• NotSpez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    This title almost reads like The Onion.

    On a serious note, why? These people (on both sides) have enough money saved, health benefits etc to comfortably retire. Why don’t they? Are they so bought and paid for that their ‘investors’ won’t let them?

    • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      The US legislatures give a lot of power based on seniority. There’s a lot of incentive for a party to keep members in office as long as possible.

      • Evehn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        “Need to feel useful” feels like an altruistic decision. I believe most of these people are all but that.

        • thejml@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The need to feel useful isn’t really altruistic. Sure, it can be, but the vast majority of the time it’s a selfish urge to satisfy one’s own dopamine rush of accomplishment mixed with “I’m the only one who can do this” thoughts. Throw in a dash of mental illness and a sprinkling of “this is how we did it in the good ole days”, and it’s more harm than help.

    • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Seniority plays a major role in committee appointments. Sure, you could replace the senile 95 year old who doesn’t know the cold war is over with a younger candidate, but that senile 95 year old has been in Congress for longer than the other guy has been alive, and he’s on some important committees because of it that the younger candidate wouldn’t be able to be in

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      When these people are strong and healthy they need to foster the next generations so that the party has a good idea who their successor should be so that there party doesn’t fall into shambles and infighting every time one of them dies or retires.

      The problem is that they don’t do that. It is in their interest that there are no viable alternatives to them because good alternatives to them threaten their power. Until they are suddenly 80 that is and nobody knows how to replace them so they have to sit on their thrones and hold on for as long as possible.

    • cassetti@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Someone else recently explained it best: It’s elderly abuse.

      The entourage encircling these elderly congressional leaders are profiting greatly. As soon as these senators retire, these leeches lose nearly everything.

      It’s a Weekend At Bernie’s movie plot, but with extra steps.