Nancy Pelosi

[oldguystudent]

I'm sad that I've composed what I think are two of my most clever analogies, and not a single LOL, virtual guffaw, or +1. Hell, I didn't even get a + decimal point. It is indeed a rainy, dreary, depressing day for your's truly.

Wait, I've got it! You know what she's trying to get with all that Botox? Tight ends! Hah! The secret weapon of politicians and football gurus the world round!

[UNT90]

I'm sad that I've composed what I think are two of my most clever analogies, and not a single LOL, virtual guffaw, or +1. Hell, I didn't even get a + decimal point. It is indeed a rainy, dreary, depressing day for your's truly.

Wait, I've got it! You know what she's trying to get with all that Botox? Tight ends! Hah! The secret weapon of politicians and football gurus the world round!

Neediness is NOT an attractive quality.

[UNTflyer]

Dang straight I want congress run by rookies. As a conservative, I want the Fed government to do as little as possible.

Well, I'm conservative as well and I think that the model of good government is not to do as little as possible, but to do the best job for the people while imposing minimal costs on liberty. Having the most powerful branch of government run by rookies who do not know the process and possess almost no power to force compromise on the executive branch is a recipe for ineffective government.

Part of the problem that perpetuates a career in politics is the salary and perks of being a member of Congress. $174,000/year salary, lucrative retirement plans that start at age 50, huge budgets to hire up to 22 staff members which usually consist of family and friends, and travel perks. Not to mention a career as a lobbyist, talking head, or public speaker that returns an enormous amount of money directly proportional to time of service.

[UNT90]

Well, I'm conservative as well and I think that the model of good government is not to do as little as possible, but to do the best job for the people while imposing minimal costs on liberty. Having the most powerful branch of government run by rookies who do not know the process and possess almost no power to force compromise on the executive branch is a recipe for ineffective government.

Part of the problem that perpetuates a career in politics is the salary and perks of being a member of Congress. $174,000/year salary, lucrative retirement plans that start at age 50, huge budgets to hire up to 22 staff members which usually consist of family and friends, and travel perks. Not to mention a career as a lobbyist, talking head, or public speaker that returns an enormous amount of money directly proportional to time of service.

And the only viable answer to this is term limits. Smart people will know what to do, rookies or not, and I would much prefer rookies with no special interest ties to a 20 term fatcat who calculates every move to ensure his re-election.

Presidents only get 8 years, and this was changed after FDR, so I don't really see a constitutional issue. And if it's so hard for rookie congressmen, imagine what it was/is like for Bush/Pres Obama when they took office. The "no experience" tag is just an excuse.

Not to mention, there would be no "System" (process) or political Hierarchy if you eliminated the Hierarchy that created the "System".

Edited May 16, 2009 by UNT90

[CMJ]

The founding fathers had a vision of citizen service, where respected community members go to Washington to serve, and then return home to continue thier life, not career politicians whose views change with the latest AP Poll.

I guess you missed the part where we've had career politicians since the founding of the Republic. James Madison was in the 1st Congress I believe....and served straight through(counting his time as Secretary of State) until the end of his Presidency. That's 28 years.

I'm sure there are many more examples, but that's the 1st one that came to mind.

(And BTW - Alexander Hamilton argued FOR a class of career politicans)

Edited May 16, 2009 by CMJ

[UNT90]

I guess you missed the part where we've had career politicians since the founding of the Republic. James Madison was in the 1st Congress I believe....and served straight through(counting his time as Secretary of State) until the end of his Presidency. That's 28 years.

I'm sure there are many more examples, but that's the 1st one that came to mind.

(And BTW - Alexander Hamilton argued FOR a class of career politicans)

I have no doubt that politicians started taking advantage of the system as soon as the system was put into place. Thats what they do. As for Alexander Hamilton, shocking a politician is arguing for a class of career politicians, isn't it?

I would love to see politicians eliminated altogether, much less have any career politicians. I think term limits would go a long way toward that goal. If it's OK for the President, why not for congressmen?

[CMJ]

I have no doubt that politicians started taking advantage of the system as soon as the system was put into place. Thats what they do. As for Alexander Hamilton, shocking a politician is arguing for a class of career politicians, isn't it?

I would love to see politicians eliminated altogether, much less have any career politicians. I think term limits would go a long way toward that goal. If it's OK for the President, why not for congressmen?

Hamilton argued for career politicians right around the time the Constitution was being written because of the problems states were having turning over their representatives every few years(at the state and federal level). And Hamilton was more of a Rove type than a true politician. He liked trying to do everything behind the scenes, not out in front.

If Washington had served more than 2 terms, we probably never would have had the natural 8 year pattern for presidents to step down - and hence we may never have put limits on the President. But since every President followed Washington's example(at least initially...a few tried running for a third non consecutive term after being a citizen for a few years) that's why it was so shocking to the public when FDR served beyond eight - and their was the momentum to amend the Constitution.

Living in California now, where there are term limits on nearly every local & state office - I see that it really doesn't work. People just change the office they run for. So they run for city council. Then City Attorney. Then Mayor. Then move the the House. Then they goto the Senate. Then the Comptroller. Then Lt. Governor. Then Governor.

So you still have the same problem, but now they just rarely beome efficient at any job.

Edited May 16, 2009 by CMJ

[oldguystudent]

In California, it's not the Peter Principle, it's the Gray Davis Principle!

