hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: Money & Politics in the U.S.

  1. #41
    dpidcoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 29, 2011
    Location
    San diego
    Posts
    4,908
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    The problem with term limits for the US Congress is that it would created a perpetual wave of new Representatives and Senators. The rules and practices of legislation in the US are extremely complicated, so the newer members of Congress often look for people with more experience to help them out.
    So a constant wave of new people will force things to be less complicated and biased in favor of the people who have been filling a seat for the last 40 years, sounds like a win to me.

  2. #42
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,668
    Fresh Ideas? Sounds terrible.

  3. #43
    Keorythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    The problem with term limits for the US Congress is that it would created a perpetual wave of new Representatives and Senators. The rules and practices of legislation in the US are extremely complicated, so the newer members of Congress often look for people with more experience to help them out. Right now there are other experienced Congressmen to help them, but even now a lot of newer people on Capitol Hill have to rely on lobbyists for help figuring things out. The lobbyists use this build personal relationships and gain influence, which would only get worse if we used to term limits to decimate the ranks of experienced legislators.
    I'll disagree on this. The rules and practices are the easy part. It's the connections made with other members that's the hard part. Freshmen Senators and Reps. have to be introduced to other heavy hitters through their own. Older incumbents often work as ring leaders and match makers. Then there are those that want to be professional politicians and move from job to job. So a House member tries to move to a Senate position then moves to a new area and runs there, etc. California is a prime example of the strengths and weaknesses of term limits.

    Lobbyists have to be able to sell a water to a fish in an ocean. Old or new, the effect is still the same with the politicians unless the incumbents have become set in their ways and won't even change unless there's a HUGE swing in several polls. The funny part of all of this is that lobbyist vehemently oppose term limits. Deep pockets only works with people that will be there for a while and an incumbent who's in their pocket can work as a judas goat to steer newer politicians to their side saving them effort.
    Last edited by Keorythe; April 17 2013 at 10:36:55 AM.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,177
    Quote Originally Posted by dpidcoe View Post
    so a constant wave of new people will force things to be less complicated and biased in favor of the people who have been filling a seat for the last 40 years, sounds like a win to me.
    No you tell me you like me.

  5. #45
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dpidcoe View Post
    so a constant wave of new people will force things to be less complicated and biased in favor of the people who have been filling a seat for the last 40 years, sounds like a win to me.
    No you tell me you like me.
    Quackbot 2013: Change we can be computationally certain of.

  6. #46
    Tarminic's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,998
    I feel like this is relevant to this discussion: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_le...xap8s.facebook

    A few disturbing facts from this video - I haven't double-checked them myself but I've heard them repeated elsewhere:
    1. Over 60% of all the money donated by Super PACs during the 2012 election cycle was raised by 142 people.
    2. Between 1998 and 2004, 50% of the Senate and 42% of the house left the government to join lobbying organizations. When they did, they saw an average salary increase of 1,452%.

    Status of Babby: 100% Formed

  7. #47
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    Quote Originally Posted by dpidcoe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    The problem with term limits for the US Congress is that it would created a perpetual wave of new Representatives and Senators. The rules and practices of legislation in the US are extremely complicated, so the newer members of Congress often look for people with more experience to help them out.
    So a constant wave of new people will force things to be less complicated and biased in favor of the people who have been filling a seat for the last 40 years, sounds like a win to me.
    Why would new people force it to be less complicated? It'd likely stay complicated and we'd just get even less done. If we got rid of some of the retarded rules (like the filibuster) before we instituted term limits it shouldn't be a problem. But we can't bring in term limits without preparing for what effect that'll have on the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    The problem with term limits for the US Congress is that it would created a perpetual wave of new Representatives and Senators. The rules and practices of legislation in the US are extremely complicated, so the newer members of Congress often look for people with more experience to help them out. Right now there are other experienced Congressmen to help them, but even now a lot of newer people on Capitol Hill have to rely on lobbyists for help figuring things out. The lobbyists use this build personal relationships and gain influence, which would only get worse if we used to term limits to decimate the ranks of experienced legislators.
    I'll disagree on this. The rules and practices are the easy part. It's the connections made with other members that's the hard part. Freshmen Senators and Reps. have to be introduced to other heavy hitters through their own. Older incumbents often work as ring leaders and match makers. Then there are those that want to be professional politicians and move from job to job. So a House member tries to move to a Senate position then moves to a new area and runs there, etc. California is a prime example of the strengths and weaknesses of term limits.

    Lobbyists have to be able to sell a water to a fish in an ocean. Old or new, the effect is still the same with the politicians unless the incumbents have become set in their ways and won't even change unless there's a HUGE swing in several polls. The funny part of all of this is that lobbyist vehemently oppose term limits. Deep pockets only works with people that will be there for a while and an incumbent who's in their pocket can work as a judas goat to steer newer politicians to their side saving them effort.
    Hmmmm that definitely makes sense. Despite living in California, I hardly pay attention to our state level politics. I'll ask some of my professors what they think about the term limits we have.
    Last edited by ValorousBob; April 25 2013 at 12:11:30 AM.

