CDZ Do You Support Term Limits For Congress?

[candycorn]

I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.

An interesting idea. One which I am not completely opposed to, however, I am slow to endorse anything requiring private firms to do any particular thing, especially when it involves government and money. Now, you say it would be "free air time", that air time costs money. If the candidates don't pay for it, and the government doesn't pay for it, the stations/networks would have to pay for it. Even if that were only in lost advertisement revenue.

What I didn’t say was that there would be time limits; say from September 1 to Election day. This would be once every 2 years. And remember, they can buy whatever they want on top of what they get for free so it’s not as if the stations would be making nothing off of the election.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?

I propose that the House should have 6 year terms with a maximum of 3 terms.

No one needs to be in office more than 18 year , and elections need to be spread out further so that these jerks aren't constantly in reelection mode.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again get an amendment on the ballot and pass it. No other recourse exists.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Term limits? Not just no, but HELL NO. How did we get Obama?

If someone is good at their job or you really don't give a crap, why does it matter who is in office? You get the government you deserve. Americans hate having choices. Not me. If a politician is inept, there would be nothing like a good old fashioned debate in public so that we can see what the candidates are all about.

Unless a position is for governor or president, we are not graced by the presence of politicians on a debate stage. We need that more than limiting our choices.

 

[Picaro]

Term limits aren't a solution; if your reps are crap, just don't keep voting for them. Limiting terms also means the ones who are good, a rarity, have to go, too, which of course is just stupid.

Quit blaming 'the system' and put the blame where it belongs, on the voters. You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices. Most voters have no idea what they're voting for or what their reps' jobs actually are. This is possible because no civics knowledge is required to vote; you don't even have to know the national language.

 

[Picaro]

The powers that be imposed term limits on the POTUS (mostly due to FDR's 4 terms), why not term limits for Congress?

I propose that the House should have 6 year terms with a maximum of 3 terms.

No one needs to be in office more than 18 year , and elections need to be spread out further so that these jerks aren't constantly in reelection mode.

The problem with this is it pretty much guarantees all committee chairs and Speakers and majority/minority leaders will be lame ducks, and makes corruption even more rampant.

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

I see a lot of good points, both for and against. I guess my main problem is people like Robert Byrd who spend 50 YEARS in D.C.

Carry on...

 

[sparky]

Are you okay with career physicians? Career Attorneys? Career Plumbers? These folks are all employees of ours; politicians are no different

The Difference with politicians is that their compensation is taken by statute out of our pockets and we volunteered avail ourselves of the services of the others.

I beg to differ.....

You want term limits? Get an amendment on the ballot.

Welcome - U.S. Term Limits

Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress

The bulk of our nations problems is not because of the person who occupies the White House for four to eight years it's the people who have been occupying Congress for thirty to fourty years.

absolutely....

You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices.

Because that's all a corrupt system offers...

I guess my main problem is people like Robert Byrd who spend 50 YEARS in D.C.

even his record's now been surpassed....
~S~

 

[candycorn]

I see a lot of good points, both for and against. I guess my main problem is people like Robert Byrd who spend 50 YEARS in D.C.

Carry on...

Run against him if you want him gone

 

[candycorn]

Term limits aren't a solution; if your reps are crap, just don't keep voting for them. Limiting terms also means the ones who are good, a rarity, have to go, too, which of course is just stupid.

Quit blaming 'the system' and put the blame where it belongs, on the voters. You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices. Most voters have no idea what they're voting for or what their reps' jobs actually are. This is possible because no civics knowledge is required to vote; you don't even have to know the national language.

Agree somewhat. However the system is the problem as far as Congress goes.

 

[Picaro]

Absolutely. The top priorities of our "leaders" are clearly fundraising, pleasing the (insane) base and re-election. Combined with a change to publicly-funded elections, this would largely put a stop to that.

We can pretend that they don't behave and vote differently because of those priorities, but we'd be lying.

We're also lying when we say that "elections are term limits", because incumbents obviously have a significant advantage and build their power base over time.

We can change the system under which these people are allowed to operate, or we can just keep bending over and taking it.
.

I would agree completely, however, I do have a different idea about funding. The NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA all have "salary caps". The intent is to create an environment where "any team can be equally competitive". Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely, but it is the best idea I am aware of. Therefore, I would be in favor of a type of "salary cap" for elections. You can pay as much as you want for any good or service in your campaign, but you cannot spend more than a certain amount in total. I don't have an idea as far as what that amount would be, let's discuss that. I might even go one step further, to say a cap on primary election spending and a cap on total spending. That has one inherent problem though. It tips the scales in favor of anyone who doesn't spend as much in the primary. Worth discussing and considering though as it would make relative "unknown" candidacies more viable. Of course fundraising would still be from private donors.

