• 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!

Term limits for Congressmen and Senators

Term limits for Congressmen and Senators

  • Yes, send the bums home after a time

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • No, let them stay as long as they can get re-elected

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Total voters
    22
RightinNYC said:
You realize that working for government is not even remotely an "indulgence," right?

95% of elected federal officials, ranging from the most measly congressman to Obama himself, could earn twice as much outside of government as they do in it.
Click to expand...

So why do they do it? A desire to serve or a lust for power or some of both?

I am undecided on the idea of term limits. Ideally, bums would be voted out of office. Realistically, that doesn't seem to happen, however, and I think there's definitely power inherent in incumbency that makes voting them out difficult.
 
Last edited:
Grateful Heart said:
Unfortunately, 95% of that 95% earn more because of the 'revolving door' from federal service to lobbyist, lecturer, or by service on corporate boards or university faculties, where their primary function is to secure lucrative government funding. Others parlay their government connections into media careers... TV pundit being a frequent example.

So yes... being a former official, or former adviser to a former official, can be quite lucrative. Much the same way that being a former pro-athlete can be lucrative because of the many doors that sports stardom can open.

Whether this says anything about their inherent talents or abilities to 'create profit' in the traditional business sense is something else entirely. :(
Click to expand...

This is all completely true, though I don't think it necessarily applies to everyone. Most political officials don't get big book deals or lobbyist gigs after they retire, and many could have made (or did make) millions before they ran for their first position.

TOJ said:
I think many, if not most, get into it thinking they can make a difference. Once in office though, they become addicted to the power. About anyone that makes it to the national scene can become very wealthy if so inclined.
.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this.

celticlord said:
And how many millionaires are in Congress?

One thing is certain....the politicos ain't poor!
Click to expand...

How many millionaires in Congress became millionaires on their government salaries? I'd wager not that many.

If "the politicos ain't poor," that's because the vast majority of them were rich on their own.

don'ttreadonme said:
So why do they do it? A desire to serve or a lust for power or some of both?
Click to expand...

In my limited experience, it's a combination of being convinced that they will be the best person for their constituents, the desire to have influence over a lot of people, and the novelty of it all.
 
RightinNYC said:
In my limited experience, it's a combination of being convinced that they will be the best person for their constituents, the desire to have influence over a lot of people, and the novelty of it all.
Click to expand...
The bolded bit on its own is reason enough to enact term limits.
 
celticlord said:
The bolded bit on its own is reason enough to enact term limits.
Click to expand...

How exactly would that keep that kind of person from having influence? All term limits would do is ensure that one of those people would be replaced with another with slightly increased frequency.
 
earthworm said:
Primarily, I favor shortening the campaigning time....down to 60 days before the election;
Click to expand...
Exactly how do you propose doing that? Would it be illegal to talk about a candidate or election prior to 60 days out.


also one hour of TV time to make their points and present their agenda.....
Click to expand...
Yeah, wouldn't want to preempt Dancing with the Stars or American Idol more than once in four years.

One hour to hear from those that would rule over you. Sounds like a great idea.


The candidate can go door to door if he wishes.......but, I think this is ineffective....
Click to expand...
Sorry for not making it clear but I was referring to someone other that the candidate going door-to-door trying to gin up support for the candidate.


Right now we have a economic mess....
Click to expand...
Right now it's raining. What does this have to do with term limits?

Limiting political speech does sound like a great way to try to inform the dumbmasses. :roll:


.
 
disneydude said:
Why would you want to take away the will of the people to elect the person that they want?
If a Congressman or Senator is doing a poor job, it is up to the people that he/she represents to "term them out".
Click to expand...

Then why do we have term limits for the POTUS? Term limits serve an important function IMO. No one person may be representative of this country for more than 8 years, why should one person be allowed to be representative of their district or state for as long as they want?
 
RightinNYC said:
People do not go into public service to get rich. For the vast majority of people, choosing to go into public service means foregoing a more lucrative career in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Of the few I have known, and admittedly they are city and county positions, they go into public service for the perks. They get to mingle with business people who can help them in some way or other.
Politics is an easy part time job, they get pay and benefits, and there is still time left over for their existing jobs. And they are closer to the taxpayer trough than the rest of us, makes it easy to help themselves to some of it.
 
UtahBill said:
Of the few I have known, and admittedly they are city and county positions, they go into public service for the perks. They get to mingle with business people who can help them in some way or other.
Politics is an easy part time job, they get pay and benefits, and there is still time left over for their existing jobs. And they are closer to the taxpayer trough than the rest of us, makes it easy to help themselves to some of it.
Click to expand...

I would agree that that could be the case for city/county positions, but nothing about being a Congressman is even remotely part time. The average Congressman is doing something work-related probably 80 hours a week, has to spend huge amounts of time traveling and away from his family, and has little to no job security.
 
WI Crippler said:
Then why do we have term limits for the POTUS? Term limits serve an important function IMO. No one person may be representative of this country for more than 8 years, why should one person be allowed to be representative of their district or state for as long as they want?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with term limits for Presidents either. I think it the people want to continue to elect someone, they should be able to.
The only point I would raise to this is that I think there are term limits for a President to protect against a dictator/king situation. Obviously being President is more important than being a senator or congresswoman, so there was probably greater concern with someone becoming too powerful in that position.

and BTW...its not that the person is allowed to be the representative of their district/state for as long as the person wants, its for as long as they people he/she represents want them to be their representative. I don't see what's wrong with that. It should be up to the people to decide who they want to represent them, not some arbitrary rule that says after 2 terms or whatever, someone new has to come in.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
I don't agree with term limits for Presidents either. I think it the people want to continue to elect someone, they should be able to.
The only point I would raise to this is that I think there are term limits for a President to protect against a dictator/king situation. Obviously being President is more important than being a senator or congresswoman, so there was probably greater concern with someone becoming too powerful in that position.

and BTW...its not that the person is allowed to be the representative of their district/state for as long as the person wants, its for as long as they people he/she represents want them to be their representative. I don't see what's wrong with that. It should be up to the people to decide who they want to represent them, not some arbitrary rule that says after 2 terms or whatever, someone new has to come in.
Click to expand...
The problem is the dumbmasses have proven over and over they are too stupid to kick the bums out. Those that have wised up and elected a newby get the shaft because of seniority rules.

.
 
I would like to see a two consecutive terms (at a time) limit be established for all Federal Elected Offices.
They can serve two terms and then have to sit out a term before they could run again.
 
Personally, I think term-limits are an attack on the essence of democracy itself.

By setting term limits, you're limiting the public's power to vote for who they want. From my understanding, Clinton would've easily won another term, had he had the chance. If he did, we'd have another Lewinsky scandal instead of the Iraq War.
 
George VI said:
Personally, I think term-limits are an attack on the essence of democracy itself.

By setting term limits, you're limiting the public's power to vote for who they want. From my understanding, Clinton would've easily won another term, had he had the chance. If he did, we'd have another Lewinsky scandal instead of the Iraq War.
Click to expand...

Term limits are as old as the Roman Republic. By law, no Roman magistrate (Console, praetor, tribune, et cetera) could hold more than one office and had to wait a minimum of ten years before a magistrate could seek re-election to any office.
 
RightinNYC said:
You realize that working for government is not even remotely an "indulgence," right?

95% of elected federal officials, ranging from the most measly congressman to Obama himself, could earn twice as much outside of government as they do in it.
Click to expand...
I wish the hell some of them would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom