Yes, I know.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: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,
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.
That explains Trump. Right now it’s sort of funny—not being able to believe a word the President of the US says. We’ll see how much laughing the people are doing when there is the inevitable economic downturn when his “We’re doing great” mantra is offset by the economic reality.People have had enough.
Career politicians tend to rule the roost, so to speak. We need to give them the boot.
No logical explanation for that stance has ever been given relative to the overwhelming, unparalleled, and undisputed success the US has posted using the talents, labors, and yes—the inherent liabilities of professional politicians other than the canard of “The Founders Believed”.
On one hand, I’m sure some of the founders believed that they would have been a better President than Washington, Addams, Jefferson, etc… On the other, I’m sure that some of the founders believed that the local bartender should be negotiating peace treaties. On another hand, I’m sure you could have found some that thought the people shouldn’t have any say in the government outside of their own locality.
The founders were a large group of people.