# Just what is it that you think term limits will accomplish?



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 19, 2016)

Hopefully they will stop me from getting sick


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



Lol, "germ" limits.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Hopefully they will stop me from getting sick



Is that something you can fix Mr. Moderator?


----------



## Eaglewings (Oct 19, 2016)

I was wondering what a germ limit was...lol

we need term limits so life long people like old turtleneck  McConnel does not hy-jack the party like he has. I don't think any of them care about anything but paying off their friends and giving themselves life long insurance and pay.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Oct 19, 2016)

Term limits aren't going any further than his wall, watch.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> I was wondering what a germ limit was...lol
> 
> we need term limits so life long people like old turtleneck  McConnel does not hy-jack the party like he has. I don't think any of them care about anything but paying off their friends and giving themselves life long insurance and pay.



But the peopke on his district like him. I do t understand it but they do. Why would you want to take their representation away? Only caring about getting rid of a politician you don't like isn't a valid reason for the bill. I don't like him either it his constituents do and they should be able to keep him. Apparently he represents them.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



You have a point that your congressman represent your interests.  But why do all taxpayers have to pay _your _representatives?

If the people in your state were paying the salaries of your representatives and senators rather than everyone else in the country then term limits wouldn't be a federal issue but rather a state issue


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering what a germ limit was...lol
> ...



In principle I agree with you that elections should be term limits.  The reality, though, is that Congresspeople often get elected almost by default (or actually by default, when they run unopposed).  Congress has, what, a 10% approval rating?  That is not indicative of people continuing to elect these representatives because they like them.

We have term limits on our presidents.  We can have it for Congress.  Perhaps it will help blunt the corruption and cronyism in government.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...




There will be  a lot more ex gov employees, (congressmen) who get a pension and free health care.  I agree, if you like their job vote for them again.  They already have term limits.  I do believe the Supreme Court should have term limits of say 12 years.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



Even if you replace them every 12 years we still have to pay for them.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

Penelope said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



Why should people elected to represent the people in one state and one state only be paid by the federal government?

The people who live in the state they represent should be paying them


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Pensions for politicians need to be abolished


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

If they do not have to worry about getting elected maybe they'll actually not be selling out the public to every special interest group that can shovel them enough money to help them keep their jobs.

I'm sure we can find another few hundred people every few years to fill those seats.  Nobody loses their representation.

they're also spending a large percentage of their time fundraising instead of actually doing their actual jobs.

If I was padding my nest while on the clock at my former jobs I'd have been fired.  If I was serving people that were screwing the people paying me I'd have been fired.

Instead of career leeches let's get people in there that might actually want to make a difference and then get them out before that cesspool corrupts them.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...



If a party in a district is unopposed then you will just replace him with another of that party, no real change there.

The low approval rating is really nonsense. I read somewhere that when you break down that survey, you find that although they think Congress is doing a poor job, their own congressman always gets high marks.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Penelope said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



I like the SCOTUS idea.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...


Then the president should not have term limits either...


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> If they do not have to worry about getting elected maybe they'll actually not be selling out the public to every special interest group that can shovel them enough money to help them keep their jobs.
> 
> I'm sure we can find another few hundred people every few years to fill those seats.  Nobody loses their representation.
> 
> ...



You will trade politicians who take special interest money for re-election for politicians who take special interest money to make themselves rich as possible before they are kicked out.

Also, what is wrong with special interest money? Personally, I can think of a couple of special interest groups that I like buying politicians, the BRA for example.

You won't get rid of corruption with term limits.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



Untrue. The president is not our representative, and he needs to have checks in his power.


----------



## miketx (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



Awww heck! Another liberal playing make believe.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

For those of you who believe that more will get done if congressmen don't have to worry about campaigning, that is negated by having congressmen who have to learn the ropes every few years. Besides, do we really want Congress to actually accomplish a lot?


----------



## Defiant1 (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



Pred, you will be getting a new congressman.  

And I agree, term limits not needed.  There will be several new congressmen in Florida and I'm sure more across the nation.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

miketx said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



I'm a liberal? That's news.


----------



## Decus (Oct 19, 2016)

The problem is that we are too often faced with a choice of the "lesser of two evils" but feel that we are rarely given the choice of a better candidate. Elections are ruled by money and many people see term limits as perhaps a way of unseating "rich", special interest bankrolled incumbents. 

Three alternative options to term limits:

encourage and support the creation of more parties
create a "no" vote where if the majority of votes cast are for the "no" option new candidates have to be selected
all parties are capped in the amount they can spend
Term limits are the expression of voter disappointment in what appears to be little real choice in the candidates running for office.

