^^ How do you propose the federal government fulfill it's roles and obligations without the ability to tax, regulate, or otherwise raise money?

1/18/2012 3:51:26 PM

It did it without an income tax prior to 1913. I'm sure we could find a way that wasn't so invasive.

1/18/2012 3:54:39 PM

You don't have any idea or vision of how it would work?

1/18/2012 4:01:05 PM

Quote :

"ha nutsmackr was all "nope horrible idea" no explanation. nothing. ha who in the WORLD would ever think that limiting human public power figures to time limits would be a good thing "

That's because I don't feel like wasting time on stupid ideas.

1/18/2012 7:34:06 PM

Quote :

"But at the end of the day all term limits do is hand over power and knowledge of the legislative system from the elected representatives to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists"

Why? Freshmen congressmen aren't weaklings. As far as popular support goes, they're at the top of their game.

If you want true weakness, look at the senior members, with their chronic dependence on lobbyists for reelection funds. Take away the incentive to constantly seek reelection, and you sever the excess power of lobbyists. You also sever the informal seniority-based power structure within congress that controls committee membership and bogs the legislative process with power-grabbing.

Granted, people will still be influenced by lobbyist money. However by resetting the establishment - breaking that carefully built-up network of influence -you reduce the effect of that dramatically.

1/18/2012 7:47:45 PM

derpy posts miss the point. Yours is a derpy post.

1/19/2012 4:14:15 PM

Says the guy that can't be bothered to articulate his view. You're derping all over this thread, bro.

1/19/2012 4:18:04 PM

^ You don't have any idea or vision of how it would work?

1/19/2012 5:36:04 PM

yeeeaaah, nutsmackr, you've spent a lot of time telling us that you don't have the time to rebut our stupidity.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTimeToExplain

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 9:40:17 PM

It's as simple as this.

By arbitrarily restricting members of congress to a set number of years you are effectively removing the ability of constituents to elect the individual they want to represent them, not for any reason other than, "you've been here this long it's time to go." In so doing, good legislators are removed from office as well as the bad. At the same time, there is no restriction on how long someone can be a lobbyist and the constitution prohibits such a restriction (various amendments).

So at the end of the day, as legislators are run out of office for serving the arbitrary amount of time the over all knowledge of the system and institution shifts from the elected body and over to the lobbyists. These lobbyists then become the master of the rules and take over various legislative responsibilities (running bills, etc). Also as this happens, the power of unelected civil servants increase to where they are in a position of greater power than the elected members.

In the end, the powers of constitutionally elected officials is abrogated by unelected civil servants and lobbyists.

There is a reason why states that have enacted term limits legislation have either already overturned it or are in the process of doing so.

1/19/2012 11:56:58 PM

Quote :

"In so doing, good legislators are removed from office as well as the bad."

Now that's a chance I'm willing to take.

As someone said, there's really no reason to believe that lobbyists would "take over" with term limits. I mean, lobbyists run shit now, and we have career politicians, so I don't see it getting much worse.

[Edited on January 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ]

1/20/2012 12:17:44 AM

What's frustrating about the process is that if you don't like your current Democrat or Republican, you can vote them out by voting the other way, and that's about the only way. If a district is staunchly Republican and you get voted in, you can ride the gravy train until you die. They don't receive competition from within their own party. Hard to believe that a 62 year old fart could hold down a promising 40 year old guy.

1/20/2012 12:26:07 AM

Quote :

"In so doing, good legislators are removed from office as well as the bad. "

Experienced legislators are not necessarily good legislators. In fact, I'm certain that the corruptness of a legislator correlates directly with the amount of time they've served.

Quote :

"So at the end of the day, as legislators are run out of office for serving the arbitrary amount of time the over all knowledge of the system and institution shifts from the elected body and over to the lobbyists. These lobbyists then become the master of the rules and take over various legislative responsibilities (running bills, etc). "

Lobbyists will always have vast knowledge of the legislative process - they are already master of the rules. That doesn't inherently grant them control of the process. You imply that long-standing members are more able to keep lobbyists at bay. I'd say its foolish to think that congressmen would choose not to be swayed by lobbyists, given that a) such relationships are easily hidden, b) money is extremely persuasive, and c) if you don't, your opponent will

In any case, I doubt any change to terms could possibly grant lobbyists more power than they currently have.

1/20/2012 3:39:43 PM

So, d357r0y3r, are you ever going to offer any ideas as to how the federal government can fulfill it's roles and obligations without the ability to tax, regulate, or otherwise raise money?

At least something beyond they did it during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?

1/20/2012 5:26:04 PM

I don't think it's possible for the federal government to fulfill its constitutional obligations without the ability to tax, but it's definitely possible for it to do so with a lot less taxation and no income tax. A consumption tax makes the most sense.

Also consider that with a hard money system and a government only performing those roles defined in the Constitution, most people would not pay much in taxes.

We probably disagree on what the federal government should do. I don't think the federal government should be in the business of rationing health care, policing the world, creating money, etc. Yes, if you want a gargantuan state, you need massive taxes.

1/20/2012 5:41:33 PM

I was wondering about taxes; you had previously mentioned removing government's ability to tax (which is in the Constitution), and then in a subsequent post mentioned only the 16th amendment. In any case, consumption based taxes tend to be somewhat regressive.

I'm curious about what you consider the Constitutionally defined roles of the federal government to be. Where do things like DOT, FCC, FAA, EPA, DOE, DHHS, NOAA, NRC, etc. fall?

1/20/2012 7:56:08 PM