Who supports term limits for Congress?

[candycorn]

So the answer is no…term limits simply would “help” stop corruption. One would think the focus should be in re writing the Constitution to stop the corruption. For example, one of my favorites is that the GOP could, tomorrow, make a rule to where any tax increase would need a 100-0 margin to pass the Senate and a single vote in the House to pass. There are no rules that are currently in place that the majority could not re-write tomorrow…. You put those rules in the Constitution and then you have some teeth. For example, there is a danger that the GOP will lose the Senate in 2018. If they do and we lose another Supreme Court member…would you expect the Democrats to hold a hearing for anyone Trump nominates? Not sure if you are talking about THIS sort of institutionalized corruption or not but to me, there is no more vivid example than the branch simply refusing to do it’s job as appointed by the Constitution… If you’re talking about individual members it’s hardly that important and hardly worth re-writing the Constitution to limit terms for everyone who wins an election because there are some rotten apples in the barrel.

As for the law of unintended consequences, lets say pass the law. Again, the average Senator ALREADY spends less than 2 terms in office and the average House member spends a little over 4 terms…

View attachment 124119

Aren’t you worried that you’ll get a bunch of candidates who are simply there to get that “feather in their cap”, make the connections only a Senator can make, and simply get corrupted more rapidly since they know their time at the trough of public money is limited?

No, I said that term limits would help reduce corruption. Stop putting words in my mouth.

It would be great if we had a Congress that passed a health care plan they also wanted to participate in instead of optioning out only for themselves. If these people knew that they would be out of a job in a few years and would have the same health care plan they provided the country, perhaps we would all have better health care instead of the GOP trying to write another health care bill or the left wanting a single payer system. By all accounts, both party's think Obamacare is a abject failure.

That wasn’t my intent.
I apologize if I did so.

Not sure how you would make an effective argument that someone who plays by the rules in the 13th year of his tenure is corrupt and someone who plays by the rules in the 8th year of their tenure is not corrupt. The rules (or lack thereof) are the problem; not the players. The same consultancies and inducements that businesses use already to “buy” congressmen and senators will be there regardless of the years of service. Statistically, the only difference you’re going to be making is limiting a congressman to 4 years…not long enough to know where the good restaurants are in a town much less weigh in substantively on crucial legislation.

These are not the only reforms that need to be implemented, but they are part of the solution.
Are you saying that 80% of voters are stupid in wanting this amendment,

I would think that 80% of the voters on a message board are a poor barometer. In the macro, I think 80% is soft because of 2 reasons:

General apathy about what the Constitution says (again, I would imagine that most of the people think there is something written in the document that documents the Party’s be in control of the committees, an all-powerful party boss who can shit-can legislation at his or her discretion, etc….).

As we’ve seen with Obamacare, it’s very easy to vote for something when you know there are no consequences; it’s much harder to stand for something when the fallout from your vote is going to be felt.

or are you saying you no longer believe in democracy and wish to stop it?

Pfft…no. Term limits are a dumb idea because they allow the rules that create corruption to stay in place; it will not change anything for the average Senator who already sees less than two terms, it will shift power to the executive in a way that is predictable but not manageable, and it will basically gut the entire Congress of it’s institutional memory. Just wait until you have 300-350 new members of the House and probably 40 new members of the Senate every 2 years… I can hear it now, “Lets simply not pay China…what are they going to do; send a guy over to collect?” As we’re seeing with Mr. Trump; it would probably be good to have some serious public servants in the government to hedge against President who is way in over his head.

No, it’s not just 80% from a poll here, it is 80% nationally as well.

Yes, I know.

People have had enough.

That explains Trump. Right now it’s sort of funny—not being able to believe a word the President of the US says. We’ll see how much laughing the people are doing when there is the inevitable economic downturn when his “We’re doing great” mantra is offset by the economic reality.

Career politicians tend to rule the roost, so to speak. We need to give them the boot.

