Term Limits Advocate rationally explains to con-gress why they deserve term limits

Posted by freedomforall 6 months, 1 week ago to Politics
23 comments | Share | Flag

Term limits advocate compares Congress to lice and root canals! He tells this senate committee that 60% of Americans say that they would fire every single member of Congress if they could. And that the people have lost confidence in this Congress because career politicians routinely abuse power.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnwGdl1YrQ8

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 months ago
    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!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ brightwriter 6 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 6 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by preimert1 6 months ago
      What's pissing me off (currently) is Kamila Harris. She was elected--and is getting paid for--a six year term as the junior senator for CA, but is spending most of her time running for president. So far she hasn't done a damn thing to earn what she was hired to do. RECALL!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 6 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 6 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 6 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 6 months ago
    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..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Russpilot 6 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ exceller 6 months, 1 week ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 months, 1 week ago
      It occurred to me that this term limits "hearing" is just another circus to make the people feel they can use the system to correct itself- and that this term limits advocate could be a planted operative except for a few comments that cut to the heart of the problem.
      As the video noted the con-gress should recuse itself from the issue because they have a vested interest and can't make an unbiased decision. Without congressional approval a constitutional amendment can't be proposed. I would have also stated that in the likely event that the con-gress doesn't act ethically and restrict their own power, the people have the right and responsibility to do so for them. I'd have quoted Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
      I doubt that the problems in the federal government can be solved peacefully.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo