Career Politicians - Root of all evil ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SJP
  • Start date Start date

Do you think term limits are a good idea for...

  • House of Representatives only

    Votes: 2 4.5%

  • Senate only

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Both Senate and House of Representatives

    Votes: 32 72.7%

  • Neither

    Votes: 3 6.8%

  • Some other option

    Votes: 7 15.9%
  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
S

SJP

Guest
My wife and I are pretty close politically - I'm probably more fiscally conservative than she, and she more socially liberal than I. One thing that we both agree on is the increase in purely partisan politics to the exclusion of what is good for the country as a whole,

Lately, it seems that certain career politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pushing agendas that seem more designed to keep them in office, than improve the overall lot of the American people. It seems to us that politicians are far more interested in keeping their jobs, than they are about solving the countries problems. I may not agree with everything Ted Stevens comes up with, but then again, I don't agree with everything Nancy Pelosi wants to do either. Likewise, just because Ted Stevens comes up with an idea, doesn't make it automatically bad, and vice versa. To watch the news tho, Republicans make out Democrats are the spawn of satan, and Democrats counter that the Republicans sold Satan the country years ago and shouldn't comment.

So what is the solution ? One discussion my wife and I have had a number of times is around term limits - remove the career aspect of politics - and we'd be interested to see what the general opinion was ;)

My first poll too...so if it all goes wrong...well..sue Greebo ;)
 
Term limits don't work, imo. We've tried them here in AZ for a while and a few other states have tried it. All it does it trade one for another with no change in the overall direction.

The problem isn't the politicians. It's the system they work in. Change the system. Unfortunately, that requires the politicians to make the change, which they won't do because, quite simply, it works for them. We've allowed them to create an elitist class that fails to provide the basics required by the Constitution while putting tax dollars where we don't necessarily want them.

Sadly, anything short of a revolution by the people won't change this. Every well meaning candidate that wins a seat becomes part of the system during their first term. I've watched that happen, too.

As Chuck mentioned "Lately" is relative. It's ALWAYS been this way. The media is getting the message out more often, partly due to access, partly due to the increased flow in information and partly because they don't like the current administration (for the most part).
 
My thoughts.

1. House of Representatives. Should be a body of the people. I'd limit it to two terms or 4 years total. Large population states interests will still be protected under this limit. Committee appointments should be made by each parties selected leadership committee. I want these people voting for the interests of the people in their district, and their district only.

2. Senate. I would limit it to two or three terms or 12 to 18 years total. The Senate is the body where small population states interests are protected and tends to require more staff resources, political savvy, and perhaps a broader world view.

3. President. I would favor ONE 5 - 8 year term. I think the pressure to get re-elected is the root cause of many of the evils in the system.


Career politicians make me :vomit:



James Dean
 
I'm not convinced that's the fix, though I'm not sure it would hurt either.

I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that legislators would be anything other than "citizen legislators" who would work part time and then go back home and work their day job.

In theory, we should be able to vote any of the bums out of office. The trouble is that incumbents have a tremendous advantage in their abily to raise funds and they get all the face time on TV, so they're tough to oust. Term limits might fix that part of the problem.
 
I rather like Eggman's construct.

The most outrageous thing I observe is the way congress imposes increasingly onerous burdens on employers and small business, and yet they exempt themselves from the effects of the very legislation they pass.

They are all so out-of-touch it is ludicrous.
 
My idea:

President - ONE six year term
Senator - up to TWO six year terms
Representative - up to TWO two year terms

I'd thought about making Representatives 3 terms, but that was mainly to avoid falling on the presidential election boundary. If we limit the president to 6, that goes away.

The scary part is what if we get a terrible president for 6 years?
 
I have a little different point of view.

After a couple of scandals, our city council & mayor were placed on term limits: two 2 year terms. The result has been sub optimal.

