Term Limits for Congress?

[AVG_JOE]

I think they're way over due... 1 each 6 year term - there is some campaign finance reform that might help.

-Joe

[bairdi]

I agree with you Joe.

[Dale escondido]

I agree with you Joe.

Agreed absolutely, The start of representation of the people in congress.
In America ,woudnt that be something

[Mr. Blue]

I was going to make this thread myself today, but thought I would do a quick search to see if anyone else had discussed this in the past. I'm kind of surprised it only got a handful of replies.

I'd say the biggest problem in America at the moment is the lifelong politician. How do you go about getting these idiots to vote for term limits when it means most of them will be out of a job and the only thing they know how to do!

[disrupter]

if they vote for the Bush-Paulson magic pixie fairy bailout,

they very likely have term-limited themselves already.

my guess is voters will be 'less than happy' with them.
lynching is coming to mind . . .

[Independent Harry]

I think that would be on the best things we could do, outside of getting rid of lobbyists...

[asroc]

If they did this, I'd rather it be up to each state individually to decide if they want to set limits and for how long.

[AVG_JOE]

If they did this, I'd rather it be up to each state individually to decide if they want to set limits and for how long.

That would never work because each state knows that the most powerful critter in congress is the one who has been there the longest.

That is one reason (among many) that we currently have unlimited terms for those clowns.

-Joe

[asroc]

Incumbents get voted out in every election.

[Moby]

While I agree with term limits, I think 6 years for a Senator is too short of a cap. Maybe 3 terms for Senators and maybe 5 terms for Representatives.

The most dangerous people are those that know they won't be around next year as they're only looking for their golden parachute and buying up land in South America.

[SeedyROM]

2 terms maximum. The problems with lobbiests and corporate control is tied directly to long term money related relationships. You pad my back$$ and I'll pad yours. DC is the promised land if you want easy wealth, get a job and talk your way to an easy retirement.

2 terms works for the Presidency, so it should suffice for Congress ................imagine Bush in office for 5 or 6 terms.

[Mr. Blue]

The most dangerous people are those that know they won't be around next year as they're only looking for their golden parachute and buying up land in South America.

I slightly disagree with that. When a lobbyist is buying a politician they want a long term relationship. They're not going to dump huge money on the guy that's going to be out in a few years.

Imagine a group of politicians that know they're there to serve the country and get out within a few years. It's not this never ending cycle of looking at poll numbers, raising money for their next campaign. To me it's revolting to see people 20, 30, 40 years as a Senator.

Considering how horribly the country has been run they obviously don't know how to do their job and fresh faces should be brought in regularly.

[AVG_JOE]

I slightly disagree with that. When a lobbyist is buying a politician they want a long term relationship. They're not going to dump huge money on the guy that's going to be out in a few years.

Imagine a group of politicians that know they're there to serve the country and get out within a few years. It's not this never ending cycle of looking at poll numbers, raising money for their next campaign. To me it's revolting to see people 20, 30, 40 years as a Senator.

Considering how horribly the country has been run they obviously don't know how to do their job and fresh faces should be brought in regularly.

Is there any reason we can't follow up term limits with making professional lobbying a capital crime?

Just a thought...

-Joe

[SeedyROM]

If we had term limits the lobby money would thin down because corporations and special interests would blow through money too fast and too often. The people would slowly gain influence in DC, which is exactly what we need. If we cannot cut off the flow of money we must reduce the flow of capital flowing from lobbiests.

[Moby]

To me it's revolting to see people 20, 30, 40 years as a Senator.
This is true but I've spent a lot of time in Washington. First term Presidents focus on getting elected again and that means doing what the public wants. 2nd term Presidents usually focus on a retirement plan and don't care about the public as they have no use for them any more.

Look at how Washington has treated Bush the last two years. He's a lame duck and every knows he's gone.

I think it's a tough question. There's something to be said for politicians needing the support of voters and that means another term but there is also the issue of lobbyists want to spend money once instead of Evey few years.

I think they need the job for more then just a term or two but that's more of a gut feeling thing. 20 years is too long and 3 terms for Senators is probably too long as well but only 1 term is too short and last term politicians have too many reasons to be super crooked.

Just my 2 cents.

[SeedyROM]

So you changed your mind. 2 terms is enough, look at the damage done with unlimited terms. We need fresh minds in the snake pit house and the senate.

[QUOTE=SirMoby]While I agree with term limits, I think 6 years for a Senator is too short of a cap. Maybe 3 terms for Senators and maybe 5 terms for Representatives.

QUOTE]

[Moby]

Well, 3 terms for a Senator is 18 years and that's a long time but 2 terms I think has lots of problems. That means that usually 1/2 of congress is going on the take to find that retirement fund and basically have no need for voters any more.

18 years is a long time but anything less then 3 terms is dangerous as well. It seems that Senator's terms will have to be shortened.

[AVG_JOE]

Well, 3 terms for a Senator is 18 years and that's a long time but 2 terms I think has lots of problems. That means that usually 1/2 of congress is going on the take to find that retirement fund and basically have no need for voters any more.

18 years is a long time but anything less then 3 terms is dangerous as well. It seems that Senator's terms will have to be shortened.

I think that 1 term of whatever years with a vote of confidence at the 1/3 and 2/3 intervals would be best.

-No re-election waste of time.
-Still beholding to the people for the job but not running against anyone.
-Most will work hard to insure a favorable place in history or to launch a grand career.

Just my opinion...

-Joe

[Cat slave]

You make a good point! How about letting them earn more time...start with
2 years and if they behave they get two more etc. Hmm....that seems to
be already what they are doing......bringing home the pork to get re elected
everytime....never mind!

[Moby]

I think that 1 term of whatever years with a vote of confidence at the 1/3 and 2/3 intervals would be best.

-No re-election waste of time.
-Still beholding to the people for the job but not running against anyone.
-Most will work hard to insure a favorable place in history or to launch a grand career.

Just my opinion...

-Joe
That's actually an interesting thought and at first glance I like it. I'll think about it more but it does seem to solve many issues.

[Mr. Blue]

This is true but I've spent a lot of time in Washington. First term Presidents focus on getting elected again and that means doing what the public wants. 2nd term Presidents usually focus on a retirement plan and don't care about the public as they have no use for them any more.

Look at how Washington has treated Bush the last two years. He's a lame duck and every knows he's gone.

I think it's a tough question. There's something to be said for politicians needing the support of voters and that means another term but there is also the issue of lobbyists want to spend money once instead of Evey few years.

I think they need the job for more then just a term or two but that's more of a gut feeling thing. 20 years is too long and 3 terms for Senators is probably too long as well but only 1 term is too short and last term politicians have too many reasons to be super crooked.

Just my 2 cents.

I understand your point, but politicians are now so beholden to what their party wants, they're so scared of going against what they're party wants, that they become obstructionists to moderate solutions that may not be exactly what the party wants, but at least it's forward progression instead of this constant deadlock.

I'm sure there's a lot of politicians that would vote differently if they didn't have to worry that their party would be pissed at them and wouldn't back them for a future campaign. It's very hard for politicians to get elected without the political machine behind them.

The long term politician gets owned...completely owned by their party, by lobbyists, and by poll numbers. They probably have to ask what to eat for lunch each day for fear of pissing someone off.

The RNC, DNC, both have too much power...they've become an obstruction. As a people we need to chip away at that power and lifelong politicians should be the first chip off the block.

[SeedyROM]

What if we had 2 term limits with a loophole that allowed politicians to move to another state, establish residence and run for office. A good politicain could be a rainman for a state. As is we have states falling behind on many levels, sometimes the failue is tied to job losses to other states. As well as neglect from DC.

[AVG_JOE]

...It's very hard for politicians to get elected without the political machine behind them...

This is a problem that needs to be addressed!

How can we take the "money" requirements out of campaigning? How can we set things up so that any average Joe can put ideas forward in their district, state or nation instead of rhetoric and talking points?

Are we, as a people, too stupid to elect on ideas rather than rhetoric?

-Joe