VOTERS keep bringing up term limits?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I recall that it is five years, but thatis irrelevant to what I posted.

You said do away with the pensions. How is that not what you were talking about? A Congressman who serves a short time gets no pension.

 

[Foxfyre]

You said do away with the pensions. How is that not what you were talking about? A Congressman who serves a short time gets no pension.

My post suggested doing away with pensions and other benefits but I also said allow those who wanted to be public servants serve as many times as their constituents want them. That was you keep talent, experience, knowledge with every new Congress not having to pretty much reinvent the wheel.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My post suggested doing away with pensions and other benefits but I also said allow those who wanted to be public servants serve as many times as their constituents want them. That was you keep talent, experience, knowledge with every new Congress not having to pretty much reinvent the wheel.

That's odd. I guess I didn't read any of that. Especially since I quoted your post and you said nothing of the sort, maybe if you had been more clear the first time?

 

[martybegan]

Landing a .gov contract/favorable legislation and then kicking back to the PACs of the politicians that helped land it is no way to run a country.

Saying certain people can't spend money on their political opinions isn't a way to do it either.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's odd. I guess I didn't read any of that. Especially since I quoted your post and you said nothing of the sort, maybe if you had been more clear the first time?

See my Post #10 that you originally responded to.

 

[August West]

So what's the other option? No money in politics?

How does that work?

It doesn`t work, but we can place limits on the money spent. Sadly, this garbage has been creeping into UK politics too.

Death by dark money: The Americanization of British democracy

The UK Conservative Party is increasingly beholden to a small group of influential donors.

www.politico.eu

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution establishes what is required for a person to be a Representative or Senator, it would require an amendment to change it. Good luck with that.

 

[martybegan]

It doesn`t work, but we can place limits on the money spent. Sadly, this garbage has been creeping into UK politics too.

Death by dark money: The Americanization of British democracy

The UK Conservative Party is increasingly beholden to a small group of influential donors.

www.politico.eu

That's still restricting speech, and of course each side will look for carve outs for their besties.

So any rules applying to corporations would apply to unions as well, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

They do not draw a retirement until they have served a specific number of years and last time I checked it was 8 years I believe.

I recall that it is five years, but thatis irrelevant to what I posted.

It's five years, but they can't draw it until age 62. But even then it's based on years of service so it wouldn't be very big. They can also draw a pension if age 50 with 20 years of service. Or at any age with 25 years of service.

WW
.
.
.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30631.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

VOTERS keep bringing up term limits...

We don't have a term limits problem.

WW

 

[Foxfyre]

That's still restricting speech, and of course each side will look for carve outs for their besties.

So any rules applying to corporations would apply to unions as well, right?

I don't see how it restricts free speech to require those who accept money for campaigns, political PACS or whatever to have to be completely transparent about where that money came from. Or for there to be consequences imposed if they hide it or lie about it or deliberately try to deceive the public.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's five years, but they can't draw it until age 62. But even then it's based on years of service so it wouldn't be very big. They can also draw a pension if age 50 with 20 years of service. Or at any age with 25 years of service.

WW
.
.
.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30631.pdf

That still is irrelevant to my point made.

If those we elect to office have to contribute to their 401ks, even if the government allows a modest matching fund, like most of the taxpayers have to do, if they have to access the same healthcare system all the rest of us do, if they are denied the expensive perks at taxpayer expense they now receive, if they are not allowed to profit from their office and are required to live under the same laws all the rest of us do. . .

. . .then professional politicians will cease to exist and only those who are true public servants will want to run for office. And it won't matter how long they serve though only those who really love the job will likely say in it more than a few terms.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see how it restricts free speech to require those who accept money for campaigns, political PACS or whatever to have to be completely transparent about where that money came from. Or for there to be consequences imposed if they hide it or lie about it or deliberate try to deceive the public.

Transparency wasn't the issue with Citizen's United, outright limits on speech was the issue.

Pass laws that demand transparency instead of trying to restrict things, and I'll support them.

Of course that assumes the left hasn't devolved into terrorism in the next few years.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That still is irrelevant to my point made.

If those we elect to office have to contribute to their 401ks, even if the government allows a modest matching fund, like most of the taxpayers have to do, if they have to access the same healthcare system all the rest of us do, if they are denied the expensive perks at taxpayer expense they now receive, if they are not allowed to profit from their office and are required to live under the same laws all the rest of us do. . .

. . .then professional politicians will cease to exist and only those who are true public servants will want to run for office. And it won't matter how long they serve though only those who really love the job will likely say in it more than a few terms.

People don't go to Congress for the retirement.

The go for the power.

WW

 

[Foxfyre]

People don't go to Congress for the retirement.

The go for the power.

WW

Very naive of you to think money is not a primary motivation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Transparency wasn't the issue with Citizen's United, outright limits on speech was the issue.

Pass laws that demand transparency instead of trying to restrict things, and I'll support them.

Of course that assumes the left hasn't devolved into terrorism in the next few years.

Depends on what the restrictions are. I would support any law restricting contributions from outside the state for candidates for office in that state. Let the people in that state have total say in who they will/should elect.

I strongly support the law that restricts candidates/political parties from accepting donations from other countries.

Citizen's United received national scrutiny because the accurate application of Constitutional law can have some unintended negative consequences when it comes to political contributions,. But they were deemed right in their interpretation of the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Depends on what the restrictions are. I would support any law restricting contributions from outside the state for candidates for office in that state. Let the people in that state have total say in who they will/should elect.

Why?

You know that Representatives and Senators have impact on national level questions like immigration, budget, debt ceiling, voting rights, health care, trade, confirmation of nominations (Senators), etc., etc.

WW

 

[Foxfyre]

Why?

You know that Representatives and Senators have impact on national level questions like immigration, budget, debt ceiling, voting rights, health care, trade, confirmation of nominations (Senators), etc., etc.

WW

Nevertheless, each state should elect people who will represent the opinions, views, wants, desires, needs of that state. And not just people who will benefit the wealth power brokers elsewhere.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See my Post #10 that you originally responded to.

I did. It doesn't make any sense. Try harder!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That still is irrelevant to my point made.

If those we elect to office have to contribute to their 401ks, even if the government allows a modest matching fund, like most of the taxpayers have to do, if they have to access the same healthcare system all the rest of us do, if they are denied the expensive perks at taxpayer expense they now receive, if they are not allowed to profit from their office and are required to live under the same laws all the rest of us do. . .

. . .then professional politicians will cease to exist and only those who are true public servants will want to run for office. And it won't matter how long they serve though only those who really love the job will likely say in it more than a few terms.

They already do! Another error on your part. Why don't you educate yourself before pontificating?