Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should there be term limits for Congress?
YES 50 78.13%
NO 14 21.88%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2010, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,858,215 times
Reputation: 4585

Advertisements

How can term limits be accomplished?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2010, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Chicago Suburbs
3,199 posts, read 4,317,511 times
Reputation: 1176
Absolutely, there should be limits.

No coincidence that those who voted "No" are some of the loudest big government,statist tools on this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 09:59 AM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,297,629 times
Reputation: 3229
Not sure if anyone's said it, but it should be one six-year term for ALL... The President, Congress and the Senate....

Of course there's an up side and a downside to it....

The upside is that we don't have to worry about our elected officials beginning to campaign for the next election as soon as they take office.

Downside is that it would remove a lot of accountability... IOW why would a politician worry about going back on promises if they aren't going to be able to be re-elected anyway?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 10:24 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,698,118 times
Reputation: 5132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Not sure if anyone's said it, but it should be one six-year term for ALL... The President, Congress and the Senate....

Of course there's an up side and a downside to it....

The upside is that we don't have to worry about our elected officials beginning to campaign for the next election as soon as they take office.

Downside is that it would remove a lot of accountability... IOW why would a politician worry about going back on promises if they aren't going to be able to be re-elected anyway?
I didn't realize they worry about going back on promises either way. At least, I haven't seen that to be the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
I agree with what you've written here and earlier. But you have to ask yourself the question: why do we need so many interest groups and paid lobbyists to begin with? It's because whenever Congress is in session our liberties are in jeopardy. Congress has arrogated to itself the power to tax and regulate people and businesses to death. Lobbyists are paid to try to thwart that power as best they can. You mention guns. What business has Congress regulating the ownership of guns? What business has Congress doing most of what it does? Do you realize that we have come to the point that citizens fear their government? We are no longer the masters of our government but its subjects. Congress, or the President for that matter, no longer govern. They rule. If the role of government in our lives were drastically restricted there would be no need for lobbyists. Lobbyists go where the money and the power are. And that's certainly not with the people.
Whatever Congress or the resident Chief Executive does is legal within the powers enumerated to them within Constitution. If it isn't, someone will take a case to the Supreme Court and they'll rule the law invalid. That's how the system was designed. It's called checks and balances and it still works.

To cure what you see as ills would require a new Constitution and I doubt you'll find much support for that.

On the other hand, so few people know what's in the Constitution or how our government works, that a good, smooth demogogue could come along and lead far too many people down the primrose path to a "better" America.

I hope you wouldn't be one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,756,288 times
Reputation: 49248
[quote=JimMe;12288210]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobknife99 View Post
I voted for term limits here, we have it and it hasn't helped. Municipal, teacher and prison guard Unions have a strangle hold on the state. And sadly beginning with Reagan's amnesty the formerly illegal immigrants and their offspring are all voting now and for Socialists of both parties. I'm moving out and taking my business with me.[/QUOTE

We've had the same experience here in Maine. When someone is term-limited in the State House of Representatives he or she runs for the State Senate and vice versa. So its always the same cast of characters playing musical chairs. So in addition to term limits there would need to be a provision that a person could not run for either House or Senate for a set period of time after having been term-limited out.
No one was a bigger Reagan fan than me, but if he made any mistakes and of course he did, the amnesty for illegals was the big one. I was just telling that to my son yesterday. He wasn't aware of this..I am sure, at the time, Reagan thought is was a very good idea..well, we see now how bad it really was.

People who are so anxious to see things like health care voted in and other things, need to think about what will be the outcome in say, 20 years? So many things seem fine on the surface, but in reality are disasters.

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Not sure if anyone's said it, but it should be one six-year term for ALL... The President, Congress and the Senate....

Of course there's an up side and a downside to it....

The upside is that we don't have to worry about our elected officials beginning to campaign for the next election as soon as they take office.

Downside is that it would remove a lot of accountability... IOW why would a politician worry about going back on promises if they aren't going to be able to be re-elected anyway?

Oklahoma enacted term limits for it's state government and guess what? When members of the Legislature are up against their limits and cannot be re-elected, their votes on important issues literally go up for sale to the highest bidder. Since they'll never again have to answer to the voters, not surprisingly, a good many of them rake in all the cash they can.

Yeah...that's progress!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
How can term limits be accomplished?
Term limits may only be enacted at the state level. Since we have no true, national elections, but a joint series of state elections, it is the states themselves which may set limits to the number of terms and some have. For Congress to do it would require a Constitutional amendment giving them the authority to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 11:14 AM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,674,422 times
Reputation: 7943
I guess if you like the idea of having a bunch of amateurs running Congress, then term limits are a good idea.

If people are unhappy with their representative, they can vote their representative out of office. We don't need term limits; they're anti-government and only serve to reinforce the idea that government is bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 11:21 AM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,916,363 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
I guess if you like the idea of having a bunch of amateurs running Congress, then term limits are a good idea.

If people are unhappy with their representative, they can vote their representative out of office. We don't need term limits; they're anti-government and only serve to reinforce the idea that government is bad.
you don't think we have a bunch of amateurs running things now?

our entire system needed a bailout!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:03 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top