Zguy28 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 My question to all who follow politics: If term limits, maximum of 2 terms, were imposed on members of the House and Senate, would that be good or bad for the people and/or government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I have a bigger problem with campaign contributions and how politics has become a game of bigger war chest wins then I do with term limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I think term limits are a fundamentally fantastic idea for the most basic of reasons. These people are supposed to be public servants, not career politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 We already have term limits. They're called elections. Everyone wants term limits for OTHER peoples Congressman and Senators. Yet they re-elect their own in staggering numbers. If people TRULY felt like a change was needed, they would vote that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'd be pro, especially if you include the staffers that sometimes just shift office to office even when their guy is not elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 We already have term limits. They're called elections. Everyone wants term limits for OTHER peoples Congressman and Senators. Yet they re-elect their own in staggering numbers. If people TRULY felt like a change was needed, they would vote that way. I agree with this... What is the point? The reason there are elections every so often is to refresh the snapshot of public opinion. When/if a congressman or senator has lost favor, he won't be re-elected. I actually don't think there should be a term limit on the presidency either. It's not an elementary school where we should be giving as many people as possible a shot...it's the leader of the United States. If someone has served 8 years at a high level, why boot him from office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'd let Senators have 3-4 terms and House 2-3 terms. Its more about the lobby money going on right now to me... Nobody ever get rid of their own because they want them to get senority so they can get the 5x the amount back like WVA... Let the other states have the newbies with no pork-belly contacts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 I have a bigger problem with campaign contributions and how politics has become a game of bigger war chest wins then I do with term limits. I do as well. I thought I would just take a new approach to it. Everyone wants term limits for OTHER peoples Congressman and Senators. Yet they re-elect their own in staggering numbers. If people TRULY felt like a change was needed, they would vote that way. I disagree, see below. I think term limits are a fundamentally fantastic idea for the most basic of reasons. These people are supposed to be public servants, not career politicians. Exactly my opinion. I feel it would be good to get fresh blood in their every 4 to 8 years. I only have to look at my own congressional district to see the effects of no term limits. There are many folks in So. Maryland who want Steny Hoyer out. Yet most of the folks don't know anyone else since he's been in so long. When elections come they just say, oh I know his name but not this other guy, I'll vote for {insert incumbent name here}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Yes to term limits always good to get some fresh bodies in the mix....serve the public trust....not your own personal glory....if you do well enough serving the people you will get your shine..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 There are many folks in So. Maryland who want Steny Hoyer out. Yet most of the folks don't know anyone else since he's been in so long. When elections come they just say, oh I know his name but not this other guy, I'll vote for {insert incumbent name here}. It's just like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman. "Vote for Jeff Johnson... the name you know." You see that older married couple walking into the booth asking "Who's that guy we normally vote for again?" :laugh: It was meant to be funny, but I'm sure it happens quite a bit in reality. People continue to "serve" based on the fact that their name is the only one the voters know because it has been around so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 The founding fathers are rolling over in there graves, we, all of us have ruined there vision of a Democracy, we still live in the greatest country in the world (but at the same time it is screwed up good). Career politicians who are out for themselves rather then the well being of the union. Politicians who outright vilolate the Constitution when ever it suits there agenda (the document they swear an oath to follow and defend) Lobbyist who buy influence. Elections and Campaigns have become a money machine that is spiraling out of control. Congress talks about reform and that all it ever is talk. Term limits would solve or start to solve these problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 The perfect Congress: A 1 year class like Military specialty courses and a 4 year term. Reenlistment requirements to include # of bills sponsored/cosponsored. Your performance reviews each year "working with others", "Attention to detail", No supervision needed.. Headed such and such committee. "Reduced this by 30%". And of course a physcial fitness test every 6 months . I'd need at least 6 beers to make this any better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 There's also a downside to term limits - just look at California, which has had term limits in its legislature longer than any other state. Now Sacramento is plagued with constant turnover and representatives that don't know how to write a budget. Major decisions are increasingly passed on to voters through referenda, special interests have enormous power, and the state's financial situation is among the worst in the nation. When the elected representatives are the least-experienced players, the lobbyists and career staffers have more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 "When the elected representatives are the least-experienced players, the lobbyists and career staffers have more power." dingdingdingding. Winner winner chicken dinner!