Cleaning up Congress

[fall-apart]

Originally posted by: Babar

Question, in all seriousness: Why is the president term-limited?

Three words:



Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Sorry - don't know my US history that well - would he have gone longer without term limits or something?

[Rocky]

He was President for 13 years. Think i twas 13 right?

[BallisticGelatin]

And for doctors, lawyers, home builders, and architects. Why do we need experts helping with these decisions. Lets let new uninformed unexperienced people have a shot!

Nice try...lol...But doctors, home builders, and architects actually provide a useful service/product to people.  The jury is still out on whether lawyers and politicians do.  

Another way to get rid of waste is to stop Congressmen from being able to vote themselves pay raises.  Human nature would dictate that most people won't resist a pay hike no matter how exorbitant and undeserved it is.  And yes I apply this to the Reps as much as the Dems.  A cost of living increase would be quite fair...it works for the rest of us.

Also,  a look needs to be taken at the rather extravagant retirement plan that Congress has set up for itself.  It's amazing the perks that the Congress dinks have all to themselves.  But let a private citizen talk about privatizing even a small fraction of Social Security....Nope can't have that!

And don't even get me started on the (ahem) "fact-finding" trips to Hawaii, Aruba, and other such places.  Hmmm...I wonder why the facts always seem to be hiding in the most beautiful and exotic sun-drenched places in the world....

[Rocky]

You arent suggesting we have an ethics committee are you?  Oh wait, we do, oh wait they dont do anything, oh wait they tried to change the rules after Delay broke them.  Oh wait, am I get partisan?  Oh wait the republican leadership was crooked...

[Babar]

Fall-apart, yes, he died almost right after he took the oath for his fourth term--he could have gone another 3 years.

[fall-apart]

So they instituted the limit after him, or was he the one through the 2nd WW?

[BallisticGelatin]

Oh wait, am I get partisan? Oh wait the republican leadership was crooked...

Oh wait, the Democrats had control of Congress for how many decades?  Oh wait, I am shocked that they didn't do anything about their own lack of ethics for 3 or 4 decades....   lol

[Rocky]

Keep saying it and it might be true.

And as far as their retirement plan. I think its great. I think its also less than most heads of companies get. Unfortunately its been a growing trend in this country for the heads of business to continually screw over employees pensions.  Congress has basically sat back and watched them do this. So yea democrats held congress for 40 years, and during that time people have benefits and pensions. Now they are losing them. So keep talking about the past its helping a lot, lol

[BallisticGelatin]

I don't have to keep repeating the truth for it to be true.  The Dems DID have control of Congress for decades and they didn't do a darned thing to police themselves.  But my problem is not with the Democrats in particular.  I point the finger just as much at the Repubs for being elitist bastards.  (Just happens that the Democrats have had more practice at it....)

And as far as their retirement plan. I think its great. I think its also less than most heads of companies get.

 

Who's talking about company execs?  Most company executive have had to pay their dues to get to the top of a major corporation.  If I busted my butt in a company for 20 or 30 years, I would expect some perks.  What dues does a Congressperson have to pay?  Hmmm?  At least Corporations provide jobs, products and services....What does Congress do for us?  Give us more and more laws (most of which we probably don't need), provide "pork" programs for their states, waste our money on their extravagant perks and retirement programs.  

We could probably get along just fine if Congress was only in session a couple of months out of the year...just long enough to get the budget through and get any important laws passed.  But oh no!  We can't have that!   That would mean Congressional staffing could be downsized...

You know, just like out in the real world.

[Rocky]

"what dues does a Congressperson have to pay?"

Well I think that just about sums up the argument. You have no knowledge of the other side of the argument. Therefore your arguments are completely wanting and have no objective ability.

[Babar]

FA--after he died in office, the constitutional amendment was passed limiting the president to 2 terms.

It had been a tradition ever since George Washington that Presidents served two terms max. Washington could have run for a third but declined as he did not want the Presidency to become a monarchial institution. The closest we came before Roosevelt to having a three or more term President was Theodore Roosevelt, who flirted with running for a term that would have put him over 8 years, but decided not to (and later regretted that decision).

Anyway, yeah.

[fall-apart]

So it was just tradition and then they made it law?  I'm still wondering what the deal is... if the guy keeps getting elected, the population must like him.  In Canada, it's slightly different because of the nature of the Prime Ministership - the president is elected separately, whereas in Canada, the PM is simply the leader of the party who gets the most votes (and is not chosen by the electorate at all).

