Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Presidential Experience Requirement Idea  
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

watching a movie today, i got to thinking about the system we have for running for president, what it comes down to is that Joe Average has no chance of running, as he doesn't have the money, nor does he have any chance of accessing the kind of money it takes to run, so what about this idea, change the constitution to state that in order to run for president you have to have the following levels of progressive experience in government:

at least two years local level politics (city council, mayor)
at least two years state level politics (state rep, state senator, governor)
at least one term in the house of reps
at least one term in the senate or one term as a cabinet level official.

so that by the time you reach the presidency you have some idea of how to run a government and you can't just simply buy your way into the job.

what does anyone else think?


Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Yeah screw that. The last thing we need is to encourage more career politicians. If anything, we ought to be talking more about term limits!

User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

no, no term limits for congress, the longer someone is in, the more effective they are at getting things done that are more favorable to their own states/districts, not to mention it gives the staffers too much power.

to add to my idea, i'd also propose a requirement that all presidential campaigns be federally financed, no personal or private money could be used, this way every candidate is on equal footing and the race is decided on the merits of the candidate not how much money he spends on advertising.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1262 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
no, no term limits for congress, the longer someone is in, the more effective they are at getting things done that are more favorable to their own states/districts

You're really comfortable making such a wide spread, generalization, as that? Why don't you take the time to provide some well detailed evidence of this.

Already numerous states limit the term limits of their representatives, and it works well enough. The majority of the voters in these states approved these limits with strong, bipartisan support. These limits encourage strong elections, with both sides having the opportunity to make substantial challenges for the seat. Not to mention it frees the elected official from the pressures of powerful lobbying firms - and gives them latitude to vote on conscience, and not to not have to cater to political fundraisers.

Why should we facilitate a system that allows lobbying firms, and special interest groups, to invest millions of dollars, over decades, to keep friendly politicians in power? Why should we favor a system that gives the incumbent a hugely disproportionate amount of power? You lament the fact that "Joe Blow" has no chance to get ahead in the system... yet you willingly accept a system that all but assures this will never happen!!

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
not to mention it gives the staffers too much power.

Wrong. The current system gives staffers too much power - not a system of term limits. An incumbent politician has the power of their staff to organize, control and direct their reelection campaigns - and have the benefits of the federal government, a decent federal paycheck and media access.

Term limits are the way to go.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1259 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
so that by the time you reach the presidency you have some idea of how to run a government and you can't just simply buy your way into the job.

Wouldn't have stopped the current debacle. He has plenty of help on the domestic side but his foreign policy has been a study of naivete and ignorance.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
Yeah screw that. The last thing we need is to encourage more career politicians. If anything, we ought to be talking more about term limits!

Absolutely agree.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
no, no term limits for congress, the longer someone is in, the more effective they are at getting things done that are more favorable to their own states/districts, not to mention it gives the staffers too much power.

Career politicians are the ones who gave us the recent financial meltdown, and have built up the $13 trillion debt rising as fast as the printing presses can run.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5095 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1249 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
If anything, we ought to be talking more about term limits!

I disagree: if the people of a district are too stupid or dense to vote someone out, then they deserve that person and the ridicule he/she brings.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
i'd also propose a requirement that all presidential campaigns be federally financed, no personal or private money could be used,

Pesky thing called the First Amendment. Isn't The Spreme Court hearing such a case this week?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
The current system gives staffers too much power

The politician's staff derives power from the politician. A strong politician will not have a staff that runs all over him. Another thing that gives the staff more power is the size of legislation. They read and spoon feed the info to the 'big guy'. In essence, he gets their opinion on a bill, not the bill.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1239 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
I disagree: if the people of a district are too stupid or dense to vote someone out, then they deserve that person and the ridicule he/she brings.

Overly simplistic view. It does not address the fact that the elected official's impact does not remain solely within the confines of their respective district. Long term, career politicians often rise to run prestigious committees, that oversee vast budgets and government control - that effect the nation as a whole. Entrenched, with the support of super strong lobbying groups, can negatively effect the nation... without giving the nation the ability to correct the deficiency. The answer is not to give the nation the ability to vote him/her out... but to limit the amount of power politicians are able to accumulate, and to offer a check on legislative power grabs.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
A strong politician will not have a staff that runs all over him.

Negative. A strong leader prevents themselves from being overtaken by their advisers.

Amount of time spent in a position of leadership does not equate to a proportionate rise in the quality of such leadership.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1222 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
Yeah screw that. The last thing we need is to encourage more career politicians. If anything, we ought to be talking more about term limits!

Agreed.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
The politician's staff derives power from the politician. A strong politician will not have a staff that runs all over him. Another thing that gives the staff more power is the size of legislation. They read and spoon feed the info to the 'big guy'. In essence, he gets their opinion on a bill, not the bill.

Unfortunately, as we have seen recently, it is usually the staff that writes the legislation and the elected leader rarely seems to know what exactly it contains. Powerful leaders are usually powerful for their charisma more than anything else.

