Line Item Veto has got to come back!

[goldcatt]

Yes, but assuming the amendment were limited to the budget, that's a good thing.

I disagree. What you're proposing is basically saying it's OK for Congress to keep adding pork to bills, and it's the President's job to be their babysitter since they are incapable of acting like adults. Absolving Congress of responsibility for their own actions and placing it in the Executive's hands isn't a solution, it's barely a band-aid.

The better option is to force Congress to take responsibility and have the bills come out clean in the first place. The obvious solution is to change the internal procedure that allow sunrelated amendments to legislation. The less obvious but more likely (in a pig's eye, I know) are to stop making seats artificially safe for party boss and big donor favorites through gerrymandering and to rein in the money.

I focus on what's practical.

How is adding yet another layer practical for anyone but Congressional party leadership?

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes, but assuming the amendment were limited to the budget, that's a good thing.

I disagree. What you're proposing is basically saying it's OK for Congress to keep adding pork to bills, and it's the President's job to be their babysitter since they are incapable of acting like adults. Absolving Congress of responsibility for their own actions and placing it in the Executive's hands isn't a solution, it's barely a band-aid.

The better option is to force Congress to take responsibility and have the bills come out clean in the first place. The obvious solution is to change the internal procedure that allow sunrelated amendments to legislation. The less obvious but more likely (in a pig's eye, I know) are to stop making seats artificially safe for party boss and big donor favorites through gerrymandering and to rein in the money.

I focus on what's practical.

I agree it's practical. I just disagree in expanding the executive branch.

 

[goldcatt]

I disagree. What you're proposing is basically saying it's OK for Congress to keep adding pork to bills, and it's the President's job to be their babysitter since they are incapable of acting like adults. Absolving Congress of responsibility for their own actions and placing it in the Executive's hands isn't a solution, it's barely a band-aid.

The better option is to force Congress to take responsibility and have the bills come out clean in the first place. The obvious solution is to change the internal procedure that allow sunrelated amendments to legislation. The less obvious but more likely (in a pig's eye, I know) are to stop making seats artificially safe for party boss and big donor favorites through gerrymandering and to rein in the money.

I focus on what's practical.

I agree it's practical. I just disagree in expanding the executive branch.

Considering it would have to go through the Amendment process, I'm not sure it's practical at all. Other solutions are simpler, less time-consuming and actually address the source of the problem. All we need are pols with the balls to do it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Makes absolutely no sense. They are going to die anyway

I see. So in your humble view? Allow them to do more damage before they take their dirt nap? yeah that makes sense too, doesn't it?

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

That is precisely the voter attitude that makes term limits for all elected officials desirable.

Why should your state have more 'clout' in the Senate than my state?

 

[rightwinger]

I see. So in your humble view? Allow them to do more damage before they take their dirt nap? yeah that makes sense too, doesn't it?

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

That is precisely the voter attitude that makes term limits for all elected officials desirable.

Why should your state have more 'clout' in the Senate than my state?

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

That is precisely the voter attitude that makes term limits for all elected officials desirable.

Why should your state have more 'clout' in the Senate than my state?

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

The "vote them all out" line has got to be the stupidest line of logic from a very stupid group of people (and that's saying a lot).

Vote someone out simply because they are an incumbent, with no regard to job performance?

Good luck getting the thinking public to go along with that stupidity.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Really?

What is the difference in damage from a 20 year Senator and a 3 year Senator? Some are good and some suck regardless of their longevity.
I want my Senator to be senior. It gives him, and my state, more clout

That is precisely the voter attitude that makes term limits for all elected officials desirable.

Why should your state have more 'clout' in the Senate than my state?

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

First tell me why one state should have more power than the others in the senate.

The concept of limiting service is not driven by power alone but by the proven and continued abuse of power that comes with entrenched legislators who owe 24 years of favors instead of 12.

In a perfect world, where senators and congressmen put the needs of the entire nation ahead of all others, including the needs of their own states, term limits would not be necessary. Unfortunately we live in a world where putting personal gain ahead of the responsibilities of the elected position is not only common place, it is expected.

 

[rightwinger]

That is precisely the voter attitude that makes term limits for all elected officials desirable.

Why should your state have more 'clout' in the Senate than my state?

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

First tell me why one state should have more power than the others in the senate.

The concept of limiting service is not driven by power alone but by the proven and continued abuse of power that comes with entrenched legislators who owe 24 years of favors instead of 12.

In a perfect world, where senators and congressmen put the needs of the entire nation ahead of all others, including the needs of their own states, term limits would not be necessary. Unfortunately we live in a world where putting personal gain ahead of the responsibilities of the elected position is not only common place, it is expected.

Why does Wyoming with only 500,000 people get the same number of Senators as California with 36 million? That gives citizens in Wyoming greater representative power than California.

Washington DC has more people than Wyoming and gets no Senators

Its not fair, but thats the way it is

 

[AVG-JOE]

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

First tell me why one state should have more power than the others in the senate.

The concept of limiting service is not driven by power alone but by the proven and continued abuse of power that comes with entrenched legislators who owe 24 years of favors instead of 12.

In a perfect world, where senators and congressmen put the needs of the entire nation ahead of all others, including the needs of their own states, term limits would not be necessary. Unfortunately we live in a world where putting personal gain ahead of the responsibilities of the elected position is not only common place, it is expected.

Why does Wyoming with only 500,000 people get the same number of Senators as California with 36 million? That gives citizens in Wyoming greater representative power than California.

