Term limits: a good idea or just more smoke?

When asked why Obama didn't act on amnesty, or race relations and minimum wage issues, for that matter, while he controlled both houses, the pundits respond because he had to be re-elected.

The biggest argument the Republicans made in not fighting on this budget bill is Obama would veto anything that went against his assumed mandate and he didn't face re-election when the Republicans did.

Obama is now in his "lame duck' stage. So is this Congress.

Lame Duck seems to have been redefined into "I can do what I want" stage. The president, back in the day, would be held in check by the Congress and Senate as they faced re-election when the Lame Duck President didn't.

I know I am far from the brightest poster on ATS, but, this all adds up to re-election concerns puts the brakes on individual agenda, at least to some degree. Term limits actually allow the possibility of un-fettered personal agenda.

Right now I'd say term limits are a bad idea.

Please show me where I'm wrong on this. I have much to learn, I guess...

Lame duck stage? So what stage were they in before?

Lazy Cisticola stage?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Term limits restrict one person from holding those powers indefinitely. At this point only the President is limited in this way.

The pros and cons of term limits in Congress have been debated pretty heavily over the years, and there are many opinions among experts on both sides of the issue. Most experts agree that the main advantages of term limits are the potential for a reduction in corruption, an increase in the number of new ideas flowing into the legislative environment, and politicians who might potentially focus more on effective governance instead of constantly worrying about reelection as a top priority. Some of the potential negatives include a constant influx of inexperienced politicians, and the potential consequences of congressional leaders who don't have any concern about voter opinions.

Many experts believe that politicians have a tendency to grow more corrupt as they spend more time in office. Some blame this on the legislative environment, while others simply cite basic human weakness and the tendency of people to succumb to temptation if they are exposed for too long. Term limits are often seen as one potential solution for this problem. By shortening congressional terms, proponents hope to make sure that nobody sees becoming a congressional representative as a viable lifetime career choice, leading to more people who get into politics for noble reasons instead of a simple desire for power.

www.wisegeek.org...

I believe in order to effectively eliminate professional politicians we should limit terms for all of them, two terms and you are done at that level of government.
After your term is served, you may then register as a candidate for the next level, This means that a sitting Senator cannot run for vice-president or president but must complete his/her term as a senator first.

Obama is going to do what he wants, no matter what. He doesn't have to worry about re election and he doesn't seem to care what damage he causes to the party's image. The Democrats are jumping ship since the election showed them which way the wind is blowing and even Pelosi and Reid have had bad things to say about their Master, trying to look good for 2016. Hopefully, no one will fall for it, but, honestly, that's just wishful thinking. Using the excuse "He'll veto it anyway" is no reason not to try and it's looking like even the Democrats may be some help in stopping his amnesty bill.
Term limits would help stop the office holders being political weather vanes. The only reason the Dems are going against Obama, is to stay in office.. If Dems and Repubs couldn't stay in after a certain time, we'd see their real side, instead of them going along with whatever would make them look good for the next election cycle. It would also get rid of that good 'ol boy network, that only profits those who are members.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

The argument has been made that re-election is, in itself, the ultimate term limit.

I understand that on a federal level, the presidency is the only office subject to term limits.

My point being that I see many saying term limits expanded to Congress would be a good idea. I fail to where Term limits are a good idea at all.

Yes, there have been and are elected individuals I'd like to see gone from D.C. who get re-elected by their constituents, again and again. It looks like throwing the baby out with the bath water as much as anything.

Again, where is the benefits from term limits? Presidency or otherwise?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Term limits actually allow the possibility of un-fettered personal agenda.

I don't have time to link this but the founders established these limits based upon how long they figured it would take to learn how to cheat. Two years for senators and congressmen and four years for the president are the original terms.

People new at their jobs tend to want to do the best job they can. Entrenched representatives tend to use their experience to manipulate the system.

Thats why term limits were established. Looking at it today we see that all we have are entrenched stalwarts, using the system to further there own interests or those of powerful corporations, instead of the people's.

a reply to: nwtrucker

This is exactly the reason why the party system should go. When you have representatives labeled, all you get is political obstruction. Nothing gets accomplished because there is pressure on representatives to simply follow the party line. Our representatives don't have a mind of their own. It also divides the voting public where they blindly vote along party lines. A majority of voters vote along party lines in which their parent's were registered.

As far as tern limits go, I think it should have been established years ago! Too many representatives turn an expected temporary position into a life long political career. This leads to corruption and representatives gaining too much power and influence over other representatives.

Term limits are good but will not stop the buying off of politicians. Strictly public financed campaigns and a minimum of years before an outgoing official, elected or appointed, can take a job with a company, union or organization that lobbies.

a reply to: intrptr

Ok, I see that. Yet, the founding fathers left the decision to the voters whether to re-elect or not.

There just seems to be more downside than is generally mentioned and the current situation seems to underscore the downsides.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yet, the founding fathers left the decision to the voters whether to re-elect or not.

They, 'Gave us a Republic, if we can keep it'.

Benjamin Franklin said something like that.

It doesn't matter if their are term limits or not. As long as lobbyist and those they work for are in control, we still get the best government money can buy.

And not just at the federal level....even small local mayors and city councils are corrupted by $$$$.

What's sad is that the voters have no recourse other than to bend over and take it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr

Ok, I see that. Yet, the founding fathers left the decision to the voters whether to re-elect or not.

There just seems to be more downside than is generally mentioned and the current situation seems to underscore the downsides.

The Founders "Assumed" an intelligent and Informed voter.
That is not what we see at present, for the most part.

Perhaps what is needed is not only to limit the elected polticians time in power but also their ability to pass on that power so no child is allowed to run for the office of their parent until a full term has passed, doesn't stop them running for other offices but stops the parent basically saying vote for junior while still using their political rank

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

You raise an interesting point. "informed' voters....

It could be argued we've never had a more informed public that we do now!

How many voters could even read in the day-well back, not last century..LOL-. It's an interesting question.

Just how 'honest' was the media in the last century? How much interest did our grandfathers have in politics?

There were speakeasies, gentlemen's clubs where these thing were discussed. But no net, no ATS, no alternative medias.

Food for a thread.....

a reply to: WeRpeons

OK, down with the party system...Now what?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: WeRpeons

OK, down with the party system...Now what?

What?

And get rid of all the partisanship insults, manipulation, and money being made from bogus campaigns, radio and TV personalities whose only purpose is to spread dissension and hate, etc....

The political party system is an industry, established, scripted, manipulated, choreographed, just like any media event; with it's star like personalities, staff, support personnel, writers and a willing audience believing all the BS promoted by the various media shills.

I'm almost ashamed to say that my small video production LLC profits from this BS showboating by both parties, including the Libertarians. It's a business...what can I say?

If even the bogus fantasy political system was abolished; it would be replaced by an even more repressive system...not more freedom. ala a military coup.....

What would you suggest? Something like this?

www.rawstory.com...

a reply to: olaru12

What I meant with 'now what?' is replace it with what?

No parties, no whips, no bribes with national funds for re-election for individual members...all gone.

I say again , NOW WHAT?

In my opinion term limits should be abolished as it stands no one person has the ability to force any real change, the implementation of laws that would be required to actualy fix the machine would require someone to be in power longer than 4-8 years. But then I guess thats exactly how THEY want it I suppose.

a reply to: Kali74

You also have to stop all lobbying as well. No Union,corporation,business or organized groups can lobby any elected official. NO SUPER PACS.