The fundraising and electioneering process starts from the minute the candidate takes office. Council members are focused on "next office" rather than doing things to benefit the electorate. If the officeholder gets reelected, he/she has no incentive to work hard for the local district as they are more focused on the next elected office.

It's also become impossible for any long range projects to get done, because the priorities change every 2-4 years. Can't carry out projects on economic development, etc. on a 2-year cycle.

We tried to change the term limits last year to two 3-year terms or three/four 2-year terms. Thanks to some dishonest council folks that managed to be caught taking bribes, that proposal went down.

I see value to term limits if they are long enough to allow productive change to take place. I see no value if they are too short to allow effective governance. IMHO.
 
MSmith said:
The scary part is what if we get a terrible president for 6 years?
Click to expand...

Congress would have two options.

1. Toss him out on his ear through an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.
2. Not pass any of his legislation. We would still have to deal with his control of the executive bureaucracy. If that gets too onerous refer to option#1.

James Dean
 
Term limitations seem to assume that changing the office holder will change the policy. The deepest dirty-little-secret is that the staffs do most, if not all, of the policy review and legislation and the politician tends to be a figure-head. The staffs are poli-sci and/or law school grads and most have an agenda, right and left. There are exceptions, of course.

Most of the ones who don't fit the pattern have come from another field to politics and go back to it when they can take no more of the political system. I can think of a couple Texans who did that recently. We don't get many these days who serve a term or two and then go back to productive pursuits. (Am I tipping my prejudices here?)

Greebo hits the nail on the head! Dynasties have existed since early days in the U.S. some more desirable than others. Readily coming to mind in my time are (you categorize them) George, The Younger/George, The Elder/and Prescott, Dirksen/Baker, Gore/Gore, Clinton/Clinton, and those only those at the federal level.

I believe one thing that would help more than term limits would be that every ballot slot have a place to check "None of the above". It was treated as a joke in the '60s, but is the most effective remedy I can think of. (Tar and Feathers and Horsewhipping seem to be out of favor for now.) Most people I talk to say they vote for the "lesser of two evils". I love to point out they are self-admittedly voting for evil. The guy with 51% thinks the majority loves him instead of realizing that most people were holding their noses. I have, in fact, voted the nearest equivalent available by voting an empty ballot. Best I could do to make a statment about the quality of the candidates. I cared enough to show up, I held my nose as I surveyed the candidates, I turned in my ballot with none acceptable to me for holding the office.
 
Heres an idea. Don't vote for the incumbant.

See no changes tot he Constitution needed and the Congresscritters will be out of office. Then maybe we might attact people who are more intersted in a doing a good job so that they can stay instead of the ones that can get the most pork and spin the best story just to stay in office.
 
jkaduk said:
Money is the root of all evil. At least in politics.
Click to expand...

I'll modify that and say special interest groups and lobbying are the root of all evil. This country was once government for the people by the people. It is now govenrment for big business by big business.
 
There's a famous quote I can't fully remember that says something like, "When the people of a democracy realise that they can vote themselves more benefits, that marks the beginning of the downfall of that democracy."

Anyone got the exact quote and credits?
 
Use our new technology to do away with all of the bums!
Everyone is tapped into the Political Decision Computer via their secured home computer for 10 minutes each night, a national obligation - fingerprint scans verify your ID. We research and make judgements on each of the issues that night and the policy is implemented by workers the next day.
Truly giving the decision power to the people! Politicians are obsolete!
J/K!!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Truly giving the decision power to the people! Politicians are obsolete!
Click to expand...
Is someone knocking at your door? They look like they're wearing dark suits and sunglasses...
J/K!!
Click to expand...
Oh, they've gone now. :)
 
Greebo said:
There's a famous quote I can't fully remember that says something like, "When the people of a democracy realise that they can vote themselves more benefits, that marks the beginning of the downfall of that democracy."