There is another place to reform as well. Lower caps on donors to ensure that the very wealthy and businesses/corporations are less influential with their donations.

Interesting idea. I like it.

I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.

You should be able to buy whatever you wish above that (using your salary cap idea of course) but it would give anyone with demonstrated support a voice. By “demonstrated support”, I mean those who get signers to a petition, are on the ballot, or other legitimate means of demonstrating that they have some game. It won’t get the money out of politics (which should be job #1) but it would put more voices into the public debate sphere.

Easy enough, since we already have public radio and PBS, three channels of the latter here in my area, so we already pay something for that, and don't need billions in advertising, bribes, actually going to the MSM on commercial channels. In fact, they should run election ads for free on the MSM channels. If they don't like it, then they can pay the Feds what their air wave leases are actually worth for a change, instead of the giveaway it is now at ridiculously cheap leases. The Post office can extend franking privileges to non-incumbents as well.

 

[Picaro]

Term limits aren't a solution; if your reps are crap, just don't keep voting for them. Limiting terms also means the ones who are good, a rarity, have to go, too, which of course is just stupid.

Quit blaming 'the system' and put the blame where it belongs, on the voters. You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices. Most voters have no idea what they're voting for or what their reps' jobs actually are. This is possible because no civics knowledge is required to vote; you don't even have to know the national language.

Agree somewhat. However the system is the problem as far as Congress goes.

It's all on the voters; most are too lazy to do their due diligence as citizens, is all, and they like corruption, they just don't like 'the other guy's' corruption. All these pols come directly from the country's population, and do indeed reflect 'the people'; they aren't dropping in from outer space or artificially grown in laboratories.

 

[candycorn]

Absolutely. The top priorities of our "leaders" are clearly fundraising, pleasing the (insane) base and re-election. Combined with a change to publicly-funded elections, this would largely put a stop to that.

We can pretend that they don't behave and vote differently because of those priorities, but we'd be lying.

We're also lying when we say that "elections are term limits", because incumbents obviously have a significant advantage and build their power base over time.

We can change the system under which these people are allowed to operate, or we can just keep bending over and taking it.
.

I would agree completely, however, I do have a different idea about funding. The NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA all have "salary caps". The intent is to create an environment where "any team can be equally competitive". Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely, but it is the best idea I am aware of. Therefore, I would be in favor of a type of "salary cap" for elections. You can pay as much as you want for any good or service in your campaign, but you cannot spend more than a certain amount in total. I don't have an idea as far as what that amount would be, let's discuss that. I might even go one step further, to say a cap on primary election spending and a cap on total spending. That has one inherent problem though. It tips the scales in favor of anyone who doesn't spend as much in the primary. Worth discussing and considering though as it would make relative "unknown" candidacies more viable. Of course fundraising would still be from private donors.

There is another place to reform as well. Lower caps on donors to ensure that the very wealthy and businesses/corporations are less influential with their donations.

Interesting idea. I like it.

I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.

You should be able to buy whatever you wish above that (using your salary cap idea of course) but it would give anyone with demonstrated support a voice. By “demonstrated support”, I mean those who get signers to a petition, are on the ballot, or other legitimate means of demonstrating that they have some game. It won’t get the money out of politics (which should be job #1) but it would put more voices into the public debate sphere.

Easy enough, since we already have public radio and PBS, three channels of the latter here in my area, so we already pay something for that, and don't need billions in advertising, bribes, actually going to the MSM on commercial channels.

ok?

In fact, they should run election ads for free on the MSM channels. If they don't like it, then they can pay the Feds what their air wave leases are actually worth for a change, instead of the giveaway it is now at ridiculously cheap leases.

That was what I was saying. This is once every 2 years for about 3 months. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, UPN, etc… the networks, the Cable TV providers, etc… should be required to run the political commercials on a 1:1 basis during those periods. You make X number of slots open from 9:15PM to 6:30 PM 3 days a week or whatever, run the commercials back to back and boom; done.

Anything the candidates want to buy on top of that…feel free.

The Post office can extend franking privileges to non-incumbents as well.

Excellent idea.

 

[candycorn]

Term limits aren't a solution; if your reps are crap, just don't keep voting for them. Limiting terms also means the ones who are good, a rarity, have to go, too, which of course is just stupid.

