"60% of Americans say that they would fire every single member of Congress"
I as 1of 300 million say 60% of con-gress should be tried for treason and corruption.

most of the individual candidates you would want to limit to zero days

I haven't watched the video but Lice and Root Canals seems to be a reasonable comparison.

Perfect!...surprised that wasn't deemed "Hate Speech" by youtube/google...

I think we also have to limit their time in each level as well, not to mention that they need not address every idiotic concern of the public and we need to across to them that; they need, NOT TO MAKE MORE LAWS...just make the basic one's we have work better...most of which mainly apply to THEM!

Term limits would have cost us Ron Paul. What I recommend instead, and it is perhaps less effective than term limits (a downside, I admit), is a ban on seniority on committees.

Representatives and Senators frequently join or are appointed to committees, which in turn study various issues and make recommendations to the full chamber as to whether various bills should be approved or defeated. Because typically, the R's and S's don't review bills and their implications in detail for every bill, the committee members acquire considerable power, in practice if not in theory.

If someone's Representative or Senator is on one or more important committees, then voters may rationally prefer such a person even one who is corrupt and arrogant due to having the capacity to obtain pork-barrel projects instead of a freshman honest politician who will be unable to demand such pork. If every committee is forced to disband and reconvene anew with each biennial election, and the committee members' selection and promotion processes are explicitly forbidden from relating to seniority, then a motive for retaining R's and S's will disappear.

Sorry but term limits doesn't help and actually does more harm than good. Why? Because it has been tried. In California. Where I'm suffering with the result.
What used to be a left leaning government with an effective opposition has turned into a totally democrat controlled fiefdom where the opposition doesn't even have enough votes to stop anything.

If 60% of Americans would fire every member of Congress, then none of them should ever have been re-elected. Term limits are a lazy approach which adds more problems than it solves.

The first, and I think the most serious, is that it further disengages voters from the process of overseeing their government. Yes, officials who serve poorly are removed, eventually, though voters would feel less motivated to recall any but the very worst, but by the same token those who serve well, even the most exemplary, would be cut down with no regard to performance, and the voters would be powerless to change that.

Second, under term limits every elected official has a mandated final term after which they cannot be re-elected. The poor performers have that entire last term to do more or less as they please, lining their own pockets, setting up favors, or just relaxing. We all remember one of our Presidents telling the leaders of a historically rival nation that he'd "have more flexibility after [his] re-election," widely understood to mean he would no longer have to worry about how voters judged his actions. In fact, both good and bad elected officials would have to spend their last term-limited years in office, not in demonstrating to voters why they deserved another term, but making preparations for life after leaving office. The bad ones, as noted, would likely spend that time with little concern for the public, but even the good ones (yes, there have been a few over the years) would have to take time from their public service to make arrangements for their future.

What we need is not term limits, but educated voters who hold those they elect to high standards. The study of civics has fallen almost entirely out of favor, and the very concept of citizenship as a responsibility has been almost entirely replaced with an attitude of entitlement, perhaps the philosophical underpinning of JFK's "Ask not" exhortation.

Term limits YES.
But the real problem is the MONEY from the lobbyists.

Nothing gets done until a lobbyist writes a check to the DNC or the RNC. Which then distribute the money to keep the campaigns going, and the corruption starts there.

I support an open and rational debate on term limits, but to me it is a red herring. The problem is the policies of the actual politicians - not how long they have been in office. The real problem which needs to be addressed stems from poor education into the fundamentals of the US Constitution and the true purposes of government. The public schools teach History, but they teach it as a list of names and dates and not why the particular events were meaningful. And none of them teach the Constitution as a practical guide to good governance as they should. If I were king for a day, probably the single most important thing would be to implement a mandatory class in Constitutional Fundamentals in High School which would require at least a C grade to be able to vote the first time. Seriously! Immigrants know more about the Constitution and US History than the majority of the voting public. That to me is a crying shame.

With all the naysayers nothing will ever get done, the issue needs to be put on the ballot for the people to decide. Perhaps we institute some term limits, then our representatives get removed for at least one term, and if the people want them back they can re-elect them again. Make the law about "Consecutive Term Limits". Then the people will need to determine the terms and how many. Congress surely will not change anything, the people need to do it..

The problem is that everyone says that we need to get rid of all of the career politicians. We all agree that their approval numbers are generally below 20%, but everyone says "Well, mine isn't that bad, but as a whole they suck". People keep voting in "their" guy hoping that the rest of them get voted out. I, for one, have not voted for an incumbent that has been in office more than a few years since the 90's, but it doesn't help.

It is totally disingenuous to compare the gov to a private employee, as it is an irresistible ploy by those who advocate term limits.

First off, everyone knows term limits must be implemented but since it would be Congress to pass the bill, there is no way in hell they ever will do that.

Is there any example to indicate they will vote against their own interest? Where would you find a job that pays full pension after only a few years of service? Do you remember what they did when their salary increase was up to vote? They did not vote against it, but let it pass by default. Did they accept ACA for themselves? Of course not.

It is an issue which is DOA.

I would bring up an other abuse by Congress: lobbying. When a member of congress loses an election, he/she opens a lobbying practice and lives happily ever after selling government secrets.