http://www.outsideth...ngress-in-2012/
Ron Paul Will Not Seek Re-Election To Congress In 2012
A local paper originating in his Congressional District reports that Ron Paul, who has served a total of more than two decades in Congress, will not seek re-election to his Congressional seat in 2012:
After serving almost 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul told The Facts this morning he will not be seeking another term for the District 14 seat.
Paul, 75, will instead focus on his quest for the presidency in 2012.
Ron Paul to retire from congress.
Started by
TakeAStepBack
, Jul 12 2011 05:00 PM
23 replies to this topic
#7
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 15,961 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 12 July 2011 - 05:28 PM
Why thouugh? if they are doing a good job for the people that elected them, I think they should be able to stay and run until they are beaten from their seat....
This. If serving the best for all whom they represent, why stop?
#8
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,583 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:22 PM
Because I feel the longer that people serve in office, the higher the probability that they become corrupted and start working more for corporate interests than that of their constituents.
And I feel that more would get done. If a politician knows they've only 6 years to bring forth positive change, than they'll work harder to make it happen. Otherwise governments turn into two Old Boys Club of arguing back and forth grand standing each other.
and most importantly, I think having shorter term limits will encourage more people to run. What's the biggest complaint heard about our government? There's usually shitty candidates and not enough choices.
Keeping good people in office for a long time also promotes keeping bad people in office. There are probably numerous people that could be excellent politicians, but their not going to bother running as the sitting officer has become unmovable furniture. Would you run against John McCain? Probably not because it would be a waste of money.
Take private funding out of all elections and shorten the term lengths of those in office and you'll have a much better government more concerned with what is right for the American public than their corporate supporters.
And I feel that more would get done. If a politician knows they've only 6 years to bring forth positive change, than they'll work harder to make it happen. Otherwise governments turn into two Old Boys Club of arguing back and forth grand standing each other.
and most importantly, I think having shorter term limits will encourage more people to run. What's the biggest complaint heard about our government? There's usually shitty candidates and not enough choices.
Keeping good people in office for a long time also promotes keeping bad people in office. There are probably numerous people that could be excellent politicians, but their not going to bother running as the sitting officer has become unmovable furniture. Would you run against John McCain? Probably not because it would be a waste of money.
Take private funding out of all elections and shorten the term lengths of those in office and you'll have a much better government more concerned with what is right for the American public than their corporate supporters.
#9
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,785 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:36 PM
Because I feel the longer that people serve in office, the higher the probability that they become corrupted and start working more for corporate interests than that of their constituents.
And I feel that more would get done. If a politician knows they've only 6 years to bring forth positive change, than they'll work harder to make it happen. Otherwise governments turn into two Old Boys Club of arguing back and forth grand standing each other.
and most importantly, I think having shorter term limits will encourage more people to run. What's the biggest complaint heard about our government? There's usually shitty candidates and not enough choices.
Keeping good people in office for a long time also promotes keeping bad people in office. There are probably numerous people that could be excellent politicians, but their not going to bother running as the sitting officer has become unmovable furniture. Would you run against John McCain? Probably not because it would be a waste of money.
Take private funding out of all elections and shorten the term lengths of those in office and you'll have a much better government more concerned with what is right for the American public than their corporate supporters.
While I would concur to some extent. Take a look at Barry. He barely got his foot in the door way before taking vig from corps to lobby in.
Ron Paul served congress for 24 years and held the same position the whole time. it's about the man, not his degree of access to corruption.
As for the rest, i mostly agree. I would take it a step further and suggest paying next to nothing to be in office and make it a no chance career. that way, only thos ewho actually want to serve the people will sign up and lessen the amount of corruption because there is no money in it.
#10
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,583 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:47 PM
I'd take it the opposite direction. I'd make it the salary excellent, but offer no pension. Say 250K a year, but you only get a shot at the job for 6 years in two 3 year terms.
Eliminate political parties, take away private campaign funding and make the job attractive so that you get the brightest and most talented Americans from all backgrounds and income levals running for the job.
Eliminate political parties, take away private campaign funding and make the job attractive so that you get the brightest and most talented Americans from all backgrounds and income levals running for the job.
#11
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,785 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:51 PM
No, mang. No glorious payout as a public servant in any leval. Congress, white house or otherwise. Minimum wage pay out. In other words, this is something you're passionate about. It isnt a career move.
Be a doctor, a lawyer, a peace officer...what have you.....but if you want to serve in gubmint, you WANT to serve, not collect.
Be a doctor, a lawyer, a peace officer...what have you.....but if you want to serve in gubmint, you WANT to serve, not collect.
#12
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,583 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 09:00 PM
In order to get the best talent at any position, you have to pay for it.
I'm fine with local gov't positions getting paid next to nothing. It's where passionate future candidates for Federal Gov't positions should get their start from.
If you make top leval Federal Gov't positions low wage jobs, the only people who are going to run are those people who come from rich families and don't need the money anyways. Half the guys in office right now don't need the salaries they draw. They come from old money and they get in to sway policy decisions to favor their private business interests to keep that old money in their families.
