Term limits?
Submitted by 3dom on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 13:13
I used to be for term limits, thinking that they would improve things.
Yesterday, I was listening to Jay Severin on WTKK.
He said something like, "We already have the opportunity for term limits,
it's called voting. Actual "Term Limits" will only make people more
complacent than they already are, and we don't want to prevent really good candidates from running again."
»
Eliminate two party tyranny
Voters should be free to elect the candidate of their choice. I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the perpetual lousy candidates that the two party system offers.
For example, If one must chose between Obama and McCain, that really isn't a choice - its an ultimatum. One would think that in a nation of 300 million people we might be able to select between at least 3 or 4 candidates.
END the FED before it ENDS US
END the FED before it ENDS US
The two-party system is the problem.
We don't need term limits--we need to change ballot access laws for third parties.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Oh I forgot
Vote-out-the-Incumbent also destroys the two party system.
There's only "two-parties" owing to Senior Political Power and the Lobbyst Wars I explained below.
Without Sr. Politicians - Without Lobbyist there are no "Parties" just individuals who run for office as a resume builder.
Ron Paul has asked, "who's the president of Switzerland" -- less than 1% could answer that without looking it up. The point is as a country moves more and more toward liberty the less important and even known are its elected leaders.
The best example of this was Silent Cal (Calvin Coolidge) -- people during his presidency would joke about "who's Cal" -- "never heard of him" -- as it should be!!!!
Corporatist Profit Model: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Lobbyist Derived Gov't Subsidies (Regulartory Advantages, Tax Breaks, Bailouts, and Fiat Credit)
Corporatist buys Lobbyist -- Consumer (votes-out-corporatist who spends money on lobbyist) + Consumer (votes-out-incumbent) = A Free-Society (where consumers do not abdicate authority to Corporatist - Lobbyist - Senior Politician)
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"and we don't want to
"and we don't want to prevent really good candidates from running again."
I only know of One who falls into that category! I say it's time to ramp up Term Limits again and REPEAL the 17th Amendment!
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/user/BeaReady/
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/subd/
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor
Stop Me...
... before I vote again!
LXXI BC: Ego sum Spartacus // MDCCCLVII: I am Dred Scott // MCMVL: Ich bin Anne Frank // MMX: Je suis Assange // MMXI: Ik ben von NotHaus
hahahahahaha
Octobox
Wisdom is the anticipation of consequences! Tara Mata
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." Thomas Paine
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
TERM LIMITS ARE NECESSARY
...to overcome the amazing benefit of incumbency. The fact is, the longer someone is in power, the more name recognition they have, and the more power they often consolidate. Especially in the case of federal Congressmen, their position is often a prime position for graft - the use of their inside knowledge and legislative privelages to line their purse and buy the loyalty of people. This means they can win an election by literally buying it. This is why term limits should be mandatory.
I think we need "Term Limits" for laws.
Any bill the Congress churns out, votes on, and gets put into Law automatically sunsets and becomes void every five years.
Every federal law or act sunsets every five years and has to be reenacted again after that time.
No exceptions. And it should count for Presidential EOs as well.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Kev Tuma
This would be a nice segway toward "freedom" -- sort of a Minarchist transition toward Market Anarchy.
There is a "slight" problem with it. The people in power ("senior politicians" and "lobbyist") would still exist and would need to be "Saint-Like" to ensure the laws were just -- and since "We the People" have not come up with a factory production system for producing Saint-Like citizens we cannot expect the politicial machine to do the same.
An alternative (if you will) might be 4 years for Senatorial Rulings and 2 years for congressional. Senators have 6 years (one term) Congressman have 4 years (one term). Thus no bill or law outlives the "current" crop of politicians.
This in conjunction with "vote-out-the-incumbent" -- thus we destroy laws and destroy lobbying in one swoop.
Then again according to Ron Paul "Congress shall create no laws." Thus, no need for more than one-term.
An elected official should be a resume building position -- if they go beyond one-term the goal becomes control of "special" commitees a "career" in politics and a hefty retirement in "lobbying." There should be no wealth path in politics and no foundation for lobbying.
What do you think?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I think it's interesting.
Anything like this is a move in the right direction.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
An election should detrime
term limits, if the sheeple would hold their elected officials accountable. 2010 re-elect no-one.
That would
make a nice bumper sticker. Re-elect no-one.
Vote out the Incumbent
If you "truly" understand their power -- then one-term per official is the only way to break the back of the Lobbyist.
It is simple economics:
Lobbyist Revenue Stream (where it comes from): 1) The Corporatist, 2) The Unionist, 3) The Non-Profits, 4) Super Lobbyists (buying "jr" lobbyists), and least (the very least) 5) From the Public.
Senior Politicians Revenue Stream: 1) Lobbyists, 2) War Chest, and 3) Salary, and 3) from Junior Politicians (who "buy" special committee seats) -- [probably direct off-shore accounts, but we can't prove that]
Senior Politicians Power: 1) Regulatory Power (same as Junior Politician) and 2) Special Commitee Seat Appointing (Unique to Senior -- these are the two greatest powers.
The Lobbyist goes after the "senior" because the senior controls the "special committee seats" that the juniors are after -- the senior controls the "warchest," which the "junior" needs to get re-elected -- so Jr sell's his/her vote to the senior. Thusly, the lobbyist only needs to buy the "senior" vote.
If we vote-out-the-incumbents then we strip them of lobbying power -- lobbyists would instead of buying 40 or so "senior" votes would need to buy 435 congressional and 100 senatorial votes -- to win.
Lobbyist "wars" -- where the corporatist competes (dollarwise) with the unionist and the non-profit for "regulatory power" -- "tax breaks" -- "fiat credit" the senior politicians takes donations from all sides -- whomever has the largest combination of public sector votes and dollar donations wins.
Now imagine that war being fought over 535 people -- the current $1B spent every year on lobbying would go up by 200 - 300% -- It would be impossible to lobby on that scale.
Corporatist Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Lobbyist Derived Gov't Subsidies
Destroy the lobbyist side and they answer ONLY TO US -- the "consumer."
Vote-out-the-Corporatist = Consumer Union + Vote-out-the-Incumbent
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
How about just a
Terminator? Quicker as it must be quick in order to survive.