Vote them all out!

[Guest]

With the talk of term limits, I've decided to impose my own - 3 for Members of the House and 1 for Senators.

So, this year I'm voting against the incumbent of District 5 who is running for a fourth term. It's not whether I prefer the position of the incumbent on several issues, but rather that being a Member of the House should not be a life-long or long-term career.

Six years is long enough for anyone to work in Congress. If a Congressperson has not "changed" things by then, they never will. After a while, they become more of the problem and less of the solution.

When each senator slot comes back on the ballot, I hope to see two fresh names. If not, the incumbent's opponent gets my vote without argument.

I want change as much as the next person. It won't happen by a Presidential pick, but rather by insuring that career Congresspersons - who really run Washington - are flushed out occasionally.

[Guest]

I agree with you Steve!! Good idea!! Unless ofcourse they have made significant changes!! Positive ones...

[Guest]

I agree with you Steve!! Good idea!! Unless ofcourse they have made significant changes!! Positive ones...
I don't care what "significant changes" they have made. That's part of the job and I hope they have done something of merit during their hire.

Six years is all you get - period! After that the Congressperson becomes more of a DC-ite than a resident of their congressional district. I've seen it happen, and none are immune.

Six then GO!

[Guest]

AgainI agree with you SteveZ. Replace all of congress. I thought that when the voters spoke last election and gave the democrats majority in congress the message would be loud and clear, boy was I wrong. The last 2 years was more of the same and let the voters be dammed. I also have a problem with 3 senators and 1 governor who are running for the top 2 offices in this USA. All four of them aren't representing the voters who elected them. Apparently, they aren't satisfied with the job they wanted and expect the voters in the state that elected them to set back without representation while they interview for a different job. I know if I told my boss that I was going to be gone for approximately a year to go an interview for a new job and fully expected him to pay me while I was absent and to welcome me back with open arms if I didn't get the job, I know what he would tell me. IMHO when politicians run for another political office they should be required to resign so someone can do the job they are turning their back on for personal gain. nuff said

[Guest]

I wholeheartedly agree Stevez!

Congress is and has been the problem, along with the Federal Reserve, since the depression.

I have just begun re-watching Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" episode three "Anatomy of a Crisis" on the Ideachannel.com. To those that read these post about our economy tanking and how the Government affects our lives, I recommend watching his 1980 series. It is ten parts long and if you do not have the patience to watch the whole series at least watch episode three to understand our current financial crises.

For those of you who don't know of Mr. Friedman's work, he is a Nobel Prize winning economist. For those of you who frequent the political threads, and think you have all the answers (with your usual sarcasm), please temper your responses with the knowledge that YOU are not a Nobel prize winner.:read:

[Guest]

Right on, Steve ! I'd decided this morning after the voting that:

1) I'm voting for NO incumbents at the state and national levels.....no matter who!
2) I'm voting against all tax increases at any levels no matter what!

Time that we send a loud and stronge message!

[Guest]

With the talk of term limits, I've decided to impose my own - 3 for Members of the House and 1 for Senators.

So, this year I'm voting against the incumbent of District 5 who is running for a fourth term. It's not whether I prefer the position of the incumbent on several issues, but rather that being a Member of the House should not be a life-long or long-term career.

Six years is long enough for anyone to work in Congress. If a Congressperson has not "changed" things by then, they never will. After a while, they become more of the problem and less of the solution.

When each senator slot comes back on the ballot, I hope to see two fresh names. If not, the incumbent's opponent gets my vote without argument.

I want change as much as the next person. It won't happen by a Presidential pick, but rather by insuring that career Congresspersons - who really run Washington - are flushed out occasionally.
Wow. We need more people like you around, Steve. That would keep the fogies on their toes!

[Guest]

Wow. We need more people like you around, Steve. That would keep the fogies on their toes!

No, we need more people to care about their vote and what they get for it.

[Guest]

Steve....I will join all those applauding your stand. I have never voted straight party and now will at the minimum look harder at incumbents using much of what you said as a guide !

[Guest]

Steve, you didn't go far enough, see next post...

[Guest]

Steve, you didn't go far enough. The legislators should only have health insurance coverage and other perks for the for the years they serve, they pay into a 401K and the benefits stop at the end of their term. That is one area we could recoupe a lot of our tax money.

[Guest]

Steve, you didn't go far enough. The legislators should only have health insurance coverage and other perks for the for the years they serve, they pay into a 401K and the benefits stop at the end of their term. That is one area we could recoupe a lot of our tax money.

You may be right.

For information on Congressional pensions, please visit http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf for a summary provided by the Congressional Research Service.

Vote them all out! Six, then GO!