Why can't we make some changes

I would like to hear opinions on the following.

Why not have term limits for our politicians?

Why not remove lobbyist from our politics?

Why not remove a persons right to vote if they are receiving government support excluding SS and Medicare?



Politicians could not turn into lifetime politicians meaning the people making our laws have had to live by them in the real world.

No more purchasing of votes by special interest groups.

And finally politicians couldn't promise all the free stuff to the stupid voters that think they can get something for nothing.

Thoughts?

 

Good questions...Answer? BIG $$$$$$$ control. The system is corrupt at the core, and rotted all the way to the surface now. Time to throw away the apple.

 

I don't think we should necessarily have term limits, but stopping them from being back to back, I would support that. For instance, Senators and Representaives couldn't be in office for two terms in a row.

 

Term limits = viable discussion

Remove lobbyists: Convince our elected representatives to stop receiving campaign financing? Plausible

Restrict voting: entirely unconstitutional

 

Just let everyone vote and count them would be an improvement. They can make sure ATM fees find your account anywhere and everywhere 24/7, but they can't count votes or account for their validity. Bush 2000 anyone?

 

ONE Term limits. Each Sen, Congressman has one 6 year term. President has one 6 year term. Supreme Court 20 year.

Lobbying is outlawed and every politician when done with office is VERY closely monitored to make sure they don't receive gifts "after the fact".

One you didn't mention is, make a govt fund out of which comes ALL campaign funds. Every candidate in any one race gets the same amount to spend, period. No donations from ANYONE, including self.

 

Anything "unconstitutional" can be overridden with an Amendment. Frankly, I think the voting age should go back to 21 (or 22 or 23 better).

And that "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" is an illogical standpoint.

 

How is that illogical?

 

Get an amendment passed, then.

Liberals would have a severe decline of the college age vote if you push it too far, though. Then, they would have to find another group to exploit for political control. Then again, those same individuals would probably feel disenfranchised by the group who took away one of their rights. This may add to the growing sentiment of the disingenuous GOP who speak of expanding rights but tend to limit them as much as the Democrats.

 

Depends on how good one is at making an argument, since the issue has not been empirically evaluated. I could make arguments both for and against that statement and both would be equally valid and sound.

 

1.

I oppose term limits on multiple angles. First of all, I believe term limits would lead to some of our best leaders no longer being able to serve the country. Senior Senators and Congressman often provide the order and necessary bipartisanship necessary to effectively lead.

I do recognize the issue of money infiltrating through Lobbyists, but I do not feel term limits would fix this. I personally favor rich politicians, as I feel they are less prone to being completely corrupted.

2.

Term Limits wouldn't fix the problem. New Junior Senators & Congressmen would be just as susceptible to the Lobbyists. Sure this would help break apart the power of special interests in its fundamental concept, but reality would be far different.

3.

Lobbyists serve important functions and unfortunately, since the start of the American Experiment money has played a significant role in politics. Look at the Political Machines of the Industrial Revolution years for a case in point. Lobbying should be reformed and regulated, but ultimately that will never happen.

4.

Government Support was established to provide people with temporary relief from particular circumstances. The system has drastically changed into perpetual reliance on the government. That being said, I do not believe we should overhaul the system. B


Here's my point: How Many Americans are actually capable and informed on the issues in Washington?

I would argue it's minimal, but admitting we don't have an informed populous would effectively admit this whole system is an abject failure.

 

Well humor me then. I can't think of any.

 

Tough to pass an amendment when your job is to "just say no" to everything, I would think.

 

The problem is simple.

That same people that have to vote for term limits are the same people that want to be re-elected.

And the same people that would vote for an Amendment are the same ones that want another term.

The same with the rest. The fox guards the henhouse.

 

A friend emailed me this last year.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011




1. Term Limits

12 years max, some possible options are below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms




2. No Tenure / No Pension

Members of Congress receive a salary while in office,

that salary ends when they leave office.




3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system

immediately.

All future funds flow into the Social Security system,

and Congress participates with all Americans.




4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan,

just as all Americans do.




5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.

Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.




6. Congress loses their current health care system

and participates in the same health care system as the American people.




7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws

they impose on the American people.




8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/12.

The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy,

Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators,

so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

 

Yup....sounds like a terminally infected system to me. Corrupted and rotten to the core. Maybe if we elect a super billionaire as President though, we can fix it all.

 

I would rather have a bunch that did nothing...at least they wouldn't be messing things up!!

 

Perhaps, but electing a corporate, job outsourcing super billionaire HAS to be a step backwards....not forward. Maybe we can at least NOT do that as a nation, AT LEAST. We'll see. The public is pretty stupid and ignorant though so I have my doubts but, we can hope.

 

For:
People older than 17 can make adult decisions (like joining the military) because they are legally adults. Adults have the ability to critically think. Voting requires critical thinking skills. So, people older than 17 should be able to vote.

Against:
People younger than 21 are not trusted to embibe alcohol in the US. People not trusted to drink responsibly generally make poor decisions. Voting requires people to make responsible decisions. People under the age of 21 should not be able to vote.

It is relatively simple to make these arguments. Add in some statistics and we can take the validity of each argument a step forward (such as when critical thinking skills develop and are matured in developmental psychology and statistics showing how irresponsible people who are under the age of 21 are when it comes to drinking when compared with the rest of the population).

I'm not saying either argument can't be refuted by a better rebuttal, but that is the point. Good arguments can develop from either side.

 

I don't like either one of them. The only man that was close to being honest suffered the worst fate a canidate can face.

They ignored him.

We need another vialble political party....maybe even three or four of them.

 

I would agree with you there, and electing a super billionaire goes a long way in doing exactly the opposite in that objective. Further entrenching the super wealthy by installing Romney is a big step BACKWARDS, I'm sure you would agree.

 

Interesting notion.
So farmers who receive government support for growing or not growing crops should not be allowed to vote?
Artists who receive government support for the arts would be denied the right to vote?
Students who receive government grants to be able to study at universities would be turned away at the polls?
Motorists who benefit from the transportation infrastructure built and maintained by government would be told they couldn't vote?
Is your name Jim Crow?

 

We do, for lots of them. The argument against term limits -- at least, the argument that I think has a strong point -- is that sometimes the people really want a particular person in a particular office and to use term limits to deny them the power to elect the person they want is anti-democratic. I go back and forth on this one, myself. On the one hand, term limits allow you to avoid concentrating too much political power in too few entrenched hands. On the other hand, it can also just create that revolving door between politics and mega-rich corporations, as is currently the case with the presidency and has been ever since Reagan, where the president of the United States is just a step on the corporate ladder, subordinate to the very wealthy.

Because the lobbyists have the greatest influence over the people that could remove them from the process. We would need lobbyists to get rid of lobbyists. I'm not sure how to solve this one, either.

I'm also told -- pretty much just by right-wingers -- that there's a first amendment issue. I really don't agree with them at all, since lobbyists suck up all the freedom and nobody else ends up with any access to politicians, they're too busy catering to the people rich enough to afford lobbyists.

Because they're still citizens. Nobody ever talks about taking away the right to vote of wealthy people that receive government support, and they receive (by far) the most government support.

 

You could cut down on lobbying by banning any company that accepts a government contract from also lobbying the government as a contract condition. It wouldn't stop lobbying but it would reduce it among the companies most wanting to get favors.

 

I knew someone would come back with a comment like yours.