Are career politicians hurting the USA more than they are helping it?

[Mustard]

Pretty straightforward question really, but I'm sure there is much to be discussed.

[Charlatan]

Representative democracy might be a pretty nice choice speaking relatively, but it still sucks.

[Archetype]

Isn't the alternative oligarchy?

[Mustard]

See, here's where it gets kinda tricky.

I have no problem with a representative democracy. its when those representatives become career politicians with their only real goal being that they try to get re-elected every two years... thats where I have a problem. Essentially, that means they are more suscepible to corruption and taking lobbyist dollars that might be in contravention of what the constituents want their representative to vote in favor of or against.

Becomming a career politician will corrupt almost every man, because almost every man will choose his own best interests ahead of the best interests of the people they represent. Few could disagree with this notion honestly, in my opinion, which is why I loathe the idea of career politicians.

[Mustard]

Isn't the alternative oligarchy?
Goodness no, quite the opposite.

The alternative would be to set term limits very low, to the levels of Presidents I think. Two terms for Senators, and since House terms are only two years, how about three or four terms is the limit.

I think that is fair, and it would ensure that fresh ideas are constantly circulated into the government.

[Archetype]

What exactly are you proposing? Where are their qualifications to come from?

[Mustard]

To set term limits (low) on congressional offices. That is my best proposal.

That, or pool our money together, and start an advertising blitz instructing people to "Throw the bums out!"

EDIT: I didn't see the qualifications part.

Their qualifications usually come from representing smaller groups of constituentcies by serving in the state congress in some manner, or as mayor, commissioners, county sheriff, etc. Being elected to higher and loftier positions of gov't (US House and Senate) is naturally just about the highest up the food chain a politician can aspire, and that is why a low amount of term limits MUST be instituted.

I mean for fuck's sake... not capping term limits for congress could be (and in my opinion is becomming) the US equivalent of European Lords and Dukes.

[Archetype]

Ah, but who will handle the money?

[Mustard]

I say we let Marcus handle the money.

[Deadhead Derek]

What exactly are you proposing? Where are their qualifications to come from?
uh, the Constitution.

[Deadhead Derek]

To set term limits (low) on congressional offices. That is my best proposal.

That, or pool our money together, and start an advertising blitz instructing people to "Throw the bums out!"
Re-elect Nobody
has more ring to it

[Archetype]

uh, the Constitution.
I'm Canadiman, you'll have to explain that one.

[Mustard]

Re-elect Nobody
has more ring to it
Man but don't you see man, then that "Nobody" man is gonna get re-elected constantly... man.

[Claydon]

Career politcans can be a real fucking nightmare, but they also know the system like no one else and can get the job done. In california we have nothing but noobs thanks to term limits and it is just a nightmare.

[Swurgen]

How about limiting the amount of campaigning you can do for your next job while you're still in office? If you have to (most of the time) get out of office before you can procure your next office, then you'll be elected slightly more by your record and less by force of habit.

How much work do you think Dyke Clinton did for the state of NY during her term? How many days did she actually show up for class? Put some attendance requirements on those bitches. Verifiable by fingerprint analysis so they're not faking shit.

Put some clear, simple, easy to read, idiot proof report cards out on all congressmen to let constituents know what they voted for or against and how frequently they were actually in Washington doing their jobs and not out 'factfinding' on lobbyist I mean bribery dollars.

Set spending limits on every office with the limit corresponding to the level of gov't and require audit accountability of it to limit the effectiveness of the bribers and also to allow the common man to run for office without being a slave to one team or the other.

[kareyn01]

Goodness no, quite the opposite.

The alternative would be to set term limits very low, to the levels of Presidents I think. Two terms for Senators, and since House terms are only two years, how about three or four terms is the limit.

I think that is fair, and it would ensure that fresh ideas are constantly circulated into the government.

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that setting term limits for Congressmen is un-Constitutional, because the states (they claim) have no right to set more stringent eligibility requirements than those explicitly stated in Article I of the Constitution.

That could obviously be overruled, but I seriously doubt it ever would, considering the influence has on the SCOTUS, since they can determine the number of judges on the court, as well as their budget. Its pretty much at the mutually-assured destruction stage.

[Stax]

No.

Career politicians might be doing less good than fresh faces might, but that does not mean they are actively hurting it.

[Morfin]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that setting term limits for Congressmen is un-Constitutional, because the states (they claim) have no right to set more stringent eligibility requirements than those explicitly stated in Article I of the Constitution.

That could obviously be overruled, but I seriously doubt it ever would, considering the influence has on the SCOTUS, since they can determine the number of judges on the court, as well as their budget. Its pretty much at the mutually-assured destruction stage.

I don't think the issue is one of overturning the Supreme Court. Just like with the two-term limit for Presidents, the Court is saying that it would take a constitutional amendment to change what is already there.

Given that, and given the super-majority needed for there to even be a constitutional amendment passed by Congress to go to the states for ratification, there is virtually no chance of a term limit amendment. In essence, the fox is guarding the hen house: Congress will never vote on an amendment to limit itself.

[kareyn01]

I don't think the issue is one of overturning the Supreme Court. Just like with the two-term limit for Presidents, the Court is saying that it would take a constitutional amendment to change what is already there.

Given that, and given the super-majority needed for there to even be a constitutional amendment passed by Congress to go to the states for ratification, there is virtually no chance of a term limit amendment. In essence, the fox is guarding the hen house: Congress will never vote on an amendment to limit itself.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. Congress will never pass an amendment, therefore the only option is overturning a Supreme Court ruling, which would also never happen because of Congress's sway over the Court. Sorry, too much inference on my part.

