Who supports term limits for Congress?

[Wry Catcher]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

Simple thinkers, concrete thinkers and those who don't think at all support term limits for Congress. Of course they already exist, the power is the vote, and every two years the H. of Rep. membership stands for reelection, and every six years so do members of the Senate.

I oppose this short-sighted idea for the simple reason experience counts. Would anyone of those who support this idea have surgery from someone who had never operated before? Fly with a pilot who had never flown before?

The problem with the Congress is too many members put their job first, and vote the way their leadership tells them and/or how the power elite require; not necessarily what their district wants or needs. It's time for the Supreme Court to acknowledge the two Citizens United Decisions were and remain foolish and threaten democracy itself.

 

[gipper]

Absolutely. I fully support Ted Cruz's and Ron DeSantis' term limit amendment. It was introduced a couple months ago; however, I have a feeling it will likely go nowhere. I don't expect members of Congress to build their own gallows.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf

Like I said, if we want this done the Article V amendment process is the only way

Are you a supporter?

I am.

Well then, do you know who your state legislator is and if they are in favor of the Article V movement?

They need just 2/3 of the states to approve and then they can move forward with the process.

Find out who they are and tell them you support it, or vote for someone who does.

Otherwise, this will never happen.

It won't happen anyway. If we are to accept observations made throughout this thread as to them all being crooked harlots, etc., etc.; they are not cutting off their own meal ticket. Furthermore, all we vote for and elect are the puppets who are in turn called upon by lobbyists, think tank pimps and Wall Street which is who they really serve after all. In principle it sounds like a good idea worthy of support by all, I just don’t see the system responding to the needs and/or will of “the people”. “The people” is not who the system serves. Recall the bailouts, reasonable gun legislation that gets repitched as “grabbing”, and the public option/single payer healthcare "debate". The/a majority of the public’s position on each of these issues was irrelevant to the outcomes.

Agreed....The Oligarchy (ruling class) does not want term limits, so the Hell with the people who overwhelmingly do. Just another example of how our so called democracy does not work for the people, but for the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy loves pols who stay in office for decades. They are easily bought.

 

[Votto]

This thread reminds me of how Obama tried to get Arlen Specter to win his primary against a democratic rival. He actually had someone offer his rival democrat a nice job to simply go away. Not only did he not do that, he made it public that the DNC was attempting to buy him off to go away.

Was anything done about such corruption? Hell no. Luckily, Arlene lost the primary.

Then the exact thing happened in Colorado. I don't know about you, but now I'm wondering if this happens to every candidate, only, some take the money and split.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Absolutely. I fully support Ted Cruz's and Ron DeSantis' term limit amendment. It was introduced a couple months ago; however, I have a feeling it will likely go nowhere. I don't expect members of Congress to build their own gallows.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf

Like I said, if we want this done the Article V amendment process is the only way

Are you a supporter?

I am.

Well then, do you know who your state legislator is and if they are in favor of the Article V movement?

They need just 2/3 of the states to approve and then they can move forward with the process.

Find out who they are and tell them you support it, or vote for someone who does.

Otherwise, this will never happen.

It won't happen anyway. If we are to accept observations made throughout this thread as to them all being crooked harlots, etc., etc.; they are not cutting off their own meal ticket. Furthermore, all we vote for and elect are the puppets who are in turn called upon by lobbyists, think tank pimps and Wall Street which is who they really serve after all. In principle it sounds like a good idea worthy of support by all, I just don’t see the system responding to the needs and/or will of “the people”. “The people” is not who the system serves. Recall the bailouts, reasonable gun legislation that gets repitched as “grabbing”, and the public option/single payer healthcare "debate". The/a majority of the public’s position on each of these issues was irrelevant to the outcomes.

Agreed....The Oligarchy (ruling class) does not want term limits, so the Hell with the people who overwhelmingly do. Just another example of how our so called democracy does not work for the people, but for the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy loves pols who stay in office for decades. They are easily bought.

