Who supports term limits for Congress?

[Fenton Lum]

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?

Some never will, it is a belief system that they cannot question. Once someone goes to "I believe blah blah blah", or "I believe in blah blah blah", they believe. They no longer think. The matter is over with.

 

[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?

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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

 

[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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

Yup, you're a whore, quit your bitching.

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You see that's the problem, the whore is going to take from the highest bidder and you don't have the money the lobbyists have. Oh and how many times do they work in your best interest?

 

[oreo]

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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

 

[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.

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

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

So essentially, you’re going to remove about 1-2 years from the average Congressman’s time in office? Do you really think that will make much difference?

Does having Maria Cantwell in the Senate bother you that much? Most people reading will say “who”? And rightly so. I think that many here like the visceral idea of getting rid of the opposition leader since they are more visible. It’s a dumb position because what you’ll run into is just an opposition leader who is going to be much harder to work with than A McConnell or a Schumer because they are not going to have any sort of relationship with the opposition.

More than anything else, we need to give the constitution a voice where it currently doesn’t have one.

 

[debbiedowner]

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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

 

[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.

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.

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.

How do you defeat an incumbent? With all their built-in advantages, the best way is to outspend them.
If you set up an arbitrarily low limit on total spending, it becomes almost impossible to beat an incumbent.

 

[Mac1958]

Greed and corruption are going to infect the public sector just as they do the private sector. What makes it worse is that the public sector does it (a) under the guise of helping We the People, and (b) with public money.

Both need to be carefully regulated, and the system under which the public crooks operate needs to be changed. We need to defend the system from those who abuse it the most. That means significant change.

The problem is, too many people are too busy watching the Kardashians™ to give a shit.
.

 

[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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You see that's the problem, the whore is going to take from the highest bidder and you don't have the money the lobbyists have.

So basically the poster is a syphillis ridden backstreet/alley crackhead whore attempting to pull the same johns as the Penn. Ave / Wall Street high end call girl.

 

[oreo]

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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

 

[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?

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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You see that's the problem, the whore is going to take from the highest bidder and you don't have the money the lobbyists have. Oh and how many times do they work in your best interest?

We have the highest standard of living of any species to ever inhabit the planet.
Survey Says: the “best interest” is served.

Feel free to vote for someone willing to sit on their hands and let other states take what used to be yours. No thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets

Incumbents actually have a massive disadvantage in this day and age.

Obviously. LOL!

 

[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.

So essentially, you’re going to remove about 1-2 years from the average Congressman’s time in office? Do you really think that will make much difference?

Does having Maria Cantwell in the Senate bother you that much? Most people reading will say “who”? And rightly so. I think that many here like the visceral idea of getting rid of the opposition leader since they are more visible. It’s a dumb position because what you’ll run into is just an opposition leader who is going to be much harder to work with than A McConnell or a Schumer because they are not going to have any sort of relationship with the opposition.

More than anything else, we need to give the constitution a voice where it currently doesn’t have one.

The US congress used to be a part time position. Most of the business was done by state government. Then over time they gradually gained influence and power and then created the US federal income tax to fuel their takeover of state governments.

The Founders envisioned a limited government whereby the average citizen could serve in Congress. It was never meant to be a position you almost had to be born into and then serve and entire life time doing with a lavish retirement plan. Nor were they put their to dictate to the rest of the country.

 

[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?

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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

Yup, you're a whore, quit your bitching.

Takes one to know one I suppose.

 

[candycorn]

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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You see that's the problem, the whore is going to take from the highest bidder and you don't have the money the lobbyists have. Oh and how many times do they work in your best interest?

We have the highest standard of living of any species to ever inhabit the planet.
Survey Says: the “best interest” is served.

Feel free to vote for someone willing to sit on their hands and let other states take what used to be yours. No thanks.

Hominids have "the highest standard of living of any species to ever inhabit the planet"? Interesting, could you point us to those studies? I'm interested in how investigators normalized the data across species. Thanks in advance.

 

[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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.

That was the design.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

Yup, you're a whore, quit your bitching.

Takes one to know one I suppose.

Suppositions are all you have son.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.

That was the design.

No, not at all. The founders despised the rable, granted the vote only to affluent white land holding males, and set up the senate such that it was appointed by the aristocracy. THAT was the design.