Tom Steyer--"Term Limits"

[Billy_Kinetta]

Arguing for term limits is a howl of rage from the uneducated underclass. Where is the benefit ?

It would prevent the unscrupulous from setting up their lifetime crime networks.

 

[Votto]

Steyer is campaigning on 'Term Limits'

Tom Steyer calls out Lindsey Graham and calls for term limits in new South Carolina TV ad

and is naming only Republicans.

"This time, the argument he makes isn’t as philosophical. It’s about a specific trio of people in politics today, whose names he treats as shorthand for entrenched power in Washington.

“Speaking of term limits, I have six words for you: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley,” Steyer says.

McConnell, Graham and Grassley have been in the Senate for a combined 89 years."

Why is he only naming Republicans?

Why doesn't he name some Democrats..?

Like
Nancy Pelosi, with 32 years in office.
Maxine Waters, with 28 years in office
Jerry Nadler, with 27 years in office
Adam Schiff, with 18 years in office.

Why doesn't he mention Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy?

Numerous others.

Oh, that's right...

he's running as a Democrat, and only attacking Republicans for being reelected by their constituents.

Comments?

It matters little what he wants, and it will matter even less when it comes to getting elected in a party whose only concern is no Republicans get in the White House.

About 80% of Americans favor term limits but Congress, in either party, will never do that to themselves.

No, the only way to get that done is through the Constitutional process of having the states amend the Constitution, something that has never been done before, but was put there if and when the Federal government became to powerful and corrupt.

So far, about 13 states have signed on and we need 2/3 of the states to agree to it, the only way it gets done

 

[Preacher]

I keep seeing his commercials. Highly annoying. He LOVES pandering to women and nonwhites...guess he learned nothing of Clinton's loss in 16 when she threw working class whites to the way side...he is doing the same damn thing...as far as term limits great idea but neither HE nor ANY president can do that only congress can which is ridiculous.

 

[Disir]

Steyer is campaigning on 'Term Limits'

Tom Steyer calls out Lindsey Graham and calls for term limits in new South Carolina TV ad

and is naming only Republicans.

"This time, the argument he makes isn’t as philosophical. It’s about a specific trio of people in politics today, whose names he treats as shorthand for entrenched power in Washington.

“Speaking of term limits, I have six words for you: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley,” Steyer says.

McConnell, Graham and Grassley have been in the Senate for a combined 89 years."

Why is he only naming Republicans?

Why doesn't he name some Democrats..?

Like
Nancy Pelosi, with 32 years in office.
Maxine Waters, with 28 years in office
Jerry Nadler, with 27 years in office
Adam Schiff, with 18 years in office.

Why doesn't he mention Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy?

Numerous others.

Oh, that's right...

he's running as a Democrat, and only attacking Republicans for being reelected by their constituents.

Comments?

The only place he is running is around the corner and down the street. I am absolutely for term limits.
I don't buy the open for corruption by setting term limits argument. We have a revolving door now in congress. Hell, the people in congress aren't even reading legislation.

 

[ChrisL]

His term limits stance is the ONLY idea of his I support. The rest of his platform is the usual SJW BS that we hear constantly.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

 

[Apparently Lucid]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

Your prohibition idea makes sense to me. And yeah, my view on voter involvement is a bit idealistic but damn, why don't folks pay more attention to this critical civic duty?

Me, I don't cast a vote unless I know about the candidate but I suspect I'm in a minority.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

Your prohibition idea makes sense to me. And yeah, my view on voter involvement is a bit idealistic but damn, why don't folks pay more attention to this critical civic duty?

Me, I don't cast a vote unless I know about the candidate but I suspect I'm in a minority.

But really you cannot really know a candidate. You only really know what he or she tells you, and then you have to take into consideration that it is coming from a politician. We know that most of them will say ANYTHING to be elected/re-elected. It's not always easy to know if they are lying or not.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

They are already doing that. Like the Oliarchs approaching Moscow Mitch for the Aluminum Factory. Before that debacle, Moscow Mitch was Senator for Life. Or how about the paupers that get into congress and emass millions in just a few short years. Don't tell me that they do that on the wages we pay them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

Your prohibition idea makes sense to me. And yeah, my view on voter involvement is a bit idealistic but damn, why don't folks pay more attention to this critical civic duty?

