General Political Thread

[Hixter]

We don't need term limits...we need a better educated electorate.

Whatever it takes to get doddering old fools like Maxine Waters out of office .. now she's claiming the sequestration might cost 170 million jobs. That's more than the entire nation's workforce. 

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u8-d95SO_3g[/media]

[bleedorange]

Term limits were so important to them that they decided not to mention them in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  

 

Also term limits are the very definition of undemocratic.  You are taking the choice from the electorate to who they want to represent them, because of a mandated limit.  You are essentially saying the choice they want is invalid, for no other reason then they served x number of terms.  

 

Term limits are a solution to a problem of our governmental leaders not beholden to the people that elected them.  The problem is not because our representatives are in there too long it is the money that is needed to be elected.  Change the campaign finance laws (and do so radically), you will have better representation.  

 

Well, Jefferson and Adams weren't at the Constitutional Convention, but it was a big issue for Jefferson who was concerned about the abuse of power that could be displayed by long-serving representatives.  Madison did write favorably about not having term limits in the Federalist Papers, though.

 

I'm not sure what the vote was like or how often term limits was discussed at the Convention or why the Articles of Confederation had a limit, but the Constitution did not.  Of course, times were different back then, and it might not have been a big concern.  The turnover rate in Congress was much higher than it is today.

[IRememberDBoon]

Whatever it takes to get doddering old fools like Maxine Waters out of office .. now she's claiming the sequestration might cost 170 million jobs. That's more than the entire nation's workforce. 

 

[media][/media]

 

yeah im pretty sure she mispoke and meant 170K. I mean are you so smart as to try and think she is trying to fool people into believing the number is 170 million? 

[Hixter]

yeah im pretty sure she mispoke and meant 170K. I mean are you so smart as to try and think she is trying to fool people into believing the number is 170 million? 

I have no idea what to think anymore. Over the last few days the Vice President of the United States has claimed that shotguns are easier to handle than an AR15 (have the average woman fire a 12-gauge and an AR15 and see what they think) and he's advocated shooting blindly into the air and through closed doors as methods of home defense. Unbelievable.

 

Now the president is trying to portray the sequestration as a GOP creation and when he gets called out for it by former-lefty-favorite Bob Woodward his minions issue threats. Who knows what this administration has up its sleeve.

[bleedorange]

 

yeah im pretty sure she mispoke and meant 170K. I mean are you so smart as to try and think she is trying to fool people into believing the number is 170 million? 

 

With the number of times Maxine Waters has "misspoke" over the years, I'm more inclined to believe that she is just that stupid.

[KevinG]

Well, Jefferson and Adams weren't at the Constitutional Convention, but it was a big issue for Jefferson who was concerned about the abuse of power that could be displayed by long-serving representatives.  Madison did write favorably about not having term limits in the Federalist Papers, though.

 

I'm not sure what the vote was like or how often term limits was discussed at the Convention or why the Articles of Confederation had a limit, but the Constitution did not.  Of course, times were different back then, and it might not have been a big concern.  The turnover rate in Congress was much higher than it is today.

 

But Jefferson did write the Bill of Rights, partly because he was not at the Constitutional Convention.  If term limits were so important to him I think he would have gotten it in.  And to suggest that Jefferson and Adams had no influence on the Convention is ridiculous.  But yes I concur with you Jefferson suggested term limits when talking about the Virginia State Constitution:

 

 

 

 

• "I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [state] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget." --Thomas Jefferson to E. Pendleton, 1776.

 

But he also had faith in the electorate to put things right if an elected official was not doing his duty: 

 

 

 

 

• "Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights." --Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1806.

 

 

The only reason that term limits are ever brought up is because of the dysfunction of congress.  If congress was doing good by the citizens of the United States no one would care.  Simply put, wouldn't it be better to change the dysfunction, rather than change how long a person can serve?  

 

Term limits do nothing to fix what is wrong.  Look at the 112 congress.  The highest percentage of freshmen in 60 years (term limits imposed by the vote).  Also one of the richest group of freshmen to be elected.  Look at the dysfunction of the 112 congress.  It is all about money.  Not say that millionaires can't be good representatives, but the cost to get elected is so great the representatives are not beholden to the people.  

[KevinG]

 

Now the president is trying to portray the sequestration as a GOP creation and when he gets called out for it by former-lefty-favorite Bob Woodward his minions issue threats. Who knows what this administration has up its sleeve.

