I don't understand, given how things are today, how someone could argue AGAINST term limits.

[cherokeeprogressive]

We have 535 elected Congresscritters whose time in service totals well more than a THOUSAND YEARS. A thousand fucking years... and look at the state of OUR UNION. They've gotten RICH by "serving" the public interest, and this is what they've given US...

The people currently serving in our "representative democracy" have given us over $17 BILLION in debt, claim that their votes in certain committees are "classified", create, fund, and enable ALPHABET SOUP named agencies that collect each and every one of our communications with friends/families/acquaintances for later possible use against us, and enable themselves and their minions to be exempt from laws they expect us to adhere to.

Yeah, I don't understand.

[Tx4obama]

1. I'm against term limits.

I think that having some folks that have a lot of seniority is a good thing.

They have 'knowledge' of how and why things should be done or not been done in Congress that can be shared with the newer folks.

If there were only newbies in Congress I think there would be more a mess than there is now.

[SharonAnn]

19. If all Reps and Senators were "new", then the lobbyists would control things even more.

The lobbyists "help" them with their legislative duties. And if none of the elected people had any knowledge of the institution they're a part of, how critical wording is in legislation, etc. they've be complete pawns. And, they'd be "encouraged" to work with the lobbyists since they'd need a job with them soon.

It's that darned old "Law of Unintended Consequences".

[pnwmom]

34. Yes. n/t

[madokie]

42. That would be all fine and dandy IF

they were all honest. Trouble is as a whole they are not. How is is possible to be a senator and become a millionaire while serving the public in this position?
the only way I can see is to take money under the table for favorable treatment.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a congress critter. All one needs is a good understanding of the constitution and the rule of law. Anything more opens the door to unlawful behavior that one can use to fatten their own wallet.
If congress critters did the job they were elected to do seniority wouldn't matter much. IMHO

The original framers of our constitution expected that most people who would ascend to government service would at least be honest. Thats the failure in all this. They also expected a free press that would hold those elected officials honest to the oath they take.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. Term limits are a stupid idea.

What happens when you put in term limits? You get a legislative body that has no institutional memory and whose members don't know how to do their jobs effectively and won't have time to learn.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. STAFFERS run the government today. Do you think your elected representative READS or WRITES

the bills he or she supports or doesn't?

Seriously... seriously?

[liberal_at_heart]

8. yeah, I'd say we're already at a point where most politicians are incompetent, but what about the

good ones? There are a few really good politicians who know their job well and do their job well. We need them. They shouldn't be thrown out.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. It's a big herd... those who want congresscritter seats. Why do you think they want them? n/t

[backscatter712]

4. +1. Term limits don't work.

The only institutional memory that would be left under term limits would be in the hands of the lobbyists.

That and you'll be drumming out all the good and decent legislators with the bad ones.

You want Elizabeth Warren drummed out on term limits? I don't.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. A thousand fucking years of "experience", and here we are...

Do you really think your Congresscritter reads or writes ANY bill voted on in the House or Senate?

[backscatter712]

9. The problem isn't term limits. It's money in politics.

We have a system of legalized bribery and legalized extortion working on our elected officials, and the last brakes were taken off with Citizens United.

Now politicians have to kowtow to the moneyed elite, to get valuable campaign money and a cushy consulting/lobbyist job later on, or they get millions of dollars of attack ads run in their districts telling their voters they eat babies.

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. You might be right... and our congresscritters have ALREADY BENEFITTED...

Time to enrich another bunch who MIGHT have our best interests at heart rather than their own?

Hasn't it already been proven that THOSE WE HAVE weren't working on OUR BEST INTERESTS?

[cali]

41. Why yes, yes I know he does.

as in really know.

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Senators serve SIX YEAR terms.. if they haven't learned their jobs by the end of 1 term, they aren't

even fit for a 2nd term. Reps serve 2 year terms. If they haven't learned their jobs by the end of their 2nd term, they don't deserve their jobs, either.

BTW, don't you think people running for office already have some idea of what they're getting into un the first place? You know, like those people who go to college and major in.... oh, I don't know.. ummmm.... Political Science, or... ummmm.... Constitutional Law... and stuff.

What do you do, and how long did it take you to learn your job??

When I ran a construction company, and even when I had my own business, I hired many people with no experience, mainly because of memories of when I was young, just out of school and job hunting, and people wouldn't hire me because of no experience. How does someone gain experience if no one is willing to help them learn? Some people made the cut, some people didn't... but they got a chance. I *gave* them a job, it was up to them to learn and *keep* that job.

Ghost

[liberal_at_heart]

5. Campaign finance reform and repealing Citizens United would help more.

We must get money out of politics and when politicians are found to be corrupt we as voters should vote them out. That part is on us. We can make Congress a revolving door by voting them out. You don't represent the people, you're out. Would term limits help that problem? I don't know maybe, but not by itself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. All "politicians" are corrupt. That's WHY they seek their seats.

[cali]

40. bullshit. and simplistic bullshit at that.

[reusrename]

7. Dunno, eight more years of Clinton or eight years of dubbya?

Hmmmm....

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. How about a hundred years of NEITHER?

[reusrename]

18. snort!

OK then, FDR.

[JI7]

11. because the people voted for them, nobody is being forced to vote for them

term limits is one reason California has had such huge problems.

[Fumesucker]

12. A double standard is better than no standard at all

I don't think term limits will help and they could well hurt. Others have given most of the reasons I would cite for my opinion.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. The group of congresscritters we have now have over A THOUSAND YEARS experience between them.

