• 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 Their Be Term Limits?

Would you support term limits for congressmen? Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Term limits would only work if you had additional considerations -

20 years on the federal payroll (secretaries, senators, generals, presidents, heads of state, et. al. are limited to 20 years total combined federal service). The exception would be for anyone who was elected to office would be allowed to finish their term.

All elected officials are required to disclose 100% of their funding to their campaigns and to their "offices" when they are not campaigning. Penalty is to be banned from the federal government for life.

All federal employee and/or elected official exceptions to the rules that apply to the rest of us are removed. Government employees are no longer excluded from social security payments, congress gets our health care plans, insider trading rules apply to congress, etc. etc.

Reasoning -

Voters tend to be uninformed and vote party, vote for the recognized name, vote for the incumbent. Laws exist that protect the incumbent as well (campaign finance). 20 year limit minimizes these effects so that we can keep fresh mind-sets flowing into the federal government. Entrenched, career government bureaucrats will also be limited while preventing "expired" elected officials from remaining in government.

Trade off is a less experienced federal government overall. I say this is good, some will say it is bad.

I want to be clear about 2 points -

I believe this to be a pie in the sky solution (will NEVER happen without a constitutional convention).

This is not an anti old person rant - you want to serve government in your 50's? Fine. Your are done in your 70's. Start in your 20's and end in your 40's. etc. etc.
 
I think we should limit the career elected leader by first taking away retirement. It is a public service not a career. I think we need to remove industry from the funding (owning) the parties and the candidates. Enough with the millions and millions of TV dollars to mud sling. Local candidates should spend more time having town meetings and talking to the people about what they will do for the people. I would like to see them come to my town or suburb and field questions from the people. It is too easy to send out a TV add saying one thing then doing the bidding of the rich and powerful who fund your campaign and line your pockets with money and favors. Even professional liars struggle to lie to your face over and over. Most important is to scale back their salary to match the average middle class worker. If we can live comfortably at that pay so can they. Right now that is $75,000.00. The only raise is to continue to match the average middle class wages.
I would have them participate in a 401k type retirement system.

I agree with taking away corporate funding. I would take it a step further. "Can't vote, can't contribute'. If you cannot literally cast a vote for a person (or ballot issue) then you cannot contribute money. Period. That would eliminate corporations and that would eliminate outside money whose only interest is in stacking the legislative body to their liking.

I'm ok with higher than average pay. We may not like the results, but their job IS important and they do work obscene hours. Their works is not 9-to-5, and that sometimes gives a false impression. Plus, they are not "off" when Congress isn't in session. They're still working.
 
I would have them participate in a 401k type retirement system.

I agree with taking away corporate funding. I would take it a step further. "Can't vote, can't contribute'. If you cannot literally cast a vote for a person (or ballot issue) then you cannot contribute money. Period. That would eliminate corporations and that would eliminate outside money whose only interest is in stacking the legislative body to their liking.

I'm ok with higher than average pay. We may not like the results, but their job IS important and they do work obscene hours. Their works is not 9-to-5, and that sometimes gives a false impression. Plus, they are not "off" when Congress isn't in session. They're still working.

The average middle class worker works a lot more than 40 hrs. a week as well. This is not a career but a service to your country. A lot of us do jury duty as well as work a lot of overtime or a second job.
 
Would you support term limits for congressmen? Why or why not?

I'm not at all convinced the new people voted into congress would be any improvement over the incumbents already there, so I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.
 
It it's face term limits are unconstitutional and I think with good reason. If the people choose to keep sending the same people back to Congress that is their right.

On the other hand there is an obvious problem with the way campaigns are financed. I was listening to an interview with our retired Congressman Steve Israel the other day and he commented that a Congressman's number 1 job is fund raising and that he and all Congressmen spend as much - maybe more - time fundraising as they do legislating. And while it's bad for incumbents (an obviously bad for the rest of us since Congressmen work half the time at best) it's even worse for challengers.

Instead of term limits we should probably be talking more about reforming the campaign finance system.
 