[Rocky]

WEkk FA, the problem is this. WE have 3 branches of government. They are suppose to provide checks and balances on each other. Unfortunately, the way our system works is if the president and the majority of congres are the same party, then the President has increased power, also the president can appoint supreme court justices. So lets take Bush for example cause hes the current president. He will have two justices he appointed including the chief justice. He also has a majority of republicans in both houses of congress.  So right now hes about as close to a dictator as our constitution will allow. And Im not using dictator in a negative term for all you partisan hacks out there. Its just the truth, as Ric likes to point out, republicans control everything right now. So the sole man at the top of that power weilds an extreme amount and has so for several years now. What we have seen happen with that power is the passing of laws allowing him more control and power, and even executive orders from the presidency that dont have to go through congress or the supreme court. Such as the wire tap story thats in the paper today. If hes the leader of the party that controls everything, whats the point of checks and balances? Thats why we have elections, cause in 3 years he has to continaully convince people if hes right. However if he had to run a third time and was elected again more and more rights would be given to the executive branch and less to the other branches until it could possible get ot the point of no return.  Now I dont think that has any chance of happening, because getting reelected is tough and the people are fickle. But there is a very very slight chance. And every year someone is in office with this type of power, the more and more weakened the checks and balances become. So even if the country swung all democrat in 2008 the president woudl then have complete power again and the added powers the previous administration gave the presidency. This continued trend could also lead to disaster even though its a different party in power.

Hope that makes sense and cleared up some of the US governments strange issues. I kind of rambled cause its a confusing topic and takes a long time for bad things to happen.

[Wunderbolt]

Rocky, is GWB really that powerful in the Republican Party? I know the R's control just about everything, but I sort of assumed that if they wanted to pull one over on us, they'd be in it together, and GWB would have to go through his party before he made any big decisions.

Also, do you think your views of Republicans have been tainted because you interest in politics began at the same time that they gained control of parlaiment? I'm really curous about this.

[Rocky]

No, I dont think he is that powerful as an individual. But he does hold the office of the presidency which pull an enormous amount of weight political and symbolicly. It takes a lot, as wqe have seen, for the republican majority to go against Bush on something. But I dont think Bush could do it by himself, but I also dont think he has to. They control everything, if they are in cohoots on everything they arent taken advantage of what they have.

And I dont think its tainted cause of Rs being in power. I think this exact same thing happens when Democrats are in power.  You could turn the situation around and Id say the same thing. Its what happens when you have absolute power.

[BallisticGelatin]

Well I think that just about sums up the argument. You have no knowledge of the other side of the argument. Therefore your arguments are completely wanting and have no objective ability.

Blah blah blah.  Stop dodging the question by insulting my intelligence (your most favorite tactic) and answer the question.  What dues does a Congressperson have to pay?   Hmmm?  A person with no experience who has never held a public office can be elected Senator, <cough> Hillary Clinton <cough>, and you think that's just hunky dory?  That's an extremely powerful position to hold just because you happened to be married to a former President.   Out in the real world their are qualifications to be met for a position of power.  And yes, dues must be paid.  Why should it be different for people elected to Congress?

 Surprise me, come up with an answer that doesn't make you sound like a stuck-up elitist....(Hint:  Insults against my intelligence, GWB, or Republicans in general won't help you here....)

[lightprocess]

What makes this country great is that anyone can hold a government position. Ideally the ones you want to get elected are those who are responsible leaders who accurately represent the people and act with integrity and strive for the good of the people regardless of political affiliation.

[Babar]

Fall-apart: I agree that in many ways the term limit imposed on the President is a bit odd. Im not completely convinced it "fixes" anything as it breaks other things at the same time. For instance the two term limit has compelled every President in a long time to seek a second term, in fact the only recent one I can remember who didnt seek a second term is LBJ (but he served more than one term as he finished the rest of JFK's). There's also Jerry Ford, but he wasn't even elected to one term, so I don't think he counts.

Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, all sought second terms, only Carter failed to get it.

Going back in history you'll see a higher percentage of one term presidents, but after FDR and after the two term limit was imposed, you see more going for those two terms.

Do term limits really solve anything if they compel people to max out the amount they can serve? Just food for thought,

[Rocky]

""what dues does a Congressperson have to pay?" "

BG the reason I didnt answer the question directly is because the amount you have to pay is imeasurable in words I could put in a post.  They give up their way of life, its no different than most soldiers in the military give up. Day in day out 24 hours a day they work. Most soldiers never get put in life and death situations, and congressman work is about the same dedication as that. The difference is to join the army you only need to be 18 and convince yourself. To be a congressman you need to convince hundreds of thousands to millions and millions of people that you are not only capable of handling the job, but that you are more capable than other capable people.  I can't possible sum it up for you here. Run for congress or senate yourself and see, or work on one of their campaigns, or work in one of their offices.  I guarentee youll be amazed at the amount they give up to be where they are. Four members on this forum have worked for members of congress and they will all tell you the same thing.

[fall-apart]

Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, all sought second terms, only Carter failed to get it.

Um... and Bush Sr.

Interesting take, though...