A quick perusal of their financial statements beginning with their first term compared with their CURRENT term exposes success NOT POSSIBLE in the private sector. What does that say about the current system?

[Fumesucker]

25. If we were really serious about government then high positions would be filled by a draft

I sometimes think that the very best candidates for high public office would run screaming away if you approached them to be Senator, Congressman, President or what have you.

By best candidates I mean those who would do the job in the fairest and most equitable manner for all Americans, most of them wouldn't want the job because they would at least suspect the pressures they would have to endure.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Let the voters decide if someone has been in office long enough (nt)

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Do you think it's possible someone might vote for a candidate because their parents did?

Without knowing whether or not their vote was in their own best interest?

[Nye Bevan]

22. Yep. There are any number of stupid reasons why someone might vote for a candidate.

Perhaps because they are tall, or because they are good-looking. But in a democracy we let people vote for who they like even if their reasons are stupid.

Actually, if someone respects their parents, and their values, then voting for the guy your parents like is far from being the dumbest approach to deciding who to support.

[Fumesucker]

26. Hmm.. Obama is tall and good looking

No wonder he got so many votes.

[onyourleft]

32. Unless your parents...

...were Republicans and you were a Democrat. I never voted for the guy my parents liked. The only real argument regarding politics that my Dad and I ever had was when Regan was running. I respected my Dad, but not his politics as we were miles apart in our philosophy.

[kestrel91316]

20. I am completely opposed to term limits and 100% in favor of

publicly funded campaigns with NO corporate or 1%er influence.

[Nye Bevan]

24. What you want conflicts with the First Amendment.

Should a corporation be banned from publishing a book because it happens to say mean things about a candidate who is currently running for election? The First Amendment says "no, of course not" but this would be one example of "corporate influence" in an election campaign.

[kestrel91316]

47. F--- the corporations. Require that campaigns be entirely funded by public monies, and

require that all political ads not produced by candidates' organizations(that corporate free speech you are so enamored of) state exactly who is funding them in large letters and verbally for at least 15 seconds and provide their contact information.

Like I said: f--- the corporations.

[Nye Bevan]

48. An example of "Corporate Free Speech" is an editorial in the New York Times.

And yes, I am kind of "enamoured" by that sort of thing.

But on your other point, I have no problem with disclosure. The disclosure route is certainly preferable to the book-banning route.

[KinMd]

23. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

Supreme Court ruled term limits for Congress and Senate are unconstitutional.

[Tx4obama]

27. 535 congresscritters X 'two years' each = over 1000 years

So, I think that part of your argument is a bit silly

[Johonny]

28. +1

[RudynJack]

29. I'm vehemently against Term Limits

We've had them here in California, and it's fucked everything up.

Why should lobbyists be the only people with institutional knowledge?

[liberal_at_heart]

31. exactly. Limiting term limits does nothing to fix the lobbying problem.

[hrmjustin]

30. I have mixed feelings on term limits.

People should be able to vote for who they want but here in NY we have so many corrupt politicians that I would not mind limiting their terms. I voted for term limits for NYC elections in the late 90's but Bloomberg got rid of the law so he could run and then reinstated the law so no one could do what he did.

[markiv]

33. term limits guarantee that the moneyed side will always win

i leave it to the reader to figure out why

[Riftaxe]

35. I myself am against term limits until some sleazy

bastard runs on making them reality then reneges....I mean come on, your a politician you have no integrity in the first place but please.....and yes this one does have a d after his name.

Neither his previous political position or the letter makes him a decent human being.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Term limits is a right wing solution. Term limits hands government over to lobbyists...

Do some research on this.

[intaglio]

37. I agree with term limits but ...

your figures say that altogether 535 people have a total of 1000 years service - that's less than 2 years each is a zero missing somewhere?

[B Calm]

38. We already do have term limits, it's called elections.

[cali]

39. I am firmly against term limits. term limits are built in

And sorry, no fucking way do I want to see Bernie or Pat or Peter limited to how long they can serve.

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. I agree with you 100%... Unfortunately, we are in the minority and you won't find much support...

It's a shame, too. A lot of people just don't seem to understand that no term limits is how we get these inept, corrupt, useless bags of wind ensconced in their "cushy jobs" and become career politicians, sucking on the Government teat until they retire, or get indicted lol.

Enact term limits NOW!

Peace,

Ghost

[KharmaTrain]

45. They Don't Legislate, They Fundraise...

...especially Congresscritters. These days it costs at least $1 -2 million dollars to run for Congress and $10 or far more for the Senate. This means as much, if not more, of a politician's time is spent begging for bucks rather than legislating or working on behalf of constituents. As long as our non-stop campaign system sucks up so much money and time, there's going to continue to be polarization and "selling out" as politicians listen more to those who write the checks...

[alc]

46. new candidates need more assistance from the party

I think our problem is partys, not incumbents. Term limits will only strengthen party power.

Incumbents have the name recognition and can run off that and win with less party help. New candidates need the parties support (or can at least benefit greatly from it). So, when a term limit is reached and a number of people in both parties primary then those winners face each other in the general election, it's almost certain that the party choice will win. And that winner will owe the party more than the incumbent would have.
Once in, either new or old candidates will work to ensure that they get the parties support next time. Their biggest problem for reelection is having to primary again with a candidate the party selected over them. (unless you want a term limit of 1)

Also, with bigger turnaround and no elders, party powers outside of congress will have even more power since they will be the consistency in DC.

But, my biggest issue against term limits is that it limits who we are allowed to vote for. If I like "my guy" I want to be able to vote for him/her. The real problem is that voters are lazy and/or stupid and easily manipulated and that won't change by limiting their choices.