How did things get this bad? Polarization, dysfunction and the collapse of

FredHayek wrote: I love the people who think term limits will solve anything. We currently have term limits, don't like your congressman? You can primary him, the TEA Party does that all the time. So even in "safe" districts, Republican politicians are still running scared. If they don't listen to their voters, they will find someone who does. And if the Pol survives the primary, he can still lose the election.

24 Hour news cycle as a bad thing? How about it exposing the scumbags in office? Like the Texas politician recently shown drunk driving? Or would you prefer the old days where the local press agreed to look the other way?

I disagree. I think term limits will cure lots of problems. I just don't think a good percentage of voters vote based on performance, I think many voters base their choices on name recognition, rhetoric, gender, looks, etc. Is Nancy Pelosi still in office because of her stellar record or accomplishments and working across the isle to get things done? I don't think so.

What we have now isn't working and these people in office have too many incentives to dig in and use their power to stay in power. It's time for a big flush... but of course that won't happen when the turds are in charge of making the rules.

FredHayek wrote: I love the people who think term limits will solve anything. We currently have term limits, don't like your congressman? You can primary him, the TEA Party does that all the time. So even in "safe" districts, Republican politicians are still running scared. If they don't listen to their voters, they will find someone who does. And if the Pol survives the primary, he can still lose the election.

24 Hour news cycle as a bad thing? How about it exposing the scumbags in office? Like the Texas politician recently shown drunk driving? Or would you prefer the old days where the local press agreed to look the other way?

Glad to hear you love me!!! The problem is, we just need new blood, and people that can't spend their life ruling over us will make different decisions. We need term limits because the vast majority of people don't even understand politics and just punch the "D" or "R" box. It would also diminish the influence of lobbyists, since they can't buy someone for life....they have to keep figuring out how to buy the new person.

I actually like another idea promoted by Ben Carson. Do not allow the "D" or "R" on the ballot. This would force people to at least research a little.

Downside to term limits? Legislators are inexperienced and more likely to be taken advantage of by lobbyists and career government employees. Plus they have to spend a lot of time learning how Washington works. Look at President Obama, he is surprised every week finding out what his government is doing and not telling him.

FredHayek wrote: Downside to term limits? Legislators are inexperienced and more likely to be taken advantage of by lobbyists and career government employees. Plus they have to spend a lot of time learning how Washington works. Look at President Obama, he is surprised every week finding out what his government is doing and not telling him.

I would rather have inexperienced crooks elected rather than letting them get good at it. However I think it is a moot point. I think term limits were ruled unconstitutional. On balance I think a presidential line item veto would be a good thing but that was ruled unconstitutional 2-3 decades ago.

Yep, term limits are only a dream on the national level. Think Congressman and Senators want to give up these cushy jobs? Of course, they could grandfather themselves...

FredHayek wrote: I love the people who think term limits will solve anything...

IMO the argument for term limits is the hallmark of a lazy electorate. Rather than keep tabs on their elected officials and make an informed voting decision it's easier to term limit them. Problem with that is that good folks who are serving their electorate have to leave office (I know...not many of those anyway).

OTOH, because the electorate IS lazy we're stuck with incompetent representation. One thing that continually galls me is that most folks I talk to complain about Congress and "we should vote them all out - except MY guy - he's okay!" With that type of thinking we'll never get anywhere.

I don't know if there's a good answer.

BlazerBob wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Downside to term limits? Legislators are inexperienced and more likely to be taken advantage of by lobbyists and career government employees. Plus they have to spend a lot of time learning how Washington works. Look at President Obama, he is surprised every week finding out what his government is doing and not telling him.

I would rather have inexperienced crooks elected rather than letting them get good at it. However I think it is a moot point. I think term limits were ruled unconstitutional. On balance I think a presidential line item veto would be a good thing but that was ruled unconstitutional 2-3 decades ago.

Yeah, go figure that one out. The Constitution is silent on term limits, listing only the requirements that need to be met to hold the office, and the 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. And yet, Justice Stevens, joined by the rest of the usual suspects on the court seeking to expand federal power at every opportunity and Justice Kennedy, decided that where the Constitution is silent on an issue the Supreme Court gets to legislate whatever they wish.

One does yearn for judges and justices that understand that when the Constitution is silent that means that the judiciary are to remain silent and allow for the independent, free and sovereign States that comprise the Union to govern themselves as stated in the Constitution.

With regards to term limits themselves, rotation was viewed as essential to the republic by a number of those prominent in the founding era, including Jefferson, Mason and Madison. I have to agree with the opinion expressed by others here that the problem isn't too little time rubbing elbows in DC, it's too little time rubbing elbows with the people that these politicians were at least in theory elected to represent. Congress should be in session for no more than half the year and I would prefer it be limited to no longer than 4 months barring a true national emergency. We don't have to wait 3 weeks or a month for the members of Congress to travel to the seat of government these days - with the advances in transportation technology there isn't a single reason they all couldn't be rounded up and deposited in DC in 24 hours or less if the need is truly there.

Of course Term Limits won't fix everything, just gets rid of the dinosaurs every 8 years.

8 years should be plenty. Its public service, not a freaking career and power trip.

The Pelosis and Kennedys etc. etc. don't even have to bother campaigning and rarely get challenged in primaries. Personally I was glad to see Cantor the "R" go, never cared for him. But it is rare to see one voted out.


Based on what I see and hear from the avg. clueless "Joe and Julia", I'm not optimistic anything is going to change until the Sheet hits the Fan, which is coming sooner than most think. -LOL 8/19/2014

Enjoy! (and turn off the stupid TV)

I disagree LOL - incumbancy is the breeding ground for much which has resulted in the violence done to the Constition, violence which will continue while the problem persists. That Congress has passed numerous laws which are intended to help them retain their seats only makes the rotation originally desired more difficult to achieve.

I don't know that I support a maximum number of years that one may hold any particular office as much as I do the notion that within a defined period of time, say a decade, that no more than X number of years may be spent holding the same office or how many consecutive terms the office may be held before a mandatory break is required. I see no reason why the Union must deny itself the opportunity to allow a good president to serve longer than 8 years, but I agree that the last thing the Union needs is another virtual king ala FDR.

For the Executive and the Senate perhaps two terms followed by a break of at least one term and 3 consecutive terms in the House before a required break would be a more palatable option than an absolute limit of two terms and would find more support among the electorate.

How about no return no matter what. That way no Congressperson can be out lobbying during a term s/he is sitting out and then return with a ready made agenda.