In politics? No, I don't. In writing laws? Yes, I do. I think if we are going to go with what you guys are proposing (term limits and the various other ideas in this thread), then we have to address the fact that the representatives will likely know/understand/care even less about the job they were elected to than they do now. Of course some of you will argue that's a good thing, an incompetent congressman is a good congressman. It's not realistic, however. It isn't 1792 anymore, things are more complicated now, and we can't go back. The net effect here will be to make Congresspeople less powerful and the executive branch and non-elected staffers more powerful. barfo
I'd like people who "know stuff" (even if those are lawyers) making complex decisions that involve lots of factors rather than random people. But I'm perfectly fine with the idea of stricter term limits and the like, preventing career politicians. I know some good lawyer jokes. What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One's a bottom-dwelling scum-sucker and the other knows a lot about law.
Perhaps you're right. Fuck let's have medical doctors not require a degree either! /s edit: to actually answer your question; if people writing our laws, don't know enough about laws, then Lawyers will exploit all of it and fuck everything up. Example: This law only says state healthcare exchanges, therefore it doesn't apply to anyone on the national healthcare exchanges, therefore 37 states worth of low income recipients don't get refunds. PS I write poorly when I'm upset, go figure.
Huh? Lawyers argue the law against each other every single day. If they can't agree on how to interpret laws 100%, why do we need them to write the laws?
who put together the pile of shit referred to as obamacare? A bunch of your vaunted lawyers.;.point failed
You must be operating under that assumption that I think congress and the administration, both chock full of lawyers, are doing a good job. As for people "not caring" about the job, it's not supposed to be a life-time job. Harry Reid has acquired millions in wealth over his tenure in the Senate. He's not in it because he cares about the job. He cares about the money, and people give him money, along with sweetheart land deals, so they can gain access to his power. With term limits, you put the power back in the hands of the populace, and if you make it less lucrative (and more like a state reps job, for example), that power doesn't become institutionalized. I don't think that's too extreme of a position. John McCain is another who has made millions in the public sector. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. LOL
What in my post makes you think that I assume that? I understand that, but that doesn't negate my point, unless you think it simply isn't possible to make the situation worse than it is right now. I think it is possible to make it worse (and, also, better, obviously). The populace already has the power, they choose not to use it. Most Americans think other people's congresspeople are whores, but their own guy is ok. Your proposal doesn't give power to the populace, it reduces their power - they have one fewer choice for who to elect. barfo
I disagree. History has shown that the longer politicians are in power, the more power is consolidated within that individual. It's why we had Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond being senators when they should have been in a nursing home. They weren't running for them; they were running because their staffs/donors/etc. etc. still wanted access to that power.
No doubt, but that does not change the fact that your proposal actually removes power from the people rather than adds it. You are basically saying: "People, you aren't exercising your power the way we want, so we will change the rules to force you to exercise it the way we want". Right now, they have the power to reelect people so old they can't feed themselves or use the toilet; you want to take that power away from them. I'm not objecting to doing so - I think if there is a minimum age to serve, there should also be a maximum age. I only object to your suggestion that it empowers the people when it really does the opposite. barfo
Wow, right twice in the past 24 hours. What's going on? You do realize that the guy who can shoe a horse can also hire a lawyer for advice when needed. How about we have doctors run things. Or firemen. So you agree that we should let the oil company experts make complex decisions that involve lots of factors.
But the people in power are appointed. You know, like the IRS people in trouble, head of the EPA, FCC, FEC, HUD, etc. Some democracy!
