SNAFUBARIFIC
Active Member
- Dec 26, 2018
- 251
- 43
- 33
The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
They should get one term and then go back to being greeters at Walmart.The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
So, you're OK with carreer politicians? The main reason so many of them are out of touch with the regular Joe is because many of them have never held a JOB outside of politics.The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
The president has term limits, congress doesn'tThe powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
The president has term limits, congress doesn'tThe powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
You bet.So, you're OK with carreer politicians?The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
Ok. Makes you wonder how nobody who has had a job outside of politics gets elected. Gee. I wonder how that happens. Oh yeah…apathetic voters who can’t be bothered with being civic minded, can’t be bothered with studying the issues, and think that the only relevant issues are the ones they face.The main reason so many of them are out of touch with the regular Joe is because many of them have never held a JOB outside of politics.
I think you’re right about that. But I’d rather have someone who is fighting to get a larger slice of the pie for me, my community, my district, my state...(because that is what the people on the other side of town are doing). That is best done by having someone who knows the political realities and can anticipate and plot a strategy.To me, that doesn't make for good representation...IMHO...
Thanks for the replies, all.
Have a good morning!
I would agree completely, however, I do have a different idea about funding. The NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA all have "salary caps". The intent is to create an environment where "any team can be equally competitive". Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely, but it is the best idea I am aware of. Therefore, I would be in favor of a type of "salary cap" for elections. You can pay as much as you want for any good or service in your campaign, but you cannot spend more than a certain amount in total. I don't have an idea as far as what that amount would be, let's discuss that. I might even go one step further, to say a cap on primary election spending and a cap on total spending. That has one inherent problem though. It tips the scales in favor of anyone who doesn't spend as much in the primary. Worth discussing and considering though as it would make relative "unknown" candidacies more viable. Of course fundraising would still be from private donors.Absolutely. The top priorities of our "leaders" are clearly fundraising, pleasing the (insane) base and re-election. Combined with a change to publicly-funded elections, this would largely put a stop to that.
We can pretend that they don't behave and vote differently because of those priorities, but we'd be lying.
We're also lying when we say that "elections are term limits", because incumbents obviously have a significant advantage and build their power base over time.
We can change the system under which these people are allowed to operate, or we can just keep bending over and taking it.
.
I was just stating the obvious regarding your post, Candy.The president has term limits, congress doesn'tThe powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
You don’t say.
I would agree completely, however, I do have a different idea about funding. The NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA all have "salary caps". The intent is to create an environment where "any team can be equally competitive". Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely, but it is the best idea I am aware of. Therefore, I would be in favor of a type of "salary cap" for elections. You can pay as much as you want for any good or service in your campaign, but you cannot spend more than a certain amount in total. I don't have an idea as far as what that amount would be, let's discuss that. I might even go one step further, to say a cap on primary election spending and a cap on total spending. That has one inherent problem though. It tips the scales in favor of anyone who doesn't spend as much in the primary. Worth discussing and considering though as it would make relative "unknown" candidacies more viable. Of course fundraising would still be from private donors.Absolutely. The top priorities of our "leaders" are clearly fundraising, pleasing the (insane) base and re-election. Combined with a change to publicly-funded elections, this would largely put a stop to that.
We can pretend that they don't behave and vote differently because of those priorities, but we'd be lying.
We're also lying when we say that "elections are term limits", because incumbents obviously have a significant advantage and build their power base over time.
We can change the system under which these people are allowed to operate, or we can just keep bending over and taking it.
.
There is another place to reform as well. Lower caps on donors to ensure that the very wealthy and businesses/corporations are less influential with their donations.
So, you're OK with carreer politicians? The main reason so many of them are out of touch with the regular Joe is because many of them have never held a JOB outside of politics.The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
To me, that doesn't make for good representation...IMHO...
Thanks for the replies, all.
Have a good morning!
EXACTLY my point!!! Congress puts out a LOT of crappy, clueless legislation, mostly because I don't think half of them have any real world experience...So, you're OK with carreer politicians? The main reason so many of them are out of touch with the regular Joe is because many of them have never held a JOB outside of politics.The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
To me, that doesn't make for good representation...IMHO...
Thanks for the replies, all.
Have a good morning!
"In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut’s Stratford Inn. … In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender."
George McGovern How To Create Jobs, By George McGovern
"Joe Biden: ‘I’ve Never Been Gainfully Employed In My Life’"
Joe Biden: ‘I’ve Never Been Gainfully Employed In My Life’ | Breitbart
EXACTLY my point!!! Congress puts out a LOT of crappy, clueless legislation, mostly because I don't think half of them have any real world experience...So, you're OK with carreer politicians? The main reason so many of them are out of touch with the regular Joe is because many of them have never held a JOB outside of politics.The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?
Members elected to Congress are 1/435 or 1/100. Their power is, by definition, diluted. That isn't the case with the President.
To me, that doesn't make for good representation...IMHO...
Thanks for the replies, all.
Have a good morning!
"In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut’s Stratford Inn. … In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender."
George McGovern How To Create Jobs, By George McGovern
"Joe Biden: ‘I’ve Never Been Gainfully Employed In My Life’"
Joe Biden: ‘I’ve Never Been Gainfully Employed In My Life’ | Breitbart
An interesting idea. One which I am not completely opposed to, however, I am slow to endorse anything requiring private firms to do any particular thing, especially when it involves government and money. Now, you say it would be "free air time", that air time costs money. If the candidates don't pay for it, and the government doesn't pay for it, the stations/networks would have to pay for it. Even if that were only in lost advertisement revenue.I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.