Term limits for Congressmen and Senators

[celticlord]

The President and Vice President have one thing in common--their careers are comprised of law school and political office, and that's it. They have done nothing outside of feeding at the public trough.

Would it not be better if politicians were limited in the amount of time they could indulge themselves thus? Say, give a Congressman three terms in Washington before mandating he step aside? Give a Senator two terms before mandating he step aside.

Then politicians, at least once in their lives, would have to do something that involves contact with the real world, not just the faux world of lobbyists and campaign contributors.

 

[americanwoman]

Yes, term limits are a good thing. I think when someone is in office for awhile most people start voting for them because of name recognition, not really for what they contriubute or how they vote.

 

[UtahBill]

some of them should get life, or were you thinking something else???:2razz:

 

[jamesrage]

I think term limits for congressmen and senators is a great idea. It could be argued that the idea of reelection might get these people to straighten their act up if they want to get reelected.However how may times have these people done some dumb **** and basically got away with it?

I think the only other way to keep these bums in check is to once or twice a year to vote on giving them a raise,taking away their pay or keeping it the same. There are a enough local and state elections going on that this can be done once or twice a year.

 

[TOJ]

Is it a good idea? Yes.

Will it ever happen? No, because the bums are the very ones that would have to pass on it.


.

 

[celticlord]

Is it a good idea? Yes.

Will it ever happen? No, because the bums are the very ones that would have to pass on it.

Perhaps if the state legislatures were to get together and call a Constitutional Convention, the bums could be made irrelevant.

 

[TOJ]

Perhaps if the state legislatures were to get together and call a Constitutional Convention, the bums could be made irrelevant.

They are politicians that aspire to get to the big show, so I would not recommend holding one's breath.

.

 

[WI Crippler]

I've always favored term limits for the Senators and Representatives. I would also favor a 1 time, 6 year term limit for the Presidency. That way the President doesn't have to worry about re-election. The way things are now, the next election cycle for the Presidency starts right after the mid term elections. I feel this is detrimental to the office of the Presidency, and a distraction.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Perhaps if the state legislatures were to get together and call a Constitutional Convention, the bums could be made irrelevant.

Riiiiight....like once a Constitutional convention is open, there's NO LIMIT on the things they can re-write.

Say "good-bye, Second Amendment."

Plus whatever other disasters they can think of to pull.

No, the proper tool to limit Congressional terms is the state voters regaining control of there own legislatures and ending the despicable practice of gerrymandering. If the state voters are too ignorant to control their own local legislature, there's no point in worrying about the Congress.

The one thing term limits have shown to be successful in doing in California is the unlimited supply of corrupt people willing to take orders from the same people who gave orders to their predecessors.

Different turds, same old ****.

 

[earthworm]

Not so much term limits, but a complete reform package...this must be done....and this should have commenced many years ago....
The two year term for Representatives is absurd; right now, I'd say 4 years for both and a two term limit.
The lobbyists must be curtailed and controlled...
We no longer can afford to have government for the few(lobbyists and the wealthy)
There must be zero campaign contributions; let the governments and the citizens run and control this; keep the advertisers out of it.....
This should first be done on the state level.....then we can find out which system works best.....
Right now, there is far too much waste..
Much, much more citizen knowledge and involvement is necessary.

 

[RightinNYC]

The President and Vice President have one thing in common--their careers are comprised of law school and political office, and that's it. They have done nothing outside of feeding at the public trough.

Would it not be better if politicians were limited in the amount of time they could indulge themselves thus?

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.

 

[celticlord]

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.

Yeah, they're all just good hearted public servants.....:rofl

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, they're all just good hearted public servants.....:rofl

Not sure what you're trying to say here, as it's obviously non-responsive to my point.

 

[TOJ]

Not so much term limits, but a complete reform package...this must be done....and this should have commenced many years ago....
The two year term for Representatives is absurd; right now, I'd say 4 years for both and a two term limit.
The lobbyists must be curtailed and controlled...
We no longer can afford to have government for the few(lobbyists and the wealthy)
There must be zero campaign contributions; let the governments and the citizens run and control this; keep the advertisers out of it.....
This should first be done on the state level.....then we can find out which system works best.....
Right now, there is far too much waste..
Much, much more citizen knowledge and involvement is necessary.