Anyone got the exact quote and credits?
Click to expand...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

The Library of Congress' Respectfully Quoted writes, "Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified." Tytler was a Scottish historian who reportedly suggested it circa 1790. It has also from time to time been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. But there is no official historical record I could find.
 
Greebo said:
There's a famous quote I can't fully remember that says something like, "When the people of a democracy realise that they can vote themselves more benefits, that marks the beginning of the downfall of that democracy."

Anyone got the exact quote and credits?
Click to expand...



I don't know if he originated it or not, but it is a virtual quote from, and the theme of "Parliament of Whores" by PJ O'Roarke. A "Republican Humorist" whom I have not seen around recently. His stuff is funny as s--t and really hits it. He dissects government layer by dirty layer and finally comes to the conclusion that, as a group, if we can vote for someone who will promise us something for nothing, we are basically doomed.

Jim G
 
And not one instance of name calling throughout the thread...:D

Interesting reading too. Suprising how many think term limits are potentially a good idea - I expected a lot more resistance.
 
SJP said:
And not one instance of name calling throughout the thread...:D

Interesting reading too. Suprising how many think term limits are potentially a good idea - I expected a lot more resistance.
Click to expand...

Well, when you are preaching to the choir, ya know.
 
grattonja said:
I don't know if he originated it or not, but it is a virtual quote from, and the theme of "Parliament of Whores" by PJ O'Roarke. A "Republican Humorist" whom I have not seen around recently. His stuff is funny as s--t and really hits it. He dissects government layer by dirty layer and finally comes to the conclusion that, as a group, if we can vote for someone who will promise us something for nothing, we are basically doomed.

Jim G
Click to expand...


I have most of his stuff! Love PJ O'Rourke.
 
woodstock said:
does this mean the choir doesn't name-call? ;)
Click to expand...
If they don't, they're unlike any choir I've ever been involved in.

Good grief you should hear the ladies in the bell choir where my wife and I play - they can be downright nasty about people (typically people that AREN'T there).
 
Two for Pres, Two for Sen, Three for Reps...

Hi all,

I voted for both Senate and House of reps.

For the senate I would go for two six year terms, and for the House of reps to mix it up, I would go for three, three year terms.

The President is already limited to being elected by electors for two terms, and I like the four year terms as well.

I feel the two year terms mean the reps are always campaigning, yet I don't want them running in the same elections every year when electors for President or Senators are running.

There needs to be a compromise. Giving people a choice is always best, and yes we have choices now. Thankfully with the internet, more and more people are exposed to facts so that they can make their own judgements vs being forced fed by the media.

BTW - The United States of America is not a democracy, we are a Republic. :)

SCOREBOARD (only a little one to start) :D

Happy Fat Tuesday,
Joe
aka Sonar5
 
In Civics I was taught that we are a Democratic Republic. A pure republic doesn't elect its leaders. (See Rome, IIRC)
 
Greebo said:
In Civics I was taught that we are a Democratic Republic. A pure republic doesn't elect its leaders. (See Rome, IIRC)
Click to expand...
See The United States Constitution where the word democracy or democratic or any part of the word democrat does not appear.

Your civics class should not have taught that, IMHO. We have some democratic traditions at best.

However with that said, I should have used the term Republican instead of republic which is a form of the word as it pertains to our form of government.

Also, I don't want to argue with the cia which says:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
Click to expand...
Or some people's favorite new RELIABLE SOURCE: Wikipedia, which says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
The United States of America is a federal republic situated primarily in North America.
Click to expand...

As for democracy China likes to bandy about that term in their constitution. Now that is funny...

Dictionary.com defines Republic as the following:

re·pub·lic Pronunciation Key (r
ibreve.gif
-p
ubreve.gif
b
prime.gif
l
ibreve.gif
k)
n.
    1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
    2. A nation that has such a political order.
    1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
    2. A nation that has such a political order.
  3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
  4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
  5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have to give this forum real credit. We are actually discussing stuff that is important, regarding our government in two threads.........without tearing strips off each other and wild angry rants. THIS is refreshing; I had forgotten it could be done.
Good job, guys!
 