[eeally]

Pelosi is a liar and very weird looking!!!! How do I know she is a liar! The CIA said it!!! Now they are not a secret organization or anything. They are transparent and accountable to us the "People"

Fact is nobody knows and if she did know but did not want to step up then ...she should keep her trap shut now!

When will we unite as a country....people let's think positive and just hold each other...OK

[UNT90]

Fact is nobody knows and if she did know but did not want to step up then ...she should keep her trap shut now!

Watch her last press conference. So easy to tell that she is lying.

I'm sure that Alexander Hamilton would be extremely proud of what congress has become if he were alive today.

Hamilton was absolutely a politician.

[CMJ]

I'm sure that Alexander Hamilton would be extremely proud of what congress has become if he were alive today.

Hamilton was absolutely a politician.

Well the country became more what he expected than Jefferson, that's for sure. I'm sure Hamilton woulda been somewhat satisfied with how things turned out with Congress and the office of President. He was certainly proven correct by history more often than he was proven wrong. Sure he was a bastard(wasn't it Franklin who said something along the lines of, "some people are born bastards and some earn the title with their actions, Hamilton was both" ), but he saw the need for a centralized government that even most of Jefferson's followers eventually went along with.

Jefferson seemed to think the USA would always be an agrarian society that was more of a loose union of states.

[UNTflyer]

And the only viable answer to this is term limits. Smart people will know what to do, rookies or not, and I would much prefer rookies with no special interest ties to a 20 term fatcat who calculates every move to ensure his re-election.

It seems that you believe that if a Congressman has no ties to special interest or a concern regarding re-election that they will make good laws and do what's best for the People.

However, you can flip that around and say that a member of Congress with no concern about re-election can do a lot of damage. Multiply that by 535 every two years.

[UNT90]

It seems that you believe that if a Congressman has no ties to special interest or a concern regarding re-election that they will make good laws and do what's best for the People.

However, you can flip that around and say that a member of Congress with no concern about re-election can do a lot of damage. Multiply that by 535 every two years.

They could only do damage for 2 - 6 years, not 20 plus years. I don't get why you think that someone with no concern for re-election could do more damage than someone whose major concern is re-election.

[UNTflyer]

I don't get why you think that someone with no concern for re-election could do more damage than someone whose major concern is re-election.

Re-election makes one accountable to the voters. Someone not up for re-election has no incentive to listen to the wishes of the people.

[hickoryhouse]

Then why not impose term limits that allow Senators two terms, and the house four terms. 12 years for the senate and 8 for the house. This way we get the best of both worlds, experience and voter accountability.

[UNT90]

Re-election makes one accountable to the voters. Someone not up for re-election has no incentive to listen to the wishes of the people.

Again, in theory, your right. In pratice, the only ones they are accountable to are they lobbiest and thier special interest groups that dump millions in thier campaign funds to ensure the politician's re-election. You can't have campaign finance reform, because you do run into constitutional issue with that, leaving term limits as the only viable way out of this current mess (that I can see, anyway).

[UNTflyer]

Again, in theory, your right. In pratice, the only ones they are accountable to are they lobbiest and thier special interest groups that dump millions in thier campaign funds to ensure the politician's re-election. You can't have campaign finance reform, because you do run into constitutional issue with that, leaving term limits as the only viable way out of this current mess (that I can see, anyway).

I respect your opinion on this. Term limits is a popular issue with voters, but in my opinion it takes the responsibility to research candidates away from the voters. Well funded candidates lose all the time, and no amount of campaign money can create a vote at the polling place. In the end, the decision is in the hands of the voters.

And lobbyists are not all bad. They fulfill the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Here's a list of some pretty good lobbys:

NRA

AARP

AFL-CIO

American Farm Bureau Administration

National Federation of Independent Businesses

[UNT90]

I respect your opinion on this. Term limits is a popular issue with voters, but in my opinion it takes the responsibility to research candidates away from the voters. Well funded candidates lose all the time, and no amount of campaign money can create a vote at the polling place. In the end, the decision is in the hands of the voters.

And lobbyists are not all bad. They fulfill the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Here's a list of some pretty good lobbys:

NRA

AARP

AFL-CIO

American Farm Bureau Administration

National Federation of Independent Businesses

In a perfect world, everyone would take the time to research each candidate, and not spend thier free time watching Jerry Springer and reading "Us" magazine. In a prefect world, half the women in America wouldn't make thier voting decisions based on an episode of Oprah. I agree with the concept that it is up to the individual to do thier research, I just wish they wouldn't vote if they don't research the candidates.

Too bad the system can't be weighted to give more weight to the vote of a person who has reiewd certain material on each candidate. But, if we did that, liberals would never win an election.

[UNTFan23]

I respect your opinion on this. Term limits is a popular issue with voters, but in my opinion it takes the responsibility to research candidates away from the voters. Well funded candidates lose all the time, and no amount of campaign money can create a vote at the polling place. In the end, the decision is in the hands of the voters.

And lobbyists are not all bad. They fulfill the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Here's a list of some pretty good lobbys:

NRA

AARP

AFL-CIO

American Farm Bureau Administration

National Federation of Independent Businesses

I'm sure the AFL-CIO is happy now that financial reporting regulations have been repealed, which required unions to report compensation and other expenditures of their members dues.