.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Defiant1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



Yes, Grayson is on his way out, thank God.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > If they do not have to worry about getting elected maybe they'll actually not be selling out the public to every special interest group that can shovel them enough money to help them keep their jobs.
> ...



special interest money has completely corrupted our system.  simply because you might agree that 1 or 2 of these groups are to your liking doesn't detract from the net influence of all of this bribery money, which is, without question, negative to the better interests of the country.

we won't get rid of corruption by continuing to support the same people that have corrupted the system either, it would seem to me.  .

I'm not going to bother with the definition of insanity stuff.  you know the drill.  

continuing to support the same people that have clearly crashed the bus makes no sense whatsoever.  Time to learn from our mistakes, move them out and prevent it from happening again.

what is the worst thing that can happen?  congress is dysfunctional for a period of transition?  It is already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, already dysfunctional.  

Maybe we'll replace these crooks with other crooks, but that's at best a wash as well and likely a win as the new crooks won't be as proficient.


----------



## Defiant1 (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Great chance to elect a good Republican in his place.......lol


----------



## miketx (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Perhaps I mis-spoke.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



Sure, move them out but do it by voting.

What if I have a great congressman. He's doing exactly what my district wants him to do both for us and for the country, and he has been doing it for 12 years. Now I can't have him anymore and maybe I have two complete douchebags running for his seat. How is that to anyone's best interest?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Pros and cons:

Pros:

Congressmen won't have to waste our time with a 2nd re-election.

Congressmen won't need to drum up money from special interests for a second re-election.

Corrupt or inept politicians will not be in office forever.

Cons:

Good and effective politicians will be lost.

Too often, the new congressmen will need to learn the ropes and thus reduce their effectiveness.

Congressional committees will be much less effective due to high turnover.

The people of the districts will lose much of their ability to control their representation.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




you're not moving them out by voting, as the evidence shows.  they establish themselves, pull in enough money to bury the competition and there they sit, regardless of what they do, so saying 'well, just vote' is not at all accurate, as it's not a level playing field and the longer they sit there, the more that field tilts.

I could list a number of congresspeople that were outright criminals and were still re-elected because of those factors.   charlie rangel, for one, yes?  That crook is still there.

With term limits you'll get another congressman, just like we get another president, and some cities get another mayor, every X number of years.  Don't like that one?  well they're gone in X number of years too and the one(s) that follow will have to more closely listen to the voters instead of simply running the opposition into the ground with superior money and a well established propaganda machine that can outshout and/or outsmear the other guy.

these long term people are de facto royalty, immovable by all but the most severe circumstances, if at all, serving and perpetuating an oligarchical system of which they and their money people are the primary benefactors and which runs directly contrary to the interests of the people they are supposedly there to serve.  It is a total farce.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



It doesn't matter how much money they spend, it still comes down to votes. They are getting the votes because the people want to vote for them.

Do you actually think that term limits will take money out of the process??? You can seriously believe that.

A party or politician who sees a popular congressman's terms coming to an end will spend just as much money as anybody would have, and it will happen more frequently.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Then the people of your state should pay his entire salary and pension not the rest of the country


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



You pay the same salary and pension regardless of who wins


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



You don't understand

The people of for example MA should be paying their congress people's salaries and pensions since those people are representing the people of MA at the federal level they are not representing the people of CT or any other state so why should people in any other state pay for the congress people of a different state?


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




So the money pouring into politics doesn't influence voting?   That's not the case at all.  We all know that. 

do I think term limits will take money out of the process?  no, but I see no reason not to solve part of the problem simply because it doesn't solve the entire problem. 

It also seems far more likely to me that congresspeople that are not influenced by the desire to see this system perpetuate their own careers indefinitely may, if people demand it, then take further steps to limit the influence of money in elections and politics than these people that are so directly deriving benefits from it.  Without moving these people and changing that equation that will never happen.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


he damn sure is our representative, he works for us....


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running



Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power.  Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



They are representing their country
They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US not to their state
You are a US Senator


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running
> ...



Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 19, 2016)

What I find most distasteful is how Congressional members at the federal level were able to throw off term limits due to being unconstitutional, yet the same Congress put term limits on the President..Same with drug testing for Congressional members...


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


At least the shackles of tyranny called the Drug War would be dismantled....


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What about the second part of my post?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Like I already said...I think term limits are for losers
Those who think they can't get elected otherwise

Why is it that only Republicans support term limits?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



I say just get rid of their pensions period.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits will do more harm than good. If any good at all.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



No, he isn't. Our Congressmen are supposed to be our representatives in government. Not the POTUS.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Because he needs that check on his power.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




75% of adults support term limits, according to a 2013 gallup poll.

Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Obviously I completely disagree.

