• weeeeum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes, aside from their senility, our politicians are simply way too out of touch to comprehend the average American’s issues. Spent most of their life in politics with the easiest 6 figure salary (plus bribes) you can have.

    Granted politicians will probably remain out of touch but I’d like to imagine it’d be better

  • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Let’s do it slightly differently, let’s make the mandatory retirement age for political office the median life expectancy age for the entire country. If the politicians, etc can manage to make everyone live longer, they can hold office longer.

    Similarly, take away their separate and different medical coverage and put them on the same Medicare system everyone else in the country has to use.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe don’t bring social security retirement age until it. They already want to raise that. This would just be another excuse to do it.

    • tkohldesac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      My parents are close to 65 and completely out of touch. If you turn 65 during your next term you should be ineligible.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    No, I would support it being locked to the national retirement age though, which would be 67 at the moment.

  • YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    No.

    1. I think that 75 is already too old, especially because they won’t let go of their positions until their terms end even after the “mandated” age of retirement (unless the law specifically forbids taking a position you won’t be able to complete)
    2. Politicians will argue that this age is either too young or too old and will either never update this law, or update it so often it becomes meaningless.

    An alternative could be to set the limit to a percentage of average life expectancy, or some other variable, so the law isn’t as easy to ignore or mess with, the law can remain unchanged for decades and remain relevant without adverse effects (hopefully), and politicians are encouraged to improve the quality of life.

  • makyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    No I’m for term limits. Each presidential election the popular vote should go to decide the party that gets to nominate the next justice. The first one in has to retire at that same time.

    I also think we should increase the size of the court and cycle in/out two every four years - somewhere around where we’d have 20 year term limits. Side bonus, I think it’d be a benefit for all of us that the court has a larger variety of voices and be more difficult to hack the way the GOP has this court.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Yeah, but probably I’d make it lower (like 67) and allow exceptions with large majority (like a four year exception with a two thirds or three quarters vote of the senate).

    I also think Supreme Court justices should have terms and term limits, and shouldn’t be allowed to receive gifts over a certain value (like $2,000).

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not just retirement, put them in a machine that extrudes protein paste and use that to feed the next crop of legislators.

    If you retire early, you don’t get put in the machine.

  • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’d support a four-term limit for the Senate, six-term limit for the House, and one term in the Supreme Court for a period of time not to exceed 20 years.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes, but agree with most of the other comments here. It should be lowered to 65-67 instead.

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    No. Some of the worst politicians are young. Some of the best politicians are old. Age isn’t a problem. Undemocratic systems and bad politics are problems.

  • kevincox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I wonder if it would be better to have a term limit. I don’t really care if you are 125, but there should be a limit to how long you sit there with huge amounts of power. Especially since they aren’t directly re-elected.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      No. For two reasons, one you don’t want to force the people to give up an actually good representative. Two, term limits for Representatives and Senators actually creates more corruption and entrenches the party as the entity instead of the politician.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Say, greedy old guy, would you mind giving up the power you so prominently covet? Why, no? Well geeze.