| Term limits for elected officials |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should we have term limits for the president of the United States? |
| Yes, one term only |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
| Yes, two terms (status quo) |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
| No limit on number of terms served |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 3 |
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
| Term limits for elected officials |
 |
|
Term limits are in place in the United States in an effort to prohibit monopolization of power. It seems to me that there are potential downsides to term limits for the position of President.
1) Policies of the administration will reflect short term goals even if these are at the cost of the long term goals (i.e. tax cuts)
2) Last minute pardons by the president.
3) Lack of bipartisan cooperation, and stalling of policies as you wait out the term for the potential of a leader from the other party.
These are just a few examples. What do you think? What are some of the pros and cons you see as it pertains to term limits for president?
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:02 pm |
|
|
littleroc02us
Moderator
Cash: $ 205.35
Posts: 1015
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
|
I am for one term for a period of 6 years, but I know there are some drawbacks.
1. Policies = Yes this could happen, but I would hope the official would still implement his objectives with the longterm and short term in mind that must be fulfilled until their expiration dates, that way the new official can't just cancel it by vote.
2. pardons=Will happen regardless of the term.
3. That could happen, but I would hope the American people would fire those who dont' cooperate. We hold all the power.
I like the idea of a one term official because that would help to eliminate campaigning for themselves while serving. Also, I believe it would make them concentrate more on getting things done because of the time limit.
Romans 13:8 “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
|
|
Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:40 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
I'm in favor of one term and one term only for all elected officials. It's the need to raise money to get re-elected that's at the heart of the problems with our government these days. The Constitution will need to be ammended. The lengths of some terms may need to be changed/increased to accomodate serving one term.
(I have a plan, but it's not ready for public posting yet)
|
|
Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:45 am |
|
|
NolaP
Full Member
Cash: $ 11.25
Posts: 56
Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Location: USVI
|
Term limits ... hmm. I think it's good that we have them. 4-8 years is long enough for one person, if they have the support of the house and senate and are able to accomplish their goals. But then we have what is going on today. We have no majority and no agreement, and not much seems to be getting done. And it's even more complicated when one party gets elected after another party has been in power and spends the whole time trying to undo legislation that the other party spent their time passing while in office. I am not a political-minded person, but is seems to me there has to be a better way than what we have going on.
Nola
Money Mutual
Short term cash when you need it fast.
www.moneymutualmontelwilliams.com
|
|
Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:17 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
quote:
Originally posted by coaster
I'm in favor of one term and one term only for all elected officials. It's the need to raise money to get re-elected that's at the heart of the problems with our government these days.
I don't understand the argument about raising money. What is the difference between raising money to get re-elected and raising money to get elected for the first time?
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:24 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
If you don't have to raise money to get re-elected, then once you're in office you can go about the business of doing what's best for the country without any regard for what the people who financed your campaign told you they wanted you to do. i.e. you're only obligated to your country and your conscience.
|
|
Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:18 am |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
I see, the point. You are not talking about all the money wasted campaigning.
It is a great point, and I agree it would take some of the power out of the lobbyists hands. What do you think a proper term length would be for the president? 6 years maybe 8 years?
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:02 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
Five years, but I can't explain that without detailing the rest of my plan, and I'm not quite ready to post it yet.
|
|
Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:30 am |
|
|
payment proof
Senior Member
Cash: $ 196.85
Posts: 1013
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
|
As with any job though, you gain experience as you work it. And with years of experience, we can get better at our jobs.
How many of us have started a new job and felt totally lost at first? Just something to think about. 
See Proof. You can make free money online.
|
|
Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:47 am |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
quote:
Originally posted by payment proof
As with any job though, you gain experience as you work it. And with years of experience, we can get better at our jobs.
How many of us have started a new job and felt totally lost at first? Just something to think about.
I agree completely and I think if there were only one term, then a longer term length should be instituted as well. Another benefit of longer term length would be less money wasted on campaigning as they would happen less often.
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:59 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by payment proof
As with any job though, you gain experience as you work it. And with years of experience, we can get better at our jobs.
