Term Limits in Congress? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

We have term limits it's called voting.

We also have gerrymandering and rigged balloting to exclude third parties.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some systems function quite well where the people vote mostly for the party. Maybe we should think about something like that instead.

How's it working here in the US?

People are already voting just for party with little clue of who they are voting for as a person or their policies.

 

[roadkill1292]

Some systems function quite well where the people vote mostly for the party. Maybe we should think about something like that instead.

How's it working here in the US?

It doesn't work very well with the outdated constitution we have.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some systems function quite well where the people vote mostly for the party. Maybe we should think about something like that instead.

How's it working here in the US?

It doesn't work very well with the outdated constitution we have.

See, I love that Constitution.

 

[Rayderr]

Some systems function quite well where the people vote mostly for the party. Maybe we should think about something like that instead.

How's it working here in the US?

People are already voting just for party with little clue of who they are voting for as a person or their policies.

You don't say.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Change HoR terms from 2 year to 4 years. Change elections for House to coincide with presidential mid term. Term limit: 3 concurrent terms.

Senate: 3 concurrent terms

This was an idea I had years ago. I don't know what to do about working a term in the House and jumping to the Senate...that's a lot of concurrent years.

 

[Sarnoff]

For the House: raise the limit of 435 Representatives. Make it so each district has about the same population, so each representative represents about the same number of people. If this means the House is 1500 or 6000 representatives, fine.

For the Senate: Repeal the 17th amendment. Have the States directly pick their two Senators. For the first Senator, each Governor nominates 5 people, of which the state legislature picks one; then, for the second Senator, the legislature puts up 5 people, of which the Governor picks one, for each term.

 

[Two Deep]

I kind of like the old senile geezers making our most important decisions. Thurmond and Byrd needed assistants to raise their hands...similar to a marionette.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

We have term limits it's called voting.

Yeah, I'm not going to wade through all of the posts here.

Pretty simple IMO...let the constituents in each district vote for whoever they want. Term limits undermines the basic principle of "direct representation".

 

[NutterButter]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

So you're against term limits for the presidency then?

Yup.

You just want 4 more years of Obama you sly dog you.

 

[Ilov80s]

It won't make a difference, may actually be harmful. It gives the lobbyists all the power (as if they didnt have evough), this has come up a million times before. There isn't an answer, #### is ####ed sideways and always has been. Life gets on well evough inspite of it all.

 

[Sarnoff]

Term limits won't solve the problem.

Allowing incumbents to vote themselves large amounts of taxpayer money to run their campaigns is the problem that needs to be solved. And I include public employee unions, getting taxpayer money from the politicians, then donating the money back to the same politicians campaigns, in that problem.

 

[Fennis]

It won't make a difference, may actually be harmful. It gives the lobbyists all the power (as if they didnt have evough), this has come up a million times before. There isn't an answer, #### is ####ed sideways and always has been. Life gets on well evough inspite of it all.

Lobbyists already have all the power. Who do you think writes the majority of legislation? It is all almost completely done by lobbyists. They will not get more power. They already run and own DC.

 

[Ilov80s]

It won't make a difference, may actually be harmful. It gives the lobbyists all the power (as if they didnt have evough), this has come up a million times before. There isn't an answer, #### is ####ed sideways and always has been. Life gets on well evough inspite of it all.

Lobbyists already have all the power. Who do you think writes the majority of legislation? It is all almost completely done by lobbyists. They will not get more power. They already run and own DC.

I don't know if they have all the power. Right now, voters could vote out anyone that seemed unfaithful to their ideals and continue to vote in anyone that stood for the people. If you put a term limit in, by the off chance the voters give a #### and an elected rep. is actually a quality individual, it is irrelevant because he will be forced out by the system. Term limits protects lobbyists from the off chance that the voters ever get their act together.

 

[Rayderr]

It won't make a difference, may actually be harmful. It gives the lobbyists all the power (as if they didnt have evough), this has come up a million times before. There isn't an answer, #### is ####ed sideways and always has been. Life gets on well evough inspite of it all.

Lobbyists already have all the power. Who do you think writes the majority of legislation? It is all almost completely done by lobbyists. They will not get more power. They already run and own DC.

I don't know if they have all the power. Right now, voters could vote out anyone that seemed unfaithful to their ideals and continue to vote in anyone that stood for the people. If you put a term limit in, by the off chance the voters give a #### and an elected rep. is actually a quality individual, it is irrelevant because he will be forced out by the system. Term limits protects lobbyists from the off chance that the voters ever get their act together.

I'd say that term limits would make lobbyists work harder. Every 8 years or whatever, they'd have to go out and establish new relationships with the newly elected politicians. As it is, they establish a relationship, then they don't have to do squat except mail out checks for the next 30 years or so.