Richard said:
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Its quite possible to have a large amount of money and NOT be evil.

Money doesn't make people evil, or good. Money just brings out whatever's really inside of people.
 
People say they don't want politicians who are crooks. They don't want politicians who are liars. They don't want politicians who put themselves first.

But do they really want politicians who are honest, tell the truth all the time and put the good of the country first? I'm not sure.

I've told many friends that as a test when I retire I'm contemplating running for an office and being totally honest during the campaign - do you think I'd get even one vote? (not even sure my wife would vote for me!:D )
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I have to give this forum real credit. We are actually discussing stuff that is important, regarding our government in two threads.........without tearing strips off each other and wild angry rants. THIS is refreshing; I had forgotten it could be done.
Good job, guys!
Click to expand...
Crap. Now you've gone and jinxed it!
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'll modify that and say special interest groups and lobbying are the root of all evil. This country was once government for the people by the people. It is now govenrment for big business by big business.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
bstratt said:
I've told many friends that as a test when I retire I'm contemplating running for an office and being totally honest during the campaign - do you think I'd get even one vote? (not even sure my wife would vote for me!:D )
Click to expand...
See the movie Bulworth.
 
I just feel frusterated when it appears a politican is more concerned with furthering/protecting their own careers than ensuring the greater good of the country
 
Ken Ibold said:
Crap. Now you've gone and jinxed it!
Click to expand...

Well, maybe - but when my superstitious wife comes up with that - I say, 'Well then, I am thankful for the past. The future of course is another story!'
Or, "Oh!, cummmOOON do you really think you or I can alter the future???!!"
:rofl:
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Use our new technology to do away with all of the bums!
Everyone is tapped into the Political Decision Computer via their secured home computer for 10 minutes each night, a national obligation - fingerprint scans verify your ID. We research and make judgements on each of the issues that night and the policy is implemented by workers the next day.
Truly giving the decision power to the people! Politicians are obsolete!
J/K!!
Click to expand...
Dangerous in the extreme! Look at the bad decisions people tend to make in the heat of the moment. How many 3" headlines get the water-cooler crowd all worked up to "do something!" that are reversed on page 27 of the next edition.

Additionally, I do not belong to the state, it belongs to me. I have no obligation at all to pay it any attention. (I do have to obey its laws or not whine when I am punished for not doing so.) Beyond that, it is my option.

Nothing makes for better safety for the citizenry than the dreaded "gridlock". They can't hurt us if they aren't doing anything. They can't help us even if they do. The only remaining virtue demonstrated by most politicians is inertia. Now, apparently being a masochistic society, we have convinced them to act more quickly. "Please, do something (even if it is wrong)!" We are suffering every day from the snap decisions "cool, trained heads" in congress (yeah, right!) made with regard to the aircraft attacks, new cabinet-level departments, hurricanes, etc., etc., etc. That is not a new phenomenon, but is exagerated by our cries for help. Think Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, "Remember the Maine", and on and on......

I realize that most of the last 100 years have been spent convincing Americans that we are a democracy and that it is a good thing. Do you really want to be governed by 51% of the people, especially if they are making decisions ad-hoc to every issue? Remember the Queen of Hearts and "Off with their heads!" Sound like any of your neighbors? Does is sometimes sound like you? Sometimes it sounds like me (and I almost always regret it two days later)! Here is a reasoned second opinion.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/conflict.html
 
Last edited:
ABCandJRC said:
Dangerous in the extreme!
Click to expand...

Fully agreed; all I have to do is look at some of the decisions 'our peers' make in the jury box. Besides, the entrenched would never permit it.
I do have to wonder if such a system is contrary to the basic beliefs of our country however.
 
Theres a few I'd like to see stick around but many I'd like to see go away.
So I'm ambivalent.:blueplane:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top