So the US Government just shut down

[Phoenix Wright]

There might be things related to the general legislative clusterfuck that this could alleviate, I haven't heard much about the idea myself, but a lot of the batshit crazy tea party republicans that even Boehner can't seem to satisfy have only been elected to office once or twice.

wtf viewtiful and sifer, no fair using your mach shit to get your post in before me

i'm not so one-sided in my political beliefs to assert that republicans are the problem. though i disagree with the beliefs of tea-partiers, and would rather see them gone from the political climate, my real beef is how congresspeople treat the job.

everyone in the united states is the problem. we are all to blame. our people are apathetic (myself included--my political efficacy is lowered when i see mostly hopeless attitudes) and our government is hell-bent on keeping the most powerful military-industrial complex the world will ever know. we don't want change because it hasn't gotten bad enough for us yet.

what, i think, limiting the terms that congresspeople can serve would do is help representatives focus on helping their constituents as a whole instead of for those who help pay their bills (i mean i seriously don't understand why people get so mad at congresspeople; if you're neighbor paid your bills you'd at least attempt to do what they asked of you, right), because it's harder to keep ties with so many people all the time for lobbyists. a way that the US could get its citizens to vote could include literal voting days wherein only completely essential functions of the US economy and government remain in operation between an 8-hour voting period. but of course, more voters means that we must have more educated voters--so education reform would become a must.

additionally, i disagree with our first-past-the-post system. i really like the idea of instant-runoff voting. not perfect, obviously, but none of these popular ideas are. i just think they're better than what we currently have.

Term limits would give you less experienced legislators that are more easily influenced by lobbyists. Not a good option.

i don't think it's the inexperienced legislators that are more easily influenced by lobbyists. if i paid you lots of money to make an attempt to do what i want, you'd probably take the money (for any reasonable task). the fact that money exists in politics is the reason why lobbyists have so much leverage over us normal people. it's not the inexperience of new legislators.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[shadykid]

i don't think it's the inexperienced legislators that are more easily influenced by lobbyists. if i paid you lots of money to make an attempt to do what i want, you'd probably take the money (for any reasonable task). the fact that money exists in politics is the reason why lobbyists have so much leverage over us normal people. it's not the inexperience of new legislators.

inexperienced legislatures=less likely to know what they're doing=more likely to be influenced by lobbyists

although I guess one could argue the Tea Party is currently ignoring lobbyists right now during their crusade, but this isn't a good thing!

[amadeuscho]

i'm not so one-sided in my political beliefs to assert that republicans are the problem. though i disagree with the beliefs of tea-partiers, and would rather see them gone from the political climate, my real beef is how congresspeople treat the job.

everyone in the united states is the problem. we are all to blame. our people are apathetic (myself included--my political efficacy is lowered when i see mostly hopeless attitudes) and our government is hell-bent on keeping the most powerful military-industrial complex the world will ever know. we don't want change because it hasn't gotten bad enough for us yet.

what, i think, limiting the terms that congresspeople can serve would do is help representatives focus on helping their constituents as a whole instead of for those who help pay their bills (i mean i seriously don't understand why people get so mad at congresspeople; if you're neighbor paid your bills you'd at least attempt to do what they asked of you, right), because it's harder to keep ties with so many people all the time for lobbyists. a way that the US could get its citizens to vote could include literal voting days wherein only completely essential functions of the US economy and government remain in operation between an 8-hour voting period. but of course, more voters means that we must have more educated voters--so education reform would become a must.

additionally, i disagree with our first-past-the-post system. i really like the idea of instant-runoff voting. not perfect, obviously, but none of these popular ideas are. i just think they're better than what we currently have.

i don't think it's the inexperienced legislators that are more easily influenced by lobbyists. if i paid you lots of money to make an attempt to do what i want, you'd probably take the money (for any reasonable task). the fact that money exists in politics is the reason why lobbyists have so much leverage over us normal people. it's not the inexperience of new legislators.

on this particular shutdown, it's not particular issue where two sides are even close to being at the same amount of fault. In fact, it's very bipartisan to hate Ted Cruz nowadays. It's important to distinguish the root of the problems so that voters don't make the same mistake again.

limiting terms would not necessarily result in individuals getting closer to their constituents or helping as a whole. they would exact the same way for 3 or 2 terms as opposed to the way the act now.

inexperienced legislatures=less likely to know what they're doing=more likely to be influenced by lobbyists

although I guess one could argue the Tea Party is currently ignoring lobbyists right now during their crusade, but this isn't a good thing!

this is what I was thinking.

the business community used tea party in 2010 through 2012, but now they have gotten out of control. And they can't do anything to stop them.

Usually within your first term, it's hard to be particular effective. Ted Cruz is nine months in, he has doesn't anything, and everybody hates him.

[Phoenix Wright]

So...I'm a little confused. Are you two arguing that because lobbyists have "more" influence over new legislators, there shouldn't be term limits? Why is this the biggest detractor to the idea?

[Sunwoo]

I went into work today.

Found out that the campus USGS and the USGS website are closed because of government shutdown.