No logical explanation for that stance has ever been given relative to the overwhelming, unparalleled, and undisputed success the US has posted using the talents, labors, and yes—the inherent liabilities of professional politicians other than the canard of “The Founders Believed”.

On one hand, I’m sure some of the founders believed that they would have been a better President than Washington, Addams, Jefferson, etc… On the other, I’m sure that some of the founders believed that the local bartender should be negotiating peace treaties. On another hand, I’m sure you could have found some that thought the people shouldn’t have any say in the government outside of their own locality.
The founders were a large group of people.

 

[Votto]

No, I said that term limits would help reduce corruption. Stop putting words in my mouth.

It would be great if we had a Congress that passed a health care plan they also wanted to participate in instead of optioning out only for themselves. If these people knew that they would be out of a job in a few years and would have the same health care plan they provided the country, perhaps we would all have better health care instead of the GOP trying to write another health care bill or the left wanting a single payer system. By all accounts, both party's think Obamacare is a abject failure.

That wasn’t my intent.
I apologize if I did so.

Not sure how you would make an effective argument that someone who plays by the rules in the 13th year of his tenure is corrupt and someone who plays by the rules in the 8th year of their tenure is not corrupt. The rules (or lack thereof) are the problem; not the players. The same consultancies and inducements that businesses use already to “buy” congressmen and senators will be there regardless of the years of service. Statistically, the only difference you’re going to be making is limiting a congressman to 4 years…not long enough to know where the good restaurants are in a town much less weigh in substantively on crucial legislation.

These are not the only reforms that need to be implemented, but they are part of the solution.
Are you saying that 80% of voters are stupid in wanting this amendment,

I would think that 80% of the voters on a message board are a poor barometer. In the macro, I think 80% is soft because of 2 reasons:

General apathy about what the Constitution says (again, I would imagine that most of the people think there is something written in the document that documents the Party’s be in control of the committees, an all-powerful party boss who can shit-can legislation at his or her discretion, etc….).

As we’ve seen with Obamacare, it’s very easy to vote for something when you know there are no consequences; it’s much harder to stand for something when the fallout from your vote is going to be felt.

or are you saying you no longer believe in democracy and wish to stop it?

Pfft…no. Term limits are a dumb idea because they allow the rules that create corruption to stay in place; it will not change anything for the average Senator who already sees less than two terms, it will shift power to the executive in a way that is predictable but not manageable, and it will basically gut the entire Congress of it’s institutional memory. Just wait until you have 300-350 new members of the House and probably 40 new members of the Senate every 2 years… I can hear it now, “Lets simply not pay China…what are they going to do; send a guy over to collect?” As we’re seeing with Mr. Trump; it would probably be good to have some serious public servants in the government to hedge against President who is way in over his head.

No, it’s not just 80% from a poll here, it is 80% nationally as well.

Yes, I know.

People have had enough.

That explains Trump. Right now it’s sort of funny—not being able to believe a word the President of the US says. We’ll see how much laughing the people are doing when there is the inevitable economic downturn when his “We’re doing great” mantra is offset by the economic reality.

Career politicians tend to rule the roost, so to speak. We need to give them the boot.

No logical explanation for that stance has ever been given relative to the overwhelming, unparalleled, and undisputed success the US has posted using the talents, labors, and yes—the inherent liabilities of professional politicians other than the canard of “The Founders Believed”.

On one hand, I’m sure some of the founders believed that they would have been a better President than Washington, Addams, Jefferson, etc… On the other, I’m sure that some of the founders believed that the local bartender should be negotiating peace treaties. On another hand, I’m sure you could have found some that thought the people shouldn’t have any say in the government outside of their own locality.
The founders were a large group of people.

Listen dingleberry. The reason someone like Trump won is that people have had enough. I personally think that their hopes are misplaced, especially after Trump just came out stating he was a globalist, but it was an act of desperation nonetheless.