 

Technical not a creation of the GOP, but a result of the GOP holding America's Full Faith in Credit hostage with the debt ceiling.  

[bleedorange]

But Jefferson did write the Bill of Rights, partly because he was not at the Constitutional Convention.  If term limits were so important to him I think he would have gotten it in.  And to suggest that Jefferson and Adams had no influence on the Convention is ridiculous.  But yes I concur with you Jefferson suggested term limits when talking about the Virginia State Constitution:

 

Pretty sure Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.  And I doubt Jefferson or Adams had much influence on the Convention.  They were both in Europe.  Unless the delegates were constantly checking their email accounts.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

 

The only reason that term limits are ever brought up is because of the dysfunction of congress.  If congress was doing good by the citizens of the United States no one would care.  Simply put, wouldn't it be better to change the dysfunction, rather than change how long a person can serve?  

 

I actually agree with you: term limits would be unnecessary if the utter dysfunction were changed. That being said, there is something to what Jefferson wrote about people returning to the masses and being "the governed" instead of the governor. Having an asshat as your rep for 30 years is pretty ridiculous, especially when he or she is often reelected mainly out of the familiarity of the surname. As an old friend of mine recently observed, "People, in general, are dumb."

 

Personally, I wish more reps would learn to "think local, act global" when it comes to their votes. There is such a parochialism in America today, and especially in politics. The idea is that "what is best for my local community is best," and to hell with everybody else in the country. It really contributes to cherry-picking, pork, etc. etc.

[Hixter]

[KevinG]

Pretty sure Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. And I doubt Jefferson or Adams had much influence on the Convention. They were both in Europe. Unless the delegates were constantly checking their email accounts.

My bad it was madison.

 

Both did have communication with the constitutional convention, and their influence can be seen.

 

Regardless of founders views. Tell me how if term limits were imposed this this current dysfunction would stop.

 

 

[uncool2pillow]

Not sayin' I'm for term limits.  Back in '90s I thought we should have them, then the '94 elections proved incumbency wasn't a guarantee to a job.  BUT, I do think the influence of lobbyists would be diminished because they wouldn't always be running for re-election and there just wouldn't be as much time to foster the lobbyist/politician relationship.

 

I could be completely wrong and the lobbyists may be able to influence over a bunch of amateurs.  Anyway, it's going to require a constitutional amendment and that's just not going to happen because the anti forces would remind people in every state about their most esteemed long-serving politicians.

[KevinG]

welcome to the sequester day one!

[LouieB]

Its gonna be okay, really.  I think we need this situation to get every one back on track.  I think everyone needs a bit of pain on this.  McCain is crowing about the horrible defense cuts and Arne Duncan is weeping about laying off teachers.  Most folks don't believe any of it at this point.

 

LouieB 

[Hixter]

Its gonna be okay, really.  I think we need this situation to get every one back on track.  I think everyone needs a bit of pain on this.

The national debt has increased 6 trillion dollars over the last 4 years and all this sequestration hullaballoo is about cutting 1.2 trillion dollars over the next decade. Looki at the projected figures for 2013 and beyond (the rise of Obamacare)  and it's obvious that we're in deep doodoo and need more spending cuts, not just more taxes.

[KevinG]

The national debt has increased 6 trillion dollars over the last 4 years and all this sequestration hullaballoo is about cutting 1.2 trillion dollars over the next decade. Looki at the projected figures for 2013 and beyond (the rise of Obamacare)  and it's obvious that we're in deep doodoo and need more spending cuts, not just more taxes.

 

it has seemed curious that today's "deficit hawks" were ok for voting for the Bush tax cuts and two wars without paying for them, and now, deficit spending is a problem.  

 

If you want to get our debt under control two things need to happen, cut spending and raise taxes.  The Dems have cut spending to an extent, but the GOP is refusing to budge on taxes.  

 

To me the GOP is not serious about the debt, if they were they would purpose to raise taxes.  They have not done so.  

 

Its gonna be okay, really.  I think we need this situation to get every one back on track.  I think everyone needs a bit of pain on this.  McCain is crowing about the horrible defense cuts and Arne Duncan is weeping about laying off teachers.  Most folks don't believe any of it at this point.

 

LouieB 

 

Louie, I agree with you on most things, but you are wrong.  Are you going to be furloughed?  Is you take home pay going to be cut by 20%?  It is a little pain for the whole, but for some it is a great deal.  

