The Bucknuts Hot Spot

Great points! I like the idea and I also think we should have term limits for Congress as well. One six-year term as Senator. Maybe three in Congress. You get six years in each max. No pandering to run for re-election.

As was pointed out on another thread, there are 300+ million of us. No one thinks we could find competent replacements every six years?

This is why there should be a cap on federal spending.

The problem is, the people who are the reason we need this cap are the very people we need to pass it.

We can't entirely hold the president responsible. The POTUS doesn't pass laws. The POTUS only has veto power and the POTUS can propose a bill. But ultimately the house and senate approve. So I don't blame the POTUS for ALL the reckless spending. Just the reckless spending that he is responsible for. Coincidentally, thats still a huge number.

But we can't remove the incentive from legislators to garner funding for their state. That would disenfranchise the citizens of that state. We want to encourage this. But we have to set spending limits that cannot be exceeded and there have to be measures for making sure those spending limits aren't exceeded. Thats the real problem. Any other talk or claim and we are just spinning our wheels.

Furthermore, it seems only those in congress oppose the notion of term limits. Because it appears all Americans, Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Independent, all agree almost unanimously on term limits. Essentially, a politician's motivation should not be getting re-elected. However, without the prospect of career politicians, it will be even more difficult to recruit the best and brightest to run our country. Something that we are failing at as it is, even with the corrupt government we have today. My Father-in-law just retired as a major executive from one of America's top companies. We asked him why he never had political ambitions. His answer "I can have a better life in the private economy". That would ring even more true with term limits. Where essentially people would simply have to take a leave of absence from their careers for public service.

And in the US we kill people for success. Romney is getting killed for being a successful business man and Obama was elected after being a community organizer and a academic. Politicians being politicians is indeed a problem. You have to know how to play the game to win and those who may be the best at the jobs are not willing to put up with that.

And I am not criticizing Obama there, but for him to understand the Heath Care Programs of this company coming from a constructional law background and community service background is almost as humorous as all of the people who bitch about it understanding it. Things like this have so many variables per state that it is impossible. Although, I do find it humorous that a constitutional law professor at a top 5 law school in the country develops a health plan that is unconstitutional.

LEGALIZE MARY JANE!!!! ALL DEBT WILL BE GONE AND NO ONE WILL LIVE IN DEBT ANY LONGER. THE BEST WAY AND THE FASTEST WAY...... HOW MUCH LONGER DO WE NEED TO WAIT>>>

To piggyback on what (I believe) shaunsimpson is saying, Americans and professional politicians are quite gifted at marginalizing the political aptitude of our best and brightest. They have successfully created an atmosphere that perpetuates career politicians and demonizing private experience. The irony is that these are the very same individuals who complain about career politicians.

Forcing poeple into public service isn't exactly freedom though is it? We can't compromize what makes us great simply so we can force people with the most aptitude to lead us against their will.

Instead, we should devise better and smarter methods of incentivizing.

Thomas Jefferson HATED HATED HATED being a politician. And was constantly trying to avoid it. He used much of his own wealth to pay for a great deal of things. And he gained very little from public life. The only reason he did it was because he cared so much. Today, we simply can't do that. There are no people like that. And the few that try to be, we discredit them.

If the Supremes vote 5-4 against Obama, then by definition it will be deemed unconstitutional, but come on, the Supreme Court these days has very little to do with law. It's a joke to think these are nine great legal scholars. They are nine partisan hacks. Several prominent conservative legal scholars have come out and said that the mandate should be deemed constitutional.

Absolutely. What's funny is that politicians succeed at convincing the American people that you need experience to be good at that job. I'm pretty sure I could master it in about an hour.

Me, doing OJT as a Congressman: "I vote yes, no, no, yes and yes on those five bills, Mr. Speaker."

Done. Pay me.

You guys can argue all you want with this comment, but when the Founding Fathers were making the constitution, they discussed how they believed this type of constitution would work for around 200 years. Well 231 years after the constitution has been made, where are we?

You were there???

This constitution was designed to be broad in scope and all encompassing. It was designed to be a living document. It was designed to evolve and be amended. The reason was so that it could stand the test of time.

I think the Founding Fathers were brilliant. That their vision established the foundation of the greatest country the world has ever known, and that it is still true two hundred years later, is truly remarkable. That doesn't mean there's not room for improvement, or that the document was perfect.

But could you imagine trying to get members of Congress to put something together like this today?