|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 15, 2009 21:55:18 GMT -6
Congress needs term limits. Chuck Grassley probably owes people some scary, scary things in exchange for all the farm welfare bills he has passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Apr 15, 2009 22:07:57 GMT -6
Term limits. Check. What's the breakdown? Two terms for The Senate and maybe 3-4 for The House?
|
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Apr 15, 2009 22:21:12 GMT -6
I would have to agree with you on this one. Good luck getting any of those greedy bastards in office to agree though.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 16, 2009 6:51:38 GMT -6
I was of the same mindset for quite a while... absolute and total term limits. But after the last election I came across an article that showed that on average - 1/3 of congress is changed every election. (I'll look for the article)
Sure there are the stalwarts --- but even Ted Stevens was kicked out last election & Ted Kennedy might not be around much longer...
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Apr 16, 2009 9:28:12 GMT -6
I don't know. On one hand it's good to get new blood in there and it would thwart the influence of K-Street.
On the other hand, a lot of these people develop expertise in complex areas and don't have to reinvent the wheel every few years.
I suppose I would cautiously come down on the side of term limits. After all, the president is term limited and there is no more important job than that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Apr 16, 2009 10:11:27 GMT -6
I don't know. On one hand it's good to get new blood in there and it would thwart the influence of K-Street. On the other hand, a lot of these people develop expertise in complex areas and don't have to reinvent the wheel every few years. I suppose I would cautiously come down on the side of term limits. After all, the president is term limited and there is no more important job than that one. I see both sides as well but your last point makes it a no brainer. |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Apr 16, 2009 20:59:58 GMT -6
I'd cap the max time in either, cumlative of course, at say 15 years or so. that way there is some experience retained, but the representation of the people is invigorated a bit.
I'd also cap the number of amendments that can be attached to a bill to say 25. Easy enough to get people to agree, simple and short enough that people can read the whole thing. In addition, you do need to allow enough to get congress to get the job done. Considering there was 11,000+ of these last year, I'd say you would cut the number substantially while still allowing for important projects to go through.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 17, 2009 8:42:06 GMT -6
I am 100% in favor of term limits. Harkin, Grassley, Kennedy, that really old dude out in N. Carolina or S. Carolina? He's like freaking 90 years old, ready to kick the bucket and he won't retire. He needs to go. I am sure there are a dozen others.
These guys are getting a guaranteed pension into the 100K + range and they get it every year when they retire if they serve X amount of terms. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 17, 2009 12:07:18 GMT -6
I am 100% in favor of term limits. Harkin, Grassley, Kennedy, that really old dude out in N. Carolina or S. Carolina? He's like freaking 90 years old, ready to kick the bucket and he won't retire. He needs to go. I am sure there are a dozen others. These guys are getting a guaranteed pension into the 100K + range and they get it every year when they retire if they serve X amount of terms. It's ridiculous. Perhaps... but they won't be around very long to collect on that pension. I wonder if it's payable to their 20 something hooker girlfriends (or boyfriends in the case of the GOP senator) |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 17, 2009 12:52:52 GMT -6
That's pretty shitty to have a gay lover on the side. Thank God he didn't drive his car into a pond with his girlfriend in it, killing her and then try to cover it up. You know, like some senators.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2009 13:55:02 GMT -6
I don't know. On one hand it's good to get new blood in there and it would thwart the influence of K-Street. On the other hand, a lot of these people develop expertise in complex areas and don't have to reinvent the wheel every few years. I suppose I would cautiously come down on the side of term limits. After all, the president is term limited and there is no more important job than that one. Like Bawney Fwank's expertise on GSE's that sell RMBSs? The expertise is overrated. The two most complicated provisions of federal law are banking regulation and the tax code. Banking is mostly within the purview of the Fed and FDIC and I sure as shit don't trust people like Dubya or Nancy Pelosi finger fucking banking regulations. Expertise in the tax code is counterproductive because knowledge of that simply means someone knows where to add provisions to further government involvement in picking winners and losers for our corporate overlords. Not a very economically productive activity, if you ask me. |
|
