Its it finally time we have term limits in the House and Senate?

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm going to say it again that career politicians are not acting in the best interest of the people electing them.

This can be really simple.

Two Terms max for the Senate and 6 for Congress. If you're really good, I'll spend 12 years in each and that would be a career or 24 years. However, its unlikely since it would mean running against an incumbent in your own party if you want to switch from one to the other.

Is it time?

(THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A POLL, BUT A GLITCH GOT THIS THIS THREAD)

[88Comrade2000]

No. Sometimes that experience can be valuable.

Here's what I would do.

House

1. You still have a 2 year term.

2. You can run for as many terms as you like but you can only run for 2 consecutive terms. You would then have to sit 2 years before being able to run again for 2 consecutive terms.

Senate

1. Reduce the term to 4 years. Half Senate goes up for election, each time.

2. You can run for as many terms as you like but you can only run for 2 consecutive terms. You would then have to sit 2 years before being able to run again for 2 consecutive terms.

If the founders wanted term limits, they would've put them in. I think by having to live in the real world for a couple years would maybe change the thinking a little???

Presidency

1. Get rid of the term limits.

2. Reduce the term to 3 years. 4 years is too long, especially when you have a bad president.

3. The President can run as many times as he likes but only for 2 consecutive terms. He would have to sit out for 3 years and then be able to run for another 2 terms. 6 years is enough time for a PResident. If he's really good, you can give him another 6 years, 3 years later.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm going to say it again that career politicians are not acting in the best interest of the people electing them.

This can be really simple.

Two Terms max for the Senate and 6 for Congress. If you're really good, I'll spend 12 years in each and that would be a career or 24 years. However, its unlikely since it would mean running against an incumbent in your own party if you want to switch from one to the other.

Is it time?

(THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A POLL, BUT A GLITCH GOT THIS THIS THREAD)

Could not agree more. I have shared your view on this issue for about 10 years now. I wish we could see that day but it won't happen. Those who need to be checked are the same who would have to vote for it any they wont. It's a shame really.

[pjfootballer]

No. Sometimes that experience can be valuable.

Here's what I would do.

House

1. You still have a 2 year term.

2. You can run for as many terms as you like but you can only run for 2 consecutive terms. You would then have to sit 2 years before being able to run again for 2 consecutive terms.

Senate

1. Reduce the term to 4 years. Half Senate goes up for election, each time.

2. You can run for as many terms as you like but you can only run for 2 consecutive terms. You would then have to sit 2 years before being able to run again for 2 consecutive terms.

If the founders wanted term limits, they would've put them in. I think by having to live in the real world for a couple years would maybe change the thinking a little???

Presidency

1. Get rid of the term limits.

2. Reduce the term to 3 years. 4 years is too long, especially when you have a bad president.

3. The President can run as many times as he likes but only for 2 consecutive terms. He would have to sit out for 3 years and then be able to run for another 2 terms. 6 years is enough time for a PResident. If he's really good, you can give him another 6 years, 3 years later.

You said no, but you just described term limits.

[PokerPacker]

Lets face it, the system is broken, and the only ones who can fix it are the ones who are benefiting from the system, so we're basically screwed.

[btfoom]

If the founders wanted term limits, they would've put them in. I think by having to live in the real world for a couple years would maybe change the thinking a little???

Actually, they did, just not with a set number. Prior to the 17th Amendment, US Senators were chosen directly by the state (either by the state legislature, governor, or a combination of both). This severely limited the ability of Senators to keep their jobs for a long time, unless they were doing exactly what the STATE wanted done in DC.

To Bang, yes, I agree 100% that we need term limits. The founding fathers never believed that there should be 'career politicians' as they had seen what happened in England (and many being historians, empires like Rome). The problem with career politicians, on EITHER SIDE, is that they worry more about getting re-elected and keeping up their lifestyle than they do about serving the people who elected them. If they were limited, the effect of lobbyists would be very much muted, the same people would not run the key committees in the House/Senate, and the voters would have a much greater say in DC.

[Beans]

Lets face it, the system is broken, and the only ones who can fix it are the ones who are benefiting from the system, so we're basically screwed.

Do not give up hope my child. There will be a day of reckoning.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Do not give up hope my child. There will be a day of reckoning.

viva le revolucion?

[sacase]

This is the problem, they need to have term limits and they need to represent their states, not their political party. Its like the state they represent is an afterthought.

[adam@section118]

You say people will be be "normal" with 2 years in the real world, but I think they will just find other jobs (like lobbyists) to keep themselves busy.

I do think we have a problem, I am just not sure term limits is the answer.

---------- Post added April-8th-2011 at 12:53 PM ----------

This is the problem, they need to have term limits and they need to represent their states, not their political party. Its like the state they represent is an afterthought.

Agreed

---------- Post added April-8th-2011 at 12:54 PM ----------

This is the problem, they need to have term limits and they need to represent their states, not their political party. Its like the state they represent is an afterthought.

Agreed

[pjfootballer]

I think term limits are needed because not enough people are smart enough to do research on the candidates and pretty much vote incumbent.

[twa]

I think term limits are needed because not enough people are smart enough to do research on the candidates and pretty much vote incumbent.

That or by party...or whoever promises them goodies

Ya get what ya vote for

I like term limits,but even that won't fix stupidity

[karmacop]

No term limits. If people don't like how the politician is representing his or her constituents, just vote him or her out. That the "term limit" right there.

Doing anything else is just admitting that the American people are too stupid and lazy to vote a bad politician out. While it might be true that some (most?) Americans are indeed stupid and lazy when it comes to politics, then we need to address that problem directly. Term limits is just an easy answer for a complex problem, and therefore actually does little to nothing to address that root problem.

[Darth Tater]

With no term limits, we the people have some oversight. Still have professional politicians but at least those guys could be voted out of office. Term limits create government by a professional government class that cannot be voted out. We really need to understand the core problem: the government system we are under is not empowered to do what most of us want it to do. Of course, if it got the power to do what we want it to do, we'd find out that its really expensive and I'm not just talking about money here. We also would likely to find that we'd basically be fighting gravity with no power source to do so.

[Hubbs]

I don't understand how anyone can look at the incumbent reelection rates and say that we don't need term limits.

[Predicto]

I don't understand how anyone can look at the incumbent reelection rates and say that we don't need term limits.

Because term limits make government worse, not better. We have learned that the hard way here in California, where we have term limits and the result is that Sacramento is completely controlled by unaccountable lobbyists and staffers.

You have identfied a genuine problem, but perhaps term limits is not the only possible solution.

[karmacop]

I don't understand how anyone can look at the incumbent reelection rates and say that we don't need term limits.

This is a problem with those casting the ballots, not the politicians.

[mcsluggo]

i don't want term limits... that is the purpose of elections.

---------- Post added April-8th-2011 at 08:28 PM ----------

I don't understand how anyone can look at the incumbent reelection rates and say that we don't need term limits.

because we look at the boogar eating morons that replace them.....

we DO need districting guidelines and oversight.

[thebluefood]

Do not give up hope my child. There will be a day of reckoning.

When, oh wise one? When?

[Darth Tater]

The only reason I can think that anyone wants to install term limits is to rid the last shred of evidence that we are governed and not the slaves of our corporate masters. To insure that what we are slaves who not only are enslaved but carry the whole burden of that slavery.

[88Comrade2000]

You said no, but you just described term limits.

Well, not pure term limits. I think term limits people wants people to serve x amount of years and that's it. My version I guess is limited form of term limit but the people are just restricted for a term and are free to run again. Similar to what many states do for governor.

[Nerm]

I'm torn on the idea. I think term limits could result in better government policy… But I hate using the constitution to restrict the citizen’s rights to vote for the person they want. I think I would rather see the status quo continue than see the constitution used to further restrict individual rights. The voters will get the politicians they deserve in the end.

[Fergasun]

I think we need some type of opposition Congress which is made up of smart people who do things rationally and make rational proposals. Kind've like a mock government, yes it also mocks the Democrats and Republicans.

For instance; I really don't care what is done to control health care costs; but I want to see the insurance companies called out for jacking up their profits as well as health care providers called out for taking advantage of the pricing as well.

I want to see the too big to fail banks and other financial institutions get taken on.

I want to see the claim that our national debt isn't a big financial crisis issue.

I want to see the case made against the war-like way we carry out our foreign policy.

I want to see all these things debated in an honest manner, rather than the dishonest rigged debates we see with our current government.