[Serious] Voters of Reddit, would support a bill that said no member of Congress could be re-elected if the government shut down at any point during their term? Why or why not?
Posted Jan 3, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC
132
So you want to start the next session of Congress without one single experienced member?
6
Do you think it would go worse?
0
No. Seniority can be important in getting things done. I would hate to see a required pressing of the massive reset button because one side ( or both sides ) were holding the government hostage to make a point.
3
What in your view is the role of the government?
1
Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like a kind of small/unusual reason to prevent one's re-election.
3
Are there any circumstances under which you would support a policy like this?
1
I don't think I would support a policy like this because it has the potential to punish the careers of some people that might have had no control over a government shutdown. However, assuming the intention of this policy is to further discourage members of Congress from allowing a government shutdown, I would support a policy that fulfills the same purpose through a different means. For instance, as of now, congressmen and women still get paid during government shutdowns which is a huge flaw in policy. I think that congress members should not be paid during these shutdowns as they are responsible for it's occurrence.
1
I think the crux of where we would disagree is the idea of a career in politics. I do agree that this policy would be drastic, but I was trying to tease this kind of thing out. I do not believe career politicians should be a thing. Do you think that there would be any other way to make them less corrupt?
1
I think the inability to make politics a career would greatly discourage people from a less wealthy background to pursue it in the future. Becoming a member of Congress typically takes a lot of time and dedication. If people can't view politics as a lucrative career, then a lot of talented individuals will pursue other fields meaning only those nondependant upon a steady income would even be able to enter into politics.
1
No. Government shut downs are an important part of the process IMO. I don't think that elected officials salaries should freeze during shutdowns either. This may lead to officials making poor decisions that are not in line with their constitutes based off of selfish reasons. I would hate for my senator to cave on a policy I support because they are worried about their credit card bill.
2
Do you actually follow what your senators or congresspeople do? Not trying to sound snarky, but I don't believe most people do.
0
Most people likely don't on a day to day level, but we elect representatives that we believe we share values with and hope/trust they will represent us accordingly.
1
I agree that is how it works, and I am guilty too. But I think that is a huge problem.
1
A huge problem that we do not follow the day to day activities of our representatives? I think there may be more transparency today then almost any time in human history.
1
Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice
-
Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child.
-
Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
-
Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
No, because it's unnecessary. 1) even the "innocent" members couldn't be reelected and 2) it's the equivalent of bombing your house because you found a spider inside. Did you notice how the USA is the only modern country that has shutdowns? Maybe start learning from those who did it better instead.
1
Wouldn't either case require forcing lawmakers to pass a law that would put them at greater risk?
1
No. This represents a basic misunderstanding of what a shutdown is and why it occurs.
How does asking a poignant question for information gathering purposes represent a misunderstanding?
It's an ignorant question with an unrealistic basis. It's a knee-jerk reaction to the situation, blaming Congress for the shutdown.
This is not the fault of Congress, this is the fault of Trump refusing to accept the budgets that they proposed because they did not allocate money for his dumbass wall that he said Mexico would pay for. He's throwing a fit; if Congressional positions were at stake with a looming shutdown, we'd find ourselves funding a bullshit project that ultimately isn't going to do anything to help the actual problem it's supposedly trying to solve.
You are reading all sorts of intent and my opinion into the question. It wasn't loaded, although I can see why one would view it as such. Thanks anyway.
I don't mean to be a dick about it, but think it through: If every time the government shut down (which sometimes happens more than once per year) we had to elect a new Congress, it'd be a logistical nightmare and there would be so much turnover in Congress that nothing would ever really get done.
The real solution would be to stop electing such harshly partisan, self-interested politicians who refuse to reach across the aisle to come to agreements that are for the best of the American people at large. But, given how big and politically divided this country is, that's a pipe dream at this point in time.