Change is in change to Washington DC or change is in we're all broke now and only have change left in our pockets?

Lol, sorry for the campaign slogan as I think the current is less than capable. I of course meant positive change in the interest of the people, not the bait and switch crap that is so common these days. What I mean is that if you look at the statistics, a good majority of controversial legislation gets put on the table and passed RIGHT AFTER an election because people have short memories and forget such things in a few years. They piss people off after they get the job again then go on a pr campaign to revamp their name in time for election season. Also, make no mistake, the incumbent already has an advantage with name recognition and is harder to unseat to begin with. I live in NY with some of the most dysfunctional people running it and they get voted in time and time again without fail while the little guy with the sensible ideas get drowned out. If somebody only gets X years to accomplish their goal, we will see their true colors in that limited time if they hope to get their agenda through.

So tired of hearing this debate. It's maneuvering from the GOP, and if you ever hear a Dem doubt his birthplace, it's buyer's remorse.

I have to disagree. If the people are the ones constantly re-electing somebody, it means (ideally) that they're happy with the job he/she is doing. If the people want change, they'll elect somebody else. 

Edit: And to be fair, our longest serving Prime Minister wasn't in power for 20 years straight, he came back multiple times (for those who are just itching to learn about Canadian politics, Google search William Lyon MacKenzie King. He's our Prime Minister with the most um...interesting personal life). 

My only gripe about term limits is that they don't apply to senators or representatives.

Being a politician should not be a viable career. That is probably the main source of all problems in Washington.

If people knew they could only be in office for 8 years, they would be much, much more likely to do things that are not currently politically viable but ARE things we need done.

How does he get a passport without his birth certificate? Sure its just GOP maneuvering but showing they are idiots should be so easy. Do the Dems really not want to show they are better? Nothing is gained from hiding it, but proving others wrong is simple.

Buddy for me to be fair, I will say that something like 94% of incumbents were re-elected in NY this past November. Are you going to seriously tell me that  94% of your politicians are worth re-election with a straight face? Don't make me laugh by saying they are because you aren't paying attention if that's the case. The guy with the money and power generally can swing things their direction. They have better connection with the media and generally more ability to 1-up the opponent. 

Arch's comment about it not being a viable career is exacly what I was saying. When your focus is campaigning to keep your career, you aren't looking out for my interests.

I'd go even further and say that no representative or senator should get paid more than the median income for the country.

I'm a mercenary, so I can appreciate people that deserve to make more money than most because they add value or create something.

Politicians don't.  It's public SERVICE.  Instead, through the generations they've crafted it into a very lucrative career.  It's incredibly perverse.

Bunny, like some people have already said, it wouldn't matter if a thousand birth documents signed by a million eye witnesses came out. The idea was planted a long time ago and it isn't going anywhere no matter what evidence emerges. Even those who personally believe that Obama was born in the U.S. will still use the topic as a way to attack him (see Tanooki & Paul's posts).

You're correct, the nation was formed on the grounds you're there on a limited basis to serve the people, not yourself, and not as a career for life.  They really do need to limit the time one can stay in congress.  California has two hellishly bad senators, Boxer in particular who has zero respect for the military and many other institutions, and she feels entitled (remember the bitchfit over calling her ma'am last year.)  Oh and I agree with your post, they should be paid the median level income, AND if those fuckers had shut down gov't they should have been FIRST not to get paid for that crap.

Oh and paul I think it's not 'hope and change' it's 'hope for spare change' after all that has been done so far.

But it doesn't cost him anything to show the one actual birth certificate. It does cost him negative press to not show it. If he will be attacked either way at least the document would be a defense, where he has none now. Nothing to lose but much to gain.

Did you guys hear we have a black president?
Crazy, right?

News to me!

Huh, we do share some common ideas in politics after all .

I would imagine that the only people who wouldn't agree are the roughly 600 people running the country and their staff of sycophants.

Republic does not equal democracy.

True, but I'm sure that differs depending where you are. If you're telling me that those politicians weren't worth re-electing and that term limits are good there, I believe you. They work in NY (maybe in the country in general) and we don't need them in other places. That's why I said "ideally" those who are being re-elected are making the people happy, but of course that isn't 100% the case. The problem is when the leader is doing a good job and they have to leave, whether the people actually want that or not. 

The USA is a democratic republic.  Not just a republic.  There is a big difference.

Maybe this reason is why campaign funding should be limited. In theory less funds should equal less face time, hopefully putting more people on even ground. With technology today, it is much easier to look up information on candidates to inform yourself, rather than relying on the ads and rallys (not that many politicians follow up with their promises).

Well they do have a voting system, and the largest political party there by far is the National Democratic Party.

Wouldn't offering a median income discourage people from entering politics, and therefore turn away educated and skilled people rather than attracting them? I'm not saying they should me making $500k per year or anything of course, and I do agree with your suggestion as an ideal one. Do you think it would be practical though? (This actually isn't a rhetorical question, as I'm sure you could think of an answer). 

In Canada they have limited the amount that people and business can donate to a political party, and are talking about cutting party funding even further (perhaps altogether?). Again, different situation though which would explain why term limits work in some places better than others. 

The US was set up to be a Constitutional Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy. We Democratically (majority rules) elect our leaders to carry out the powers given to them in the Constitution. In a true Democracy, 50% +1 can vote to take away the rights and private property of the remainder of the citizens. The Founders set up our Federal government as a Republic because they studied history and knew that a true Democracy will ALWAYS fail. Sadly, we have drifted away from our founding principles and that is the main reason we as a country are in the shape we are in now. I promised I would not comment on the Birther debate and I am not. I am merely making a statement about Republics and Democracies.

If they don't add value they shouldn't be needed and you should just get rid of them all.

It's absolutely practical.

The whole point is that if you could combine term limits with more reasonable salaries, it would be returned to being a public SERVICE.  If they want to give their service to this country, their only reward should be the satisfaction of a job well done and brighter future for the nation.

Droves of skilled and educated people give their service to institutions like the Peace Corps, or through the military.  This would be no different.

If a person wanted to make a difference in the world, and have an impact, they should be just as willing to do it for $50k as for $400k.

In the private sector, employees don't get paid more than the employer. 

WE are the employer.  THEY are the employees.  In no rational sense should they be allowed to vote themselves raises derived from OUR tax money, when the end result is that they get paid salaries in the top 0.05% for doing nothing of note.