I'd vote for this.

[Casper]

[jhaag]

Ron Paul has always voted No on congressional pay raises/benefits as a congressman. true story.

[redkow97]

Ron Paul has always voted No on congressional pay raises/benefits as a congressman. true story.

^ I believe that to be correct, but let's not make this about one candidate or another.

The point is that citizens should be demanding this, not waiting for a candidate to fix it.

I particularly agree with the part about "citizen legislators," and not career politicians.

www.GOOOH.com (get out of our house) Make the House of Representatives REPRESENTATIVE again.

[Casper]

Ron Paul has always voted No on congressional pay raises/benefits as a congressman. true story.

One of the many reasons I vote for him.

^ I believe that to be correct, but let's not make this about one candidate or another.

The point is that citizens should be demanding this, not waiting for a candidate to fix it.

I particularly agree with the part about "citizen legislators," and not career politicians.

www.GOOOH.com (get out of our house) Make the House of Representatives REPRESENTATIVE again.

True.

[chevysoldier]

I'd vote for it too. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If they aren't held to some sort of standard and held responsible for the actions, we get exactly what we have. People are fed up. We've let then get away with stuff for too long. A little but here, a little bit there and no one notices until it's too late.

[Uncle Punk]

Ron Paul doesn't agree with pay raises and he doesn't agree with term limits. Which is more important?

[redkow97]

I think term limits are irrelevant if we have real options to vote for.

the parties have too much control. With the exception of Ron Paul, I really don't think it matters very much which Republican gets teh nomination. They're all afraid of pissing off the party, because the party has lots of money, backed by businesses with even more money.

[redkow97]

I am not sure how much "bite" #7 would have btw. I don't think you can make 1 contract that nullifies a bunch of others. The parties involved could terminate them 1 by 1, but you can't just make a single statement that dissolves everything.

In the current economy, I think you could get some support to "downsize congress."

that could be a voluntary pay cut on their part, or cut 1 representative from each state. I don't care. It's not like it really affects us as Ohioans if we go from 19 to 18 (or are we at 18 now?). How many of us even know who our "local" rep is?

DOWNSIZE CONGRESS. or LAY OFF CONGRESS.

[Uncle Punk]

I think term limits are irrelevant with the exception of Ron Paul.

So you're okay with your guy staying in office forever but you don't want someone else’s guy doing it. Or is it okay as long as we don’t pay them too much?

[redkow97]

So you're okay with your guy staying in office forever but you don't want someone else’s guy doing it. Or is it okay as long as we don’t pay them too much?

you distorted what I said quite a bit when you "quoted" me.

I believe voting every 4 years was meant to act as a "term limit" for congress. But it becomes a pointless exercise when you're replacing the bad congressman with another one who is just as bad. if someone is doing a good job, I don't think we should artificially limit their continued service.

The parties own the candidates, and the corporations own the parties. It takes a rare person to have the balls and the means to turn away from funding, and stand up to pressure.

[Uncle Punk]

you distorted what I said quite a bit when you "quoted" me.

I believe voting every 4 years was meant to act as a "term limit" for congress. But it becomes a pointless exercise when you're replacing the bad congressman with another one who is just as bad. if someone is doing a good job, I don't think we should artificially limit their continued service.

The parties own the candidates, and the corporations own the parties. It takes a rare person to have the balls and the means to turn away from funding, and stand up to pressure.

I quoted what I heard you say and apparently was correct.

Your definition of a bad representative may not be someone else’s. This may be why people keep getting elected to represent those same people who keep voting for the bad representatives.