Originally Posted by ptownrob

While it may relieve high blood pressure to call for throwing all the bums out, our two party system makes such a proposal unworkable. How many of you on the right would vote for the liberal Democrat who is running against the incumbent? I certainly can't imagine any Democrat who would simply vote for the other party to "change out" the entrenched legislature.

The leopard in most of us will not change spots per say, but whether we are liberal or conservative we need to NOT vote in the incumbent, not necessarily change parties. As been said in these post over and over again, the forefathers never intended the office of House or Senate to be career positions.

The important results of "voting all the bums out" will be the message that the American public will no longer support a candidate for office just because they won one election. Maybe if politicians realize that they only have one or two chances, because of term limits, they will seize the opportunity to accomplish honest governance while they are in office.

Throw them out, insist on term limits if they want re election for a second or third term, or face being thrown out again. Also, I don't believe that politicians should be rewarded with retirement after office, considering how little service is necessary to earn (most don't EARN anything) it. Since when or where can one retire after 6 years on their jobs? Certainly not you or I or anyone we know!

I know this would never fly, but take away their obscene retirement program and I betcha that would take care of the career politician problem.

Originally Posted by dillywho

I know this would never fly, but take away their obscene retirement program and I betcha that would take care of the career politician problem.

Please check out the actual retirement system (& health and life insurance programs) --- for Congress --the facts, not somebody's interpretation. Yes, relative to those of some people, they're quite generous. But compared to some unions and especially some private employment contracts big business has for major execs, the Fed Gov't (even Congress) benies are chump change. Compared them to CalPERS, GE, Morgan Stanley.

I could be wrong --- but I'm not.





`

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Firs of all, that's why primary elections exist. That's the first shot to get the incumbent out. After that, it becomes a question of guts. Would I vote for someone who is counter to my way of thinking? Yes, as long as the person is not party hack and lapdog! For two years, a change sometimes has great value and eliminates stodgy thinking. The real key is to get them in-and-out before they learn how to get rich playing all of us.

Second of all, if there are good legislators, why is there a composite <20% approval rating?

Can anyone name me five in Congress worth a retirement plan?

There is nothing wrong with the two or multi party system. There is a problem when the party leadership has more power than the voters.

Now that you mention it, will Burriss (sp?), who filled Obama's seat and will not seek re-election, be eligible for a lifetime of benefits for his short time in the Senate? (I'm afraid of the answer)

Originally Posted by Muncle

Please check out the actual retirement system (& health and life insurance programs) --- for Congress --the facts, not somebody's interpretation. Yes, relative to those of some people, they're quite generous. But compared to some unions and especially some private employment contracts big business has for major execs, the Fed Gov't (even Congress) benies are chump change. Compared them to CalPERS, GE, Morgan Stanley.

I could be wrong --- but I'm not.





`

You may be right about some others, but they are few and far between. They are not your average Joe nor are they supposed to work for the average Joe. They only employ the average...they are the employers. Also, either they produce or they are history. Politicians, Congress or whatever you want to call them are supposed to be working representing us....not feathering their own nests at our expense. We are supposed to be their employers. My whole point about taking their obscene retirement is that only those who truly want to be representatives of the people would go there. Voting out the whole bunch would be a moot point. I certainly don't consider what they get for retirement and bennies to be "chump change", either. Most of us do not get all of that and what we do get, we certainly had to work well over 20 years, not 2, 4, or whatever few years it is for them to be assured of it for life. We also had to show up for work consistently, not just whenever we felt like it. We had to do our jobs or we would be free to seek employment elsewhere, not just be counted as present for the record.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Now that you mention it, will Burriss (sp?), who filled Obama's seat and will not seek re-election, be eligible for a lifetime of benefits for his short time in the Senate? (I'm afraid of the answer)

Being a former Illinoisan, I checked that out awhile back. Roland Burris won't be eligible for any pension benefits. The Federal Employees Retirement System Handbook explains...

If you are a Member of Congress or a Congressional employee, with at least 5 years of Congressional service, your annuity will be...

1.7% of highest-3 years average pay times years of Congressional service up to 20 plus 1.0% of highest-3 years average pay times any other federal service.

I haven't been able to find an authoritative source, but I don't think he gets any retirement healthcare benefits either. I think the minimum qualifying amount of Congressional service for retiree health benefits is either five years or three terms for members of the House.

Thank goodness he won't get his nest feathered just because that scumbag Blagovevich stuck him in the job for 18 months or so.

Originally Posted by dillywho

You may be right about some others, but they are few and far between. They are not your average Joe nor are they supposed to work for the average Joe. They only employ the average...they are the employers. Also, either they produce or they are history. Politicians, Congress or whatever you want to call them are supposed to be working representing us....not feathering their own nests at our expense. We are supposed to be their employers. My whole point about taking their obscene retirement is that only those who truly want to be representatives of the people would go there. Voting out the whole bunch would be a moot point. I certainly don't consider what they get for retirement and bennies to be "chump change", either. Most of us do not get all of that and what we do get, we certainly had to work well over 20 years, not 2, 4, or whatever few years it is for them to be assured of it for life. We also had to show up for work consistently, not just whenever we felt like it. We had to do our jobs or we would be free to seek employment elsewhere, not just be counted as present for the record.

But the question remains, do you have the faintest idea of the facts of what these benefits actually entail or are you just parroting the rants and raves of someone who sent you an email. Notice VK went to a real source to get facts on the Burris situation. The information --- true stuff --- is out there. It can be found.
`

While voting in the primary may seem lke alogical way to get a better candidate on the opposition ballot, that system is more rigged (especially in Florida) than the general election process.

Already, the parties have "agreed" on their candidates- no primaries possible. Republicans are notorious for NOT having candidates compete with each other, while Democrats are notorious for letting the most mediocre compromise reach the top.