Additionally, I have shown that the majority of Americans want term limits for Congress. Unfortunately, in the US public opinion does not even buy a cup of coffee, and our votes for those in the federal government count for even less.

As I have said, if people really want this to come about they will support the Article V movement.

 

[candycorn]

That wasn’t my intent.
I apologize if I did so.

Not sure how you would make an effective argument that someone who plays by the rules in the 13th year of his tenure is corrupt and someone who plays by the rules in the 8th year of their tenure is not corrupt. The rules (or lack thereof) are the problem; not the players. The same consultancies and inducements that businesses use already to “buy” congressmen and senators will be there regardless of the years of service. Statistically, the only difference you’re going to be making is limiting a congressman to 4 years…not long enough to know where the good restaurants are in a town much less weigh in substantively on crucial legislation.

These are not the only reforms that need to be implemented, but they are part of the solution.
Are you saying that 80% of voters are stupid in wanting this amendment,

I would think that 80% of the voters on a message board are a poor barometer. In the macro, I think 80% is soft because of 2 reasons:

General apathy about what the Constitution says (again, I would imagine that most of the people think there is something written in the document that documents the Party’s be in control of the committees, an all-powerful party boss who can shit-can legislation at his or her discretion, etc….).

As we’ve seen with Obamacare, it’s very easy to vote for something when you know there are no consequences; it’s much harder to stand for something when the fallout from your vote is going to be felt.

or are you saying you no longer believe in democracy and wish to stop it?

Pfft…no. Term limits are a dumb idea because they allow the rules that create corruption to stay in place; it will not change anything for the average Senator who already sees less than two terms, it will shift power to the executive in a way that is predictable but not manageable, and it will basically gut the entire Congress of it’s institutional memory. Just wait until you have 300-350 new members of the House and probably 40 new members of the Senate every 2 years… I can hear it now, “Lets simply not pay China…what are they going to do; send a guy over to collect?” As we’re seeing with Mr. Trump; it would probably be good to have some serious public servants in the government to hedge against President who is way in over his head.

No, it’s not just 80% from a poll here, it is 80% nationally as well.

Yes, I know.

People have had enough.

That explains Trump. Right now it’s sort of funny—not being able to believe a word the President of the US says. We’ll see how much laughing the people are doing when there is the inevitable economic downturn when his “We’re doing great” mantra is offset by the economic reality.

Career politicians tend to rule the roost, so to speak. We need to give them the boot.

No logical explanation for that stance has ever been given relative to the overwhelming, unparalleled, and undisputed success the US has posted using the talents, labors, and yes—the inherent liabilities of professional politicians other than the canard of “The Founders Believed”.

On one hand, I’m sure some of the founders believed that they would have been a better President than Washington, Addams, Jefferson, etc… On the other, I’m sure that some of the founders believed that the local bartender should be negotiating peace treaties. On another hand, I’m sure you could have found some that thought the people shouldn’t have any say in the government outside of their own locality.
The founders were a large group of people.

Listen dingleberry. The reason someone like Trump won is that people have had enough. I personally think that their hopes are misplaced, especially after Trump just came out stating he was a globalist, but it was an act of desperation nonetheless.

Additionally, I have shown that the majority of Americans want term limits for Congress. Unfortunately, in the US public opinion does not even buy a cup of coffee, and our votes for those in the federal government count for even less.

As I have said, if people really want this to come about they will support the Article V movement.

Now that we’re calling each other names, why for fucks sake are you aiming at telling me who I can vote for? If I’m happy with John McCain…in what universe do you get to tell me (and the millions of other Arizonans) who we can’t vote for? If Texans are happy with Ted Cruz, I shouldn’t be able to tell them to stop voting for him…

You point to corruption as some sort of reason. Fine…if there is corruption…use the Article V convention TO WRITE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL RULES TO STOP THE CORRUPTION!!!!!!

That you can’t provide a good reason outside of “the founders wanted it” (which is perhaps only partly true—there are many things some of them wanted that never made it into the Constitution) is your problem….

