Career politicans?

How do you vote?

My vote - Eliminate them entirely. Put term limits on everyone. As long as the law limits their terms, then they will be limited as to the amount of damage they can do as a result of believing that they are better than the rest of us.

danarhea said:

How do you vote?

My vote - Eliminate them entirely. Put term limits on everyone. As long as the law limits their terms, then they will be limited as to the amount of damage they can do as a result of believing they are above the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Term limits absolutely.

Two terms for President
Two terms for Senators
Three terms for Representatives.

It is worth noting that term limits were the pattern of the Roman Republic.

I'm mixed about this. On one side, anyone who identifies themselves as a politician, is just below lawyers on the evolutionary scale. On the other, I don't believe in term limits, primarily because if someone is doing a good job, they should stay in their job. We have an election system, here. If someone is doing damage, let the people vote them out of office.

I think it should remain as is. If the politicians in Washington remain, it is because their contituence want it that way and their votes should be for who they want.

danarhea said:

How do you vote?

My vote - Eliminate them entirely. Put term limits on everyone. As long as the law limits their terms, then they will be limited as to the amount of damage they can do as a result of believing that they are better than the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Carreer politicians? You mean like Ron Paul and whatnot?

If they can still get people to vote for them, then I see no reason to limit their terms -- even if we do get stuck with career politicians like the aforementioned from time to time.

celticlord said:

Term limits absolutely.

Two terms for President
Two terms for Senators
Three terms for Representatives.

It is worth noting that term limits were the pattern of the Roman Republic.

Click to expand...

Currently I am for term limits because of the entrenched influence that a president or other politician gains.

However, there is problems with term limits, that are very evident for presidents... where after their first term they don't have the leverage to do very much for their second term.

I forgot the president... but some presidential dude in the 19th century said that he would only be in office for ONE term, and because of that he had no way of rallying congress to do anything.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm mixed about this. On one side, anyone who identifies themselves as a politician, is just below lawyers on the evolutionary scale. On the other, I don't believe in term limits, primarily because if someone is doing a good job, they should stay in their job. We have an election system, here. If someone is doing damage, let the people vote them out of office.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you, and here is why:

1) If somebody is doing a good job, that is great. However, considering how many other people there are, there will always be someone else who can do a good job too.

2) The risk of a politician becoming corrupt outweighs by far the good that could come because of that rare politician who does a good job. The vast majority of politicians were once honest people, but were corrupted by the system. It's just human nature. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm mixed about this. On one side, anyone who identifies themselves as a politician, is just below lawyers on the evolutionary scale. On the other, I don't believe in term limits, primarily because if someone is doing a good job, they should stay in their job. We have an election system, here. If someone is doing damage, let the people vote them out of office.

Click to expand...

How do you define "good job"?

Are bridges to nowhere funded by out-of-state taxpayers a "good job"? Or are they "damage"?

The problem with Congressmen/Senators for life is that their continuance in office necessitates overriding loyalty to a cadre of special interests that to fund re-election, rather than representing the interests of an entire constituency or the whole of the state and/or nation.

Term limits and greater congressional turn-over would break the power of K street and PACs across the board.

nerv14 said:

However, there is problems with term limits, that are very evident for presidents... where after their first term they don't have the leverage to do very much for their second term.

Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan
William Jefferson Clinton
George W. Bush

History disproves your thesis.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm mixed about this. On one side, anyone who identifies themselves as a politician, is just below lawyers on the evolutionary scale. On the other, I don't believe in term limits, primarily because if someone is doing a good job, they should stay in their job. We have an election system, here. If someone is doing damage, let the people vote them out of office.

Click to expand...

The problem there is, it rarely ever happens.

One example of someone I despise is Senator Ted Kennedy. Through his family connections in part, but chiefly his seniority in the Senate, he amassed disproportionate power as one of two senators from the not-THAT-important state of Massachusetts. At one time this man was probably among the ten most powerful individuals in the country. I never got to vote against him, because I am not in Mass.

Examples from my own state would be Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings. Two senior senators, they weren't quite in Teddy's league but they were far more powerful though seniority and influence established over long service than would be warranted by two senators from South Carolina, a smallish and relatively rural state.

I am for term limits. I'll go one step further and say we ought to put a cap on how many years someone may serve as an elected representative period. If we put 2-term limits on everything, a fellow could still serve 2 terms as a State Rep, 2 terms as a State Senator, 2 terms each as a Federal Rep and Senator, 2 terms as a State Governor, then 2 terms as Prez....totalling 44 years in public office as a professional politician. I say cap it at two terms each AND a maximum of 20 years as an elected official cumulative total.

When they KNOW that they are going to stop being a member of the "ruling class" within a certain amount of time, and go back to being one of the "little people", they might be a tad less inclined to screw us over. It would also put a cap on how much power they can accumulate over a lifetime of "public service".

celticlord said:

How do you define "good job"?

Click to expand...

That would depend on the person in office.

Are bridges to nowhere funded by out-of-state taxpayers a "good job"? Or are they "damage"?

Click to expand...

I would need more information to make a determination. Further, ONE issue does not define whether someone does a good job or not. Should you get fired because you were late for work, once?

The problem with Congressmen/Senators for life is that their continuance in office necessitates overriding loyalty to a cadre of special interests that to fund re-election, rather than representing the interests of an entire constituency or the whole of the state and/or nation.

Click to expand...

You are making an argument against something I never made. I never said that public officials should be in office for life. Let the people decide when they leave or not.

Now, I do not disagree with you on the issue of special interest groups, but I see that as something to be managed from within the system; not to make the system based on the fear of it.

Term limits and greater congressional turn-over would break the power of K street and PACs across the board.

Click to expand...

Or it would reduce continuity and create a never-ending cycle of new folks managing things. There is a ying and a yang to this.

I guess I approach it from this angle.

Why do we have term limits for the Presidency? And why shouldn't that reason apply to any other elected representative?

celticlord said:

Ronald Reagan
William Jefferson Clinton
George W. Bush

History disproves your thesis.

Click to expand...

Reagan did alot of work in his second term, but Clinton and Bush really didn't do very much.

So my observation is true.


Of course presidents can still make congress take action in their second term, but it is much rarer.

And remember, if a president accomplishes something that doesn't require the consensus of their fellow politicians, then that won't be effected by term limits. So most foreign affairs and the president's influence over the military is not effected by term limits.

Goshin said:

The problem there is, it rarely ever happens.

Click to expand...

Then that is a different issue. What you seem to be saying is that we do not have a well-informed populace and more regulations should be placed. The people need to be protected. Am I getting your right?

One example of someone I despise is Senator Ted Kennedy. Through his family connections in part, but chiefly his seniority in the Senate, he amassed disproportionate power as one of two senators from the not-THAT-important state of Massachusetts. At one time this man was probably among the ten most powerful individuals in the country. I never got to vote against him, because I am not in Mass.

Click to expand...

Just because you despise Ted Kennedy, doesn't mean others (especially those in Massachusetts) do, or that he is terrible. I happen to like him quite a bit.

Examples from my own state would be Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings. Two senior senators, they weren't quite in Teddy's league but they were far more powerful though seniority and influence established over long service than would be warranted by two senators from South Carolina, a smallish and relatively rural state.

Click to expand...

So, the people in South Carolina didn't/don't like these two Senators, and need protecting from themselves.

I am for term limits. I'll go one step further and say we ought to put a cap on how many years someone may serve as an elected representative period. If we put 2-term limits on everything, a fellow could still serve 2 terms as a State Rep, 2 terms as a State Senator, 2 terms each as a Federal Rep and Senator, 2 terms as a State Governor, then 2 terms as Prez....totalling 44 years in public office as a professional politician. I say cap it at two terms each AND a maximum of 20 years as an elected official cumulative total.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. I see public service as any other job. You do well, you keep your job. You don't, you get fired. It's up to the people to fire them.

When they KNOW that they are going to stop being a member of the "ruling class" within a certain amount of time, and go back to being one of the "little people", they might be a tad less inclined to screw us over. It would also put a cap on how much power they can accumulate over a lifetime of "public service".

Click to expand...

Or, they might steal us blind, knowing that they only have a limited amount of time to do so. Again, there is not just one way to look at this.

nerv14 said:

Currently I am for term limits because of the entrenched influence that a president or other politician gains.

However, there is problems with term limits, that are very evident for presidents... where after their first term they don't have the leverage to do very much for their second term.

I forgot the president... but some presidential dude in the 19th century said that he would only be in office for ONE term, and because of that he had no way of rallying congress to do anything.

Click to expand...

Rutherford B. Hayes.

danarhea said:

I disagree with you, and here is why:

1) If somebody is doing a good job, that is great. However, considering how many other people there are, there will always be someone else who can do a good job too.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are other folks who can do your job just as well. Shall we fire you? See the analogy?

2) The risk of a politician becoming corrupt outweighs by far the good that could come because of that rare politician who does a good job. The vast majority of politicians were once honest people, but were corrupted by the system. It's just human nature. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Click to expand...

In a lot of cases, I agree with you. So, the folks that become corrupted get voted out.

WI Crippler said:

I guess I approach it from this angle.

Why do we have term limits for the Presidency? And why shouldn't that reason apply to any other elected representative?

Click to expand...

Term limits came on the Presidency after FDR, mainly because Reoublicans could not beat him, thus the Republican Congress enacted term limits. The actual practice was begun by Washington, because he felt it would prevent any potential dictatorship that may arise from corruption of holding office too long. It usually only applies to executive branches of federal and state government, not legislatures. If the people wanted them, fine, as long as it is determined by the people that is all that matters in my opinion.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You are making an argument against something I never made. I never said that public officials should be in office for life. Let the people decide when they leave or not.

Now, I do not disagree with you on the issue of special interest groups, but I see that as something to be managed from within the system; not to make the system based on the fear of it.

Click to expand...

True, you did not say they should be in office for life.

However, as the low turnover rate in the Congress, when coupled with the low approval rate of Congress (36% approval as of the latest polling data), demonstrates, without term limits, they effectively become politicians "for life", and govern accordingly (which is to say, horribly).

As Lord Acton stated most succinctly: "Power corrupts".

Term limits limit power, and thus limit corruption.

CaptainCourtesy said:

In a lot of cases, I agree with you. So, the folks that become corrupted get voted out.

Click to expand...

John Murtha
Ted Stevens
Charles Rangel
Dan Rostenkowski

If the corrupt ones actually did get voted out, you would have a point. Problem is, they do not.

The advantages that incumbents have, in seniority-based power and fundraising capacity, are such that challengers rarely succeed.

Term limits would level that field a bit and give someone else a chance.

Politics is NOT like everyone else's job, because they run the country. We don't need people who think of themselves as part of the professional ruling class, above the common herd.


I would almost rather pick Congress at random, out of a hat, than what we currently have in DC.

celticlord said:

True, you did not say they should be in office for life.

However, as the low turnover rate in the Congress, when coupled with the low approval rate of Congress (36% approval as of the latest polling data), demonstrates, without term limits, they effectively become politicians "for life", and govern accordingly (which is to say, horribly).

As Lord Acton stated most succinctly: "Power corrupts".

Term limits limit power, and thus limit corruption.

Click to expand...

So, then the people need to vote out and remove those that become corrupt or those that are not approved of. Wouldn't you agree with this?

To my mind, we do have term limits. They are called elections. If people want to get rid of some one, vote for the other guy. Term limits would just take away from my options.

Sounds like what you all are saying is that the people need protection, that the government needs to intervene in a free election system and place some parameters to keep the people safe from those who might be corrupt. Interesting...

CaptainCourtesy said:

So, then the people need to vote out and remove those that become corrupt or those that are not approved of. Wouldn't you agree with this?

Click to expand...

Conceptually, yes.

If corruption were limited to constituents' tax dollars I likely would.

The problem is that corruption is not so limited.

Stevens' bridge to nowhere and Murtha's empty airport were paid for with federal dollars--meaning my tax dollars left Texas, headed to Washington, and then to Alaska and Pennsylvania.

Now, if you want to roll back the century and a half of predations upon states' rights, and return this country to the proper Constitutional order of things, I might rethink my stand on term limits.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Sounds like what you all are saying is that the people need protection, that the government needs to intervene in a free election system and place some parameters to keep the people safe from those who might be corrupt. Interesting...

Click to expand...

The protection is not of the people who get to vote for their representative, but the people who don't get to vote and are affected by the choice anyways.

For example, when a state elects its Senators, those Senators make decisions that affect the whole country. In a perfect world all Senators would be equal, but this is not the case: the more someone stays in the Senate, the more power they have. Now, a state is going to want to grab all the power it can get, so it re-elects and re-elects its Senators, however crappy they are. The only way to stop this cycle is to put term limits on the Senate.