics are somehow going to get rid of a dirt bag in office is absurd. This is why there is so much corruption its because most of the registered voters are not paying attention.

Click to expand...

I very much agree with this. However, we get who we want, whether we like it or not. I have read that Congress and legislatures will do the unpleasant unpopular tasks right after an election so that the voters... who have shown to have an absurdly short attention span... will forget by the time the next election comes around.

LaMidRighter said:

No, it wouldn't do much at all. In Louisiana we term limit our state reps and they get around it by changing service, basically they will term out in the congress and then run for the senate, then when they term out there they find another elected position available. You would constantly have to pass new laws every time these reps found a loophole. The pay issue I would have thought was good until it was reported that these reps inside trade, money is already not a discouragement and their unique ability to do what we legally cannot in the market has immunized them from any monetary disincintives to make bad decisions.

Click to expand...

Yep. Same thing happened in California. Term limits were enacted in the early or mid 1990s. Every single politician in office at the time has since been termed out. Yet, most of them are still around as state politicians. They've just played musical chairs... at the will of the voters.

It should be noted that term limits were enacted for federal office holders also, but that part was struck down by the Supreme Court. Can't remember if it was state or federal court, though. Essentially, it was ruled that a state cannot make a decision regarding federal elections like that. I wouldn't want my state put at a disadvantage in Congress because I had rookies with no clout while other states had veterans with clout, but it does seem contrary to state's rights.

Cephus said:

I'd make it impossible to hold any elected position whatsoever once you term out, until you have worked in the private sector for at least a decade. Politians are totally out of touch with the American public and what it means to work for a living.

Click to expand...

Getting too close to a dictatorship, IMO.

Viktyr Korimir said:

They didn't. George Washington chose to retire after two terms while the whole damn country was begging him to stay. The 22nd Amendment wasn't ratified until 1951.

Click to expand...

Anti-FDR slogan in the 1940 Presidential election campaign.

misterman said:

The problem with this argument is that you might be one of the stupid people. And you can't just declare that you aren't, because you might be too stupid to know it. Most of the people you think are stupid don't think so either.

Click to expand...

"Stupid" is subjective. That's why we have political parties. :2razz: eace

I would agree that many people are ignorant, though. Ignorant is not the same as stupid.

misterman said:

The problem with this argument is that you might be one of the stupid people. And you can't just declare that you aren't, because you might be too stupid to know it. Most of the people you think are stupid don't think so either.

Click to expand...

Might be. Never said I wasn't. But what kind of person would I be if I assumed I was? That's no way for a man to live.

radcen said:

"Stupid" is subjective. That's why we have political parties. :2razz: eace

I would agree that many people are ignorant, though. Ignorant is not the same as stupid.

Click to expand...

There you go.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Might be. Never said I wasn't. But what kind of person would I be if I assumed I was? That's no way for a man to live.

Click to expand...

So if you don't know if you are, you probably shouldn't be going around saying others are.