| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Term Limits for Congress | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2008, 12:27 PM (261 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 12:27 PM Post #1 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I is my belief that most if not all the problems that America faces to day stems from a corruptor, incompetent, lazy and/or ineffectual Congress. If you agree with me in whole or in part do you think term limits would help the situation? If not do you have any other idea that might help? My other idea would be to send all of Congressmen home and form a new congress barring current congressmen from running. Starting fresh. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | Jan 31 2008, 12:29 PM Post #2 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
I agree with that 100%. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 31 2008, 12:41 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I don't agree with term limits. If we can't be bothered to vote responsibly as a people, we deserve the crooks that we get. I would aggree to a balanced budget amendment couple with an amendment that requires congress members to pay twice the tax rate that they impose on the rest of us. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 12:48 PM Post #4 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Does the concentration of power and affluence brought about by corruption and/or simply being in offices for many many years, sometimes make it too difficult for a new entrain to take on an incumbent? And then the people are forced, for no other choice, to elect the same old same old? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 31 2008, 12:54 PM Post #5 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree with this. And to that end, I would propose changes in our schools. When I was going through school, I thought history and government were among the more boring subjects to study. With history especially I couldn't see why in the heck I should care what happened in the past. But then my teachers never bothered to involve us with current events and to make it all relevant. Unfortunately, my parents didn't either and I was too disinterested at that age to pick it up on my own. And while we didn't study current events and didn't even cover history beyond WWII, we did study about the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert. I've needed that information exactly zero times since then... :rolleyes: If schools would get kids more involved with current events and issues so they understand why it's all so important, then perhaps by the time they become adults, they would understand more about the issues and why they should vote. And perhaps they would do so. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 31 2008, 12:54 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
My congressman and senators never run unopposed. I think that they should be hamstrung by being forced to balance the budget, use good accounting policies, and not be allowed to issue bonds (excpet perhaps in time of war). They would then be prevented from buying votes with pork, would quit running the books like Enron (yeah, we have a surplus), and be forced to sell to us a tax hike for every additional thing that they want to blow money on. Now, they just approve whatever spending they want, issue more bond, print more money, cut taxes, spend social securty revenue and call it investing - basically the kind of crap that everyone demonized Enron about - and basically use all this and promise more to get folks to re-elect them. If they had to say ", and I'll have to raise taxes to pay for it." most of the electorat would say "get bent." |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 31 2008, 12:57 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
Not that its my Congress but I dont like the idea of term-limits. They never seem very democratic to me and I always feel that they indicate a lack of trust in the judgement of the people. My suggestions would be 1. Change the voting system for Congressional elections so that smaller parties are not effectively blocked out. Having more than 2 parties would shake things up and keep the big two on their toes. In the UK Parliament for example having a significant third force prevents the big two from entering unchallenged into deals that feather their own nest. 2. Remove the power to set boundaries for Congressional districts from Congress and from partisan politicians in general. There is too much risk that incumbents of both parties will enter into deals to preserve the status quo. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 31 2008, 01:12 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Smaller parties are not blocked, they can run for any office. People want Democrats and Republicans, despite the whining that you hear to the contrary. The congressional districts are set by the state. It is a state's perogative. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 01:15 PM Post #9 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I don’t agree with this statement. Smaller parties are routinely blocked from running for office - look at Nadar in 2004. I also think many people settle for Democrats and Republicans because they think they have no other chose. As is evidenced by the whining. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 31 2008, 01:23 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
Well I would change that State perogative and remove the power to set congressional districts from politicians. You say smaller parties are not blocked. Well in law maybe not but they are in practice. They just dont have the money to compete and a winner takes all, first past the post system puts people off voting for smaller parties. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 31 2008, 01:38 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Geez - if you people keep this up I gonna have to start bringing my knee pads with me.
I think term limits reflect the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Joe Average, who's connected to the common people, goes off to serve his term or two and then returns to his former life. I also think that all politicians should be dumped into the social security program. If they were part of it then perhaps they'd be more accountable? Their current retirement benefits are outrageous. Your reps never run unopposed? Lucky you. Technically niether does "my" senator, "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, but he's such a shoe in that he hardly has to campaign. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 31 2008, 02:00 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Nader was on my ballot, along with 3 or 4 other guys I didn't vote for. How is he blocked? He didn't obey state laws for getting his name on the ballot??? All you have to do in Texas is file before a certain date and any American schmoe, 35 or older on election day can run. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 31 2008, 02:02 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
You would, but the States have that power, not the Federal government. It would take re-writing the constitution, which the states would have to ratify (and I don't see all that happening). You are perhaps not used to the idea of the States having so much authority and belonging to a Union with a (supposedly) limited Federal government. The States have a lot of power within their borders, the constitution sees to that - and I like it that way. Anyway, who would you have do this in thier stead? The UN? :lol: Also, should the losers be allowed to share a congressional seat with the winner? It is winner take all for a house or senate seat. what is wrong with that? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 03:41 PM Post #14 |
|
Time to put something here
|
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?...ional_Committee |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 31 2008, 05:32 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
Well I didnt think we were talking in terms of what was politically likely. Afterall how likely is it that Congress would ever vote for term limits on its members, reducing its members pensions or limiting its budgeting ability. These are not likely things to happen. As you say the US constitution is not a document set in stone. Power can by shifted by amendment. In England we have a system where an independent body has been set up by Act of Parliament to review constituency boundaries. That body makes recommendations on changes to boundaries which are then, in normal circumstances, adopted without contention. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




9:17 AM Jul 11