I also have to agree that Congressional representatives influence much more than the people they actually represent.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5095 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1185 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
Overly simplistic view.

Agreed, it's an overly simplistic view of things, but the other option is to take away the right folks have to elect who they want. What if a representative or senator is effectively representing his constituency, but comes up on the limit? If the people want him, they should have him. I understand the far reaching implications, 'ala Pelosi, but I'm not sure I want to give up my right to vote for whom I want.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
Negative. A strong leader prevents themselves from being overtaken by their advisers.

Bad choice of words...you're exactly correct, leaders lead. Politicians lead by consensus.

Quoting DXing (Reply 7):
it is usually the staff that writes the legislation and the elected leader rarely seems to know what exactly it contains

But how is this fixed? Hold the politicians accountable to what their staff is doing and to how they are voting.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1184 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 8):
But how is this fixed? Hold the politicians accountable to what their staff is doing and to how they are voting.

Senior staff members are like bureaucrats. If their guy loses they sign on somewhere else so they are very rarely held accountable.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1174 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 7):
Unfortunately, as we have seen recently, it is usually the staff that writes the legislation and the elected leader rarely seems to know what exactly it contains.



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 8):
Agreed, it's an overly simplistic view of things, but the other option is to take away the right folks have to elect who they want. What if a representative or senator is effectively representing his constituency, but comes up on the limit? If the people want him, they should have him. I understand the far reaching implications, 'ala Pelosi, but I'm not sure I want to give up my right to vote for whom I want.

That's what endorsements are for. The Congressman you like can tell you, "If you liked the way I served, vote for this guy because he and I think the same way".

I think we have far more to gain with term limits than we risk.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1133 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
what does anyone else think?

I'm just trying to think of a president or major party presidential candidate who would meet those qualifications.

Whether you think them right or wrong - Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W Bush never held office in the Congress, or on a cabinet level. They all ran as their major qualification 'successfully' running a state government.

George H.W. Bush probably was the best qualified by your list, having served in Congress and on a near cabinet level as head of the CIA.

I doubt a presidential candidate could build that resume.


User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4154 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1121 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Wouldn't have stopped the current debacle. He has plenty of help on the domestic side but his foreign policy has been a study of naivete and ignorance.

As opposed to GB who screwed up both?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Absolutely agree.

I actually agree here.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
so that by the time you reach the presidency you have some idea of how to run a government and you can't just simply buy your way into the job.

Nope
Carreer Politicans are part of the problem these days. Too many fools worried about how Government works than how the Government should serve the constituants.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1115 times:



Quoting CasInterest (Reply 12):
As opposed to GB who screwed up both?

Subject of another thread, but I still think he did better than this guy.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1111 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
The last thing we need is to encourage more career politicians. If anything, we ought to be talking more about term limits!

Term limits for all federal politicians would solve many problems. Give each person two terms, then send 'em home.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 11):
I doubt a presidential candidate could build that resume.

 checkmark 

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Subject of another thread, but I still think he did better than this guy.

Subject of another thread huh? Never mind that this guy is working in the shitstorm created for him by the last guy.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1104 times:



Quoting Planespotting (Reply 14):
Subject of another thread huh? Never mind that this guy is working in the shitstorm created for him by the last guy.

The last president may have left us with a leaking ship, but the present one is trying to solve it by putting more holes in the hull.

Again, the subject of another thread.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

the reason i suggested term limits would give the staffers too much power is simply the notion that freshmen congressmen have no idea how anything in Washington works, that's why they hire experienced staffers, to show them the ropes, if the constant is the staff with perpetual turnover amongst the congressmen, then on a practical basis, the congressman is taking orders from his staff, not the other way around. Plus there's the issue of political influence, the recently departed Ted Kennedy was in the senate for 47 years, when he wanted something done he knew who to call and who to talk to and he was well enough respected that he could part the red sea on behalf of a constituent, whereas Joe Schmoe who's a first term congressman can't move a rock across the street, he doesn't have the political pull or the name recognition to get it done.

Congressional term limits is a moot point anyway, back when the term limits craze first started, some states tried to implement term limits on their congressmen/senators and were told no by the federal government, states don't have the authority to term limit congress because congress supercedes the individual states. That being said, some members of congress have heeded the spirit of the notion, and will term limit themselves even though they're not required to do so. while the constitution suggests that congress derives it's power from the individual states, in reality it has become the other way around, the states derive their power from congress.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1074 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 16):
the reason i suggested term limits would give the staffers too much power is simply the notion that freshmen congressmen have no idea how anything in Washington works, that's why they hire experienced staffers, to show them the ropes, if the constant is the staff with perpetual turnover amongst the congressmen, then on a practical basis, the congressman is taking orders from his staff, not the other way around.

I understand the concern but I think the solution should be redirected.

