Dispatcher
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Term Limits for Congress?
- Thread starter Dispatcher
- Start date
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Dispatcher wrote:
Dispatcher wrote:
Yes.
Dispatcher
Campaign Veteran
imported post
HankT wrote:
We need turnover, not the same club for 20 years at a time.
HankT wrote:
Yes good or Yes bad?
We need turnover, not the same club for 20 years at a time.
trailblazer2003
Regular Member
imported post
A resounding HELL YES! Now to find a politician willing to commit career suicide to get the job done.
A resounding HELL YES! Now to find a politician willing to commit career suicide to get the job done.
hellfogg
Regular Member
imported post
Term limits and salary caps! As far as getting the job done, Ron Paul has proposed legislation constantly to limit the number of terms a politician may serve. But, guess what happened to the proposal each time....
Term limits and salary caps! As far as getting the job done, Ron Paul has proposed legislation constantly to limit the number of terms a politician may serve. But, guess what happened to the proposal each time....
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
We have needed term limits for a long time, problem is; the senate and house get to keep their salaries for life. Sooooo, what needs to be done, in order to not violate the 27th Amdt. is to reduce the salary of a new congressman, limit his tenure to two terms in office, with a change in the "retirement package" they now get. With all new arrivals to congress, they must retire on Social Security, like everyone else has to. No more golden parachute retirement. This would force them to fix Social Security and would give them a little surprise; namely, if they hadn't worked a regular job long enough before they went into congress, they wouldn't be qualified to recieve anything, just like the "subjects" have to. They'd be forced to get real jobs and live with the decisions they made when in office.
The 27th Amdt made a mockery of "our" retirement, now it's our turn. Since we can't reduce the salary of a standing congressman, we'll just have to cange the rules for the new ones, and after the old guard has been eliminated by term limits, we'll have THEM by the balls for a change.
We have needed term limits for a long time, problem is; the senate and house get to keep their salaries for life. Sooooo, what needs to be done, in order to not violate the 27th Amdt. is to reduce the salary of a new congressman, limit his tenure to two terms in office, with a change in the "retirement package" they now get. With all new arrivals to congress, they must retire on Social Security, like everyone else has to. No more golden parachute retirement. This would force them to fix Social Security and would give them a little surprise; namely, if they hadn't worked a regular job long enough before they went into congress, they wouldn't be qualified to recieve anything, just like the "subjects" have to. They'd be forced to get real jobs and live with the decisions they made when in office.
The 27th Amdt made a mockery of "our" retirement, now it's our turn. Since we can't reduce the salary of a standing congressman, we'll just have to cange the rules for the new ones, and after the old guard has been eliminated by term limits, we'll have THEM by the balls for a change.
No1
Banned
imported post
terms 6 years, 2 years not turned out by dumb masses
terms 6 years, 2 years not turned out by dumb masses
WheelGun
Regular Member
imported post
The problem with career politicians is threefold:
1. The politicians that will have their careers truncated by term limits are the very same that will be required to vote in favor of term limits. Who in their right mind will sacrifice the future of their own careers in order to establish term limits? These guys are all friends with each other; they know they will be harming themselves and each other. Why do it?
2. As a politician gains seniority, he/she gains status within committees. These are very powerful positions. What voters back home will defeat a congressperson who has achieved seniority/power in Washington in order to replace him/her with a rookie with little power?
3. If a term limit law does take effect, the same politicians that voted for it will eventually vote to have it removed. See Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City
It will never happen under the present structure. The only way to establish term limits is for voters to always vote against the incumbent unless he or she has provided exemplary leadership that benefits all citizens of the US, not just those in the home district.
Yeah, right.
The problem with career politicians is threefold:
1. The politicians that will have their careers truncated by term limits are the very same that will be required to vote in favor of term limits. Who in their right mind will sacrifice the future of their own careers in order to establish term limits? These guys are all friends with each other; they know they will be harming themselves and each other. Why do it?
2. As a politician gains seniority, he/she gains status within committees. These are very powerful positions. What voters back home will defeat a congressperson who has achieved seniority/power in Washington in order to replace him/her with a rookie with little power?
3. If a term limit law does take effect, the same politicians that voted for it will eventually vote to have it removed. See Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City
It will never happen under the present structure. The only way to establish term limits is for voters to always vote against the incumbent unless he or she has provided exemplary leadership that benefits all citizens of the US, not just those in the home district.
Yeah, right.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
WheelGun wrote:
WheelGun wrote:
I share your pessimism, but defy it with foolish hope.