You don't really expect people to turn away from American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc, etc. and actually doing something to inform themselves do you?

Back to you vision. Would a person be able to go door-to-door to try to convince others they should vote for the candidate he/she supported?

If that is OK, how about if a person is disabled and not able to get out. Could they have someone else do the door-to-door thing for them? Could they pay their expenses for them?

I'm sure you see where this is going. Assuming you think a person should be able to advocate for a candidate, at what point does it become bad.


.

 

[TOJ]

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.

Do you think Bill Clinton could have earned more if he had never run for public office?


.

 

[RightinNYC]

Do you think Bill Clinton could have earned more if he had never run for public office?


.

Do I think that Bill Clinton, minus all public office, could have earned more with just his law degree than the tens of millions he earns now? Of course not, as he's a significant outlier.

Do I think that Bill Clinton, fresh out of Yale Law and with a Rhodes under his belt, could have earned more working at a law firm than he did as Arkansas AG and Governor (and probably as President)? Definitely.

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.

 

[Grateful Heart]

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.

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.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Do I think that Bill Clinton, minus all public office, could have earned more with just his law degree than the tens of millions he earns now? Of course not, as he's a significant outlier.

Do I think that Bill Clinton, fresh out of Yale Law and with a Rhodes under his belt, could have earned more working at a law firm than he did as Arkansas AG and Governor (and probably as President)? Definitely.

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.

Right enough.

Why does a man want to spend fifteen million of his own dollars to become a US Senator? Because he wants more power than money alone can get him.

It doesn't mean he wants to "serve" the public, no.

It means he wants to have power.

Clinton never gave a rat's behind about helping the public. No. But he got better tail as president than he could have ever gotten as a podunk lawyer.

Also, getting elected strokes the ego more than earning money. No one gets paid to be high school class president, either, but there's always some clod wanting the title.

 

[TOJ]

Do I think that Bill Clinton, minus all public office, could have earned more with just his law degree than the tens of millions he earns now? Of course not, as he's a significant outlier.

Do I think that Bill Clinton, fresh out of Yale Law and with a Rhodes under his belt, could have earned more working at a law firm than he did as Arkansas AG and Governor (and probably as President)? Definitely.

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.

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.

.

 

[Shadow Serious]

I favor term limits for both House Rep Members and esp. Senators ( since previously they were selected by the State Legislators though almost guaranteeing some term limits.

 

[Grateful Heart]

About anyone that makes it to the national scene can become very wealthy if so inclined.

Of course. Octomom can become wealthy because of her status on the 'national scene.'

 

[celticlord]

Do I think that Bill Clinton, minus all public office, could have earned more with just his law degree than the tens of millions he earns now? Of course not, as he's a significant outlier.

Do I think that Bill Clinton, fresh out of Yale Law and with a Rhodes under his belt, could have earned more working at a law firm than he did as Arkansas AG and Governor (and probably as President)? Definitely.

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.

And how many millionaires are in Congress?

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

 

[TOJ]

Of course. Octomom can become wealthy because of her status on the 'national scene.'

I wouldn't know as I don't keep up with those kinds of stories and 'sides, I thought the thread was about politicians, specifically Congress people and Senators. :roll:


.

 

[disneydude]

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".

 

[earthworm]

You don't really expect people to turn away from American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc, etc. and actually doing something to inform themselves do you?Unfortunately, no.

Back to you vision. Would a person be able to go door-to-door to try to convince others they should vote for the candidate he/she supported?This is the Latter Day Saints domain, also for vacuum cleaner salesmen..

If that is OK, how about if a person is disabled and not able to get out. Could they have someone else do the door-to-door thing for them? Could they pay their expenses for them? If a man is disabled, why would he run for office or be that vacuum cleaner salesman ??

I'm sure you see where this is going. Assuming you think a person should be able to advocate for a candidate, at what point does it become bad.


.

Primarily, I favor shortening the campaigning time....down to 60 days before the election; also one hour of TV time to make their points and present their agenda.....
The candidate can go door to door if he wishes.......but, I think this is ineffective....
Right now we have a economic mess....