[Kilgore]

Over the weekend I saw a clip of some congressman who name or party I can't remember but was taking on the floor. He said something like "I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm going to loose my job for doing so. I'm only doing it for the best intrest of the nation"

Shit like that pisses me off. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, this guy was just as worried about loosing his job as he was passisng the bill. If we had Term limits our congressman and Senators wouldn't have to applogies for their voting.

On the flip side.
When I lived in Delaware it was nice that our little state had a loud voice, from either Joe Biden or the late Bill Roth. I can see the good of having career politians too.

[halfabubbleoff]

I am a firm believer in the old adage that "a little revolution every now and then is a good thing."

The major problem with the country at this point is that we have too many politicians and not enough statesmen. You have people running the country that are more concerned with making sure they are loyal to their party in order to keep money in their pockets, get re-elected, and retire with a cushy lobbying job when it is all over. Our congressmen are no longer answerable to the populace.

Almost everyone agrees that they don't think congress is looking out for them any longer and that the tenor in Washington must change. The main reason for that is that the majority of congressmen have no concept of the "real world" because they made politics their career. Priorities are wrong, perceptions are wrong. Congress answers more to money than ideals. They hear the voices of the lobbyists more than the populace.

The down side of all of this is that the people who are most qualified to run things are the ones who want it the least. The folks that do want to run things are usually the last ones you want to put in charge.

Definite term limits would help. You would have to pair that with a ban on government contact for a number of years after your terms end, though. Otherwise you end up with the same issues you have now, with Congress as a stepping stone for the high paid lobbying jobs. The early congresses had a grounding connection to the people. Each congressman still had a "real job" that paid the bills. However, those are issues that are not likely to change. Congress will never vote to limit the time they have in office or to cut their own salaries.

Can't really blame them either. I wouldn't lower my own salary if given the chance. The lunatics are, indeed, running the asylum, and we are all locked in with them.

[MrVette83]

New here, but gonna jump into the frying pan.

I feel as though career politicians do hurt the USA more than they help it. They continually have their eyes forward not on what is best for the people they represent, but only what they need to do to look good in the next election. Then there are some that have their eye on reaching a certain political level/position and will do whatever it takes to get to that position. In both instances they are always looking out more for their own personal interests than that of the people.

Term limitations would help as others have said. But it would be so difficult to get such statutes in place that no one would ever go for it.

Simply my $.02

[Swurgen]

The more our best and brightest leaders see CEO's do completely ineffectual jobs and yet still resign with $25 mill golden parachutes vs the absolute hell of all the background digging and mountains out of molehills of the presidential race, the less likely they are to go for that job or the jobs leading up to it.

[Genius]

We're the idiots that keep voting these people into office based on name recognition alone. Based on their performance, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy should all get destroyed by landslides, but it won't happen because they're recognizable and their opponents won't be.

[Stax]

We're the idiots that keep voting these people into office based on name recognition alone. Based on their performance, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy should all get destroyed by landslides, but it won't happen because they're recognizable and their opponents won't be.

Ted Kennedy is an incredibly effective legislator and suggesting he should be destroyed by a landslide is very shortsighted. Pelosi and Reid... I care less.

[Pharon]

Ted Kennedy is an incredibly fat, drunk, murdering blowhard.
Fixed.

[Genius]

Ted Kennedy is an incredibly effective legislator and suggesting he should be destroyed by a landslide is very shortsighted. Pelosi and Reid... I care less.
I'm not suggesting that he hasn't been effective in the past. But to suggest that he is capable of continuing at this point is just as shortsighted. And if his name showed up on the ballot right now, he would dominate, regardless of his ability to perform his duties. That is voter stupidity.

[Fornicator]

The Greeks had it right. Public service was a ... public service and not an opportunity to suck at the public teet until your balls burst.

These egomaniacs should be held liable in some fashion for the consequences of their actions.

That's what my grandma taught me ... back when I was living at her teet.

There ... that will shrink your boner.

[Genius]

The Greeks had it right. Public service was a ... public service and not an opportunity to suck at the public teet until your balls burst.

These egomaniacs should be held liable in some fashion for the consequences of their actions.

That's what my grandma taught me ... back when I was living at her teet.

There ... that will shrink your boner.
That's very easy to say. I suppose you would put the country first when confronted by money, power, women, alcohol, drugs, power, more women, more alcohol, and more power. I don't blame the politicians. I blame the irresponsible electorate.

[freegood]

If people are stupid enough to vote for one idiot, who's to say they won't vote in a n00b idiot?

[Insomniac]

If you don't have career politicians, you have amateurs, and amateurs are even more victim to lobbyists because they likely have no expertise whatsoever. You put someone on a committee for 20 years, and they likely start to know something about it.

The seniority system exists in part because politics are difficult, complicated, and take a long time to learn both formally and informally. Most of us are idiots outside our specific areas of expertise, yet politicians are expected to make decisions about virtually everything. All they have to go on are other people's words and reports.

Most politicians genuinely do want to make the best decisions for the country. Throwing them out every so often just to do it doesn't change the system or make things any better. (Although it and non-professional legislatures do help Republicans, if I remember my political science class correctly.)

[Stax]

Overthrowing a system like this would create more problems than it fixes. As Insomniac said, with seniority comes valuable experience. Now the modern system is better, so you don't get a 60s/70s thing where impossible-to-oust Dixiecrats basically killed any legislation they didn't like from their powerful chairs with no way to remove them. But forcing people to pick a new legislator when they like their old one simply because their old one has been there for a while is dumb. You want to fix incumbancy issues go for campaign finance or for individual races, but forcing out proven legislative minds for some 'greater good' is dumb.

[pauluncg01]

We're the idiots that keep voting these people into office based on name recognition alone. Based on their performance, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy should all get destroyed by landslides, but it won't happen because they're recognizable and their opponents won't be.

How can their opponents make themselves stand out more?