Would you support term limits for congressmen? Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is my first posting here, so don't go too hard on my response.

I do not support term limits. Even people who do generally do not - otherwise their congresscritters wouldn't keep getting reelected. At some point you could put the opposing party in office just because an incumbent cannot run for reelection.

We already have term limits. If you don't like who is in office, boot them out at the end of their term.
 
On the one side you could say no. A group of people can and should have the right to elect whomever they want without exception. Part of freedom, of liberty is to allow the stupid to be stupid. If Group A wants to elect the same person who hasn't done a damn thing for them or on the flip side, has done an exceptional job of representing them than it is nobody's business but Group A's.

On the other side you could say yes. The unlimited time spent in office wasn't what was intended and the results of a permanent political class gives ample justification as to why it wasn't intended. By intended I mean in spirit not letter. It obviously would have been written out explicitly if it was to be solidified.

I generally am in the agreement with the "No" camp. In principle. People should be allowed freedom in their stupidity. However, things as they are, the circles of power being constant in their concentration, the fact that we do have a permanent political class, the fact that this permanent class jumps from government work to the private sector and back again in various roles and capacities regardless of the individuals particular area of specialty, this allowed on the basis of relationships formed, long lasting and wide spread, due specifically to the open ended-ness of elected officials time in Washington, coupled with a lack of true federalism, the allowing for Elected Representative A or Senator B to have an influence which reaches far past the borders of their state or district -- For these reasons, and not seeing a reversal in the course, I have to throw my personal opinions aside, my idea of what freedom is, what it should allow for, and resolutely agree in the affirmative that there should be shackles placed upon the nefarious and unworthy.

No matter how well an elected official serves their constituents, there is no-one better served then themselves.
 
No, because on jobs this important finding good people who want to do the job is always a challenge, when it does happen I dont want to lose their services because of a stupid law......America grows leaders badly now, when we find the few good ones we need to get all the mileage out of them we can.
 
Would you support term limits for congressmen? Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Twenty years ago I was all in favor of term limits. Since then I realized we, the electorate have a chance every two years to replace any Representative we don't like. Besides, most people adhere to the time honored adage that my congressman isn't the problem, it is the other 434 that are the problems. What I have seen those who don't like the leader of the opposing party, usually are for term limits. Of course there is always the problem of gerrymandering, making districts safe for each party's leadership and more. That is nothing more than jury rigging an election. It is the representatives choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their representatives. Still we have seen some leaders within a party lose in the primaries recently.

The senate, we can change them every six years if we want. Most of the time we don't want to. Personally, I would rather see the 17th amendment revoked. Going back to the state legislatures appointing senators. That would make senators more responsible to the states than a political party which we have now. I would also revoke the 22nd amendment. All the 22nd amendment does is make a president, any president a lame duck the day after he wins his second term. Who after FDR would have sought a third term and possibly won without the 22nd?

Truman was the last president eligible to run for a third term. He didn't even run for a second. He finished out FDR's 1944 term, ran in 1948 and stepped aside in 1952. With the unpopularity of Korea and Truman's approval number stuck in the upper twenties, he would have lost if he did run. Eisenhower was popular enough in 1960 to have easily won a third term. But his health wouldn't let him. He had already suffered a couple of heart attacks in his second term.

JFK as assassinated, LBJ stepped down after one term of his own. Nixon resigned, Ford defeated by Carter who was defeated by Reagan. Now Reagan was popular enough like IKE to have run and won a third term. But again, his age and health would have prevented that. Bush I was defeated by Clinton. Now Bill was in good health in 2000, he very well could have run for a third term if he wanted. Would he? I don't know. I think he was still popular enough to have won, but a lot of people were just plain sick and tired of all the scandals. He may or may not have won.

Bush II was so unpopular, he was a sure loser if he could have sought a third term in 2008. Obama, he became popular when compared to Trump and Hillary Clinton. Against Trump, I think Obama would have easily won a third term.

But no, no term limits. Although I am sick and tired of representatives only representing their political party instead of the people of their district. Same with senators only representing their political party instead of their state.
 
