Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4717)	11/14/2006 12:18:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

So can you find a single writing by any of the FFs stating they thought lifetime Congresspersons or Senators was a good idea? Can you find a single post where I say its a good idea. Not supporting the strong version of term limits you call for doesn't equal supporting the idea that lifetime service was a good idea, and not liking the idea of lifetime service, doesn't require supporting such term limits. If they lived today, I believe most if not all of them would call for amending the Constitution to include a provision for Term Limits such as no more than twelve years of total federal elected service during an individual's life. I don't think they would support that, and even if they would, I don't see it as a reason to change my opinion. Sorry for any harshness in my last post. People misrepresenting what I say is a pet peeve of mine.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4717)	11/14/2006 12:23:54 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

I've been following this conversation with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think a turnover of some of the more slimey politicians would be a good thing. OTOH, some congress critters actually do a good job, are almost honest, and are worth keeping around for at least another term or two. The problem is how to differentiate good from bad. The military might have a solution. They have an "up or out" policy, meaning that if a person isn't promoted by a certain time, he gets shown the door at a certain time of service. Maybe something like that should be instituted for Congress? Someone would have to come up with the criteria, though. Such as the number of scandals one is involved in, number of votes missed, constituent requests satisfied, etc. A Congressman who doesn't meet some score on this objective appraisal won't be allowed to return to their position. (Each election year, congress votes to admit those congress critters who were re-elected; now, it's mostly a pro-forma vote, but real teeth could be put into the vote.) Think something like that would work?