  8. #48
    Moderator Moderator F*** My Aunt Rita's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Whereever particular mexicans congregate.
    Posts
    3,026
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    Hmmmm that definitely makes sense. Despite living in California, I hardly pay attention to our state level politics. I'll ask some of my professors what they think about the term limits we have.
    It actually doesn't work as well as keorythe thinks it does. Instead of institution memory and internal policing residing in the governing body it got delegated to the state political party. If you want to have any chance for advancement you have to play by their rules or they'll cut you off from any future campaign funding. Even if you're independently wealthy, cross them and they'll fund a primary challenger to cut your balls off.

    What you end up getting is a bunch of junior politicians that have to obey the party line. That would be all well and good but we don't vote for parties, we vote for individuals. At least in the ideal sense.

  9. #49
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    Quote Originally Posted by F*** My Aunt Rita View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    Hmmmm that definitely makes sense. Despite living in California, I hardly pay attention to our state level politics. I'll ask some of my professors what they think about the term limits we have.
    It actually doesn't work as well as keorythe thinks it does. Instead of institution memory and internal policing residing in the governing body it got delegated to the state political party. If you want to have any chance for advancement you have to play by their rules or they'll cut you off from any future campaign funding. Even if you're independently wealthy, cross them and they'll fund a primary challenger to cut your balls off.

    What you end up getting is a bunch of junior politicians that have to obey the party line. That would be all well and good but we don't vote for parties, we vote for individuals. At least in the ideal sense.
    I have heard some similar things from one of my professors, apparently you have to suck some major Majority Leader dick to get anything you want.

  10. #50
    Moderator Moderator F*** My Aunt Rita's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Whereever particular mexicans congregate.
    Posts
    3,026
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    I have heard some similar things from one of my professors, apparently you have to suck some major Majority Leader dick to get anything you want.
    I completely understand the desire of voters disliking career politicians who are more interested in backing legislation from the entrenched interests rather than their districts interests. And term limits seems at least in a superficial way an easy fix to that problem. It doesn't allow much time to go by for those kind of political relationships to build. And there really wasn't a suitable test case to point towards when trying to predict what term limits would do to the state government. But now that we have term limits and can see its effects, I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't fix the original problem of getting a more accountable government. Not that the system inplace prior to term limits was a bastion of democracy but as I said previously, at least before term limits the government was technically accountable. The difference may be hair splitting to some people, but we vote for individuals and not state political parties.

    Recently though one big thing that I think has made our state government a lot more accountable is removing redistricting from the state house/senate and is now determined by a somewhat more objective committee. It made districts more competitive which pissed off both state party leadership and frankly that is something every state should institute. Regardless of how it'll change the political status quo. Making districts less secure to incumbents is always a good thing.

  11. #51
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    If you have a whole floor full of new senators/reps then there may be a good chance they will simplify the rules in order to get things done, which is fine by me. Less complexity means less room for politicking and more time spent with bills and voting...

  12. #52
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    If you have a whole floor full of new senators/reps then there may be a good chance they will simplify the rules in order to get things done, which is fine by me. Less complexity means less room for politicking and more time spent with bills and voting...
    Why are new congressmen more likely to want to simplify rules then ones that have been there for a while? Is "complexity" the real issue with nothing getting done on the Federal level? I think the lack of progress is due to hyper-partisan atmosphere we are in.

    If I was to put a guess as to why things are so partisan, I'd say it is because Bush was so awful and the Dems having the nerve to elect a black president (i.e. racism), but that is a bit simplistic of course.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  13. #53

    Join Date
    August 30, 2012
    Posts
    1,535
    It can actually be traced back to Gingrinch in 94. he championed the method of demonizing one's opponent, slandering them rather than really worrying about their positions. Call them anti-family, anti-flag, anti-child, anti-capitalism, etc. He literally wrote the book on it, and that was his advice. The trouble is that once you've told your constituents that your opponent is the scum of the earth, they don't really want you to work with them. Additionally, the electorate has started treating politics like a sport - all about winning and losing, and therefore if the other guy is winning, we must be losing. And if he's losing, we must be winning. So we've gotta keep him from winning, and damn the consequences.

    So yeah, it's been almost 20 years of this shit, and the government has been becoming more dysfunctional as we go. In the 90s, we had Gingrich shutting down the gov in a fight with Clinton, then we had the democrats doing everything they could to shut Bush down once they were back in congress in 06, and then the republicans returning the favor in 2010, and continuing.

    We're pretty much fucked.

  14. #54
    Moderator Moderator F*** My Aunt Rita's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Whereever particular mexicans congregate.
    Posts
    3,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    If you have a whole floor full of new senators/reps then there may be a good chance they will simplify the rules in order to get things done, which is fine by me. Less complexity means less room for politicking and more time spent with bills and voting...

    Are you talking about the US congress? Other than the few rules stated in the constitution the majorities in both chambers vote in their own rules every new congress. I'm not sure how term limits would have an affect on that though.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •