Setting term limits on our representatives

Hey all,

It's a topic that I've talked about with my family quite a bit after we all have a few cocktails. I'm sure none of us like career politicians, regardless of their party. What do you think would be a realistic way that term limits could be set? Further, when did the idea of career politician's really get started? I remember reading about president's that didn't want the job, and couldn't wait to leave office.

I think that if we could get politicians that don't want it as a career, and only do a short time in office, that we would see a lot more changes (for the better). As long as the same people are making the decisions, nothing will change.

I'd like to think of making it a $40,000-$50,000 a year job, without the chance of retirement benefits. Also not being able to take money for campaign funding. That would go a long way I think, but good luck on getting any of that to pass.

So what do you think? Think it's at all possible? Think I'm full of crap (it's ok if you do!)? I'm interested to hear your thoughts!

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

First of all, get rid of the Senate. Thats just another word for a near-aristocracy.

Second, get on your feet and vote for a third or fourth party to be placed in the House. This bickering and stand-still between only two parties is a general lack for discussions as caused by only two hostile opponents. A third party could switch their weight between the two big players and have them move on with topics. It works!

Third, get a real "one person one vote" system installed, where the vote of a single person has the same political weight wherever that person lives. Unbelievable that in modern times the only explanation for your voting system is that it is the same as it was two hundred years before when a courier took weeks to reach Washington, DC.

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

Some congresspeople are trying .

www.govtrack.us...

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

I think the root cause is lobbyists.

They made being a politician profitable. Well, more profitable than it might otherwise have been.

Find a way to get rid of lobbyists, then slash the pay and benefits and retirement plan.

Doing this will make being a politician a much less attractive career choice.

Maybe make penalties for corruption much stricter too.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It's called checks and balances.

How about you worry about your own sh*t show of a Govt before telling us how to fix ours.

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

First step? Set some ground rules on doing their job. Attendance might be a good start.

Have you seen the videos of these people working? They "listen" and push a button. Whoever actually shows up pushes theirs friends buttons- a great use of your tax dollars.

I the whole thing could be replaced with a BBS. It's pathetic, and assinine.

Anyone asking for term limits knows what I'm saying.

Limiting wage isn't the worst idea- you'd need to give them a fixed wage of the average citizen, though. Average doesn't include anyone accepting welfare.

Honestly I don't think government can be fixed without fixing the severely broken fiat currency problem first... But a huge step forward would be defunding most of said government.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

First of all, get rid of the Senate. Thats just another word for a near-aristocracy.

Dumbest thing I’ve read today, but it’s early so I guess there’s hope.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: AmazonChitlin

First of all, get rid of the Senate. Thats just another word for a near-aristocracy.

Second, get on your feet and vote for a third or fourth party to be placed in the House. This bickering and stand-still between only two parties is a general lack for discussions as caused by only two hostile opponents. A third party could switch their weight between the two big players and have them move on with topics. It works!

Third, get a real "one person one vote" system installed, where the vote of a single person has the same political weight wherever that person lives. Unbelievable that in modern times the only explanation for your voting system is that it is the same as it was two hundred years before when a courier took weeks to reach Washington, DC.

I do find it funny that people whom are left leaning love supporting the minority... Except, when picking our leaders. Each state has an amount of representation based on population.

Edit.. The Senate also helps keep every state on the same level of power.

What you are asking for is mob rule. No thanks.

a reply to: watchitburn

How about you wash your mouth after using such words?
My government can do its job. Yours is stuck in shutdown-mode for the next two years, at least.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
..

I do find it funny that people whom are left leaning love supporting the minority... Except, when picking our leaders. Each state has an amount of representation based on population.

This amount wasn't adjusted for how long?
California: 39,000,000 people = 55 votes (in electoral college)
Delaware: 900,000 people = 3 votes
You can do the math, right?

And please explain your first two sentences, because those sound like I should love supporting minorities, except when picking "your leaders". I do not understand that.

Edit.. The Senate also helps keep every state on the same level of power.

What you are asking for is mob rule. No thanks.

Its called "democracy", one person = one vote. Thats democracy.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: ManFromEurope

First of all, get rid of the Senate. Thats just another word for a near-aristocracy.

Dumbest thing I’ve read today, but it’s early so I guess there’s hope.