Even though Florida voters put in a primary amendment to allow all voters to cast ballots in a primary if the other party doesn't run a candidate, former psycho Sec. of State Katherine Harris encouraged phony paper candidates to run in districts where no Democrat would challenge. By having the Republicans post a phony candidate to vote for in a fictitious primary, Harris was able to skirt the will of the voters by certififying a valid primary candidate.

Currently, even though there are more registered Democrats in Florida than Republicans, the Republicans have gerrymandered the districts so that they "own" 3/4 of the seats. Of course, the same is the case in states dominated by Democrats. That's where the root of 96% incumbency comes from- not from the national parties.

All politics is local- and that's where the corruption starts. Changing out the national candidates may bring a feel-good emotion, but the local, feet-on-the-ground workers will never give up their advantages. They don't even recognize their corrruption or entrenchment- it's seen more as a combination of hard-work and spoils.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

While voting in the primary may seem lke alogical way to get a better candidate on the opposition ballot, that system is more rigged (especially in Florida) than the general election process.

Already, the parties have "agreed" on their candidates- no primaries possible. Republicans are notorious for NOT having candidates compete with each other, while Democrats are notorious for letting the most mediocre compromise reach the top.

Even though Florida voters put in a primary amendment to allow all voters to cast ballots in a primary if the other party doesn't run a candidate, former psycho Sec. of State Katherine Harris encouraged phony paper candidates to run in districts where no Democrat would challenge. By having the Republicans post a phony candidate to vote for in a fictitious primary, Harris was able to skirt the will of the voters by certififying a valid primary candidate.

Currently, even though there are more registered Democrats in Florida than Republicans, the Republicans have gerrymandered the districts so that they "own" 3/4 of the seats. Of course, the same is the case in states dominated by Democrats. That's where the root of 96% incumbency comes from- not from the national parties.

All politics is local- and that's where the corruption starts. Changing out the national candidates may bring a feel-good emotion, but the local, feet-on-the-ground workers will never give up their advantages. They don't even recognize their corrruption or entrenchment- it's seen more as a combination of hard-work and spoils.

Tip O' Neill was right about that. However, the rest of the problem still lies with the voters. The prties are not responsive to the electorate,, but the electorate still contributes to the parties when the parties come a-looking for money. That's like paying the local brat to vandalize your car.

If you want to send a message to the parties, don't send them any money. And if you want to see why they don't need your money, please go to: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...If you want to send a message to the parties, don't send them any money. And if you want to see why they don't need your money, please go to: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php

Just an observation on that list, Steve. Adding up all the contributions to the various parts of both parties, I arrive at a total of $475,325,000. The current population of the U.S. (as of tonight) is 307,273,028. So the amount contributed to both political parties amounts to a buck and a half for every man, woman and child in the U.S. WikiAnswers.com tells us that the current number of households in the U.S. is 111,162,259. So every household in America, on average, made contributions to either the GOP or the Democrats of $4.27.

Just for the heck of it, let's see how "average" the participants of this forum are? How much did each of you contribute to either of the two major political parties? In my case, the number is zero.

I'm just wondering--if all of us turn out to be well below average with our funding of the political parties, then where do all those contributions come from? You wouldn't think that any of the corporate special interests might be trumping all of us with their contributions, would they?

They got $0 from this household!!!

Originally Posted by Muncle

But the question remains, do you have the faintest idea of the facts of what these benefits actually entail or are you just parroting the rants and raves of someone who sent you an email. Notice VK went to a real source to get facts on the Burris situation. The information --- true stuff --- is out there. It can be found.
`

Muncle, when you quote me (or probably anyone else for that matter), please don't edit the quote. I did not bold any of what I had to say, but you seemed to deem it necessary to do it for me. I was not parroting rants and raves, either, nor did I do any "research". It is common knowledge now and has been for years, that politicians receive pensions thousands above most of their constituents, excluding CEOs, etc. As for the length of time they have to "serve" to be eligible, I am not sure nor did I say that I was. As for the Burris situation, I have no idea and don't recall having anything to say about him myself. I don't claim to have answers, so I have to ask questions in an effort to learn and don't really need to get chewed out for it or for taking an interest. I do have opinions, be they right or wrong, to which I am entitled. Last time I checked, that is one freedom we still enjoy for the time being.

Originally Posted by dillywho

Muncle, when you quote me (or probably anyone else for that matter), please don't edit the quote. I did not bold any of what I had to say, but you seemed to deem it necessary to do it for me. I was not parroting rants and raves, either, nor did I do any "research". It is common knowledge now and has been for years, that politicians receive pensions thousands above most of their constituents, excluding CEOs, etc. As for the length of time they have to "serve" to be eligible, I am not sure nor did I say that I was. As for the Burris situation, I have no idea and don't recall having anything to say about him myself. I don't claim to have answers, so I have to ask questions in an effort to learn and don't really need to get chewed out for it or for taking an interest. I do have opinions, be they right or wrong, to which I am entitled. Last time I checked, that is one freedom we still enjoy for the time being.

Okay, no embedded bolds to highlight specific points out your comments. So, you say "It is common knowledge now and has been for years, that politicians receive pensions thousands above most of their constituents, excluding CEOs, etc." Like most common knowledge, this tidbit is ignorant and wrong. It is wrong because it is not borne out by facts. It is ignorant because it is easily disprovable. And it is especially ignorant in that so many of it's proponent don't really give a damn whether it's true or not, they just like to claim it.

One great thing about being an American is one doesn't need facts to believe something and a great thing about the Internet is that the individual is free and even encourage to propagate their ignorance. And I'm free to question that stupidity as others are about me. It's a great world if you don't weaken.


`