(11-12-2012 01:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Sorry, I already disagree with this. If so many people are in favor of term limits, you can institute term limits by voting someone out of office.

Am I happy to see career politicians in recent decades? Nope.. But you shouldn't just force a massive change like that on the governing body. If the people vote that way in the states, so be it.


The one thing I would like to see enforced (Although someone said it is now, but I have my doubts), members of Congress are subjected to the same laws they pass. (again, Congress didn't have to follow the ADA or Equal Opportunity laws for ages if they didn't want to.)

The reality is....Incumbents win at a very high percentage. They have the "machine" of their parties backing them up from the FIRST day in office. It is VERY hard to unseat an incumbent. You state we can vote them out? Of course...but...that does not happen. The lousy MOFO's stay in office because of PARTISANSHIP in the electorate. We all know plenty of folks that vote almost solely by party line.

Term limits have not happened because the chitbags in Congress don't want them. If this was brought to a national vote...it would be overwhelmingly passed. Until some grassroots effort by the people take place to have a Constitutional amendment?...Forget it ever happening.

(11-12-2012 01:48 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I'm in favor of revamping terms and term limits. The congress spends about 6 months legislating and then 18 months campaigning. The President gets maybe 6 years of work in a full 8 years, and the senate works for about 4 of ever 6. This just doesn't make sense.

Give the President 1 eight year term.

Congress should have 4 year terms with a maximum of 2 or 3 and keep the senate at 6 year terms with a max of 2.

Not a fan of the 8 year term..but..the rest I could live with. Maybe 5 year term for the POTUS.....Chit needs somehow to be odd in some of this.

If it was up to me you'd have a President for 1 term 6 year Presidency. Congress would have Two 6 years terms.

My biggest beef is how our politicians always kick things down the road. These men/women are more worried about the next election rather than doing whats right for the nation. Sometimes you are going to piss off your constituents, but its really old to me.

One thing that I found interesting is everybody is pissed off, so why did NOTHING change this past election.

My representative ran on term limits 20 years ago, saying he'd only serve two terms. He's still in the House. I voted for him his first two terms, and against him every time since.

(11-12-2012 07:55 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  One thing that I found interesting is everybody is pissed off, so why did NOTHING change this past election.

Because everybody blames the other side of the aisle as the reason they are pissed off. They continue to vote parties instead of issues.

(11-12-2012 07:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 01:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Sorry, I already disagree with this. If so many people are in favor of term limits, you can institute term limits by voting someone out of office.

Am I happy to see career politicians in recent decades? Nope.. But you shouldn't just force a massive change like that on the governing body. If the people vote that way in the states, so be it.


The one thing I would like to see enforced (Although someone said it is now, but I have my doubts), members of Congress are subjected to the same laws they pass. (again, Congress didn't have to follow the ADA or Equal Opportunity laws for ages if they didn't want to.)

The reality is....Incumbents win at a very high percentage. They have the "machine" of their parties backing them up from the FIRST day in office. It is VERY hard to unseat an incumbent. You state we can vote them out? Of course...but...that does not happen. The lousy MOFO's stay in office because of PARTISANSHIP in the electorate. We all know plenty of folks that vote almost solely by party line.

Term limits have not happened because the chitbags in Congress don't want them. If this was brought to a national vote...it would be overwhelmingly passed. Until some grassroots effort by the people take place to have a Constitutional amendment?...Forget it ever happening.

If the people want to vote based on partisanship, that's their right. I think it's stupid, but taking away their right to do so is not the right way to fix it. Education, education, education.

Congress will never have term limits. It will not happen. They're the ones who have to approve that in the first place, and they would sure as heck never do that to themselves. Though it is a great idea, the only way to do that is to change the Constitution (obviously they won't pass a law doing that). An amendment won't come from the Congress, and it would also be nearly impossible to get 3/4 of the states to do it. Not gonna happen, at least anytime within the next few decades.

You can always just vote someone out, if they're really horrible or disliked. Takes some real effort, but it's possible (see Allen West in Florida, lost his bid for re-election as an example).

(11-12-2012 07:58 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 07:55 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  One thing that I found interesting is everybody is pissed off, so why did NOTHING change this past election.

Because everybody blames the other side of the aisle as the reason they are pissed off. They continue to vote parties instead of issues.

It's the built-in advantage of incumbency, and the best argument for term limits I've heard yet.

We keep electing these clowns because everybody gives their own clown the benefit of the doubt, because they want to be right. It's everybody ELSE's clowns that are the problem.

(11-12-2012 07:58 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 07:55 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  One thing that I found interesting is everybody is pissed off, so why did NOTHING change this past election.

Because everybody blames the other side of the aisle as the reason they are pissed off. They continue to vote parties instead of issues.

This. JUST GET RID OF PARTIES.

I really don't know how you can think that taking away congresses concern over their constituents satisfaction with their job, as minor of a factor as it currently is admittedly, will make them more beholden to your interests.

The only problem I have with term limits is that I think Congresspeople will find a way to keep their perks and influence going after their last term is up. Having them in those new found positions may be worse than having them in elected office.

(11-12-2012 07:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 01:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Sorry, I already disagree with this. If so many people are in favor of term limits, you can institute term limits by voting someone out of office.

Am I happy to see career politicians in recent decades? Nope.. But you shouldn't just force a massive change like that on the governing body. If the people vote that way in the states, so be it.


The one thing I would like to see enforced (Although someone said it is now, but I have my doubts), members of Congress are subjected to the same laws they pass. (again, Congress didn't have to follow the ADA or Equal Opportunity laws for ages if they didn't want to.)

The reality is....Incumbents win at a very high percentage. They have the "machine" of their parties backing them up from the FIRST day in office. It is VERY hard to unseat an incumbent. You state we can vote them out? Of course...but...that does not happen. The lousy MOFO's stay in office because of PARTISANSHIP in the electorate. We all know plenty of folks that vote almost solely by party line.

Term limits have not happened because the chitbags in Congress don't want them. If this was brought to a national vote...it would be overwhelmingly passed. Until some grassroots effort by the people take place to have a Constitutional amendment?...Forget it ever happening.

Again, see 2010 which had a MAJOR shift of balance in the House, and the Senate Dems were worried about their control. I don't remember people complaining about the incumbent being impossible to unseat. Difficult yes. Impossible no?

But again, this is where we made a mistake changing to Popular votes for the Senate. You keep it at the State Level, and if there's a change in the state leadership, you're getting a change in the Congress level when that term is up.

The House is the vote of the people... if they vote them back in, they vote them back in. But the Senate. You think you're going to see the same people back EVERY term? One change in leadership (either a governorship or a legislature), and you're getting a new Senator.

Here.. let me ask you something. You put in term limits. What's to keep a Congressman from voting against _EVERYTHING_ That the voters sent him there for?

"It don't matter to me.. I'm on my way out due to a term limit. "

You set term limits, you remove any reason for a Senator/Rep to be accountable for his votes. (it doesn't matter if you're talking left or right leaning politicians... )