 

[Insein]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

We have it for the highest office in the land and in almost every state for governor. Why wouldn't we limit the power for everyone else?

While it could be consider anti-democracy, our country was founded more on the principle of fair representation. When someone builds up a power base for 10, 20 or 50 years, what chance does anyone but father time have of stopping them?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

What if voters in some districts make the collective decision to implement term limits? So be it?

That's just current voters dictating to future voters who can and can't represent them. I don't like that either. If they want to implement present term limits they can vote out the incumbent when they decide he/she has reached their limit.

If people want to limit the lengths of terms, they have plenty of options available to them. They can vote for the challenger in their district/state. They can donate money or time to campaigns of people challenging long-time incumbents. They can donate money or time to the anti-incumbent Super PAC. Honestly, the push for term limits kind of feels like a bunch of people who want a certain result but don't have the energy to work for it in the "free market" of elections asking the government to construct artificial barriers to that market that will do their work for them.

 

[NCCommish]

We have term limits it's called voting.

We also have gerrymandering and rigged balloting to exclude third parties.

Which wouldn't be at all affected by some random term limit.

 

[BassNBrew]

We have term limits it's called voting.

We have help for the poor, it's called school.

 

[BassNBrew]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

What if voters in some districts make the collective decision to implement term limits? So be it?

That's just current voters dictating to future voters who can and can't represent them. I don't like that either. If they want to implement present term limits they can vote out the incumbent when they decide he/she has reached their limit.

If people want to limit the lengths of terms, they have plenty of options available to them. They can vote for the challenger in their district/state. They can donate money or time to campaigns of people challenging long-time incumbents. They can donate money or time to the anti-incumbent Super PAC. Honestly, the push for term limits kind of feels like a bunch of people who want a certain result but don't have the energy to work for it in the "free market" of elections asking the government to construct artificial barriers to that market that will do their work for them.

All good in theory, but the system is set up where you get more power in Congress based on length of service for the most part. It's against an individual district's interest to vote out their incumbent. Want a bigger piece of the pie, keep you person in office as along as possible.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We have term limits it's called voting.

We also have gerrymandering and rigged balloting to exclude third parties.

Which wouldn't be at all affected by some random term limit.

That's a good point, but at least it would give reformers a shot every so often.

I've seen this locally.

 

[Clifford]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.

Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

 

[NCCommish]

We have term limits it's called voting.

We have help for the poor, it's called school.

Yeah because when you are hungry and sick learning is easy.

 

[tom22406]

By the way - search function?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=300086&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=493275&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=617666&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=382342&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

I tried the search here but clearly I suck at the internets so thanks for these.

 

[Rayderr]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

 

[NCCommish]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

 

[Rayderr]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

 

[NCCommish]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

They don't become millionaires off their pay, you can't be that uninformed.

 

[Rayderr]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

They don't become millionaires off their pay, you can't be that uninformed.

Inform me Mr. Wizard.

 

[NCCommish]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

They don't become millionaires off their pay, you can't be that uninformed.

Inform me Mr. Wizard.

Seriously? You think these guys are banking their pennies? Man to be that naive again. Look all the ways these guys use their offices to make money has been well documented. Try the google.

 

[Rayderr]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

They don't become millionaires off their pay, you can't be that uninformed.

Inform me Mr. Wizard.

Seriously? You think these guys are banking their pennies? Man to be that naive again. Look all the ways these guys use their offices to make money has been well documented. Try the google.

So you don't know. Got it.

 

[roadkill1292]

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

 

[Rayderr]

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

That may be. But still, no one has been able to explain how politicians are becoming millionaires while in office because of the lobbyists.

 

[CBusAlex]

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

That may be. But still, no one has been able to explain how politicians are becoming millionaires while in office because of the lobbyists.

By passing legislation favorable to whatever investments they have, and/or using their insider knowledge of future legislation to make investments that stand to gain from it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

That may be. But still, no one has been able to explain how politicians are becoming millionaires while in office because of the lobbyists.

By passing legislation favorable to whatever investments they have, and/or using their insider knowledge of future legislation to make investments that stand to gain from it.

That has nothing to do with lobbyists. Also, the article is dated 2011, prior to the passage of the STOCK Act.

 

[Rayderr]

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

That may be. But still, no one has been able to explain how politicians are becoming millionaires while in office because of the lobbyists.

By passing legislation favorable to whatever investments they have, and/or using their insider knowledge of future legislation to make investments that stand to gain from it.

What does that have to do with lobbyists?

 

[CBusAlex]

What does that have to do with lobbyists?

It doesn't. But "base salary" and "lobbyists" are not the only ways for Congressmen to make money.

 

[NCCommish]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

They don't become millionaires off their pay, you can't be that uninformed.

Inform me Mr. Wizard.

