Ted Cruz & Rep. Ron DeSantis propose Congressional term limits amendment - Polidicks

I don't think there's anything inherently corrupt about reelected politicians. I'm leaning on this being either a feel good measure or targeting a particular group of policians.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51623004]i thought they already had term limits in the form of elections where people can decide to get rid of them or not[/QUOTE] Most politicians in America don't get reelected because they're popular.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51624386]I'm skeptical of term limits. I feel like being a congressmen will just become an easy way to put something nice on your resume and get connections to get a comfy lobbying job or whatever after the terms up. And why is experience necessarily a bad thing, or why shouldn't a district be able to re-elect a congressmen as long as they feel they best represent them. Term limits doesn't really seem like it would fix anything, but people assume its great because they hate Congress meanwhile they go into booths and vote for their incumbent for the 6th time.[/QUOTE] But congressmen do this anyway already. If anything, term limits will curb that because they won't spend several decades in Washington building up connections in order to be a very profitable lobbyist afterward. Becoming a lobbyist after 30 years in Congress is guaranteed, but if say they're a new face who only was there for 4 years? Maybe not so much. [editline]5th January 2017[/editline] Also Americans don't vote for who best represents them. They either vote down the party line irrelevant to whose name is on it or they vote against the person they dislike. Neither is a clear representation of their values.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51625590]But congressmen do this anyway already. If anything, term limits will curb that because they won't spend several decades in Washington building up connections in order to be a very profitable lobbyist afterward. Becoming a lobbyist after 30 years in Congress is guaranteed, but if say they're a new face who only was there for 4 years? Maybe not so much. [editline]5th January 2017[/editline] Also Americans don't vote for who best represents them. They either vote down the party line irrelevant to whose name is on it or they vote against the person they dislike. Neither is a clear representation of their values.[/QUOTE] I feel like that would just lower the top end from 30 years to 4 and end up not really doing anything to stop lobbying. Which isn't to say I'm against term limits, I just don't see the real benefit, and am genuinely suspicious of why this push is being made by Republicans.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51625590]But congressmen do this anyway already. If anything, term limits will curb that because they won't spend several decades in Washington building up connections in order to be a very profitable lobbyist afterward. Becoming a lobbyist after 30 years in Congress is guaranteed, but if say they're a new face who only was there for 4 years? Maybe not so much. [editline]5th January 2017[/editline] Also Americans don't vote for who best represents them. They either vote down the party line irrelevant to whose name is on it or they vote against the person they dislike. Neither is a clear representation of their values.[/QUOTE] Great, so now we wouldn't have to take 3 decades of my life to get the credentials to be a lobbyist, up to the term limit will suffice. That would just make Congress a more efficient lobbyist factory. There's plenty of politicians that do in fact represent their districts greatly. For the rest, and perhaps majority, that are elected based on just party, term limits does nothing to solve anyways.

sad to see so many people against this just because it's coming from the republicans, and I find most of republican ideology repulsive. this would be a good thing in making our democracy competitive because parties won't just rely on incumbents getting re elected for 10+ terms every time

This comes with pros and cons. Susan Collins and Bernie Sanders are the two most popular senators and they will be affected by this. Nemesis of the internet Lamar Smith would also get the boot.

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;51627683]sad to see so many people against this just because it's coming from the republicans, and I find most of republican ideology repulsive. this would be a good thing in making our democracy competitive because parties won't just rely on incumbents getting re elected for 10+ terms every time[/QUOTE] This isn't a good thing. It's merely a band-aid solution to a deep wound. Term limits won't do much to solve many of the problems in American democracy.

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;51627683]sad to see so many people against this just because it's coming from the republicans, and I find most of republican ideology repulsive. this would be a good thing in making our democracy competitive because parties won't just rely on incumbents getting re elected for 10+ terms every time[/QUOTE] Who here said they were against it purely because its from Republicans? (Unless you mean like from the normal populace?) I saw some pretty mixed opinions with pretty good arguments from both sides.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51621090]This bill is dead in the water already. Who would vote themselves out of office.[/QUOTE] The epitome of why conservatives like me warn the dangers of big, bloated government. Yet another example of a government that will never, voluntarily, reduce its power or size. Having politicians who are there for 30 or 40 years is exactly why we have the problems we have. They become so out of touch with people that everything else starts to go to shit because they really have their own interests at heart. Politicians have always been liars and crooks. How could anyone possibly disagree with term limits?

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51629700]Politicians have always been liars and crooks. How could anyone possibly disagree with term limits?[/QUOTE] It'd be quite easy for big money interests to corrupt candidate after candidate. They do it with the presidency. All it'll really do is dislodge any honest people who have managed to wedge themselves in there and who remain stuck there because the people realise they're good people. Politicians who are in there because they have lots of money behind them will just be replaced by politicians who have lots of money behind them. But it'll be a lot harder for an honest politician to get themselves replaced by an honest politician.

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51629803]It'd be quite easy for big money interests to corrupt candidate after candidate. They do it with the presidency. All it'll really do is dislodge any honest people who have managed to wedge themselves in there and who remain stuck there because the people realise they're good people. Politicians who are in there because they have lots of money behind them will just be replaced by politicians who have lots of money behind them. But it'll be a lot harder for an honest politician to get themselves replaced by an honest politician.[/QUOTE] That's already the system in which we live

[QUOTE=geel9;51621185]I'm not convinced this will help in any way.[/QUOTE] Uh, well yeah, you're not just going to pass a bill that fixes every single thing wrong with Congress overnight. This is a first step in reducing the amount of terrible rules that make Capitol Hill such a shitheap.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51627955]This comes with pros and cons. Susan Collins and Bernie Sanders are the two most popular senators and they will be affected by this. Nemesis of the internet Lamar Smith would also get the boot.[/QUOTE] Well it'd probably still be for the best overall.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51627955]This comes with pros and cons. Susan Collins and Bernie Sanders are the two most popular senators and they will be affected by this. Nemesis of the internet Lamar Smith would also get the boot.[/QUOTE] remind me what sanders has actually achieved in his 20+ years in the senate. as far as i can tell, he worked on proposals that were never passed.

For everyone saying this won't fix America and is a "band-aid" solution, please point me to where this was said to be the ultimate solution to all of the country's government problems, please?

[QUOTE=Pops;51629974]remind me what sanders has actually achieved in his 20+ years in the senate. as far as i can tell, he worked on proposals that were never passed.[/QUOTE] He's only been a Senator for two terms. He was also a member of the House for quite a while. As a senator he worked with McCain to give vets access to non VA health providers fairly recently. During his time in the house he voted against the Brady Bill and the Patriot Act. He was also extremely outspoken against Greenspan.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51621155]Optimistic reason it could pass: congressional approval falls so low that this is all that could bring it back up But seeing as 11% isn't low enough yet maybe we need 0%[/QUOTE] Do you think Congress cares about their approval rating? They have a 90% reelection rate despite being the most useless congress/senate in history. They don't have to do anything and they're pretty much guaranteed to keep getting back in office.