Getting rid of the people that benefit from a corrupt system will do no harm, zero, to a body that has been utterly dysfunctional for years at this point.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



There is no way you can control it so that you aren't just putting more of the same back in. Odds are you will do nothing but hamper the system.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



 The last politician who gave himself term limits was George Washington. No Congressman or Senator will vote him/herself out of a pork laden job.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



You can keep saying that, but if you are removing the lure of this long term tenure, we are likely reducing the formation of these political dynasties such as Pelosi, Reid, Graham, McConnel etc; etc. and we do not have the same situation at all for many reasons if we replace these people with new faces.  

They do not have time to form these personal networks.  They do not have time to accumulate 'favors' to pay, it reduces the time they have to form political machines and on and on and on.

These political dynasties are like snowballs rolling down a hill.  the further they roll, the bigger they get.  It is not, at all, a matter of exchanging, for instance, nancy pelosi for a newbie from California when it comes to this.

you can disagree, and that's fine, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your position that is an apples to apples replacement that does no good.

what I do know is that these people have had plenty of time to fix the situation and they are not going to.  the congress no longer serves the people first and these people are not going to change the system as it serves them first and for as long as they desire.  They need to go.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2016)

Decus said:


> The problem is that we are too often faced with a choice of the "lesser of two evils" but feel that we are rarely given the choice of a better candidate. Elections are ruled by money and many people see term limits as perhaps a way of unseating "rich", special interest bankrolled incumbents.
> 
> Three alternative options to term limits:
> 
> ...




Well....yes and no.

Here in the Big Apple we have term limits on the city council...and guess what: a more stupid, Leftist.....was that redundant?...group you've never seen.


Perhaps we will never see it....but, Milton Friedman hit the nail on the head:

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” 


The Left controls the avenues of dissemination of information, and you can see the results on this board: utter stupidity and refusal to face reality.

We're basking in the afterglow of a once great nation.....due to avarice and the hunger for power.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



They are morons


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Cellblock2429 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



I agree but I'm not talking about the likelihood that it will happen, I'm wondering what people think good it will do.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...


*Term limits are based on idea that the government should be run by people who don't know anything about it.  The result would be more dependence of lobbyist, and staff.  I don't see this as good thing at all.  Just like any job, experience in governing is an asset.

*


----------



## PredFan (Oct 19, 2016)

Fueri said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



It's true that we won't have dynasties. I don't see anything wrong with dynasties if that's what the voters want.

Yes, it reduces the time they have to form personal networks but they also have less time to do much of anything. 

I agree that the corruption needs to stop but there's no rational reason to think that term limits would stop it. It would do more harm than good to the people they represent.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



People want political Dynasties?  I'm pretty sure they conclusively do not, if the polls on term limits are to be believed.  Sure they keep voting for the same entrenched choice, for reasons we've already discussed

They have plenty of time to do their jobs and will have quiet a bit more due to not having to be spending huge portions of their time on fundraising.

I don't see the harm in changing course on a system that is clearly broken.  If it sucks, fine, show that and revert. Somehow I doubt people would see such a horrible drop-off in productivity from  a body that is broken already.

I've presented plenty of rationale for my position, while you are simply saying, nope, it will do more harm than good, so I think we're just going in circles now.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Well thanks for that highly insightful comment.  

You should also agree that the majority of dems are also morons then, according to that litmus test.


----------



## Votto (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



It will stop career politicians from achieving lavish retirement plans and instead force them to create a world they will actually have to go out into to earn a living themselves.

It is the same reason the term limits were imposed on the President.  How can it be good for the President but not those in Congress?

The sad fact is, once in power they tend to stay in power.  Power corrupts.

Don't worry though, Congress will never impose term limits on themselves, so your worries are misplaced.  Once you have power, you never relinquish power.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...


Republicans act like governing is easy...anyone can do it

A myriad of rules and regulations, procedural issues, ability to read your fellow legislators
Freshman congressmen is not a standard to aspire to


----------



## AZGAL (Oct 19, 2016)

term limits keep people young


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are completely wrong that only Republicans support term limits.  

Perhaps you might consider that you could be wrong about the reasons for, and viability of, term limits as well.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Neither is entrenched, 30-year incumbent a standard to aspire to.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 19, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No they are representing the people in their state you now the ones that voted for them.
A Congress critter from CA doesn't give a shit about the voters in any other state

Now if you want to make elections for senators and reps national where everyone who actually pays their salaries can vote you would have a point but until then you don't


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


fine with me especially since the best way to become a millionaire in this country is to get elected to congress


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 20, 2016)

AZGAL said:


> term limits keep people young


Are you like 90 years young?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 20, 2016)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 20, 2016)

Fueri said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fueri said:
> ...



We definitely are going in circles and I thank you for the civil and rational discussion.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 20, 2016)

Votto said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



You really think that term limits will stop lavish pension plans?

I doubt seriously that that was the reason term limits were imposed on the POTUS.

It's good for the president because it limits his power, the power (representation) of the people should not be limited the same way.