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 There is a big downside to term limits - we are seeing it in California where we have term limits for our state legislature. Being a legislator or any type is a very significant job, and not an easy one to learn how to do right. Very few brand new legislators have any clue what to do or how to do it. This makes them easy fodder for lobbyists and party organizations, who present them with prepackaged bills (but usually not good ones). Each time you boot these guys out, you lose whatever wisdom/lessons they have accumulated. The real result is that it turns the power over to the legislative staffs, since they stay from term to term and never answer to the voters. If you think your legislator is clueless, wait till you meet a career staffer. I do not think that term limits are a completely bad idea, as there is something wrong with someone sitting in a seat for 45 years. Maybe long, long limits, like no more than 8 two year sessions for a rep and 4 six year sessions for a senator. One thing is for sure - short term limits are a very popular way of feeling like you are getting control of the solution, but whether they are effective is a very different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 There's also a downside to term limits - just look at California, which has had term limits in its legislature longer than any other state.Now Sacramento is plagued with constant turnover and representatives that don't know how to write a budget. Major decisions are increasingly passed on to voters through referenda, special interests have enormous power, and the state's financial situation is among the worst in the nation. When the elected representatives are the least-experienced players, the lobbyists and career staffers have more power. Jerk. You type faster than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'd be pro, especially if you include the staffers that sometimes just shift office to office even when their guy is not elected. You're awful quick to kick people hat you don't know out of their jobs. Politicians usually have made a good deal of money in some other sector - not so with staffers, who jumo from office to office because that is their job. Also, if there were going to be term limits, there would have to be veteran staffers around, otherwise all of Capitol Hil would be running aound like chickens with their heads cut off every new session. What is going unsaid, however, is that the mutliple term Senators and Representatives who are heading their respective committees have spent, in many cases, their entire careers dedicating themselves to one area of policy. Would you rather policy concerning, for example, the maintainence of the Interstate Highway System be under the control of someone who had spent the better part of 25 years studying the issues involved and knew them inside and out, or someone who arrived yesterday and all he knew was that there were potholes outside of Bumphuque, MN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Jerk. You type faster than I do. it's all about being concise... Here, you can have this: :2ndplace: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 You're awful quick to kick people hat you don't know out of their jobs. Politicians usually have made a good deal of money in some other sector - not so with staffers, who jumo from office to office because that is their job. Also, if there were going to be term limits, there would have to be veteran staffers around, otherwise all of Capitol Hil would be running aound like chickens with their heads cut off every new session.What is going unsaid, however, is that the mutliple term Senators and Representatives who are heading their respective committees have spent, in many cases, their entire careers dedicating themselves to one area of policy. Would you rather policy concerning, for example, the maintainence of the Interstate Highway System be under the control of someone who had spent the better part of 25 years studying the issues involved and knew them inside and out, or someone who arrived yesterday and all he knew was that there were potholes outside of Bumphuque, MN? Dang that is a good post GrimReefa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 it's all about being concise...Here, you can have this: :2ndplace: Can't be that - Chomerics gets his responses in before me too.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 A lot of VERY interesting opinions being offered in this thread -- ones I had honestly not considered before. Probably need to reassess my position Bottomline -- we desperately need to have leadership that is actually representing the interests of their constituents -- NOT the interests of whatever special interest has contributed the most to their campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 While being a legislator is a very important job, so is getting a job done. If you can't get barely anything done in 2 years on a job, your gonna get fired. Just look at the NFL head coaches or any other job. Not so in Congress. Some of these guys have been around so long and only done like 1 remarkable thing is my point. Take Sen. Sarbanes for instance. Serving in the Senate since 1976. That was when Carter was coming into the white house for goodness sake! What has he accomplished besides Sarbanes-Oxley? Or the aforementioned Steny Hoyer. Serving his 13th term. He's been in Congress since 1981. What's the limit? 3 terms, 5 terms? I guess I just feel it's ridiculous. And they get an 80% pension when they retire or lose an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Bottomline -- we desperately need to have leadership that is actually representing the interests of their constituents -- NOT the interests of whatever special interest has contributed the most to their campaign. You know I emailed Sarbanes and Mikulski in the past. Barb's office never got back to me, but Sarbanes' staff had the nerve to politely tell me I wasn't his constituency because my opinion was different than his. When I called Steny to ask him to vote for aomething the first thing I was asked was "what party are you a member of?" :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Too complicated an issue, pros and cons on either side. There are better ways to reform Congress (my pet project being the elimination of Gerrymandering, but we all have one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 A lot of VERY interesting opinions being offered in this thread -- ones I had honestly not considered before. Probably need to reassess my position Bottomline -- we desperately need to have leadership that is actually representing the interests of their constituents -- NOT the interests of whatever special interest has contributed the most to their campaign. :yikes: How the hell did YOU get into the Tailgate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.