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

If you want to prove your point that term limits will reduce corruption, all you really need to do is look at people who take new seats and see what they do.

To save you the suspense, since it seems you haven't followed politics at all in your life, they are more likely to vote with their party and less likely to generate any legislation. It means they are more answerable to the party and their donor base and too inexperienced to actually do anything until they gain that experience. If we didn't already have an answer to what term limits would do by simply viewing how new Congressmembers perform I would be 100% in support...since I agree with the general notion that our Congress is too answerable to special interests or "corrupt" as is. However, all you need to do is educate yourself to see the fallacy in your argument...new Congressional members underperform. The only reason you would want more of that is if you were a big business owner so that you could exercise even more control over the party and Congressional members.

Founding Fodder's Foster Government

Instead of this insulting representation system, we need more national referendums. The ruling class has its stable of flunkies ready if Congress becomes a revolving door. Their privately held Constitution assigns all legislative power to them and their bootlickers. Electing is not voting, it is choosing which pre-owned candidate will do all your voting for you.

 

[Votto]

These are not the only reforms that need to be implemented, but they are part of the solution.
Are you saying that 80% of voters are stupid in wanting this amendment,

I would think that 80% of the voters on a message board are a poor barometer. In the macro, I think 80% is soft because of 2 reasons:

General apathy about what the Constitution says (again, I would imagine that most of the people think there is something written in the document that documents the Party’s be in control of the committees, an all-powerful party boss who can shit-can legislation at his or her discretion, etc….).

As we’ve seen with Obamacare, it’s very easy to vote for something when you know there are no consequences; it’s much harder to stand for something when the fallout from your vote is going to be felt.

or are you saying you no longer believe in democracy and wish to stop it?

Pfft…no. Term limits are a dumb idea because they allow the rules that create corruption to stay in place; it will not change anything for the average Senator who already sees less than two terms, it will shift power to the executive in a way that is predictable but not manageable, and it will basically gut the entire Congress of it’s institutional memory. Just wait until you have 300-350 new members of the House and probably 40 new members of the Senate every 2 years… I can hear it now, “Lets simply not pay China…what are they going to do; send a guy over to collect?” As we’re seeing with Mr. Trump; it would probably be good to have some serious public servants in the government to hedge against President who is way in over his head.

No, it’s not just 80% from a poll here, it is 80% nationally as well.

Yes, I know.

People have had enough.

That explains Trump. Right now it’s sort of funny—not being able to believe a word the President of the US says. We’ll see how much laughing the people are doing when there is the inevitable economic downturn when his “We’re doing great” mantra is offset by the economic reality.

Career politicians tend to rule the roost, so to speak. We need to give them the boot.

No logical explanation for that stance has ever been given relative to the overwhelming, unparalleled, and undisputed success the US has posted using the talents, labors, and yes—the inherent liabilities of professional politicians other than the canard of “The Founders Believed”.

On one hand, I’m sure some of the founders believed that they would have been a better President than Washington, Addams, Jefferson, etc… On the other, I’m sure that some of the founders believed that the local bartender should be negotiating peace treaties. On another hand, I’m sure you could have found some that thought the people shouldn’t have any say in the government outside of their own locality.
The founders were a large group of people.

Listen dingleberry. The reason someone like Trump won is that people have had enough. I personally think that their hopes are misplaced, especially after Trump just came out stating he was a globalist, but it was an act of desperation nonetheless.

Additionally, I have shown that the majority of Americans want term limits for Congress. Unfortunately, in the US public opinion does not even buy a cup of coffee, and our votes for those in the federal government count for even less.

As I have said, if people really want this to come about they will support the Article V movement.

Now that we’re calling each other names, why for fucks sake are you aiming at telling me who I can vote for? If I’m happy with John McCain…in what universe do you get to tell me (and the millions of other Arizonans) who we can’t vote for? If Texans are happy with Ted Cruz, I shouldn’t be able to tell them to stop voting for him…

You point to corruption as some sort of reason. Fine…if there is corruption…use the Article V convention TO WRITE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL RULES TO STOP THE CORRUPTION!!!!!!

That you can’t provide a good reason outside of “the founders wanted it” (which is perhaps only partly true—there are many things some of them wanted that never made it into the Constitution) is your problem….

Like I'm sure those in Congress will limit their ability to continue in corruption.

No, what is needed is the Article V movement to finally limit some of their power.

 

[candycorn]

I would think that 80% of the voters on a message board are a poor barometer. In the macro, I think 80% is soft because of 2 reasons:

General apathy about what the Constitution says (again, I would imagine that most of the people think there is something written in the document that documents the Party’s be in control of the committees, an all-powerful party boss who can shit-can legislation at his or her discretion, etc….).

As we’ve seen with Obamacare, it’s very easy to vote for something when you know there are no consequences; it’s much harder to stand for something when the fallout from your vote is going to be felt.

Pfft…no. Term limits are a dumb idea because they allow the rules that create corruption to stay in place; it will not change anything for the average Senator who already sees less than two terms, it will shift power to the executive in a way that is predictable but not manageable, and it will basically gut the entire Congress of it’s institutional memory. Just wait until you have 300-350 new members of the House and probably 40 new members of the Senate every 2 years… I can hear it now, “Lets simply not pay China…what are they going to do; send a guy over to collect?” As we’re seeing with Mr. Trump; it would probably be good to have some serious public servants in the government to hedge against President who is way in over his head.

No, it’s not just 80% from a poll here, it is 80% nationally as well.

Yes, I know.

People have had enough.

That explains Trump. Right now it’s sort of funny—not being able to believe a word the President of the US says. We’ll see how much laughing the people are doing when there is the inevitable economic downturn when his “We’re doing great” mantra is offset by the economic reality.

Career politicians tend to rule the roost, so to speak. We need to give them the boot.

No logical explanation for that stance has ever been given relative to the overwhelming, unparalleled, and undisputed success the US has posted using the talents, labors, and yes—the inherent liabilities of professional politicians other than the canard of “The Founders Believed”.

On one hand, I’m sure some of the founders believed that they would have been a better President than Washington, Addams, Jefferson, etc… On the other, I’m sure that some of the founders believed that the local bartender should be negotiating peace treaties. On another hand, I’m sure you could have found some that thought the people shouldn’t have any say in the government outside of their own locality.
The founders were a large group of people.

Listen dingleberry. The reason someone like Trump won is that people have had enough. I personally think that their hopes are misplaced, especially after Trump just came out stating he was a globalist, but it was an act of desperation nonetheless.

Additionally, I have shown that the majority of Americans want term limits for Congress. Unfortunately, in the US public opinion does not even buy a cup of coffee, and our votes for those in the federal government count for even less.

As I have said, if people really want this to come about they will support the Article V movement.

Now that we’re calling each other names, why for fucks sake are you aiming at telling me who I can vote for? If I’m happy with John McCain…in what universe do you get to tell me (and the millions of other Arizonans) who we can’t vote for? If Texans are happy with Ted Cruz, I shouldn’t be able to tell them to stop voting for him…

You point to corruption as some sort of reason. Fine…if there is corruption…use the Article V convention TO WRITE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL RULES TO STOP THE CORRUPTION!!!!!!

That you can’t provide a good reason outside of “the founders wanted it” (which is perhaps only partly true—there are many things some of them wanted that never made it into the Constitution) is your problem….

Like I'm sure those in Congress will limit their ability to continue in corruption.

No, what is needed is the Article V movement to finally limit some of their power.

Now you’re taking the opposite side of the argument. If you can’t re-write the rules to eliminate the corruption you’re so worried about in an Article V convention, whoever takes the place of those who are term limited will help themselves—as you just stated. So what is the point?