this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1505 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4799 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I'd think, because the Constitution only defines minimum ages, we would need an amendment identifying maximum ages.

65? 70?

Let's set it up with term limits as well.

President is already capped at 2 terms of 4 each, what seems fair for everyone else?

2 six-year terms for Senator? 12 years?

6 two year terms for Congress? Also 12 years?

18 years for Supreme Court?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I’m not sure age is the problem. It’s greed and corruption.

I would also require anyone RUNNING for an elected office to divest themselves completely of all investments and business ties. Everyone running would get the same campaign funding and that is all they are allowed to use. For anyone elected, base pay would be significantly increased. This would naturally allow more younger candidates to both run and be elected, since you don’t have to be a corrupt, wealthy, ancient subhuman to fund a campaign.

I’m with you on the term limits, too.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Term limits and an inability to invest would just make it a completely unwanted job for anyone without some significant fallback plan.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Base pay would be significantly increased."

Throwing a number out there: $400K/year should be good enough for anyone to both live on and save toward the future, especially over the course of, say, 4 years. I'd even support a $50K/year pension over the course of 8 years after leaving office, just to keep it fair.

The point is: making the job attractive to people who want to actually do the job, and not selfish, rich, corrupt asshats looking to enrich themselves and their fellow "upper crust" cronies.

Retaining any manner of private interest while serving in such a role is, by it's very nature, inherently corrupt. Always.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)