How many of us have started a new job and felt totally lost at first? Just something to think about.
I think that the misconception here is an important point illustrating why our government has gone so far awry. The misconception, which has been bought into both by the voters and by their elected representatives, is that the position they've been elected to is their JOB.
This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers intended that ordinary people be chosen to serve their country for a period of time and then return to their life as an ordinary citizen. They did NOT intend career politicians conceiving of their positions in government as their job. Once you start thinking of a position as your job, as your career, then you begin making self-serving decisions in order to preserve your job because you want to preserve your income; you want to keep your family in food, clothes, housing; you want to keep doing what you enjoy doing with all its perks, privileges, and power.
Furthermore, it's NOT a position at which you get better with experience. You don't need experience legislating to be a legislator because who does the actual work? The career bureaucrats....the staffers....the counsel. All the legislators need to have is wisdom, honesty, and a sense of duty on behalf of their country, and maybe some good ideas about how to solve problems facing the country. That takes experience in real life, not experience in government. Yes, you gain POWER with tenure and experience. The only knowledge and experience a legislator gains by tenure is how to use the system, how to push the right buttons to achieve what they want, not what the consensus wants. This isn't democracy. This isn't what the Fathers intended. This is simply an exercise in power.
|
|
Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:23 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
Maybe the founding fathers did not intend public office to be a "Job", but then again I don't think anyone is running for president because of the salary. You cannot change peoples behavior and you can not remove self interest. What you can do is set up a system that takes this into account and does the best it can for the greater good. I do not envision a system of government where the president would not benefit from experience. In order to get things done the president has to know what types of compromises need to be made, and a newcomer is not going to be well versed in the art of balancing the two parties.
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:33 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
It's not the money, it's the power.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)
”The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” (James Madison)
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” (James Madison)
quote:
In order to get things done the president has to know what types of compromises need to be made, and a newcomer is not going to be well versed in the art of balancing the two parties.
There's another misconception: the two-party system. The two-party system is another problem. Multiple parties require compromise and consensus to get new legislation enacted. Compromise and consensus mean that new legislation is more likely to be well-thought-out, thoroughly discussed and debated, and not to any one extreme or the other. In a two-party system, the party with the majority can just ram through anything they want. As we have seen so many times. There is no "balancing the two parties." It's just "majority rule". Other democratic countries have multi-party systems that work just fine.
The debate about needed changes in government cannot be framed solely in the definitions that have been instilled into the public mind; these definitions, such as thinking that our government is a "two-party sytem" defeat the ability to get meaningful change. Remember the last campaign-finance reform legislation? Did it not just make things worse? Defining the debate in the terms it's been defined is just intended to propagate the current system with its abuses of money and power. This tinkering around the edges will not fix it. They've been tinkering with the tax code since the IRS and the permanent income tax was instituted about a hundred years ago and it just keeps getting worse. It's going to take big change, but big change isn't going to happen until the citizens of the country start thinking outside the box they've been trained to stay in.
|
|
Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:14 am |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
quote:
Originally posted by coaster
It's going to take big change, but big change isn't going to happen until the citizens of the country start thinking outside the box they've been trained to stay in.
I understand your argument. It is possible to argue cause and effect of one policy change given all else equal. When the argument is to completely change the system, professing knowledge of the result involves a lot of hand waving.
The problem is that although the resulting society would be better, it comes with the costs of revolution. Are you sufficiently unhappy with the current situation that you would be willing to go through a revolution?
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:48 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
quote:
Originally posted by shanecurran
...... it comes with the costs of revolution.....
"Every generation needs a new revolution" (Thomas Jefferson)
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive" (Jefferson)
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" (Jefferson)
“If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution" (Abraham Lincoln)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" (John F Kennedy)
I would respond by saying two things:
1) the duty to revolt when necessary is the duty of every American citizen.
2) revolution means change; it does not imply violent change through force of arms. Change can be effected through the ballot box and through free speech.
|
|
Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
