Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Term Limits. Yay or Nay?

  1. #1

    Question Term Limits. Yay or Nay?

    I just read the CFL article attacking term limits:
    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=30613

    If we don't have term limits, we get career politicians who game the system with their seniority.

    But if we do, somehow politicians "lose their accountability to the voter" as the article tried to argue -- which, by the way, I'm still not sure how.

    Ron Paul is an exception. He's been in office for about 20 years, on and off, but he always votes along with the Constitution.

    So, unless someone can give me an actual reason to be against term limits, I'm in favor of them.
    "That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." - Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    I used to believe that the term limits were bad because they allowed more politicians to be unaccountable by the voters in their last terms.

    But seriously, when are politicians EVER held accountable for their actions? Almost never, unless something huge happens the same year as their election. So that argument is almost irrelevant, IMO.

    I'm mostly in favor of term limits, but am not entirely sure. There are some good reason for them, but apparently our founders didn't think so. Either that, or it just didn't occur to them.
    Republican Precinct Committeeman, Arizona LD21.

    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by South Park Fan View Post
    Walter Block makes a rebuttal to the argument in favor of term limits:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block17.html
    So, it's better that they pillage over a longer period of time, instead of a shorter one?

    I'm still confused.
    Last edited by Knightskye; 12-26-2009 at 12:04 AM.
    "That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." - Ron Paul

  6. #5
    Personally, I'm all for them but not quite sure if it's constitutional. I mean just look at Strom Thurman and Ted Kennedy as examples of why we should have them.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Knightskye View Post
    So, it's better that they pillage over a longer period of time, instead of a shorter one?

    I'm still confused.
    The argument goes that a politician that is in office for longer has greater incentive to not kill the goose that lays the golden egg than a politician that knows he'll be out of office in a few years. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but that's how it goes.

  8. #7
    Ron Paul is an exception. He's been in office for about 20 years, on and off, but he always votes along with the Constitution.
    If other Americans choose to elect politicians for indefinite periods what is it to you. It is not about term limits it is about politicians that matter. If the majority of a district believe someone represents them for XXX number of years who are you to say that the voters beliefs should be nullified?

    You seem to think that if it is Ron Paul then it is OK. Anyone else then you would like to apply your principles to.

    Refer to the Constitution. Get the required number of votes in the house or get 2/3 states and change it.

    It is not about term limits it is about the caliber of the elected officials.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    If other Americans choose to elect politicians for indefinite periods what is it to you. It is not about term limits it is about politicians that matter. If the majority of a district believe someone represents them for XXX number of years who are you to say that the voters beliefs should be nullified?

    You seem to think that if it is Ron Paul then it is OK. Anyone else then you would like to apply your principles to.

    Refer to the Constitution. Get the required number of votes in the house or get 2/3 states and change it.

    It is not about term limits it is about the caliber of the elected officials.
    I agree. Well stated.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    You seem to think that if it is Ron Paul then it is OK. Anyone else then you would like to apply your principles to.
    I was stating a fact. I wasn't saying that Ron Paul should be exempted from a term limits law.
    "That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." - Ron Paul

  12. #10
    Well, I think one of CFL's critical arguments was that with term limits, politicians know that there's no chance of winning again, so during their final term, they'll sell out to whomever or whatever cause nets them the best retirement package.

    How many of the healthcare bill supporting Congress-critters do you think care that they'll likely be booted next election? Big Pharma has them set for life. They'll never want for anything again.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    Personally, I'm all for them but not quite sure if it's constitutional. I mean just look at Strom Thurman and Ted Kennedy as examples of why we should have them.
    Just look at Ron Paul for an example of why we shouldn't have them.

  14. #12
    If term limits are good enough for the Presidency then they are good enough for Congress.

    But it will require a Constitutional Amendment unfortunately.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    Just look at Ron Paul for an example of why we shouldn't have them.
    Nothing about term limits says Ron couldnt' run for Senate or governor or whatever when his term limits expire in the House.

  16. #14
    Put term limits on them and they should make 40k a year also

  17. #15

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    Well, I think one of CFL's critical arguments was that with term limits, politicians know that there's no chance of winning again, so during their final term, they'll sell out to whomever or whatever cause nets them the best retirement package.

    How many of the healthcare bill supporting Congress-critters do you think care that they'll likely be booted next election? Big Pharma has them set for life. They'll never want for anything again.
    Most Congressmen know when they're going to retire. So, during that time, they vote in pretty erratic ways anyway. With term limits, it's the exact same thing except with a forced retirement vs. choosing retirement.

    Look at all of the Senators who know they won't be Senators in 2011, they're doing what is best for them and telling their constituents that they don't matter, 'cause in reality, they don't anymore.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    No. Term limits will not solve the problems with Congress. The better solution is to increase the size of the House, and eliminate gerrymandering.
    Last edited by Morgan Brykein; 12-26-2009 at 03:57 PM.
    Come visit the new and sort-of improved Morgan's Fun Ranting Corner, updated July 14, 2010.

  21. #18
    I'd also add that by the time you get 51% of Congress filled with people who would actually support a bill calling for limits on their terms, you won't need term limits.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  22. #19
    What exactly ensures that when a Congressperson is term-limited, his or her successor is any less corrupt or any more representative of the people? Most people in Congress have had prior experience in local or state politics. And in many cases, the incumbent will simply hand the baton over to his or her partisan successor, because most districts are gerrymandered to benefit one party or the other.

    I think that term limits only cure the symptoms, not the disease. Currently, each Congressperson represents around 700,000 people, and that number will only increase as time goes on. To me, one representative for every 700,000 people doesn't seem very representative. Especially since that apportionment only exists because incumbents in 1929 didn't want to lose their seats with the coming reapportionment.

    At the very least, we should cut apportionment in half. Ideally, there would be one representative for every fifty thousand to a hundred thousand people. That way, Congress will better represent everybody, and it will be harder for incumbents to nest on their Congressional seats. It will also make it easier for more diverse views to be expressed in the U.S. Capitol, and it will be harder to gerrymander such tiny districts.

    Term limits won't create "citizen legislators" who bravely represent the interests of the people and then go home.
    Last edited by Morgan Brykein; 12-26-2009 at 07:44 PM.
    Come visit the new and sort-of improved Morgan's Fun Ranting Corner, updated July 14, 2010.

  23. #20
    I don't know. It just seems like we would have an elected dynasty.
    "That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." - Ron Paul

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by pahs1994 View Post
    Put term limits on them and they should make 40k a year also
    What about $100 a year, like New Hampshire state legislators?

  25. #22
    I think congressional pay should be equivalent to the average income of the voters in their district.

    thus, the $167,000/year made by each representative would be done away with, and The reps for Manhattan and Beverly Hills would actually get a raise of about $3000 or so each year, meanwhile, the Rep for Detroit would be making about $17,000/year.

    Perhaps then being a congressman wouldn't be such a sought after position that they'd want to keep doing it year after year.

    The founders envisioned being a public servant to be a sacrifice. Time away from family, friends, and getting little in return except the gratitude of your constituents.
    CPT Jack. R. T.
    US Army Resigned - Iraq Vet.
    Level III MACP instructor, USYKA/WYKKO sensei
    Professional Hunter/Trapper/Country living survivalist.

  26. #23
    Mathematically, double the amount of representatives and cut everyone's pay in half.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TCE View Post
    Mathematically, double the amount of representatives and cut everyone's pay in half.
    And repeal the17th amendment.
    "That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." - Ron Paul



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Here's Rand Paul's issues page on Term Limits:
    More than 95% of incumbent politicians win re-election to the US Congress. Incumbents win re-election at a higher rate than they did in the Soviet Politburo.
    With each successive term, politicians grow more and more distant from the people. It is hard to understand the plight of ordinary citizens when Congressman make over $170,000 per year, have health care benefits worth another $15,000 and become fully vested in a lucrative pension plan within a few years.

    Some pundits like to remark that we already have term limits they’re called “elections.” This glib response ignores the fact that incumbent US Senators start each election cycle with an average of $8 million dollars in the bank. The average US Representative starts with over $1 million in the bank.

    Most of this incumbent cash comes in the form of $5000 checks from special interest groups that want federal contracts or federal favors.
    The challenger must raise his or her contributions largely from individuals, typically averaging under $100 per check.

    Is it any wonder that incumbents win almost every election?

    Long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country.

    After the vast enlargement of government under FDR, the country reacted fairly quickly to limit the terms of the President. Over 80% of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, favor term limits. What will it take to force a vote on Congressional Term Limits?

    Today we are drowning in a sea of debt, teetering on financial ruin if we don’t get our house in order. Will this crisis be the one that finally convinces us as a nation to bring these politicians home, to replace them?
    http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/q-z/term-limits/

    So maybe term limits aren't the complete answer. I like Jesse Benton's idea of paying Congress a minimum wage and putting in a bunch of under-achievers in there.
    "That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." - Ron Paul



Similar Threads

  1. Rand wants term limits?
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Rand Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-09-2015, 08:58 AM
  2. Elections: Ron Paul on term limits
    By Southern Man in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-29-2015, 06:22 PM
  3. Are term limits bad for us?
    By Vanilluxe in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 11:41 AM
  4. Government Reform: Ron Paul & term limits.
    By kusok in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2011, 07:53 PM
  5. Term Limits
    By colecrowe in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 10:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •