• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 57.5%

  • No

    Votes: 25 34.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 8.2%
  • Total voters
    73
Apparently we have a different sense of fairness. I consider allowing an incumbent to have staff dedicated to insuring their re-election (their "public information" staff) and the ability to hand out a wide variety of gifts to donars and supporters to be unfair.

I am fairly neutral on term limits, I favor limitations on most of those incumbent priveleges and advantages instead.
 
ChezC3 said:
This is a double edged sword. Sure, career politicians with their sense of entitlement, their detachment from reality and the struggles their constituents face are 2 glaring examples (2 out of many, too-many) that can be given as to why term limits should be set. However, in a representative democracy don't we have an obligation to ourselves to allow whomever we like the ability to be elected and to represent us for as long as we see fit?

Would not a decentralization of Federal authority be a more fitting response? This allowing the Pelosi's and the McConnell's, the McCain's and the Hatch's to be limited in their scope and capability to influence policy on a national scale.
Click to expand...

State legislators are no better.
 
One 6 Year term or a possible two 4 year terms...that is it. Nobody should be able to stay in Congress for life.
 
Hard Truth said:
Apparently we have a different sense of fairness. I consider allowing an incumbent to have staff dedicated to insuring their re-election (their "public information" staff) and the ability to hand out a wide variety of gifts to donars and supporters to be unfair.
Click to expand...
constituent service is exactly why we elect our politicians; to have them act in our interests
if the constituent service is weak, the politician will likely lose support of those eligible to vote for him

I am fairly neutral on term limits, I favor limitations on most of those incumbent priveleges and advantages instead.
Click to expand...
rather than focus on the advantage of incumbency i believe we should instead address campaign financing ... where the donor is other than a registered voter eligible to vote for this politician during the next re-election. this is where we see the rich disproportionately affecting election outcomes. even tho the candidate is not going to appear on their ballot, they expect something in return for those political bribes ... i mean legal campaign contributions
 
fredmertzz said:
It's not about the argument of whether or not we can or should replace specific politicians. It's about the overwhelming power and corruption that could and does occur behind the curtains without term limits. Is the cost worth the freedom?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...

If you have absolute power, what is there that can corrupt you? You are beyond any influence.
 
fredmertzz said:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...

That's the thing with a powerful central government. Power attracts the corruptible. Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible.

The more powerful the central government, the more it will attract the corruptible, and the more corrupt it will become. It's a self-perpetuating downward spiral leading ultimately to tyranny.
 
Hard Truth said:
State legislators are no better.
Click to expand...

and I'm a proponant of further decentralization down to the county and local levels of government...
 
justabubba said:
constituent service is exactly why we elect our politicians; to have them act in our interests
if the constituent service is weak, the politician will likely lose support of those eligible to vote for him
Click to expand...

When I referred to "staff dedicated to insuring their re-election (their "public information" staff)" I was referring to press staff, not constituent services. Although constituent services would be best proved by offices without direct ties to elected officials so it doesn't favor incumbents.
 
ChezC3 said:
and I'm a proponant of further decentralization down to the county and local levels of government...
Click to expand...

That is the level where citizens can practically enforce more accountability, but small government can't always address many issues, especially issues involving large corporations with more resources than any local government.
 
Eons ago when the U.S. was a Republic...the voters did the term limit setting. Now that the U.S. has become an Idiocracy...it's time to impose term limits.
 
justabubba said:
i have never seen this expressed as a founders' intent; do you have a cite to back up the assertion?

they do enjoy an advantage. but i cannot see why it should be found an unfair one. please share with us your rationale for making such a claim

if you want to get rid of corruption then get rid of legal bribes, campaign funds funneled to candidates by unions, corporations and foreign governments. return the power to the people by only allowing registered voters to make campaign contributions not found illegal
until then, we will continue to have the best government money can buy

it is human nature to pay attention to the expectations of those who fund your activity. return that to the people and the politicians will again address the peoples' concerns
Click to expand...

Suuuuuuuuure. NOW you think the founders intent is relevant. ;)
 
clownboy said:
Agreed, I very much like Ron Wyden our senator. He's served many terms (since 96 in the Senate and since 80 in the House) and shows no sign yet of turning into one of the corrupt ones.
Click to expand...

Merkley has been a pleasant surprise so far. I wasn't sure what to expect from him, but he's taken up some excellent positions. I haven't heard a whisper of impropriety. Hopefully, we won't.
 