... Hope I don't need to consult that site anytime soon >_<

[shadykid]

So...I'm a little confused. Are you two arguing that because lobbyists have "more" influence over new legislators, there shouldn't be term limits? Why is this the biggest detractor to the idea?

http://www.missourilife.com/missouri-business/mu-study-finds-term-limits-bad-for-government-effectiveness/

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/dealing-with-term-limited-legislators.html

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130918/OPINION/130919804/like-term-limits-be-careful-what-you-wish-for

all 3 links came up on the first page of a regular google search

anyway, the main thing is that term limits do nothing, lobbyists or not, to help "representing their constituents", run more efficiently, or anything really

and as mentioned, it fails at the one thing its supporters claim it does

(although I do agree with your previous point about how FPTP sucks)

[amadeuscho]

So...I'm a little confused. Are you two arguing that because lobbyists have "more" influence over new legislators, there shouldn't be term limits? Why is this the biggest detractor to the idea?

I don't know what term limits solve, other than get rid of great senators like the former senator Dick Lugar and senator Carl Levin, along with the bad ones like Max Baucas and Chuck Grassley (who was actually better before the Tea Party sprang up).

I don't really see any positive to term limits. And the Senate and House aren't designed to have them, by the way the committees work.

[Phoenix Wright]

http://www.missourilife.com/missouri-business/mu-study-finds-term-limits-bad-for-government-effectiveness/

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/dealing-with-term-limited-legislators.html

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130918/OPINION/130919804/like-term-limits-be-careful-what-you-wish-for

all 3 links came up on the first page of a regular google search

anyway, the main thing is that term limits do nothing, lobbyists or not, to help "representing their constituents", run more efficiently, or anything really

and as mentioned, it fails at the one thing its supporters claim it does

(although I do agree with your previous point about how FPTP sucks)

I don't know what term limits solve, other than get rid of great senators like the former senator Dick Lugar and senator Carl Levin, along with the bad ones like Max Baucas and Chuck Grassley (who was actually better before the Tea Party sprang up).

I don't really see any positive to term limits. And the Senate and House aren't designed to have them, by the way the committees work.

alright, now this all makes more sense. i was getting a little annoyed because it seemed that lobbyists were the only things holding you two back, which i found to be extremely silly.

congressional term limits, in my ideal world of change, wouldn't have priority. it would be after a considerable amount of changes --that i feel are necessary-- happen. i agree completely that without other social/political/economic changes, term limits wouldn't be a prudent choice.

[NinjaMonkey]

Remember 52% voted, 42% did not

Last time I checked, 52 + 42 = 94.

So, what happened to the other 6% of the population that were eligible to vote, exactly?

[Sifer]

Last time I checked, 52 + 42 = 94.

So, what happened to the other 6% of the population that were eligible to vote, exactly?

misquoted myself... from page one 58% voted 42% did not

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-report-reveals-2012-voter-turnout-was-lower-than-2008-and-2004#ixzz2CXZuXyAj

Well Mr. President said just now he will not bargain with the republicans on Obamacare and the other issues. Now the politician parties are playing a game of chicken with the whole USA economy. Though it looks like the republicans moderate are willing to cave in. It is just the extreme Republicans not willing to cave in. Well back to being Independent since both sides cannot communicate with each other or debate matters such as the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html?hp&_r=0

[dondon151]

again, you cannot levy any blame on the congressional democrats for refusing to capitulate to what is effectively a hostage crisis of government! this is a single-player game of chicken with only one reasonable outcome. there should be no need for the parties to communicate with each other because the democrats have nothing to give up.

[I.M. Gei]

Hell, it may very well be that milquetoast "the truth must always be in the middle" false balance, false equivalence narrative much of the mainstream media has preached for months that emboldened the Tea Party caucus to the point they were confident enough to push for the shutdown, consequences be damned

Well Mr. President said just now he will not bargain with the republicans on Obamacare and the other issues. Now the politician parties are playing a game of chicken with the whole USA economy. Though it looks like the republicans moderate are willing to cave in. It is just the extreme Republicans not willing to cave in. Well back to being Independent since both sides cannot communicate with each other or debate matters such as the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html?hp&_r=0

I was watching that speech on cspan over across the pond yesterday, and Obama was saying, "If the Republicans have any ways to improve Obamacare (as opposed to trying to repeal it over forty times, Jesus Christ), I'd be happy to listen to them." And really, why should the Democrats have to capitulate and dismantle Obama's signature policy (and let's be honest, this is what "the extreme Republicans not willing to cave in" and who control the party have fought tooth and nail for since winning the House three years ago)? It was passed fair and square and found constitutional by the Supreme Court, and the insurance exchange websites are already open.

