We were wrong on Term Limits

Discussion in 'Politics' started by acludem, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Term limits are very, very bad. They lead to a bunch of people with absolutely no clue what's going on making decisions that massively thousands and even millions of lives. Every other type of organization wants experienced people in leadership positions? Why not in the government? Don't give me this bullshit about career politicians either. Most of our founders were career politicians. It's a tradition that goes back to before the constitution.

    The real winners when you institute term limits are bureacrats and lobbyists who don't have term limits. They see a bunch of new faces that they can control, or relatives or friends of faces they already control.

    Here's an interesting column on this issue from a former supporter:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,2519521.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

    acludem
     
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I think that the argument can be made for both sides of this issue. One is that the people should be allowed to elect whoever they want for as long as they want. That gives you what we have in the congress. Senators that are senators for 40 years because anything that they might have done wrong can be forgotten in 6 years when election time comes.

    Then there is the presidency. We get guys in there for a long period of time and the ideas become stagnant. Even Bush, who i voted for twice and have been satisfied with in many areas isn't living up to the hype after 6 years. I know full well you wouldnt want another 4 years of Bush would you, acludem?

    I think you need the combination of term limits to keep fresh faces in politics that are there to accomplish things and not get reelected with the elimination of beuracracy. I know thats a pie in the sky dream since a beuracracy is only in place to expand the beuracracy. With term limits, it would create more of an interest in the populace as to who they vote for. They would know that even if the elected official isnt the person that they like, they won't have to live with that person forever as their elected official. Sure that means some good leaders would get the shaft but it also means that bad leaders would only have so long to screw things up.

    Its a tough issue to make a definitive decision on.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,878
    Thanks Received:
    2,071
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,774
    I don't think presidents should be re-elected. Have them serve a 6 year term and get a new one. The president should never have to worry about getting re-eleced, he should be soley focused on what is good for the country.
     
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Hummm I could support that, heck it takes a year or so just to get yer feet planted good, then its campaign time. They all need term limits. How long do you think it takes for a politician to learn the ropes of producing pork, 4, 6, 8 years?
     
  5. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    I'm beginning to think we need to set an age limit also...

    How old is Sen. Byrd now, 105yrs old? :)
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Hey, not a bad idea..If a Pilot can't fly after 60 why should these guys be able to pass laws?

    PS..Pilots can fly after 60..just not for an airline.
     
  7. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    It takes a long, long time to really learn the entire legislative process (i.e. writing legislation, navigating committees, learning how to compromise, how to deal with bureacrats and lobbyists, etc. etc. etc. Like any job, it takes years.

    As for the Presidency, I'm opposed to term limits there also. Term limits don't get anyone out to vote and they don't open up the electoral system any. In reality, they close it off even more because parties now have to constantly scrounge new candidates for positions, and often can't find highly qualified people to run for these seats.

    Term limits on Congress were even discussed at the Constitutional Convention. The founders decided against them believing them folly. Here's another article that shows why term limits are bad, it's from the New American, hardly a liberal source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no12/vo12no12_limits.htm

    acludem
     
  8. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I dont really see this as a liberal vs conservative issue. This is just what you personally believe. I can think of alot of liberals that dont like term limits as well as conservatives. Then i can also think of alot of both that like them.
     
  9. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Speaking as someone who has waffled on this........ I finally found my comfort zone.

    I think the total years of elected service should not exceed Thirty. At retirement you get 75% of your base pay. At twenty years you can retire at half pay.

    Within that Thirty years. No more than two consecutive terms in any office.

    For example. If you serve two terms as a Rep you can either take a term off, run for the Senate, or run for President. Then you could do another two terms as a Rep if that is your comfort spot. The military calls this "broken time" and it's a hedge against seniority. I suppose one could even do a stint as an Ambassador or something (which wouldn't count against your thirty year limit).

    I don't mind someone building experience but I really oppose them being so entrenched that they are an institution unto themselves. I hope that made sense.

    To the poster who was discussing how long it took to learn the system.... Sounds like an excellent reason to do away with "parliamentary" procedure and IT21 the process. If it is that complicated, we need to ask what benefit it brings.

    Just my two cents.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    why are we paying them a pension, pegwinn? 90% of Americans dont get any pension let alone the fat stack this buffoons receive on top of the money they made/stole over the years. Policitians are public servants. The money needs to be removed from it and then you will have only people willing to be public servants doing it.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TERM LIMITS