Who supports term limits for Congress?

[task0778]

I'm good with term limits for Congress. I am also for requiring all federal judges including the SCOTUS to be reconfirmed every 10 years.

Well again--it's the individual states that will decide on term limits--it's not up to the U.S. congress to decide what states will do with their elected representatives.

As far as reconfirming U.S. Supreme court judges every 10 years, that's never going to happen.

As far as changing or repealing any amendment to the U.S Constituion would require a 2/3's vote of congress, a 2/3's vote in the Senate and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.

I think it's 35 state, not 38. As for reconfirming federal judges, you're probably right but that doesn't mean I shouldn't support that idea.

 

[oreo]

I'm good with term limits for Congress. I am also for requiring all federal judges including the SCOTUS to be reconfirmed every 10 years.

Well again--it's the individual states that will decide on term limits--it's not up to the U.S. congress to decide what states will do with their elected representatives.

As far as reconfirming U.S. Supreme court judges every 10 years, that's never going to happen.

As far as changing or repealing any amendment to the U.S Constituion would require a 2/3's vote of congress, a 2/3's vote in the Senate and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.

I think it's 35 state, not 38. As for reconfirming federal judges, you're probably right but that doesn't mean I shouldn't support that idea.

It's a 2/3's of the states requirement. At any rate it would never happen.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

This is a decent counterpoint because, generally, the candidate that spends the most wins. However, this is true for both the incumbent as well as their competition. The reason most incumbents win is more due to their built in donations rather than other advantages they maintain (not saying the incumbent doesn't have advantages, just that it pales in comparison to their funding advantage). If you cap campaign donations you remove their biggest advantage from the playing field.

Maybe you don't understand business or politics, but, generally, there are 2 strategies business utilize to influence politics. One is to elect the candidate they feel furthers their needs. The other strategy (far more common for most businesses, especially local ones), is to simply fund the incumbent since they win more often then not. That allows you to influence the candidate themselves rather than gamble on your ability to pick a candidate. If you remove this built-in ability for incumbents to generate more money simply by being an incumbent you would significantly level the playing field...not totally, but moreso than any other mechanism that I know of.

 

[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.

This is a decent counterpoint because, generally, the candidate that spends the most wins. However, this is true for both the incumbent as well as their competition. The reason most incumbents win is more due to their built in donations rather than other advantages they maintain (not saying the incumbent doesn't have advantages, just that it pales in comparison to their funding advantage). If you cap campaign donations you remove their biggest advantage from the playing field.

Maybe you don't understand business or politics, but, generally, there are 2 strategies business utilize to influence politics. One is to elect the candidate they feel furthers their needs. The other strategy (far more common for most businesses, especially local ones), is to simply fund the incumbent since they win more often then not. That allows you to influence the candidate themselves rather than gamble on your ability to pick a candidate. If you remove this built-in ability for incumbents to generate more money simply by being an incumbent you would significantly level the playing field...not totally, but moreso than any other mechanism that I know of.

If you cap campaign donations you remove their biggest advantage from the playing field.

Their biggest advantage is usually name recognition, often reinforced by publically funded mailings.
To over come that, challengers often have to spend more.

If you remove this built-in ability for incumbents to generate more money simply by being an incumbent you would significantly level the playing field...

What do you suggest, limiting incumbent spending while allowing a higher limit or no limit for a challenger?
Or do you want public funding? Something else?

 

[bripat9643]

10 years and you are gone....same with the supreme court.....

6 years

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

And the 16th.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Whether or not you support term limits for Congress is irrelevant, because they don't have them, and never will.

Nevertheless, I'll go on record as being entirely happy with no term limits for Congress.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yep. That's why we need to minimize the power of money in politics. Term limits and publicly-funded elections would be a great start.
.

Not really, just limit their fund raising to the area they will represent.

 

[Care4all]

They were saying on the news last night, that 60% of our congressmen are newbies and have been there 10 years or less....and 40% have been there 10 plus years.

that seems like a fairly good mix to me...??

 

[bripat9643]

Whether or not you support term limits for Congress is irrelevant, because they don't have them, and never will.

Nevertheless, I'll go on record as being entirely happy with no term limits for Congress.

Yeah, we already know you support political corruption.

 

[candycorn]

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.
That was the design.

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

Well Votto examples, please?

 

[Votto]

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

Well Votto examples, please?

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

 

[candycorn]

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

Well Votto examples, please?

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

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…

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?

 

[Votto]

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

Well Votto examples, please?

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

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.

 

[candycorn]

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

Well Votto examples, please?

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

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.

 

[Votto]

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

Well Votto examples, please?

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

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

 

[candycorn]

Well Votto examples, please?

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

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.

 

[MrShangles]

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.

This isn't about Hillery.[emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Votto]

Charley Rangel has had a myriad of ethics violations, but nothing is never done. In fact, those in Congress even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee because they accomplish virtually nothing.

Would term limits negate corruption? No, nothing will, but there are steps you can take to reduce institutionalized corruption. Term limits would help.

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.

People have had enough.

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