If the threat is "Repeal Obamacare or else we'll shut down the government keep the government shut down," then I think Abe Lincoln had a great metaphor for this back when he was running for president in 1860: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or else I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"

Edited October 4, 2013 by Soran Ibrahim

[shadykid]

misquoted myself... from page one 58% voted 42% did not

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-report-reveals-2012-voter-turnout-was-lower-than-2008-and-2004#ixzz2CXZuXyAj

Well Mr. President said just now he will not bargain with the republicans on Obamacare and the other issues. Now the politician parties are playing a game of chicken with the whole USA economy. Though it looks like the republicans moderate are willing to cave in. It is just the extreme Republicans not willing to cave in. Well back to being Independent since both sides cannot communicate with each other or debate matters such as the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html?hp&_r=0

are you fucking serious

[amadeuscho]

congressional term limits, in my ideal world of change, wouldn't have priority. it would be after a considerable amount of changes --that i feel are necessary-- happen. i agree completely that without other social/political/economic changes, term limits wouldn't be a prudent choice.

There are some feasible things that term limits could do, in theory, but that would require an entire reworking of the way legislative branch works in order to ensure it remains an equal branch of government. The current system already gives too much executive power.

misquoted myself... from page one 58% voted 42% did not

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-report-reveals-2012-voter-turnout-was-lower-than-2008-and-2004#ixzz2CXZuXyAj

Well Mr. President said just now he will not bargain with the republicans on Obamacare and the other issues. Now the politician parties are playing a game of chicken with the whole USA economy. Though it looks like the republicans moderate are willing to cave in. It is just the extreme Republicans not willing to cave in. Well back to being Independent since both sides cannot communicate with each other or debate matters such as the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html?hp&_r=0

He shouldn't be bargaining on Obamacare. It's settled law. It's been settled law for two terms of congress. It's been settled as constitutional. It's been ran on for two elections cycles, in which the Democrats won both the Senate (twice) and the Presidency.

There are no moderate republicans anymore, aside from maybe a few token ones in California and New England. There are conservative Republicans and there are super conservative republicans who have been by radioactive Tea Party members. John Boehner does not want to break what is known as the Hastert rule; it's an informal rule that Republican speakers can only bring up the floor issues where the majority of the Republican majority agree on. Essentially, there's a chance that a majority of republicans would oppose the clean CR (while Democrats support it) and thus he won't bring it up. We'll see if he will do what he did with taxes and hurricane sandy and break it. Or maybe enough Republican house members will decide to do the right thing.

Again, the point is that this should even be a debate. They should just pass a clean CR bill without Obamacare attached. The Democratic Senators and President have all agreed the Republican levels of spending within the clean CR. Meaning that they actually agree with the Republocans on the actual issue of budget. They just disagree with messing with settled to the extent the Republican party wants to.

[shadykid]

There are no moderate republicans anymore, aside from maybe a few token ones in California and New England.

there are no House Republicans in New England anymore

[Redwall]

Though it looks like the republicans moderate are willing to cave in. It is just the extreme Republicans not willing to cave in. Well back to being Independent since both sides cannot communicate with each other or debate matters such as the budget.

It's pretty likely that the House would OK the Senate's CR if Boehner put it up for vote--plenty of non-TP Republicans are fine with it--the issue is that Boehner's been unwilling to put it up for vote.

[amadeuscho]

there are no House Republicans in New England anymore

my bad. I forgot. Well there's one in the senate. and there might be a few moderates in New York. I can't recall any of them at the moment.

[I.M. Gei]

There are no moderate republicans anymore, aside from maybe a few token ones in California and New England.

Our state is home Darrell Car Thief Issa (y'know, the main guy screaming BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI) and the House Whip (Kevin McCarthy) here in California, and all the ones from Orange County. Most of the GOP representatives still in California are pretty hard-right. Oh, don't forget, California was also the state of Ronald Reagan, Prop 13, and the John Birch Society!

Edited October 5, 2013 by Soran Ibrahim

[amadeuscho]

Our state is home Darrell Car Thief Issa (y'know, the main guy screaming BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI) and the House Whip (Kevin McCarthy) here in California, and all the ones from Orange County. Most of the GOP representatives still in California are pretty hard-right. Oh, don't forget, California was also the state of Ronald Reagan, Prop 13, and the John Birch Society!

We had Mary Bono until she lost. Although she hasn't really been too moderate in recent years.

Just tried to give Republicans the benefit of doubt. Disappointed me again.

[shadykid]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/us/politics/boehner-urges-gop-unity-in-epic-battle.html?hp

yup, Boehner is too chicken to act before the debt ceiling

[hero cup]

Well, my mom doesn't have a job to go to because of it so that sucks. I hope this shutdown doesn't last long.

[shadykid]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/10/06/2738351/boehner-well-be-on-the-path-towards-default-if-obamas-doesnt-accept-gop-demands/

derp

[I.M. Gei]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/10/06/2738351/boehner-well-be-on-the-path-towards-default-if-obamas-doesnt-accept-gop-demands/

derp

"But your honor, if he had just given me his wallet, I wouldn't have had to shoot him!"

[Esau of Isaac]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/10/06/2738351/boehner-well-be-on-the-path-towards-default-if-obamas-doesnt-accept-gop-demands/

derp

The video which this was pulled from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYLYAj6nrw

Fun fun fun

[shadykid]

so this is still going on huh