That's the cycle that needs to be broken. Get the old money out of politics
I'm fine with local gov't positions getting paid next to nothing. It's where passionate future candidates for Federal Gov't positions should get their start from.
If you make top leval Federal Gov't positions low wage jobs, the only people who are going to run are those people who come from rich families and don't need the money anyways. Half the guys in office right now don't need the salaries they draw. They come from old money and they get in to sway policy decisions to favor their private business interests to keep that old money in their families.
That's the cycle that needs to be broken. Get the old money out of politics
#15
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,583 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 10:19 PM
If others are only in office a short amount of time, the respect is shared by all. You don't have hesitant junior members fearful of standing up to the John McCains and Chuck Rangals
6 years is an eternity. Look at the difference between where our country is now and where it was 6 years ago. Look at the difference between where it was in 2005 and 1999.
I'd be willing to hear maybe 9 years for Senators, with 3 year terms to avoid lame ducks. Change is good. Fresh minds, fresh ideas in touch with current day issues. Allow the same person person to serve in the House for 6 years. So, there you go, if you're good, you've got 15 years of service to provide and if you're really good, another 8 as President.
For every great long serving Senator like Patrick Leahy, you've got a half dozen 20+ year serving Senators who suck, but only get voted back in because they've become unmovable furniture.
Truth is, there very well could be better guys to represent VT than Leahy or Sanders, but no one is going to take a chance voting or running against them due to fear of losing Democratic seats.
Get rid of political parties all together. Make government about the issues and have motivated fresh minds in office trying to make a difference with the short time they have.
Our government is broken. The whole structure needs to be blown up.
6 years is an eternity. Look at the difference between where our country is now and where it was 6 years ago. Look at the difference between where it was in 2005 and 1999.
I'd be willing to hear maybe 9 years for Senators, with 3 year terms to avoid lame ducks. Change is good. Fresh minds, fresh ideas in touch with current day issues. Allow the same person person to serve in the House for 6 years. So, there you go, if you're good, you've got 15 years of service to provide and if you're really good, another 8 as President.
For every great long serving Senator like Patrick Leahy, you've got a half dozen 20+ year serving Senators who suck, but only get voted back in because they've become unmovable furniture.
Truth is, there very well could be better guys to represent VT than Leahy or Sanders, but no one is going to take a chance voting or running against them due to fear of losing Democratic seats.
Get rid of political parties all together. Make government about the issues and have motivated fresh minds in office trying to make a difference with the short time they have.
Our government is broken. The whole structure needs to be blown up.
#17
-
- VibeGuide
-
- 15,961 posts
VibeGuide
Posted 12 July 2011 - 11:00 PM
oh...forgot VP for 8 years. So, in theory, if someone is really good, they could serve 31 years at the Federal leval.
Unless of course it becomes like many fraternal and other such organizations where once you are in, you pretty much automatically move up the ladder until you have held all positions.
#18
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,785 posts
Posted 12 July 2011 - 11:11 PM
I like the way you think, dhs. But I have to say here, if the people did their duty as citizens, more diligently and with greater regard, the implementations you suggest would be negated by default. Lame ducks would be pushed out of office upon an offence rather than allowed to remain.
It is truly a mentality of power of the people.
It is truly a mentality of power of the people.
#20
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,583 posts
Posted 13 July 2011 - 12:43 AM
Unless of course it becomes like many fraternal and other such organizations where once you are in, you pretty much automatically move up the ladder until you have held all positions.
That's challenging to do when it's an elected position. It certainly happens, VPs becoming Ps ect. Presidential candidates choosing VP running mates from Congress.
Personally, I think the Vice President should be a separate ticket. I mean really, the only major function of the VP is to warm the bench in case something happens to the P. Shouldn't the American public decide who that person is separately from the Pres? I bet John McCain agrees with me on this concept right about now.
I bet Joe Biden and Sarah Palin both disagree with me right now. At the same time, we should also ad value to the position. Make the VP the Secretary of State.But overall, if you limit political time in office, these fraternities will struggle to exist far more than how they currently do.
I like the way you think, dhs. But I have to say here, if the people did their duty as citizens, more diligently and with greater regard, the implementations you suggest would be negated by default. Lame ducks would be pushed out of office upon an offence rather than allowed to remain.
It is truly a mentality of power of the people.
Sure, this is true, but the current system (especially private campaign finance with corporate sponsorship) discourages good people from lesser means from running. Level the playing field, eliminate political parties and make government about the issues and you'll get more intelligent and talented 4'11 brehms from Ithaca, NY running for office because they actually feel like they can compete.
I think our technology allowing the exposure of so much information facilitates the citizens even further to hold those accountable that do not fulfill our wishes and expectations if we invoke true action behind understanding.
translated: This is why I spam the family forum with politics.
j/k. You're absolutely right. I especially feel that Public Broadcast Networks should be used 100% for conveying true unbiased information on all the current issues of the day. Make a news network that is 100% funded by the public, not corporations. Hell, don't fund it with public money, do it by taxing the hell out of private news outlets like CNN and FOX.
