Incumbents

[CJY]

I am not against voting against every congressional incumbent on the ticket. Changes need to be made, otherwise we will only have more of the same old crap.

As long as politicians believe we will not hold them responsible, they will continue to do stupid things while in office.

I also believe some fresh minds may be good for our country.

??????

 

[ob]

Re: Incumbents

Too bad they can only be replaced with more politicians.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Incumbents

I can't think of one that deserves to be sent back.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Incumbents

I tend to agree. Even Paul Harvey endoresed you position a few years back. His saying was, "All the Ins out and all the Outs in."

There is only one problem with this. The reason why we don't have all Senate and House seats come up for election at the same time is the potential for all new, and inexperienced legislators. This lack of experience would be catostrophic. But since we have two years before the rest of the two houses come up for election, "All the Ins out and all the Outs in." After all the corruption of the remainder of the legislators couldn't possibly poison the new-comers, right?8)

I say consider what is best for the country and vote accordingly, but remember the un-balance of powers we have now and where this country has ended up.

 

[Bob_VT]

Re: Incumbents

Regardless of who becomes a "new" senator or congressman they will be "freshman" The freshman will have two choices do what is right or become a "good party member and good old boy".

Those that do the correct things on voting usually get nowhere and are seldom on any decent project. The ones who become the "good old boys" vote with their party and go with the flow.

New blood is a great idea but IMO new blood is powerless out of the gate.

 

[CalicoKid]

Re: Incumbents

My motto has long been 're-elect nobody'

These boys #1 priority has long been to get re-elected and protect each other's office in order to hold power. It is really not in the best interest of our government at any level. They say thier experience matters but have you seen these congressmen operate? They act like fourth graders most of the time. It's shameful that of the thousands+ of brilliant and talented people qualified for the job that we have the same old crap term after term from the same old boys. The incumbancy rate in congress is 98% !!! That is SICK for a supposedly great democracy like the USA.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Incumbents

I am not against voting against every congressional incumbent on the ticket. Changes need to be made, otherwise we will only have more of the same old crap.

As long as politicians believe we will not hold them responsible, they will continue to do stupid things while in office.


I also believe some fresh minds may be good for our country.

??????

For once we agree CJY, but for that to work we have to stop electing from the lawyer pool. Term limits would also not be a bad idea.

 

[CJY]

Re: Incumbents

Do you think we may get people interested in our country as a first priority if we removed most of the pay and the fringes these career politicians get from us?

I don't know how well that is phrased. I guess my question is, could we remove the crooked career politicians if they did not get payed or have all the fringes?

Let's face it, they vote to give themselves more pay, they are paid off by special interest groups, probably a pretty good retirement package, and who knows where else they get other freebies. Congess is ripe for corruption.

Is this flawed thinking or ....... ?

Sorry about the side track, but this just appeared to be a natural progress for this topic.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Incumbents

Yikes!!!!!! I agree with Boom :% d

 

[CalicoKid]

Re: Incumbents

I believe they are there for their stock portfolios mostly. The best portfolios belong to congressmen, of course they have all the inside info and can influence stock values by changing the laws. Major conflict of interest. They ought to be made to put all stock money in a trust while in office to reduce the temptation to put their own interests before their country's.

 

[crunch]

Re: Incumbents

Our Forefathers gave of their time, out of their own pockets, time in office, as they saw it as their DUTY.

They didn't get paid, no retirement, payed their own expenses, then back to private life.

LBJ, as an example that comes to mind, entered office millions in debt... exited with 5 million+... on a "wage" of $250,000.00 a year... go "finger."

Stop corruption in politics?... independent CPA's for net worth of elected officials before and after office... and run an up to date net worth, by other independent CPA’s.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Incumbents

I am not against voting against every congressional incumbent on the ticket. Changes need to be made, otherwise we will only have more of the same old crap.

As long as politicians believe we will not hold them responsible, they will continue to do stupid things while in office.


I also believe some fresh minds may be good for our country.

??????

For once we agree CJY, but for that to work we have to stop electing from the lawyer pool. Term limits would also not be a bad idea.

Seems as though the American people did vote for term limits, back in the Clinton era. But the whiny legislators (remember redumblican rule at that time too) cried to the Supreme court and the American people were told the States couldn't tell the Federal Government what to do. It was the American people, not the states that voted for term limits. But there is hope, we the people have the power to enact term limits. We must voluntarily impose term limits. We must not vote for the incumbent.

There may be some career politicians who deserve to stay because they truly serve the best interest of their constituents and the citizens of America, but there are far too many who are there simply for the power, prestige and profit.

We the people have the power, but so many don’t possess the intelligence or intestinal fortitude, that is why we rely on legislation. And who better to end-run legislation than the legislature? They’re all a bunch of crooks, out with them all, dem or repub. Replace them with indy’s :% and maybe we’ll have some altruistic action (yeah right!). A major upset of power in November would be great, shake things up and show the fat-cats that they are not safe unless they shape up, develop some morals and SERVE the voters. And then we would need to do it again in two years to show that we mean business.

'never happen:'(

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Incumbents

Too bad they can only be replaced with more politicians.

That is the sad part of this plan.

We truly need a new political party, but that idea has been crushed by those in the current two parties.

Ken

 

[Pony]

Re: Incumbents

We need another violation of something liken the Missouri Compromise to create the push for a new party...............

 

[DJ]

Re: Incumbents

I'm all for term limits. However, they will never work as long as the American public is willing to accept a "court decree" over lawmakers law.

So, where are we? We want our own way in court, with made up (bench) laws, yet we want term limits for lawmakers? You can't have both.

Since judges, for the most part, are life appointed, by politicians, the American public gets what they DON'T VOTE for.

We can have reasonable discussions when everyone (legally) votes. Until then, those that don't, have elected to divorce themselves out of a voice in American politics.

No vote-NO BIOTCH !

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Incumbents

I vote at EVERY election, I have even voted while at sea on a USN destroyer.
its my right,priviledge and duty.
but when the folks I vote for dont do what they say I can biotch.
I can also vote again.
however I am getting weary of voting the lesser of 2 evils .