Me, I don't cast a vote unless I know about the candidate but I suspect I'm in a minority.

Putting a cap on spending for reelection also forces the candidate to go home and soap box.

 

[Apparently Lucid]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

Your prohibition idea makes sense to me. And yeah, my view on voter involvement is a bit idealistic but damn, why don't folks pay more attention to this critical civic duty?

Me, I don't cast a vote unless I know about the candidate but I suspect I'm in a minority.

But really you cannot really know a candidate. You only really know what he or she tells you, and then you have to take into consideration that it is coming from a politician. We know that most of them will say ANYTHING to be elected/re-elected. It's not always easy to know if they are lying or not.

Indeed. That's why I typically start out by looking at the record of the incumbent and determine if I prefer to stay with the status quo or try something new. Due to gerrymandering, I typically don't like my incumbent Congressperson but that's another thread.

Your very valid point appears to argue against against term limits, though. Term limits would increase the uncertainty by increasing the number of candidates without a track record in that position to weigh. I'm not really making that argument as a reason against term limits. Just pointing it out. Something to consider.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

Your prohibition idea makes sense to me. And yeah, my view on voter involvement is a bit idealistic but damn, why don't folks pay more attention to this critical civic duty?

Me, I don't cast a vote unless I know about the candidate but I suspect I'm in a minority.

But really you cannot really know a candidate. You only really know what he or she tells you, and then you have to take into consideration that it is coming from a politician. We know that most of them will say ANYTHING to be elected/re-elected. It's not always easy to know if they are lying or not.

Indeed. That's why I typically start out by looking at the record of the incumbent and determine if I prefer to stay with the status quo or try something new. Due to gerrymandering, I typically don't like my incumbent Congressperson but that's another thread.

Your very valid point appears to argue against against term limits, though. Term limits would increase the uncertainty by increasing the number of candidates without a track record in that position to weigh. I'm not really making that argument as a reason against term limits. Just pointing it out. Something to consider.

True. There are a lot of pros and cons that have to be considered. Though we might make mistakes and vote for the wrong person, I think term limits would prevent our politicians from becoming so deeply entrenched in corruption. I remember hearing a quote from an actual politician who claimed tha the longer they are in office, the more and more corrupt they become.

 

[candycorn]

Arguing for term limits is a howl of rage from the uneducated underclass. Where is the benefit ?

Well the ads are running in South Carolina

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's imagine that you are a member of congress and this is your last term in office due to term limits. And let's say that a big govt contractor approaches you and mentions that there just might be an opportunity for a job with them when their term is up (wink--wink). Don't you think that the soon to be an unemployed legislator might look favorably on legislation that helps their future employer? I do.

I think that term limits will increase corruption in DC, not reduce it.

We already have the power to limit their term under existing law. It's called the voting booth.

In a perfect world, you'd be correct. The problem is that voters can be lazy. Many vote simply on name recognition and nothing more.

As for someone going to work for a government contractor after their term expires, we could always have something akin to a non-compete clause which would preclude a former lawmaker from working for a company that does business with the government for a specified period of time.

The benefits of term limits far outweigh the detriments.

Your prohibition idea makes sense to me. And yeah, my view on voter involvement is a bit idealistic but damn, why don't folks pay more attention to this critical civic duty?

Me, I don't cast a vote unless I know about the candidate but I suspect I'm in a minority.

Putting a cap on spending for reelection also forces the candidate to go home and soap box.

Putting a cap on spending for reelection also forces the candidate to go home and soap box.

A cap would favor incumbents.

 

[Disir]

Or how about the paupers that get into congress and emass millions in just a few short years. Don't tell me that they do that on the wages we pay them.

Spoiler: Honest/Dishonest Graft

Everybody is talkin‘ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin‘ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft—blackmailin' gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc.—and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics.

There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin‘: “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”

Just let me explain by examples. My party’s in power in the city, and it’s goin' to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain place.

I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before.

Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft. Or supposin‘ it’s a new bridge they’re goin’ to build. I get tipped off and I buy as much property as I can that has to be taken for approaches. I sell at my own price later on and drop some more money in the bank.

