Why

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You ever seen the Senate in session outside of an important vote? About 75% of the senators are "stealing" from their employer by not being there.

 

[Crabtownboy]

[/B]

You ever seen the Senate in session outside of an important vote? About 75% of the senators are "stealing" from their employer by not being there.

Happens all the time, both in state governments and the federal government.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

[/B]

Happens all the time, both in state governments and the federal government.

Thats my point. These three folks have plenty of real problems which make me not want to vote for them. Silly things like being caught out in a lie or not attending sessions of the Senate detract from the very serious real issues that mean America does not have a good choice in this election.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Thats my point. These three folks have plenty of real problems which make me not want to vote for them. Silly things like being caught out in a lie or not attending sessions of the Senate detract from the very serious real issues that mean America does not have a good choice in this election.

The candidates, who are office holders, in ever presidential election have missed lots of sessions. You will never convince them that staying for the sessions and voting on measures will gain them more votes at election time than campaigning. All of the do return for what they believe are really important issues.

 

[rbell]

The candidates, who are office holders, in ever presidential election have missed lots of sessions. You will never convince them that staying for the sessions and voting on measures will gain them more votes at election time than campaigning. All of the do return for what they believe are really important issues.

So it's OK for me to not be at my job, as long as I go to staff meetings I deem "really important?"

Equivocation. They're still stealing.

And it's bi-partisan theft.

 

[Revmitchell]

So many of the problems in our government can be resolved or reduced by term limits. Politics shouldn't be a career. It should be a service.

 

[StefanM]

There is nothing in their "job description" that requires them to be physically present in the Senate chamber. They are still Senators whether or not they are in the sessions.

Have any of you actually watched C-SPAN for any length of time? I have, and I assure you--I would not be present for most of that hot air. All you get is a bunch of windbags talking about nothing of consequence. The floor debates make almost no difference as the aides have already dissected the bills for Senatorial digestion.

 

[StefanM]

So many of the problems in our government can be resolved or reduced by term limits. Politics shouldn't be a career. It should be a service.

I disagree. The last thing we need is term limitation by statute. We already have term limits. You can't be elected if the people don't vote for you. That's a limit.

In my former state (Arkansas), term limits completely undermined the efficiency of government. Everyone is rotating in and out of seats so quickly that there is little to no consistency in government. Also, you lose some of your best legislators and elder statesmen only to replace them with neophytes who don't have any clue what is going on.

I can't help but think that the Ark. legislature might not have accidentally passed a law saying that anyone who was under 18 and NOT pregnant could get married with parental consent (No minimum age). They later repealed the law, but I don't see that getting through a veteran legislature.

Additionally, I don't want anything that further entrenches the rich in government. If we cut salaries or make them part-time, etc., then we will only see the wealthy in government because the middle class man who sincerely wants to serve his country would not be able to afford to serve. Of course, most politicians are wealthy as-is, but I don't want to make it any worse.

 

[poncho]

I don't even look at it as government anymore it's the state now. Government sounds to respectful for what we're seeing now.

 

[Steven2006]

The problem is that we, the American people, are paying them full-time salaries when they are not doing their full-time job. If we tried that we would get fired. Why should we, their employers, allow them to do it? If they only fly in from time to time then they should only be paid for flying in from time to time.

These candidates are so very dishonest.

So if I am to understand, you are basically suggesting that only people who are unemployed should ever run for any public office in this country?

 

[Revmitchell]

I disagree. The last thing we need is term limitation by statute. We already have term limits. You can't be elected if the people don't vote for you. That's a limit.

In my former state (Arkansas), term limits completely undermined the efficiency of government. Everyone is rotating in and out of seats so quickly that there is little to no consistency in government. Also, you lose some of your best legislators and elder statesmen only to replace them with neophytes who don't have any clue what is going on.

I can't help but think that the Ark. legislature might not have accidentally passed a law saying that anyone who was under 18 and NOT pregnant could get married with parental consent (No minimum age). They later repealed the law, but I don't see that getting through a veteran legislature.

Additionally, I don't want anything that further entrenches the rich in government. If we cut salaries or make them part-time, etc., then we will only see the wealthy in government because the middle class man who sincerely wants to serve his country would not be able to afford to serve. Of course, most politicians are wealthy as-is, but I don't want to make it any worse.

If we are spending les time passing less bills then there is no need for the current rate of compensation in order to make it viable for the less wealthy to serve.

Clueless neophytes must be elected. Anyway the corruption arises out of career politicians.