I hear ya Addie. If I can just keep Paulie from draining his trust fund. Should have never spent SO MUCH of it on that fancy PRIVATE school. Bitter pill, a bitter pill....

I disagree. The very people that got us into this mess, Congress, walk away and go on break, getting us into the next mess. Term limits is part of that answer. But the people who will take it on the chin are the people who paid their fair share and did no wrong. Maybe the bitter pill should be laying Congress off with no pay until they start fixing this, oh wait, that won't work since they are all wealthy, have free health care & pensions, plus legal insider trading for their investments. Maybe the folks that need to take responsibility for themselves are the politicians who can't seem to find time to do the job they were entrusted to do!! Instead, let's kick the little people, heck, they are already held down....

Term limits are most assuredly not the answer. If an incumbent is well liked in his/her district - e.g. they are good at bringing home the bacon - then that is an incumbent you want in office as long as possible because they are an effective asset to their constituents. Term limits empower PACs a lot more than they do constituents, as the more frequent churn of officeholders requires more spending, thus more donor money (which today means more PACs and party-aligned groups fighting for tactical advantages), and more implicit agreements between endebted officeholders and the big donors/PACs that put them in office. Term limits are not good for the average person.

I respectfully have a different opinion, as I believe career politicians are part of the problem. The longer they stay, the more power they gain for "their" constituents, be damned about the rest of the country. And when some fresh minds go to Congress with very good intentions, they are shut down by the powers that be, the old guard, and must do things the way they have always done them. A politician is elected to a term, then why should they have lifetime health care and pensions for being a public servant? Because they have become the lord and master not the servant of the people. If they want to remain in public service after their term limit, they can seek a different position. I believe our term limits in Missouri have served us well. Just sayin....

^RM

Congressional pay and benefits are not about being "lord and master." They are about:

1) Making it so that if a Congressman doesn't fear for his/her financial security if he makes a controversial or series of controversial moves in office.
2) Making it so that bribery is significantly less compelling to him/her. I guarantee there is much more bribery and kickback stuff going on in state legislatures that only pay part time than there is at the federal level.

Congressional pay is an atom in a molecule in a drop in the bucket.

Re term limits, I think you are dead wrong. All term limits do is turn the system into pure entropy and machine style patronage. Whoever is willing to take up the SuperPAC's cause gets the out of state cash money to distort local politics against local interests. Basically every 8 years in MO, you have 100% turnover. How do you seriously police corruption if there is no institutional memory in the system? Also, if my district has a remarkably effective legislator, why should I be forced to vote for someone else because 8 years are up? It is very anti-constituent. All term limits do is sound good on paper.

Hey MOM:
Maybe , you should join a local community Church organization and ask how much it costs to be educated. You will see that it costs less than $4,000 per year per child.
Now, That compares to the over $10,000 per year it is costing society for Mehlville's
public schools.
Get yourself informed.
It cost me only $72,000 for 12 years of schooling.
Compare that to the "never ending cost of $300,000 for every Mehlville resident who lives there for 30 years. You see, Public school education never stops costing. Does it? Yet, the Educators keep charging for "Services NEVER RENDERED".

Once again, Missourian, I totally disagree with your assessment which I love about this country. Congress members are generally well off, as a matter of fact, as a group, I believe they would probably be in the top 5% tier. As for what they actually do and the time they spend, they are extremely well paid, considering all their perks and not to mention the fact that they are entitled to insider trading. On term limits, total turn over is controlled by staggering terms as are done now. And the SUPER PAC's you are so concerned about are running rampant now and control most of Congress. They don't fear snubbing the voters, they answer to the money brokers, just look at the recent Congressional track record on any number of issues where the voters are overwhelmingly one way and out of total disregard, they do whatever they or the party wants....IMO, career politicians are part of the problem not the solution.

"They don't fear snubbing the voters, they answer to the money brokers, just look at the recent Congressional track record on any number of issues where the voters are overwhelmingly one way and out of total disregard, they do whatever they or the party wants....IMO, career politicians are part of the problem not the solution."

Well that depends. A Congressperson's job is to work in the best interests of their district, not to placate the will of the voters. I think you are really oversimplifying the issue, as there are many reasons a Congressperson might do things that run counter to their district. In Missouri, those reasons might include things such as having "vision," not being xenophobic, being able to pronounce the word Macroeconomics, and so forth.

"Also, the private sector has been feeling the effects of a downed economy for years, so why should we expect the public sector to be exempt from feeling this pain as well?"

^Facepalm times 1000. IT'S CALLED MACROECONOMICS, PEOPLE!!!!!!! When times are good and the economy is performing well you want the gov to cut spending and run surpluses (see the Clinton years), and when times are bad you want it to increase spending to fill in the gaps the private sector is not filling on its own as this helps to mitigate the pain of recessions, etc. This is basic, day one Econ 101 stuff.

You sound like barrel of fun at a social event.... I say To-mat-o you say A-bortion. I say Potah-to you say homosex-uals ....