Please explain your point.
My point is: if you are really, really wealthy, you can get voted into the senate. If not, you have no chance.
Oh, and they are called "The Honorable". Nobless oblligé, right?

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

I will tell you the problem with this idea. It doesn't go far enough.

Term limits for congress are long overdue. So are term limits for the Supreme Court. Even if they are generous, say 20 years, it would be better than what we have. If these judges are so great, they can always be reappointed. They should have at least some motivation not to go off the deep end thinking they can just make up their own laws.

The Supreme Court is the most powerful group in they country. They can override the president and the congress but no one can override them. There are no "checks and balances" on their power. We live under their tyranny.

And there is no reason to stop there. Term limits for all federal judges. There should be no lifetime appointments at all in the federal government. Lifetime appointments create a class of nobility or royalty over the American people.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
..

I do find it funny that people whom are left leaning love supporting the minority... Except, when picking our leaders. Each state has an amount of representation based on population.

This amount wasn't adjusted for how long?
California: 39,000,000 people = 55 votes (in electoral college)
Delaware: 900,000 people = 3 votes
You can do the math, right?

And please explain your first two sentences, because those sound like I should love supporting minorities, except when picking "your leaders". I do not understand that.

Edit.. The Senate also helps keep every state on the same level of power.

What you are asking for is mob rule. No thanks.

Its called "democracy", one person = one vote. Thats democracy.

I suppose I can't expect you to understand American government. The United States is not a direct democracy. It is, as the name implies, a federation of supposedly sovereign states. Yes, they give some of their power to the federal government. In return, every state gets representation. We could have 1 state, 1 vote but to make it fair, we have the electoral college. If that is eliminated, why would small states like Delaware even want to be a part of the US? They would have no representation or their voice would be insignificant. The people can have 1 person, 1 vote at the state level if they want. Even there they have mostly some kind of representation by district. We are a republic not mob rule.

Just put the human politicians out of work by replacing them with machines. If we can order up a round of sausage mcmuffins at a screen instead of at a counter, surely we can vote at kiosks, as well. Imagine voting on what laws get passed at a shopping mall kiosk. You go out for the day. Get Chik fil A, get a pair of shoes, stop by the voting kiosk and vote to legalize gambling, etc...

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: watchitburn

How about you wash your mouth after using such words?
My government can do its job. Yours is stuck in shutdown-mode for the next two years, at least.

You jokers handed your sovereignty over to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.

Your govt doesn't even control it's own laws anymore.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Its called "democracy", one person = one vote. Thats democracy.

Our Govt was never supposed to be a direct democracy. We have a Constitutional Representative Republic.

I know you Germans love your dictators, but that's not how we do things here.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

We are a republic not a democracy and we like it that way.
And the electoral college is how you keep overpopulated states like California from smothering smaller states.

I need to show my ID to vote in my state of six million people.
Not so in California.
Until those little issues are resolved I dont want to hear anything about 1 for 1 votes.

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

Started watching a vid last night that said there should be a box on the voting paper that says 'none of the above'..... how is it democratic to only be able to choose from a couple of names.... names you don't want?
The vid is on youtube called.. David Icke (january 09 2019) - None of the Above.
He also says that there should be a contract..... if people vote for them because of promises made then they go against what they promise there is no come back at present..... they can lie their way in and do what they like when they get in.

a reply to: AmazonChitlin

When a group of people get to decide on their own salary, benefits, retirement, (lack of) term limits, it really makes it hard for those of us they supposedly work for, to change ANY of that.

Take lobbying for example. It's a very lucrative setup for those in congress. But it is nothing short of legalized bribery. "I give you this much if you vote how I want you to." It's clearly ripe for abuse, we can all see it, but we can do absolutely nothing about it, except complain to each other. The only people who can change the rules are the ones who benefit from them, so...

And sure, I know the whole "just vote them out of office" argument. Right. Because that has fixed things. /s

Somehow, the decisions on their salaries, benefits, retirement, term limits, lobbyists, etc. needs to be decided by a group that does not benefit from those decisions. Any ideas???

a reply to: ManFromEurope

California does have 55 votes, however N. California has only 6 votes.

No. California is mostly Republican, But the densely populated areas, are Democrats. There are 2 movements in California to split off from these over populated sanctuary areas. The New California and the State of Jefferson.