Seriously? You think these guys are banking their pennies? Man to be that naive again. Look all the ways these guys use their offices to make money has been well documented. Try the google.

So you don't know. Got it.

Sorry the google doesn't work on your computer that must suck.

 

[Rayderr]

What does that have to do with lobbyists?

It doesn't. But "base salary" and "lobbyists" are not the only ways for Congressmen to make money.

But the statement that started this whole conversations was "Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists."But now, you too, have said that politicians get money from politicians. Care to expand on that?

 

[Rayderr]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists.Term limits won't do anything unless we stop the flow of money.

lobbyists can not give money directly to the candidate. They can contribute to the candidates campaign. People in congress like that $174k+ per year. They will gladly take the campain money to help ensure that they keep getting that nice fat salary.Now, lower that salary to, say, $40k. Suddenly that job becomes a lot less desirable to people just looking for wealth and fame. So you get more people who are who are more interested in changing the country. Will they accept the campaign money? Probably. But they probably won't become career politicians either.

People raise over a billion dollars to fight for a job that pays 400k. It isn't the pay. These guys become millionaires while in office. They would still do that.

It's easy to become millionaires in office when you're earning $174k+ per year (it takes about 5.75 years to become a millionaire at that salary.) It would be a lot harder for them to become millionaires at $40k a year.

The money they raise to run for office doesn't go into their personal bank accounts.

They don't become millionaires off their pay, you can't be that uninformed.

Inform me Mr. Wizard.

Seriously? You think these guys are banking their pennies? Man to be that naive again. Look all the ways these guys use their offices to make money has been well documented. Try the google.

So you don't know. Got it.

Sorry the google doesn't work on your computer that must suck.

Oh quit being baby because I'm calling you out on defending your position and you can't.

 

[Fennis]

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

That may be. But still, no one has been able to explain how politicians are becoming millionaires while in office because of the lobbyists.

By passing legislation favorable to whatever investments they have, and/or using their insider knowledge of future legislation to make investments that stand to gain from it.

That has nothing to do with lobbyists. Also, the article is dated 2011, prior to the passage of the STOCK Act.

Rayderr, your math is way too simplistic.

That may be. But still, no one has been able to explain how politicians are becoming millionaires while in office because of the lobbyists.

By passing legislation favorable to whatever investments they have, and/or using their insider knowledge of future legislation to make investments that stand to gain from it.

That has nothing to do with lobbyists. Also, the article is dated 2011, prior to the passage of the STOCK Act.

The same STOCK Act that was basically repealed?

 

[Fennis]

It wont get any worse than it is now.

Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills

snip

WASHINGTON — Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.
One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What does that have to do with lobbyists?

It doesn't. But "base salary" and "lobbyists" are not the only ways for Congressmen to make money.

"Lobbyists" are not a way for members to make money, unless you're saying that they can get cushy jobs after they leave Congress.

People see, to have a very skewed viewpoint of the profitability of the job. It can set you up well after you leave, and many members are wealthy before they arrive, but generally, only criminals get super-rich due to their service while they're still in Congress.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The same STOCK Act that was basically repealed?

Basically repealed is a bit of an overstatement for an amendment that removed only the disclosure requirements and is only applicable to staff, isn't it? It changed absolutely nothing for the members themselves, which was the topic of discussion.

On the amendment- some members of the media got a little melodramatic about it, because they know Congressional outrage sells, as this thread demonstrates. But if you take the time to see what was actually done you'll see that it wasn't really all that interesting, and was done for good reason.

 

[Fennis]

We have term limits it's called voting.

We also have gerrymandering and rigged balloting to exclude third parties.

Which wouldn't be at all affected by some random term limit.

an election system that gives every single advantage to incumbents is by its very nature corrupt.

 

[CBusAlex]

But the statement that started this whole conversations was "Salaries are nothing compared to money they get from lobbyists."

I chose a poor post to quote; I was actually responding more to your and NCC's debate over whether politicians are getting rich primarily off their base salary.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Hey Congress, would you guys mind passing this bill which would make it harder for you to win reelection?

You'd face an even bigger hurdle convincing them to pass a bill to not allow them to run at all.

Yup. The great flaw in our system. We've allowed it so that those in power can game the system to keep themselves in power.

It's not new. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers intended it that way so they could have a nice powerful life in the new country.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Hey Congress, would you guys mind passing this bill which would make it harder for you to win reelection?

You'd face an even bigger hurdle convincing them to pass a bill to not allow them to run at all.

Yup. The great flaw in our system. We've allowed it so that those in power can game the system to keep themselves in power.

It's not new. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers intended it that way so they could have a nice powerful life in the new country.

Now state legislatures have passed term limits for themselves all over the country.

Maybe it's because Congress is so big.

The people do get in a reform mood, it would be nice to see a party pick the reform mantle up again because it would probably net them some votes.