Term Limits

[Will E Worm]

Term limits...

They should also be held accountable, which means they can lose their jobs.
We need a faster recall and firing process

 

[ThatRedWing]

As far as I'm concerned it's all on the American public. You have the power to vote other people into office yet you don't. Voting is more effective than term limits. Quit bitching about the problem and do something about it.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

As far as I'm concerned it's all on the American public. You have the power to vote other people into office yet you don't. Voting is more effective than term limits. Quit bitching about the problem and do something about it.

If you vote, you have the right to bitch. I haven't missed an election since I was 18, NOT ONE> I might not have voted on every issue up for vote on a specific ballot, but I showed up, and cast votes for what I was educated about, and what was important to my community at the time. I agree, there should be term limits, and a faster way to fire, and hold accountable public servants, that fail to realize their obligation, and for whom they work.

Now, if you don't vote, because you can't be bothered, or you don't want to serve on jury duty....shut the fuck up, you got what you deserved. I don't care if you pay taxes, your input counts. If you aren't allowed to vote....I don't know what to say, I guess that ones an answer I don't have.

 

[mikexmoran]

The problem with the approach that "You can just vote them out" is that they are bought and paid for. Keeping a congressman (like mine) in for decades and providing them with seniority gives not only them, but their district power that may not be deserved. I don't think there is a single fix. I do think term limits would help. Also, get ride of corporations being able to donate to campaigns. Make PACs a thing of the past and there will be improvements.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The problem with the approach that "You can just vote them out" is that they are bought and paid for. Keeping a congressman (like mine) in for decades and providing them with seniority gives not only them, but their district power that may not be deserved. I don't think there is a single fix. I do think term limits would help. Also, get ride of corporations being able to donate to campaigns. Make PACs a thing of the past and there will be improvements.

My thought on the contribution thing was as follows, although I'm sure it has flaws, I think it's a decent foundation.

Any, and all political candidates, no matter how high, or low on the food chain, shall receive NO outside contributions from ANY organization, or lobby group. They may also only use a certain amount of their own money (a figure to be decided, and based upon their level in politics). However, as part of the television and radios requirement for existence is that they get a license on a regular basis. As part of their "dues" for that, they must give equal time to EVERY candidate, and likewise with the newspapers. So a local tv or radio station would have to give time to mayors, and counsel men, bigger channels would cover Governors and presidents, etc. The newspapers would have to provide equal page space, etc. and cable and pay services would also need to do something too. I realize this would cause us to be exposed to more of their nonsensical commercials, but if it kept them from having their pockets stuffed from the private sector. I also think, they should be required to roll any stocks, if elected, out of anything that would concern the public interest...like oil, etc., and put that money into some other investment option, that would not cause them to loose any money...but won't also cost the American public any money. They should also not be allowed to follow their political carrer at places like the FDA, or other similar situations, that lead to favoritism...nor should they be coming from those places.

Like I said, I realize it's probably cluttered with flaws....but I think there are some valid points, for a decent foundation in there somewhere.

 

[mongo18]

I don't think term limits are the silver bullet that so many people think they would be. If they know they're out at the end of their second term, they have zero incentive to do their job and every incentive to feather their nests in the private sector.

 

[Will E Worm]

I don't think term limits are the silver bullet that so many people think they would be. If they know they're out at the end of their second term, they have zero incentive to do their job and every incentive to feather their nests in the private sector.

They would be held accountable, which means they can lose their jobs and be jailed.

 

[mikexmoran]

My thought on the contribution thing was as follows, although I'm sure it has flaws, I think it's a decent foundation.

Any, and all political candidates, no matter how high, or low on the food chain, shall receive NO outside contributions from ANY organization, or lobby group. They may also only use a certain amount of their own money (a figure to be decided, and based upon their level in politics). However, as part of the television and radios requirement for existence is that they get a license on a regular basis. As part of their "dues" for that, they must give equal time to EVERY candidate, and likewise with the newspapers. So a local tv or radio station would have to give time to mayors, and counsel men, bigger channels would cover Governors and presidents, etc. The newspapers would have to provide equal page space, etc. and cable and pay services would also need to do something too. I realize this would cause us to be exposed to more of their nonsensical commercials, but if it kept them from having their pockets stuffed from the private sector. I also think, they should be required to roll any stocks, if elected, out of anything that would concern the public interest...like oil, etc., and put that money into some other investment option, that would not cause them to loose any money...but won't also cost the American public any money. They should also not be allowed to follow their political carrer at places like the FDA, or other similar situations, that lead to favoritism...nor should they be coming from those places.

Like I said, I realize it's probably cluttered with flaws....but I think there are some valid points, for a decent foundation in there somewhere.

I think its a good start.

I don't think term limits are the silver bullet that so many people think they would be. If they know they're out at the end of their second term, they have zero incentive to do their job and every incentive to feather their nests in the private sector.

True. It could be just like winning the golden ticket and everyone goes for the two terms to get in as much of the bribe money as possible. As the cupcake says, they should then go to jail. I'd hope that there would be more people realizing this isn't a career and they go in to actually do some good.

They would be held accountable, which means they can lose their jobs and be jailed.

Also, if the term limits are based at a decade or under, there is no reason to provide pensions or privileges for life. No exemptions from laws, etc.

 

[tsans]

When the people of Washington State overwhelmingly voted for Term Limits (70+percent) then Rep. Tom Foley (remember him?) announced that he would fight it.
The first Court upheld the Vote, Rep. Foley proclaimed he would fight it, and use your money to do so.
The Appeal negated the peoples vote on the grounds that a National Vote could only impose restrictions on a Federal Rep. Even though the individual is elected by District.
Foley was defeated in the next election cycle, and then found a very lucrative position on K Street
Once again the Judiciary negating the Peoples Vote.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

And that's another thing that pisses me off. Supreme Court justices should be elected by the people, and it should not be a life long job.