azdiver 0 #1 July 29, 2007 just wondering if any of you think term limits would be a good thing for congress?light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 July 30, 2007 I support the idea, but it should not be as definitive like the term limits for President. In the Senate for example, three consecutive six-year terms should be sufficient. In the House however, limits could be structured differently. I would submit that there would be limit to consecutive terms, but no limit to total time in office. For example, three consecutive terms (two years each) followed by a minimum four years "down time". You get the idea.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #3 July 30, 2007 QuoteI support the idea, but it should not be as definitive like the term limits for President. In the Senate for example, three consecutive six-year terms should be sufficient. In the House however, limits could be structured differently. I would submit that there would be limit to consecutive terms, but no limit to total time in office. For example, three consecutive terms (two years each) followed by a minimum four years "down time". You get the idea.i agree with you on the house three two year terms but the senate 18 years is a long time, maybe if it were three four year terms but three six year terms, not sure have to think on that alittle more.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 July 30, 2007 Quote Quote I support the idea, but it should not be as definitive like the term limits for President. In the Senate for example, three consecutive six-year terms should be sufficient. In the House however, limits could be structured differently. I would submit that there would be limit to consecutive terms, but no limit to total time in office. For example, three consecutive terms (two years each) followed by a minimum four years "down time". You get the idea. i agree with you on the house three two year terms but the senate 18 years is a long time, maybe if it were three four year terms but three six year terms, not sure have to think on that alittle more. My reasoning behind it is that the Senate is already designed around long term representation to begin with. If the Senator can stay in office that long, they've served a political career and could retire. It's an idea that I'm sure is not new within the beltway... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #5 July 30, 2007 Good luck getting career politicians to vote themselves out of a job...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #6 July 30, 2007 All elected positions should be: - One five year term. - No re-election. - After not holding office for one year, a person may again run for office. - No person currently holding an elected position may run for any election. The US government was supposed to be by the people, of the people, and for the people. A career politician is not one of the people. Politicians routinely make laws for the rest of us while exempting themselves. They might think twice about that if they knew they would soon be a part of the public and subject to the laws they enacted. Our current politicians start working on their next re-election the day they take office. They are supposed to be working for the people who elected them, but instead they are looking for lobbyists with deep pockets and connections to help them win the next election."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #7 August 1, 2007 yeah but the reason for term limits would be to change their actions, the day after the last elections everyone was starting to campaign for the 08 elections if it was limited to a point were they couldnt run then they wouldnt be out not doing their jobs, we elect them and then they dont do anything except campaign for the next election. i total agree with ryoder on the not holding a position if you are running for another officelight travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 August 2, 2007 Quoteyeah but the reason for term limits would be to change their actions, the day after the last elections everyone was starting to campaign for the 08 elections if it was limited to a point were they couldnt run then they wouldnt be out not doing their jobs, we elect them and then they dont do anything except campaign for the next election. And instead you now would have lame ducks who would have their final term to do whatever they wanted to pad their own wallet and get a job for the forced retirement. In CA the term limits have been quite the joke- all it resulted in was a musical chair game where people alternate between city seats, state assembly and senate positions, and the lower tier executive branch slots like the Treasurer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #9 August 2, 2007 how is that different from what they are doing now? congress has the lowest approval rating right now than it has ever had, and its lower than bushes, all those democrates in congress keep pointing out how low Bushes approval is need to shut up and look at their own. if term limits were imposed and restrictions put on when they could run for another government position then there would be no swapping. If they were such a lame duck in their first office, they might find it harder to get reelected after their time out is over.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 August 2, 2007 you're trading the evil you know for the stupid evil you don't know. Junior legislators don't accomplish much, and it's not just because others have seniority. Making them all junior leads to a do little congress, with a limited institutional memory and a much higher degree of partisan behavior. If you like a 3 tier government where the White House is much bigger than the other two, it's a winning solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowflake 0 #11 August 3, 2007 Until something is done about campaign $$$$$ and corporations owning both "sides" it's all pissing in the wind. Corporation's run the government and our two party system gives them every opportunity to divide and conquer, which is exactly what they do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 August 3, 2007 Quotejust wondering if any of you think term limits would be a good thing for congress? I think that, like most here, term limits are great for those congressmen that disagree with me. But not so great for those the do agree with me. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