Wouldn’t you? It’s just like lookin‘ ahead in Wall Street or in the coffee or cotton market. It’s honest graft, and I’m lookin’ for it every day in the year. I will tell you frankly that I’ve got a good lot of it, too.

I’ll tell you of one case. They were goin‘ to fix up a big park, no matter where. I got on to it, and went lookin’ about for land in that neighborhood.

I could get nothin' at a bargain but a big piece of swamp, but I took it fast enough and held on to it. What turned out was just what I counted on. They couldn’t make the park complete without Plunkitt’s swamp, and they had to pay a good price for it. Anything dishonest in that?

Up in the watershed I made some money, too. I bought up several bits of land there some years ago and made a pretty good guess that they would be bought up for water purposes later by the city.

Somehow, I always guessed about right, and shouldn’t I enjoy the profit of my foresight? It was rather amusin' when the condemnation commissioners came along and found piece after piece of the land in the name of George Plunkitt of the Fifteenth Assembly District, New York City. They wondered how I knew just what to buy. The answer is—I seen my opportunity and I took it. I haven’t confined myself to land; anything that pays is in my line.

For instance, the city is repavin' a street and has several hundred thousand old granite blocks to sell. I am on hand to buy, and I know just what they are worth.

How? Never mind that. I had a sort of monopoly of this business for a while, but once a newspaper tried to do me. It got some outside men to come over from Brooklyn and New Jersey to bid against me.

Was I done? Not much. I went to each of the men and said: “How many of these 250,000 stones do you want?” One said 20,000, and another wanted 15,000, and other wanted 10,000. I said: “All right, let me bid for the lot, and I’ll give each of you all you want for nothin'.”

They agreed, of course. Then the auctioneer yelled: “How much am I bid for these 250,000 fine pavin' stones?”

“Two dollars and fifty cents,” says I.

“Two dollars and fifty cents” screamed the auctioneer. “Oh, that’s a joke Give me a real bid.”

He found the bid was real enough. My rivals stood silent. I got the lot for $2.50 and gave them their share. That’s how the attempt to do Plunkitt ended, and that’s how all such attempts end.

I’ve told you how I got rich by honest graft. Now, let me tell you that most politicians who are accused of robbin' the city get rich the same way.

They didn’t steal a dollar from the city treasury. They just seen their opportunities and took them. That is why, when a reform administration comes in and spends a half million dollars in tryin' to find the public robberies they talked about in the campaign, they don’t find them.

The books are always all right. The money in the city treasury is all right. Everything is all right. All they can show is that the Tammany heads of departments looked after their friends, within the law, and gave them what opportunities they could to make honest graft. Now, let me tell you that’s never goin' to hurt Tammany with the people. Every good man looks after his friends, and any man who doesn’t isn’t likely to be popular. If I have a good thing to hand out in private life, I give it to a friend. Why shouldn’t I do the same in public life?

Another kind of honest graft. Tammany has raised a good many salaries. There was an awful howl by the reformers, but don’t you know that Tammany gains ten votes for every one it lost by salary raisin'?

The Wall Street banker thinks it shameful to raise a department clerk’s salary from $1500 to $1800 a year, but every man who draws a salary himself says: “That’s all right. I wish it was me.” And he feels very much like votin' the Tammany ticket on election day, just out of sympathy.

Tammany was beat in 1901 because the people were deceived into believin‘ that it worked dishonest graft. They didn’t draw a distinction between dishonest and honest graft, but they saw that some Tammany men grew rich, and supposed they had been robbin’ the city treasury or levyin‘ blackmail on disorderly houses, or workin’ in with the gamblers and lawbreakers.

As a matter of policy, if nothing else, why should the Tammany leaders go into such dirty business, when there is so much honest graft lyin' around when they are in power? Did you ever consider that?

Now, in conclusion, I want to say that I don’t own a dishonest dollar. If my worst enemy was given the job of writin' my epitaph when I’m gone, he couldn’t do more than write:

"George W. Plunkitt. He Seen His Opportunities, and He Took 'Em."

Source: William L. Riordan, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (1905; reprint, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1963 ), 3–6.
"I Seen My Opportunities and I Took 'Em.": An Old-Time Pol Preaches Honest Graft

Same as it always is.