Washington DC has more people than Wyoming and gets no Senators

Its not fair, but thats the way it is

Apples and oranges my friend. Power in the House is divided according to population, power in the Senate is supposed to make all the states equal, regardless of population numbers or land mass. Just one more good argument in favor of term limits to reduce the power concentration that naturally follows long term entrenchment in a legislative position.

As for the people of D.C. having no actual representation in the senate, that is a valid concern. It is a whole other topic, but a valid concern.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

First tell me why one state should have more power than the others in the senate.

The concept of limiting service is not driven by power alone but by the proven and continued abuse of power that comes with entrenched legislators who owe 24 years of favors instead of 12.

In a perfect world, where senators and congressmen put the needs of the entire nation ahead of all others, including the needs of their own states, term limits would not be necessary. Unfortunately we live in a world where putting personal gain ahead of the responsibilities of the elected position is not only common place, it is expected.

Why does Wyoming with only 500,000 people get the same number of Senators as California with 36 million? That gives citizens in Wyoming greater representative power than California.

Washington DC has more people than Wyoming and gets no Senators

Its not fair, but thats the way it is

Senators were not originally supposed to represent the people of a state, but the state governments. Until the foolish adoption of the 17th Amendment. If you want to make the system fair again we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

First tell me why one state should have more power than the others in the senate.

The concept of limiting service is not driven by power alone but by the proven and continued abuse of power that comes with entrenched legislators who owe 24 years of favors instead of 12.

In a perfect world, where senators and congressmen put the needs of the entire nation ahead of all others, including the needs of their own states, term limits would not be necessary. Unfortunately we live in a world where putting personal gain ahead of the responsibilities of the elected position is not only common place, it is expected.

Why does Wyoming with only 500,000 people get the same number of Senators as California with 36 million? That gives citizens in Wyoming greater representative power than California.

Washington DC has more people than Wyoming and gets no Senators

Its not fair, but thats the way it is

Senators were not originally supposed to represent the people of a state, but the state governments. Until the foolish adoption of the 17th Amendment. If you want to make the system fair again we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

It might make more sense to just repeal Wyoming

 

[2Parties]

Hey Kevin_Kennedy,

Why is Rand Paul such a wishy-washy turd?

 

[goldcatt]

Hey Kevin_Kennedy,

Why is Rand Paul such a wishy-washy turd?

Hush, kid. The grownups are talking here.

 

[rightwinger]

Hey Kevin_Kennedy,

Why is Rand Paul such a wishy-washy turd?

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hey Kevin_Kennedy,

Why is Rand Paul such a wishy-washy turd?

Since that would be your opinion, only you can answer it.

Why does a guy (gal) who 'hates violence' want to pick a fight so blatantly?

(Sorry for the butt-insky Kev... Curiosity got the better of me.)

 

[Big Fitz]

That is precisely the voter attitude that makes term limits for all elected officials desirable.

Why should your state have more 'clout' in the Senate than my state?

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

The "vote them all out" line has got to be the stupidest line of logic from a very stupid group of people (and that's saying a lot).

Vote someone out simply because they are an incumbent, with no regard to job performance?

Good luck getting the thinking public to go along with that stupidity.

You ever want to buy produce that's been on the shelf too long and gone bad?

Same thing here. You can't depend on the public to buy all the produce and get it off the shelf before it goes bad. Nor can you trust them to remove all the politicians from office before they go bad too.

You need the law to act as stock boy, pull the bad politicians and throw them away where they cannot harm anyone else.

This is the essence of term limits: Product safety for and from politicians.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"Politicians are like diapers. Both should be changed often and for the same reason"

-Robin Williams​

 

[2Parties]

If you automatically lose your job why try to work "for the people"?

The reasoning behind term limits has never made sense to me.

 

[goldcatt]

So you know better than the voters whether their representative is doing a good job.?

Senators with more seniority have more clout. If my Senator has 24 years and yours has 12, my Senator will chair more prestigious comittees.

The "vote them all out" line has got to be the stupidest line of logic from a very stupid group of people (and that's saying a lot).

Vote someone out simply because they are an incumbent, with no regard to job performance?

Good luck getting the thinking public to go along with that stupidity.

You ever want to buy produce that's been on the shelf too long and gone bad?

Same thing here. You can't depend on the public to buy all the produce and get it off the shelf before it goes bad. Nor can you trust them to remove all the politicians from office before they go bad too.

You need the law to act as stock boy, pull the bad politicians and throw them away where they cannot harm anyone else.

This is the essence of term limits: Product safety for and from politicians.

Get a leash on the money. Get rid of the gerrymandering that artificially protects seats. You'll get your turnover without limiting the People's choices at the voting booth. It's a win-win.

 

[Big Fitz]

The "vote them all out" line has got to be the stupidest line of logic from a very stupid group of people (and that's saying a lot).

Vote someone out simply because they are an incumbent, with no regard to job performance?

Good luck getting the thinking public to go along with that stupidity.

You ever want to buy produce that's been on the shelf too long and gone bad?

Same thing here. You can't depend on the public to buy all the produce and get it off the shelf before it goes bad. Nor can you trust them to remove all the politicians from office before they go bad too.

You need the law to act as stock boy, pull the bad politicians and throw them away where they cannot harm anyone else.

This is the essence of term limits: Product safety for and from politicians.

Get a leash on the money. Get rid of the gerrymandering that artificially protects seats. You'll get your turnover without limiting the People's choices at the voting booth. It's a win-win.

Did you see what I wrote earlier in the discussion. Touched pretty much on all of that.