[Hixter]

it has seemed curious that today's "deficit hawks" were ok for voting for the Bush tax cuts and two wars without paying for them, and now, deficit spending is a problem.  

The debt increase during Obama's first 4 years in office: $6 trillion

The cost of more than 10 years of war (4 of which also fell under Obama): $1.5 trillion

 

There's no way tax increases will be able to solve the country's debt problem. it would cost every American $20,000 just to cover the $6 trillion in debt increase over the last 4 years -- and then there's the $10 trillion he inherited.

 

Future spending is set to increase dramatically, so things look even gloomier down the road. We need to cut the size and expense of government, and that includes social programs like Social Security, welfare and Medicare that already dwarf defense spending. It's going to be painful, but we need to cut spending drastically now.

[lost highway]

 

The cost of more than 10 years of war (4 of which also fell under Obama): $1.5 trillion

 

 

Or as some would say $3-4 trillion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

[lost highway]

 

 

Now the president is trying to portray the sequestration as a GOP creation and when he gets called out for it by former-lefty-favorite Bob Woodward his minions issue threats. Who knows what this administration has up its sleeve.

 

 

Read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html

 

Those dudes are buddies, don't believe the hype.

 

As per the larger conversation the debt was sparked by nonsensical foreign policy ambitions coupled with tax cuts.  After the housing crisis they've been increased by 1) needed stimulus and 2) less revenue.

 

As you decrease stimulus, and make cuts you pinch the economy.  If the economy doesn't come back you don't get the revenue, no matter what you cut.

[IRememberDBoon]

The national debt has increased 6 trillion dollars over the last 4 years and all this sequestration hullaballoo is about cutting 1.2 trillion dollars over the next decade. Looki at the projected figures for 2013 and beyond (the rise of Obamacare)  and it's obvious that we're in deep doodoo and need more spending cuts, not just more taxes.

 

 

yeah in case you didnt know the president has presented a more than 2 to 1 , cuts to revenue package FIVE different times.

 

we know what the right is doing. no need to try and tell anyone different. but this time it aint gonna work. 

[uncool2pillow]

but this time it aint gonna work. 

 

Just curious exactly what you mean by this?  Do you expect a collapse of the economy that will be blamed on Republicans?  ADemocratic takeover of the house in 2014?  Something else?

[IRememberDBoon]

[KevinG]

The cost of more than 10 years of war (4 of which also fell under Obama): $1.5 trillion

 

So I am not sure what you are saying here.  Obama should have pulled all troops when he got in office?  The wars where unfunded by congress PBO inherited this problem.  If we were not in the war in the first place we would not have incurred this cost.  

 

There's no way tax increases will be able to solve the country's debt problem. it would cost every American $20,000 just to cover the $6 trillion in debt increase over the last 4 years -- and then there's the $10 trillion he inherited.

 

There is no way that just straight spending cuts will solve the country's debt problem.  To solve the debt issue it will take a mix of spending cuts and tax raises.  

 

Future spending is set to increase dramatically, so things look even gloomier down the road. We need to cut the size and expense of government, and that includes social programs like Social Security, welfare and Medicare that already dwarf defense spending. It's going to be painful, but we need to cut spending drastically now.

 

So you are willing to cause pain to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children, but are opposed to cause pain to the wealthy with marginal tax increases?  

 

As a note, Ben Stein on CBS Sunday morning just had a fabulous op-ed on sequester.  I would suggest you all find it.  I will post it when it comes up.  Edit found the text of his commentary here:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57572208/ben-stein-our-government-has-gone-off-the-rails/

Edited March 3, 2013 by KevinG

[LouieB]

i always seem to be done with this thread, but....

 

HIxter. - The wars in Iraq and Afganistan when finally added to the deficit helped drive it up. It wasn't counted during the Bush years.

 

KevinG - Of course you disagree with me. I disagree with myself, but the fact remains that our elected officials don't want to really do anything about the deficit that makes sense.  I am not being furlowed yet; my program isn't on the chopping block.  But that doesn't mean I don't feel for those who are. 

 

The US of A is so mired in defense spending that even civilian jobs are at stake when we slash spending.  Meanwhile to those on the right, only defense is important and not programs for the elderly, children, or unemployed.  Basically we are fucked.  Both right and left are mired in what they both decry which is "big government."  The right would wither and die just as fast as the left if there was less government spending. We may have a taste of that now and good luck to everyone.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

All I am saying Obama is the worst socialist I have ever seen.  

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/05/investing/stocks-markets/