Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnchorKlanker t1_j3nwgw8 wrote

Yes, politicians were just as foul in 1947 as they are today. When oh when we We the People simply demand term limits?

−10

Pt_Zero t1_j3ojd9i wrote

They personally each gave small amounts to someone (across the aisle in some cases) as a gift and we’re calling that foul? I’m sure there was some amount of self-interest involved, but we’d be in a much better place if our representatives could get along this well today. Also, a politician with a personal rule against accepting large gifts even though the law presumably allowed for more. We could use more of that these days. I don’t disagree on term limits, but this really isn’t a great example of why they’re needed.

5

AnchorKlanker t1_j3okza9 wrote

No, it isn't a great example of why term limits are needed. But the idea of doing a workaround to give a sizable gift is still abhorrent, which is what provoked by comment. If members of the House could serve only one 4-year term, and members of the Senate only one 6-year term, and if both were rotated as the Senate already is, the entire political process would change drastically for the better.

−4

Pt_Zero t1_j3paub3 wrote

It was his own personal “policy”, not some actual law or rule. He just didn’t want to accept large gifts that left him beholden to the gift-giver. He later returned the money to his colleagues despite their attempt to “work around” this personal policy. This is the rich people equivalent of having someone at work that’s well-liked but doesn’t like people to make a big deal out of it. He could use something to do his job more easily, but it’s kind of expensive so everyone pitches in a little bit to get it for him. If anything, the fact that such an apparently honest man who also went against the segregationist Southern Democrat party line at the risk of his own career to do the right thing stayed in office as long as he did is an argument against term limits.

2

StoneTemplePilates t1_j3ryepe wrote

You think it would be a good idea for the entirety of congress to turnover every 4 years? Do you realize how much of a shit show that would be, even compared to our current system? I realize that there's this push going on to get rid of career politicians, and replace them with "regular people" but we do actually need some people in Washington that know how the system works.

Also, I don't even agree that the "workaround" is abhorrent, as you say. The purpose of limiting the size of a gift is so that an elected official does not feel obliged to act in the interest of the gift giver rather than their own constituents. If the cost of the gift is spread over a couple hundred people who all have different priorities, then the issue of being beholden to any one of them is mostly nullified. It's not remotely the same as the shit that goes on today with lobbyists in Washington. Your take on this makes no sense at all.

2

AnchorKlanker t1_j3tr9di wrote

I did not say turnover all of the House every four year. I said rotate, as the Senate does now. You may be failing to see the important point; politicians should be receiving no gifts of any size from anybody. Period. Thin edge of the wedge. Moreover, it was a workaround. It's what government operatives do. I'm sure you have noticed.

0

StoneTemplePilates t1_j3tux2s wrote

You said they should be limited to a single 4 year term. This in practice means that nobody in Congress will have more Ethan 4 years of experience being a member of the house. That's absurd and is not how the Senate works so I don't know where you got that from.

Additionally, it wasn't even a law that they were circumventing it was a personal decision for Rayburn not to accept gifts. Your comparison to modern Congress just doesn't make any sense at all.

2

BillTowne t1_j3owdvs wrote

Seriously?

Sam Rayburn was a good and decent man. He returned all the money that had been donated.

I don't believe you know anything about the man.

I remember his funeral. The service was in the first Baptist Church even though he was a Primitive Baptist because it was larger and could better accommodate the large number of people.

4

AnchorKlanker t1_j3ownt3 wrote

No. Didn't know the man.

−5

BillTowne t1_j3rkt3l wrote

I did not say anything about knowing him.

I said knowing anything about him.

2