Power does corrupt and it can and does corrupt quickly. Certainly it can within the 12 years that is the proposed limit.

The vote is the only term limit congress needs, just because we don't like the peopke elected by someone else doesn't mean they should lose their representative.

It takes experience to work for the people of your district effectively, replacing them regularly requires new people to spend time learning the ropes. The cost of term limits is much too high for the imagined and hoped for, gains.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 20, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Republicans are not the only ones asking for term limits.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 20, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Because the POTUS is one man who has an equal power to all of congress. An individual congressman has no where near the power of the POTUS. He needs that check on his power.


----------



## Fueri (Oct 20, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Fueri said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Likewise.


----------



## longknife (Oct 20, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...



We already have term limits!

Presidents may serve no more than two four year terms.

Senators serve for six years. Representatives serve for two. *When their terms are up, it's up to the voters to decide their fate!* That's the way it's supposed to be.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 20, 2016)

Please....Please!

Someone pass a law to stop me from voting for this guy!
I can't help myself


----------



## Flopper (Oct 20, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


*I can think of a couple of reasons.  First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state.  The president does not.  He is essential an employee hired to manage the government.  For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats.   The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people.  Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and  become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.
*


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress?  It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country.  I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from.  Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits.  It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period.  There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms.  Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well.  Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2016)

longknife said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> ...



I don't see how you can say we already have term limits because the voters decide the fate of their representatives right after you point out that voters don't have a choice after their president serves a second term.

The way it is supposed to be?  What do you base that on?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 20, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


*When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says.  You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people.  However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people.  Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic.  People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.   *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 20, 2016)

We have term limits, they're called *elections.*


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 20, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I agree that misuse of power is the problem.  Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 20, 2016)

PredFan said:


> i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.
> 
> For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?
> 
> ...


Term Limits will cause more idiots to have a turn at governing us.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 20, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


*And more time for their replacements to do the same.  The problem is the system. Congress monitors the administration and the Supreme Court monitors the legal actions of both but who monitors congress.    *


----------



## PredFan (Oct 21, 2016)

Flopper said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And that misuse of power will not change because of shortened careers.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 21, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So you linit them to 12 years, they misuse their power for 12 then they are out. Someone else comes in and misuses their power for another 12 years. Term limits cannot solve that problem.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 21, 2016)

If you want to make a strong case FOR term limits, just say the name John McCain.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



If voters think a candidate has served long enough....let them vote them out
If a representative is still doing a good job after 30 years, why shouldn't voters be allowed to elect him again

I live in NJ where we had Frank Lautenberg as Senator for five terms. In his last two terms, I thought he was losing his edge and voted against him. Others reelected him.

That is the way the system should work....let the voters decide


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



In principle I agree.

However, with the stranglehold the two major parties have over American politics, the amount of money it takes to campaign for election, the long term relationships built by lobbyists with politicians, and the number of people who seem content to simply pull the lever with the proper party letter next to it, I think the reality is that term limits might serve a useful function.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 21, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Just as some have been complaining that it takes time to learn to be a Congressperson, I think it takes time to build the kinds of relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, and special interest groups that make up a good portion of the misuses of power.  Term limits would hopefully mitigate that.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 21, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Term limits will fix none of the problems you just mentioned, so what useful function would it serve?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I think term limits will only make it worse

If you are a Senator or Congressman in your last term you are looking for a new career. Politically, you are a lame duck. You are more likely to engage lobbyists who will help you to get a lucrative position once you leave.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 21, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



As someone here already pointed out, changing them frequently will do the opposite because the new guys will depend a lot more on the lobbyists and special interest groups more because they don't know the ropes yet. The new guys could also be more susceptible to influence because they are rookies and don't know the game.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


*The most powerful members of congress are committee heads and committee members in certain committees and this is where the greatest abuse of power occurs.  These are the people that determine whether legislation lives or dies.  Bills are killed and rewritten in committees. Investigative committees make and break careers of those being investigated.   Although rules differ between the House and Senate, membership and leadership in these committees are determined mostly by seniority.  Having newer less experienced members running these committees will not lessen their power and influence nor misuse of that power.  In fact in may actual increase the misuse of power.
*


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2016)

*It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them.”

In other words, when politicians know they must return to ordinary society and live under the laws passed while they were in government, at least some of them will think more carefully about the long-term effects of the programs they support. Their end-all will not be re-election, because that option will not be available.

The notion of citizen-legislator is a popular idea among the public.  However, is it really practical today?  I say no because the size of government and complexity is such that it's care and management is well beyond the capabilities of the novice.  If government were smaller and with less power, yes it would work but it isn't and likely never will be.
Why Term Limits? | Lawrence W. Reed*


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2016)

I am all in favor of term limits. I feel rather strongly that Hillary should not be inconvenienced by a prison term exceeding twenty-five years and one day.


----------