Quit blaming 'the system' and put the blame where it belongs, on the voters. You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices. Most voters have no idea what they're voting for or what their reps' jobs actually are. This is possible because no civics knowledge is required to vote; you don't even have to know the national language.

Agree somewhat. However the system is the problem as far as Congress goes.

It's all on the voters; most are too lazy to do their due diligence as citizens, is all, and they like corruption, they just don't like 'the other guy's' corruption. All these pols come directly from the country's population, and do indeed reflect 'the people'; they aren't dropping in from outer space or artificially grown in laboratories.

It’s off topic but you can have term limits of 90 seconds and you’d still have the same problems we have today. Lets say you elected an entire new congress tomorrow. They would vote for a Majority leader, a Minority leader, a Speaker etc… The party leadership would assign committee chairs and we’d be back to where we started in 90 seconds.

The system is what renders the Congress ineffective. Change the rules and the players won’t matter. I suppose voters could demand politicians who would not be answerable to the Party but as soon as they say that, their shelf life as an effective legislator can be measured with an egg timer.

 

[Likkmee]

6 years with no pay ( public SERVANT) no retirement and buy their own health care

 

[DandyDonovan]

Term limits aren't a solution; if your reps are crap, just don't keep voting for them. Limiting terms also means the ones who are good, a rarity, have to go, too, which of course is just stupid.

Quit blaming 'the system' and put the blame where it belongs, on the voters. You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices. Most voters have no idea what they're voting for or what their reps' jobs actually are. This is possible because no civics knowledge is required to vote; you don't even have to know the national language.

But, it isn't that simple. First there is the obvious . The current system gives incumbents a HUGE advantage. One that is almost impossible to over come.

Second, gerrymandering by BOTH sides when they get a chance means districts are unlikely to ever go for the other party which further limits change by ensuring that whichever party currently runs a district would have to get rid of their own candidate via a primary . There is a reason why people are so shocked when someone like AOC beats out a long term incumbent in a primary. The system is designed to prevent that from happening.

 

[candycorn]

Are you okay with career physicians? Career Attorneys? Career Plumbers? These folks are all employees of ours; politicians are no different

The Difference with politicians is that their compensation is taken by statute out of our pockets and we volunteered avail ourselves of the services of the others.

I beg to differ.....

Watched the video. Some interesting stuff there. In terms of the “term limit” debate, anyone who is elected will be susceptible to the same influences described in the video whether they have been there 90 years, 90 days, or 90 minutes. So that won’t do anything.

Changing the rules is the only way to change the system. When you have a Majority Leader (which the Constitution doesn’t mention) vetoing bills for the President as Reid did and McConnell is doing….that is wrong. One chamber should have to vote on the work by the other chamber straight up or down within 2 weeks of receiving the legislation. Then that chamber needs to work on a bill on the same issue that is voted on by the entire body and (if passed) sent to the other chamber.

The goal is to get your representatives to weigh in on these matters; not have the luxury of hiding behind the majority leader who refuses to allow a vote.

Then, theoretically the voters will be able to look at what bills their reps supported or not and vote for them, or not.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I see a lot of good points, both for and against. I guess my main problem is people like Robert Byrd who spend 50 YEARS in D.C.

Carry on...

Maybe he was doing a good job. If that is who that constituency wanted, isn't it their choice?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Term limits aren't a solution; if your reps are crap, just don't keep voting for them. Limiting terms also means the ones who are good, a rarity, have to go, too, which of course is just stupid.

Quit blaming 'the system' and put the blame where it belongs, on the voters. You keep voting for corruption over and over and over and over again, so stop whining about your choices. Most voters have no idea what they're voting for or what their reps' jobs actually are. This is possible because no civics knowledge is required to vote; you don't even have to know the national language.

But, it isn't that simple. First there is the obvious . The current system gives incumbents a HUGE advantage. One that is almost impossible to over come.

Second, gerrymandering by BOTH sides when they get a chance means districts are unlikely to ever go for the other party which further limits change by ensuring that whichever party currently runs a district would have to get rid of their own candidate via a primary . There is a reason why people are so shocked when someone like AOC beats out a long term incumbent in a primary. The system is designed to prevent that from happening.

HOW is it designed to prevent that from happening?

 

[Meister]

I see a lot of good points, both for and against. I guess my main problem is people like Robert Byrd who spend 50 YEARS in D.C.

Carry on...

Run against him if you want him gone

I wish it was that easy. If a candidate is in good standing with the party, a lot of money is thrown at him
Anyone else running against him is up against the machine.