VanceMack said:
Suuuuuuuuure. NOW you think the founders intent is relevant. ;)
Click to expand...
Dammitboy! said:
Our elected officials were not meant to have careers spanning three and four decades. Incumbents have a distinct and unfair advantage in getting re-elected. If you want to get rid of corruption and abuse of power - you should be for term limits on all elected offices. If you want the same old crap that we have now - if you want to keep the status quo and have no issue with the fools we have destroying our country while filling their pockets with cash and exempting themselves from the laws they make, you are against term limits.
Click to expand...
no, it wasn't me making that assertion
as you can see above, it was presented that "elected officials were not meant to have careers spanning three and four decades"
i have never seen that presented by the founders
 
justabubba said:
i have never seen this expressed as a founders' intent; do you have a cite to back up the assertion?

they do enjoy an advantage. but i cannot see why it should be found an unfair one. please share with us your rationale for making such a claim

if you want to get rid of corruption then get rid of legal bribes, campaign funds funneled to candidates by unions, corporations and foreign governments. return the power to the people by only allowing registered voters to make campaign contributions not found illegal
until then, we will continue to have the best government money can buy

it is human nature to pay attention to the expectations of those who fund your activity. return that to the people and the politicians will again address the peoples' concerns
Click to expand...

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
 
ABSOLUTELY!!!

Why? people know much less about their congressional leaders than their president. So when it comes election time, so long things aren't terrible people tend to lean towards the incumbent. Some of them become corrupt, some of them become too old. All of them get too powerful for newcomers to have a fair chance.
 
Cephus said:
Not really. When every single person that has any shot at election on the ballot is part of the big-budget Washington political machine, all you can do is trade one political crook for another. Same crap, different moron.
Click to expand...



Run for office.
 
Cephus said:
You can't get elected unless you are corrupt. The system we have in place demands it.
Click to expand...

That is a problem, anyone running for the House or Senate must raise millions to run even a viable campaign. To raise that kind of money, they to special interests, lobbyist, huge money donors, corporations, Wall Street, etc. The ones who donate the millions expect something in return, favorable legislation, tax incentives or subsidies. In other words even before a candidate gets elected he has already sold his heart and soul just for a chance to the special interests.

Term limits, I fail to see how this changes the system. As you yourself said, these moneyed people would just go out and buy the new candidates that are replacing the ones whom have been term limited.
 
Perotista said:
That is a problem, anyone running for the House or Senate must raise millions to run even a viable campaign. To raise that kind of money, they to special interests, lobbyist, huge money donors, corporations, Wall Street, etc. The ones who donate the millions expect something in return, favorable legislation, tax incentives or subsidies. In other words even before a candidate gets elected he has already sold his heart and soul just for a chance to the special interests.
Click to expand...

Precisely. That's why we need to eliminate lobbyists, eliminate the ability to buy influence, etc. The whole system is now corrupt and under the sole control of the people who benefit most from it's corruption.

Term limits, I fail to see how this changes the system. As you yourself said, these moneyed people would just go out and buy the new candidates that are replacing the ones whom have been term limited.
Click to expand...

In and of itself, it won't, it's part of a larger, comprehensive election reform that needs to happen that takes the money and power away from the parties and puts it back in the hands of the people where it belongs. No single change will fix the problem, lots of changes are required.
 
Cephus said:
Precisely. That's why we need to eliminate lobbyists, eliminate the ability to buy influence, etc. The whole system is now corrupt and under the sole control of the people who benefit most from it's corruption.



In and of itself, it won't, it's part of a larger, comprehensive election reform that needs to happen that takes the money and power away from the parties and puts it back in the hands of the people where it belongs. No single change will fix the problem, lots of changes are required.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. But the changes would require a Constitutional Amendment.
 
Perotista said:
My sentiments exactly. But the changes would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...

And as I'm having a discussion elsewhere, the Constitutional Amendment system is really unworkable today. It worked when people cared about what was best for the country, it doesn't work when the country is ideologically divided as it is today.
 
Perotista said:
That is a problem, anyone running for the House or Senate must raise millions to run even a viable campaign. To raise that kind of money, they to special interests, lobbyist, huge money donors, corporations, Wall Street, etc. The ones who donate the millions expect something in return, favorable legislation, tax incentives or subsidies. In other words even before a candidate gets elected he has already sold his heart and soul just for a chance to the special interests.

Term limits, I fail to see how this changes the system. As you yourself said, these moneyed people would just go out and buy the new candidates that are replacing the ones whom have been term limited.
Click to expand...

Then we read that both BHO and Romney each spent $ ONE BILLION DOLLARS on what has become nothing more than a popularity contest! With over 50 million people on foodstamps, and millions of others on housing assistance and other government help, it's enough to make one gag! What has happened to this Country that this isn't questioned? :thumbdown: Our Government is supposed to be for the people...not those running for office in DC!

And the Dems now want more tax money to spend from people who are being squeezed to death already, not to mention the real costs of Obamacare which aren't fully known yet, but which seem to be rising everytime a new cost report is issued, contrary to promises. C'mon....time to join the real world the rest of us live in, and cut the damn spending! And I mean real spending, not one or two percent of projected future spending! :bs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom