Reasoning “for or against” Term Limits

Do career politician create more problems than they solve?

Here an article where 10 years of fraud and 7 million later. The fraud and stealing was done via a campaign manager but if there was a “Term Limit” would this have happen?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/prosecutors-court-filing-could-hint-at-looming-plea-deal-in-kinde-durkee-case/#ixzz1qOCasHgN?test=latestnews

Pro and Cons of “Term Limits”?

What would be a good solution to “Term Limit”

Present Term is:
President (2) 4 year or a total of 8 years
Senator 6 years unlimited
Congress 2 years unlimited


Belly Suggestion is:
President (2) 4 years or a total of 8 years
Senator (2) 3 years or a total of 6 years
Congress (3) 2 year or a total of 6 years

Note: Congress or Senator can run for other political branches of the federal government after their terms limits.

Sure

If it were a level playing field, I'd say against, as that's what elections are for.

The reality is that even though incumbents lose on occasion, they have a built-in advantage. For that reason, the practical side of me wins - for term limits.

queencitybuckeye;1129943 wrote:If it were a level playing field, I'd say against, as that's what elections are for.

The reality is that even though incumbents lose on occasion, they have a built-in advantage. For that reason, the practical side of me wins - for term limits.

I'm alway interested in your opinion so what would be a good suggestion for the length of year per term for the Senate an Congress?

6 years, one term. Campaigns and fear of voting on something that could hurt them in future campaigns keep things from getting done in Washington. I want fresh ideas, and no re-elections that end up occupying half of the term.

GOONx19;1129948 wrote:6 years, one term. Campaigns and fear of voting on something that could hurt them in future campaigns keep things from getting done in Washington. I want fresh ideas, and no re-elections that end up occupying half of the term.

Would that be for both Congress and Senate or for all Three Branches

I'm not in favor of a 6 year President term after what this Public Servant has done.

I'm pretty flexible on the details, I just don't believe that people "serving" for 30 or 40 years is good for the country. I know it's not what the founders intended, in spite of it not being addressed in the constitution. I'd be fine with not screwing with lengths of terms, so 2 terms (12 years) for the Senate, 3 or 4 terms (6-8 years) for the house.

Belly, this is one area where we are in agreement. I would opt for the two four-year terms for President, but I would like to see one six-year term for Senators and only two two-year terms for Congressmen.

The evil in the current system, IMO, is that elected officials, particularly Congressmen, spend too much time running for re-election and not enough time doing the people's work. By eliminating election cycles I'd like to think we can see more productive work from our elected representatives.

Definitely term limits. 6 years Senate, 3 years House, keep the presidency the way that it is.

GOONx19;1129948 wrote:6 years, one term. Campaigns and fear of voting on something that could hurt them in future campaigns keep things from getting done in Washington. I want fresh ideas, and no re-elections that end up occupying half of the term.

That's something I'd be more along with than Belly's for that reason. I have no problems with term limits, but don't (for congress/senate) give them tiny 2-3 year terms or they'd be spending more of their limited time in office just campaigning. But one six-year term for a guy who sucks wouldn't be all that great, either. Maybe two four-year terms, like for the president. It's kinda hard to think of a truly good plan, as you're either giving one longish term that might be too much or a couple short terms that have them on the re-election trail as soon as they're voted in.