N00blet45
Regular Member
imported post
The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
N00blet45 wrote:
Seeing as how the Founders were not unfamiliar with the notion of term limits, the intent becomes clear here.
How easily the wool is pulled over our eyes...
Entrenched abuse of power is not eliminated by unseating it, but by stripping it of the power it unjustly usurped. I should know that. Thanks.
But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.
N00blet45 wrote:
This is an interesting point, I like it. If they were confined to the limits the Constitution places against them already, then their term duration would not matter.
Seeing as how the Founders were not unfamiliar with the notion of term limits, the intent becomes clear here.
How easily the wool is pulled over our eyes...
Entrenched abuse of power is not eliminated by unseating it, but by stripping it of the power it unjustly usurped. I should know that. Thanks.
But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
Dispatcher wrote:
Dispatcher wrote:
That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Statesman wrote:
Stop paying them.
Statesman wrote:
Well, a Career Politician is defined by the fact that money is to be made in it. That's what a Career is, something you get paid for...
Stop paying them.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
Yup, and we should be able to do it against the will of congress.
Instead of using the typical amendment proposalprocess of a two-thirds vote in the house and senate, two-thirds of the state legislatures canask Congress to call a national convention to propose theamendments. Then the states just need to ratify it. That pretty much leaves congress out of the loop. I don't think they can deny the state legislators if they vote for a convention.
ixtow wrote:
Yup, and we should be able to do it against the will of congress.
Instead of using the typical amendment proposalprocess of a two-thirds vote in the house and senate, two-thirds of the state legislatures canask Congress to call a national convention to propose theamendments. Then the states just need to ratify it. That pretty much leaves congress out of the loop. I don't think they can deny the state legislators if they vote for a convention.
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
Let me put it another way. Do chickens stop feeding themselves to the wolves? Of course not! The wolves just laugh at their resistance and eat them anyway.
With our current Congress, it's no different. We are food for them, and we seem to have little control over their spending habits.
ixtow wrote:
How do we stop paying them? How do we convince someone making $200+k a year, to only work part time and make $20k? Who is going to vote for that, besides Ron Paul of Texas?
Let me put it another way. Do chickens stop feeding themselves to the wolves? Of course not! The wolves just laugh at their resistance and eat them anyway.
With our current Congress, it's no different. We are food for them, and we seem to have little control over their spending habits.
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
Brass Magnet wrote:
This is the answer then! I forgot about this process, since we don't use it anymore. The only problem I have is your use of "ask Congress", which would imply voluntary compliance with state demands. I would hope a 2/3rds majority forces Congress into a national convention.
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
Many people fear a Constitutional Convention, thinking it would be opening the floodwaters for new Amendments. I say give freedom a chance.
As far as term limits: A few years ago there was some grumbling to change the way Virginia handled it's Governor. He cannot be re-elected. Must sit out a term before running again. I think all elected offices could benefit from this 'no reelection' system.
Many people fear a Constitutional Convention, thinking it would be opening the floodwaters for new Amendments. I say give freedom a chance.
As far as term limits: A few years ago there was some grumbling to change the way Virginia handled it's Governor. He cannot be re-elected. Must sit out a term before running again. I think all elected offices could benefit from this 'no reelection' system.
NightOwl
Regular Member
imported post
paramedic70002 wrote:
I'm one of them. The chance of a "United States of California" seems pretty high, and that scares the heck out of me. The way the masses seem to be these days is more like a bunch of nosy busybodies who want to run everyone else's lives (with California laws being a great example-what happened to personal freedom, and why do we need a law for absolutely everything?). A Constitutional Convention is a very scary thing indeed.
Anyhow, to the original topic of the thread, is it possible to have it enacted on a state by state basis, with state laws prohibiting reelection of their senators/congressmen? Might be able topush that onto a poll in quite a few states.
paramedic70002 wrote:
I'm one of them. The chance of a "United States of California" seems pretty high, and that scares the heck out of me. The way the masses seem to be these days is more like a bunch of nosy busybodies who want to run everyone else's lives (with California laws being a great example-what happened to personal freedom, and why do we need a law for absolutely everything?). A Constitutional Convention is a very scary thing indeed.
Anyhow, to the original topic of the thread, is it possible to have it enacted on a state by state basis, with state laws prohibiting reelection of their senators/congressmen? Might be able topush that onto a poll in quite a few states.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
NightOwl wrote:
NightOwl wrote:
It would likely only pass in those states who least need it...