Unfortunately, our current election system is so totally corrupt, that any incumbent who is willing to sell his soul to the corporate criminals and to sell out the American people is insured to be rewarded with enough campaign contributions (bribes) to be able to outspend any challengers who may challenge their position. That is why 96% of incumbents are re-elected despite a 9 to 11% approval rating. That and the undeniable ignorance of the American public that continue to play a game that is designed to exploit and keep them in perpetual servitude.
 
Nonpartisan commissions to stop gerrymandering is the way to go.

Utah has a referendum signature collection going on to place just such a commission on the ballot in 2018.

It will get twice the number of signatures needed by this December, and the Utah state GOP leadership is freaking out.
 
Term Limits: Worst... idea... ever.

Pros:
1) Weeds out career politicians. In theory. This is the primary argument for them. Get career politicians out of government and stop them from enriching themselves at our expense.

I think that’s it. <shrug>

Cons:
A) Unknown replacements. Possibly… no, probably… hand-picked by the party, which would be just as bad, if not worse. The average voter is not likely to know who has been chosen for them.

B) Why do we think honest people would magically pop up and replace the dishonest career politicians? Going back to ‘A’ above, we are not guaranteed of any such thing. “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” it wouldn’t be.

C) People are selfish… and too often ignorant and easily-led. People like their own representative because they “bring home the bacon”. People vote their own self-interest and at the expense of everybody else. If people continually re-elect representatives they claim to not like now, they’re still going to vote for whoever promises them the biggest benefit, term limits or not.

D) Due to limited time in service, they’d be even more susceptible to influence and lobbying. We already dislike that career politicians feather their nests over decades. With term limits we’d have unknown people still being wooed by lobbyists and special interests. Human nature being what it is, and with a limited time in which to do any said feather nesting, they’d develop a “Get what I can while I can!” attitude. Short of illegality, they’d be even more outright dishonest. What’s going to happen to them if you the voter disapproves? They’re out in couple years anyway.

E) If California state government is any indicator, it’ll degenerate into “musical political chairs”… people would still elect the same people, just to rotating offices. Ergo, nothing really changes.

F) Takes away a person’s right to vote for whomever they want. This alone should be reason enough.

G) Term limits are lazy. Instead of encouraging engagement and participation, they discourage participation. We want our dirty work to be done for us. You want the politicians to sit up and notice you over the special interests? Reduce the re-election rate from 90% down to 50%. Then, they’d take us seriously.

If this was true then we should abolish term limits on govenors and the president.
 
Doesn't mean an example is right all of the time.

Maybe not, but they must have thought FDR got too many terms. I think our country has done pretty well with the two term limit. Frankly I think we should put term limits on Congress, too many people staying in there all their lives wielding too much power.
 
Here was a common button when FDR was seeking his third term...

32577_lg.jpg

FDR was an anomaly, and also somewhat a reflection of the times and the country desperately feeling a need for stability. The 22nd Amendment, IMO, was an over-reaction to something that really wasn't a problem.
 
Maybe not, but they must have thought FDR got too many terms. I think our country has done pretty well with the two term limit. Frankly I think we should put term limits on Congress, too many people staying in there all their lives wielding too much power.

Term limits are set by the electorate. There should be no restrictions on whether someone should serve again. If they are doing a good job, let's keep them.
 
Term limits, no, but age limits, YES!
 
Term limits are set by the electorate. There should be no restrictions on whether someone should serve again. If they are doing a good job, let's keep them.

We're having a problem with the rules apparently stacked in the favor of the incumbents. Even the founders spent lifetimes in the government, and as much as I really admire them, it eliminates the chance for fresh ideas or the ability to get rid of dead weight.
 
We're having a problem with the rules apparently stacked in the favor of the incumbents. Even the founders spent lifetimes in the government, and as much as I really admire them, it eliminates the chance for fresh ideas or the ability to get rid of dead weight.
That is indeed true... and we should eliminate those, as well.
 
Would you support term limits for congressmen? Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Term limits for congress and federal judges
 
Back
Top Bottom