Give enough ... monkey's .... err give gipper enough time, he might hit on something substantive and thoughtful. Who would have guessed?

The Power Elite, the Oligarchy, can today buy elections, and extort a vote from current members of Congress by threatening to take away their donation, and use that money to buy someone biddable. Worse, they can spend an unlimited amount of anonymous money assassinating the character of the incumbent while supporting their surrogate to defeat him or her.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

In general, I would say no. The easy example here would be your doctor...who generally has taken about a decade in schooling to even get his/her credentials. Would you be fine if your doctor had no required schooling and could only gain experience for a limited number of years (let's say 8). Do you think that our level of medicine would increase or decrease by capping out the number of years a person can practice medicine?

Likewise, being elected requires no schooling and no experience. You just have to be popular, and (like Trump) have money or be able to generate money from your friends. How to effectively govern a nation is something that is still debated today...less is known about governance than we know about medicine and anatomy...yet we require less credentials and experience from our politicians than we do our doctors. Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots who have to learn from the ground up and then get booted out shortly thereafter.

Here is a thought...if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics...looking at term limits is about as idiotic as chopping your arm off because your elbow itches. Money = corruption. It is literally that simple. Concentrate on the problem and ways to solve the problem, not on some made up convolution you heard on Fox News.

Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots

Since the experienced crop tends to spend more and more, and tends to enrich themselves, more and more.....
how is rotating a bad thing?

if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics

The Federal government had receipts of about $3.3 trillion last year and spent about $4 trillion.
You want to "get money out of politics", shrink the size of the government.
Controlling how people spend money to get elected is a waste of time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

Simple thinkers, concrete thinkers and those who don't think at all support term limits for Congress. Of course they already exist, the power is the vote, and every two years the H. of Rep. membership stands for reelection, and every six years so do members of the Senate.

I oppose this short-sighted idea for the simple reason experience counts. Would anyone of those who support this idea have surgery from someone who had never operated before? Fly with a pilot who had never flown before?

The problem with the Congress is too many members put their job first, and vote the way their leadership tells them and/or how the power elite require; not necessarily what their district wants or needs. It's time for the Supreme Court to acknowledge the two Citizens United Decisions were and remain foolish and threaten democracy itself.

I oppose this short-sighted idea for the simple reason experience counts. Would anyone of those who support this idea have surgery from someone who had never operated before? Fly with a pilot who had never flown before?

If the clowns in Congress got better with experience, you might have a point.
Unfortunately, they get worse. Term limits, now.

 

[Never3ndr]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

In general, I would say no. The easy example here would be your doctor...who generally has taken about a decade in schooling to even get his/her credentials. Would you be fine if your doctor had no required schooling and could only gain experience for a limited number of years (let's say 8). Do you think that our level of medicine would increase or decrease by capping out the number of years a person can practice medicine?

Likewise, being elected requires no schooling and no experience. You just have to be popular, and (like Trump) have money or be able to generate money from your friends. How to effectively govern a nation is something that is still debated today...less is known about governance than we know about medicine and anatomy...yet we require less credentials and experience from our politicians than we do our doctors. Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots who have to learn from the ground up and then get booted out shortly thereafter.

Here is a thought...if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics...looking at term limits is about as idiotic as chopping your arm off because your elbow itches. Money = corruption. It is literally that simple. Concentrate on the problem and ways to solve the problem, not on some made up convolution you heard on Fox News.

Well let's see, $20 trillion plus in debt and nothing to show for it, America divided in two, and continuous wars abroad on the verge of WW3 cuz these experienced politicians feel the need to police the world?

I'll take my chances with Joe Blow assuming office. I prefer people in office trying to create a world they will have to reenter instead of a life long ivory tower career in office with a lavish retirement plan and health care they give only for themselves while forcing all the little people into Obamacare.

They just don't make hell hot enough.

You must have missed my entire point...which was that money creates corruption...not time in office.

If you get a bunch of new people in every so often you actually increase the influence of money and outside interest on them, since they are very reliant upon them to get into office. The easy example here is to simply view a lot of the newer politicians in the House of Representatives versus the older ones. The newer ones tend to do pretty much nothing during their first year or first term and act radically to the benefit of the interest that got them there. On the other hand, the older ones that are pretty certain in their position have more leeway to pursue interests that are akin to their liking and even influence the broader mindset of the new politicians. You should pay attention to how politics are playing out currently before you speak upon changing them.

 

[Never3ndr]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

In general, I would say no. The easy example here would be your doctor...who generally has taken about a decade in schooling to even get his/her credentials. Would you be fine if your doctor had no required schooling and could only gain experience for a limited number of years (let's say 8). Do you think that our level of medicine would increase or decrease by capping out the number of years a person can practice medicine?

Likewise, being elected requires no schooling and no experience. You just have to be popular, and (like Trump) have money or be able to generate money from your friends. How to effectively govern a nation is something that is still debated today...less is known about governance than we know about medicine and anatomy...yet we require less credentials and experience from our politicians than we do our doctors. Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots who have to learn from the ground up and then get booted out shortly thereafter.

Here is a thought...if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics...looking at term limits is about as idiotic as chopping your arm off because your elbow itches. Money = corruption. It is literally that simple. Concentrate on the problem and ways to solve the problem, not on some made up convolution you heard on Fox News.

Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots

Since the experienced crop tends to spend more and more, and tends to enrich themselves, more and more.....
how is rotating a bad thing?

if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics

The Federal government had receipts of about $3.3 trillion last year and spent about $4 trillion.
You want to "get money out of politics", shrink the size of the government.
Controlling how people spend money to get elected is a waste of time.

You actually have to do both, but at least you are on the right track. People spend money on elections in order to further their goals on either the regulatory side, or through getting the government to spend money on them. If you decrease the amount of money the government spends, you should decrease their incentive to donate to politicians.

However, ignoring the fact that politicians, who are exceptionally poorly paid given their position and power, and forced to rely upon donations in order to maintain office makes them directly answerable to these outside influences. You seriously need to spend some time in government because it seems you are ignorant of the fact that a large portion of their time is spent raising funds and catering to donors. You have to attack it at both angles in order to reduce the corruption in our government. Regardless, however, term limits are going to do jack and squat to free our government from corruption. You don't see many people complaining about SCOTUS justices...which are elected for life. It may have something to do with them not having to cater to donors every so often for millions and millions of dollars to remain in their seat. They are free to reside simply however they feel.

 

[candycorn]

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.

Incumbents actually have a massive disadvantage in this day and age. They have a track record to run on that is more examined, more directed by the opposition, and (given the split in the politics of the nation) more explosive than ever. Additionally, given that human position of “woe is me” even when Americans have the highest standard of living ever achieved…incumbency is a plague as much as it is a benefit. The largest benefit to incumbency is a lazy electorate. And the US has, by far, the most dis-interested voters.

 

[candycorn]

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians don't behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.

If you look at politician's as I do, they are nothing but whores. Whoring themselves out to the highest payer.

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

 

[candycorn]

Absolutely. I fully support Ted Cruz's and Ron DeSantis' term limit amendment. It was introduced a couple months ago; however, I have a feeling it will likely go nowhere. I don't expect members of Congress to build their own gallows.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf

Whoa…I thought conservatives like Cruz were for State’s rights?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

Simple thinkers, concrete thinkers and those who don't think at all support term limits for Congress. Of course they already exist, the power is the vote, and every two years the H. of Rep. membership stands for reelection, and every six years so do members of the Senate.

I oppose this short-sighted idea for the simple reason experience counts. Would anyone of those who support this idea have surgery from someone who had never operated before? Fly with a pilot who had never flown before?

The problem with the Congress is too many members put their job first, and vote the way their leadership tells them and/or how the power elite require; not necessarily what their district wants or needs. It's time for the Supreme Court to acknowledge the two Citizens United Decisions were and remain foolish and threaten democracy itself.

I oppose this short-sighted idea for the simple reason experience counts. Would anyone of those who support this idea have surgery from someone who had never operated before? Fly with a pilot who had never flown before?

If the clowns in Congress got better with experience, you might have a point.
Unfortunately, they get worse. Term limits, now.

This ^^^ post suggests a lack of thought. Members of Congress are not clowns, they are simply protecting their turf because their job, is job number one, and a nice office requires an obsequious approach to the Speaker. The Senate is different, but only in degrees.

 

[Desperado]

Yes... No Career Politicians
2 term maximums for all political offices.
Mandatory retirement age of 65 for Supreme Court Justices.

 

[candycorn]

Votto

What would be the plan for term limits?

Just finish someone off after 2 terms or are they able to run for Senate or from the Senate to the House afterword? Can they run for President (getting potentially 2 terms in the House (4 years), 2 terms in the Senate (12 years) and maybe a term or two in the Oval (8 years) thus making 24 years.

Keep in mind…
The average House member has served 9.1 years and the average Senator has served 10.2 years.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Absolutely. I fully support Ted Cruz's and Ron DeSantis' term limit amendment. It was introduced a couple months ago; however, I have a feeling it will likely go nowhere. I don't expect members of Congress to build their own gallows.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf

Like I said, if we want this done the Article V amendment process is the only way

Are you a supporter?

I am.

Well then, do you know who your state legislator is and if they are in favor of the Article V movement?

They need just 2/3 of the states to approve and then they can move forward with the process.

Find out who they are and tell them you support it, or vote for someone who does.

Otherwise, this will never happen.

It won't happen anyway. If we are to accept observations made throughout this thread as to them all being crooked harlots, etc., etc.; they are not cutting off their own meal ticket. Furthermore, all we vote for and elect are the puppets who are in turn called upon by lobbyists, think tank pimps and Wall Street which is who they really serve after all. In principle it sounds like a good idea worthy of support by all, I just don’t see the system responding to the needs and/or will of “the people”. “The people” is not who the system serves. Recall the bailouts, reasonable gun legislation that gets repitched as “grabbing”, and the public option/single payer healthcare "debate". The/a majority of the public’s position on each of these issues was irrelevant to the outcomes.

Agreed....The Oligarchy (ruling class) does not want term limits, so the Hell with the people who overwhelmingly do. Just another example of how our so called democracy does not work for the people, but for the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy loves pols who stay in office for decades. They are easily bought.

Zzzzzactly.

 

[Votto]

Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain

In general, I would say no. The easy example here would be your doctor...who generally has taken about a decade in schooling to even get his/her credentials. Would you be fine if your doctor had no required schooling and could only gain experience for a limited number of years (let's say 8). Do you think that our level of medicine would increase or decrease by capping out the number of years a person can practice medicine?

Likewise, being elected requires no schooling and no experience. You just have to be popular, and (like Trump) have money or be able to generate money from your friends. How to effectively govern a nation is something that is still debated today...less is known about governance than we know about medicine and anatomy...yet we require less credentials and experience from our politicians than we do our doctors. Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots who have to learn from the ground up and then get booted out shortly thereafter.

Here is a thought...if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics...looking at term limits is about as idiotic as chopping your arm off because your elbow itches. Money = corruption. It is literally that simple. Concentrate on the problem and ways to solve the problem, not on some made up convolution you heard on Fox News.

Well let's see, $20 trillion plus in debt and nothing to show for it, America divided in two, and continuous wars abroad on the verge of WW3 cuz these experienced politicians feel the need to police the world?

I'll take my chances with Joe Blow assuming office. I prefer people in office trying to create a world they will have to reenter instead of a life long ivory tower career in office with a lavish retirement plan and health care they give only for themselves while forcing all the little people into Obamacare.

They just don't make hell hot enough.

You must have missed my entire point...which was that money creates corruption...not time in office.

If you get a bunch of new people in every so often you actually increase the influence of money and outside interest on them, since they are very reliant upon them to get into office. The easy example here is to simply view a lot of the newer politicians in the House of Representatives versus the older ones. The newer ones tend to do pretty much nothing during their first year or first term and act radically to the benefit of the interest that got them there. On the other hand, the older ones that are pretty certain in their position have more leeway to pursue interests that are akin to their liking and even influence the broader mindset of the new politicians. You should pay attention to how politics are playing out currently before you speak upon changing them.

And you missed my point. Tools like Arlene Specter were already bought and paid for, so they not relish having to do it again with a newer guy.

My main hope is that states will resume the power they once had instead of people with money only focusing on a hand full of politicians that remain in place year after year.

Just imagine the hardship of instead of having to buy off a hand full on Congressmen to having to buy off state legislators in all 50 states!

I get giddy just thinking about it.

 

[Votto]

Votto

What would be the plan for term limits?

Just finish someone off after 2 terms or are they able to run for Senate or from the Senate to the House afterword? Can they run for President (getting potentially 2 terms in the House (4 years), 2 terms in the Senate (12 years) and maybe a term or two in the Oval (8 years) thus making 24 years.

Keep in mind…
The average House member has served 9.1 years and the average Senator has served 10.2 years.

I would say two terms and gone, just like the President.

Sure, if they want to run for something else then have at it.

 

[Votto]

So far about 80% of posters agree that there needs to be term limits, which mirrors the national percentage.

Well kids, do we believe in democracy or don't we?

Again, the only way to proceed is the Article V movement. The North Carolina Senate just passed a resolution which waits for the House to approve it so that North Carolina can join the fight.

Remember, we need just 2/3 of the states and it's in the Constitution.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians don't behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.

If you look at politician's as I do, they are nothing but whores. Whoring themselves out to the highest payer.

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

They are no more whores than the people who elect them endlessly while fecklessly hoping for a different outcome, believing that if only we can get enough of "ours" in it will be different.

 

[gipper]

Like I said, if we want this done the Article V amendment process is the only way

Are you a supporter?

I am.

Well then, do you know who your state legislator is and if they are in favor of the Article V movement?

They need just 2/3 of the states to approve and then they can move forward with the process.

Find out who they are and tell them you support it, or vote for someone who does.

Otherwise, this will never happen.

It won't happen anyway. If we are to accept observations made throughout this thread as to them all being crooked harlots, etc., etc.; they are not cutting off their own meal ticket. Furthermore, all we vote for and elect are the puppets who are in turn called upon by lobbyists, think tank pimps and Wall Street which is who they really serve after all. In principle it sounds like a good idea worthy of support by all, I just don’t see the system responding to the needs and/or will of “the people”. “The people” is not who the system serves. Recall the bailouts, reasonable gun legislation that gets repitched as “grabbing”, and the public option/single payer healthcare "debate". The/a majority of the public’s position on each of these issues was irrelevant to the outcomes.

Agreed....The Oligarchy (ruling class) does not want term limits, so the Hell with the people who overwhelmingly do. Just another example of how our so called democracy does not work for the people, but for the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy loves pols who stay in office for decades. They are easily bought.

Give enough ... monkey's .... err give gipper enough time, he might hit on something substantive and thoughtful. Who would have guessed?

The Power Elite, the Oligarchy, can today buy elections, and extort a vote from current members of Congress by threatening to take away their donation, and use that money to buy someone biddable. Worse, they can spend an unlimited amount of anonymous money assassinating the character of the incumbent while supporting their surrogate to defeat him or her.

Partisans! When will they ever learn the two parties are on the same side?