First of all, the bills being passed in Congress are frequently not even the work of congressmen. A few weeks ago John Conyers admitted that he doesn't bother reading them, because he doesn't understand them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA

So you would hardly be throwing out a lot of talent by flushing washington every few years.

Secondly, why does any bill need to be 1000 pages? The Constitution, which covers a lot of territory, is only about a dozen pages. I say, if a bill gets beyond 20 or 30 pages, go back and start again.

BTW, have you ever watched "Yes, Minister"?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4892 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1066 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
If anything, we ought to be talking more about term limits!

Hear hear!

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
no, no term limits for congress, the longer someone is in, the more effective they are at getting things done that are more favorable to their own states/districts, not to mention it gives the staffers too much power.

The more effective they are at doing what Congress does best - bring home the pork and only care about their political careers and not their constituents. Some of the worst congressmen have been there for decades (*cough cough*John Murtha*cough cough*Arlen Specter*cough cough*) and people just keep on reelecting them because either another candidate isn't available or they don't look into their record. Politics shouldn't be a career - it should be a service for the people representing the people.



Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1035 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 16):
the reason i suggested term limits would give the staffers too much power is simply the notion that freshmen congressmen have no idea how anything in Washington works, that's why they hire experienced staffers, to show them the ropes, if the constant is the staff with perpetual turnover amongst the congressmen

Which is absolutely nothing more than a false assumption on your part.

The average freshman Congressman has 10 years of government work and experience, before being elected, while the average staffer has 5 years. And your argument that a politician needs 2 or more years of on the job training, to become an effective congressional leader, is without basis.

Most alarming is that a system - whereas the average newly elected official needs years of experience and on the job training - raises troubling questions about what has happened to representative democracy in America.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 16):
Congressional term limits is a moot point anyway, back when the term limits craze first started, some states tried to implement term limits on their congressmen/senators and were told no by the federal government, states don't have the authority to term limit congress because congress supercedes the individual states.

Which is why 14 states currently have such laws on the books? Or why do 34 states place term limits on their governors? Hell... or why we have a constitutional term limit on the presidency? The office of the president is most certainly more challenging than the that of a congressman. So by using your argument - the office of the presidency should become more powerful, and more experienced, with time. So why not allow him/her to serve as long as he can get reelected? Does not the public gain from this, just as you argue, they gain from a long standing congressman?

That's the absurdity in your argument. In your original post, you are fervently willing to impose a multitude of stipulations on a presidential candidate... yet you easily dismiss the idea of congressional term limits, as unconstitutional.

Why don't you make up your mind, and get back to us.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5095 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1005 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 19):
yet you easily dismiss the idea of congressional term limits, as unconstitutional.

Term limits may be un-Constitutional. I don't know if it's been tested. Remember, it took the the 22nd amendment to limit the presidential term.

I'm not absolutely opposed to term limits, I'm just very concerned whenever I'm asked to discard one of my rights in order to make government 'better'.

The arguments for term limits are compelling and the current crop of politicians who have the responsibilty of running government do nothing, in my opinion, to dispell those arguments. I just need more convincing to change my mind on the matter.

As for the question of experience: I say leave it alone. If the collective 'we' are stupid enough to turn over The Presidency to an amateur, we deserve that smack in the head. Call it a 'V-8 moment'. I just wish it happened in steadier times. A lot of damage can be done.

In my mind, the current situation portends an overhaul in Congress come 2010.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 984 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 20):
Term limits may be un-Constitutional. I don't know if it's been tested. Remember, it took the the 22nd amendment to limit the presidential term.

While term limits have not been tested, the Supreme Court has given the states pretty much an open hand to do anything they want with Representatives and Senators.

That is why some states appoint interim replacements, some have special elections. Reapportionment is required every 10 years, but the Court says the states can redraw congressional district lines any time they wish.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cash For Clunkers, A Good Idea? posted Thu Aug 20 2009 06:40:12 by Dreadnought
Changes In Boats; My Observations And Experience posted Wed Aug 12 2009 09:02:49 by MCOflyer
Rental Car Experience. posted Tue Jul 14 2009 10:34:02 by Fxramper
My Stimulus Idea...And Yours. posted Thu Jul 9 2009 14:57:55 by OzarkD9S
Tapering Off SSRI's : Your Experience posted Wed Jun 10 2009 15:32:08 by JBLUA320
Paragliding - Anyone Here Have Experience? posted Wed Jun 3 2009 10:50:02 by BMIFlyer
Great Stimulus Idea From Rep. Kennedy (D-RI) posted Fri May 22 2009 15:21:33 by Yellowstone
Synaesthesia - Do You Experience It? posted Mon May 4 2009 13:31:39 by Diamond
Business Idea From Japan - Cat Cafes posted Mon Mar 2 2009 07:41:17 by PROSA
Birthday Idea For My Mother: What Do You Think? posted Fri Feb 13 2009 18:55:32 by SmithAir747