The United States Presidency and the Two-Term Limit

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tim840, Aug 20, 2008.

?

Do you agree with the two-term limit imposed on the presidency?

  1. Yes, I agree

    10 vote(s)
    71.4%
  2. No, I disagree

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  1. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    Do you agee or disagree with the two-term limit on the American presidency? and why?

    Personally, I disagree with it... if a capable, intelligent, and popular man becomes president, he should not be forced out of office because of a term limit. If the people want him for a third term, the government has no right to deny them that. After all, dont our legislators know anything about history? What if the limit had existed in the thirties, and FDR hadnt been allowed to lead the country in the second world war? Certainly it would be hard to find a man to do as good a job as Franklin Roosevelt. So I think the two-term limit is stupid.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I want term limits everywhere. I want a 10 year limit in the house, 12 year limit in the Senate. I don't accept the argument of "they might be really, really good." Forget it. A lifetime in these branches makes a person stagnate and become "part of the system" no matter how honest they are. If they are so goddamned good, then they can run for president.

    ~String
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nonsense Non doesn't make sense. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    200
    I find time limits necessary. Such positions from the executive and legislative branches need a steady flow of fresh, new views on the current state of affairs that can lend solutions to always arising problems. Position held with the economy or within the judicial branch require experience and a good understanding of the country's history. In addition such positions have to be safeguarded because if an economist would be faced with short terms they might not do what is best for the country in the long term but instead for the short on account of wanting to be reelected.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And I would remove any retirement benefits, it was never intended to be a permanent job.

    They have voted themselves better benefits than the average American..
     
  8. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Actually, I would give them retirement benefits. Few congressmen seek the position for the retirement benefits, but service to the country earns at least that (unless they have a net worth "over" a certain amount, at which time it would be forfeit). I would also adjust the pay rate for the positions to reflect the import of the job they perform (I don't think a million per year for president, 750k for vice, 500k for senators/executive officers/justices, 300k per year for congressmen is unreasonable). The fact is: many of them have to sell their souls to business interests just to make ends meet. A good percentage are bankrupt.

    While I take a lot of what former president Clinton says with a grain of salt, he's pointed out, quite rightly, that senators/congressmen are under paid, over worked and this has caused one of the greatest spikes in the vitriol in Washington in American history.


    I don't want them to be "average". I want a government of superior people. Do you really want "average" people running the government? Do you want "average" people running Microsoft, GE, GM and Boeing? Do you want "average" people running the DoD? Hell no. In a lot of ways, you get what you pay for. I'm okay with the benefits.

    ~String
     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    There are no term limits on British politicians, other than those imposed by their fellow party members getting sick of them or the electorate booting them ut of office.
    In fact of our last 4 PM's one was deposed by her own party (Maggie), one jumped before he was pushed (bLiar), and one hasn't faced an election yet - leaving only one who was "legitimately" voted out(the one who was so bland we've all forgotten his - or was it her - name).
    I don't see any fundamental problem with having no term limits or career politicians - In fact I would like to see them paid a whole lot more, but temper by banning politicians from having any outside job, or any personal investments other than real-estate and perhaps government bonds.
    Furthermore create a bureau - effectively a go-between - that administrates all politcal donations to parties to ensure that they are anonymous.
     
  10. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    No term limits; if the guy is doing a good job, let him stay.
     
  11. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    exactly. and if hes not doing a good job, he wont be reelected. So I dont see the problem with not having a term limit.
     
  12. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    The US political system is entirely under-powered and inefficient. We need better politicians, longer terms, and more executive and legislatory powers given to the leader
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I agree,

    People don't like change but that's what is best for society. Keep any one person in there too long and they might never leave.
     
  14. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    If they're good, why should they leave?
     
  15. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    The House I have no problems with as the two year terms means they have to stay on the good side of their constiuents. They have to constantly be on their toes and snap to attention to what their public wants. One mistake and they are gone.

    As for Senators, it takes two terms for a Senator to create the contacts and support network needed to actually do their job effectively. So terms limits there would be ill advised.
     
  16. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    This means that those who are reelected are doing good jobs.

    I find that idea shocking.
     
  17. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Why?
     
  18. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I don't think they are.
     
  19. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    See here's the thing, you've just stated something akin to saying that a Senator wouldn't be able to do his/her job effectively without multiple terms. I think that's rubbish. Most Senators are previous governors and congressmen. Their connections within the part apparatus and government are well in place before hand.

    Moreover, I want their job to be difficult. I want them to have to be creative.

    Nothing like a massive overhaul of the government to make their job difficult.

    I also want a constitutional ammendment requiring any law to exist by itself, concerning one single matter alone and unattached to any other matter, tax or issue.

    ~String
     
  20. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Maybe not the current ones. But it's not just their fault; it's everyone's. The system sucks, the politicians are corrupt, you hear the same old stories about the same two parties. Have they actually ever done anything? pfft, no

    People are forgetting that this country is a democracy. The WILL OF THE PEOPLE is the power of the nation.
     
  21. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    We can choose Nike or Adidas. This is our freedom.
     
  22. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    We can choose, or we can create choices! Enough is enough! Enough corruption, enough nonsense!

    The people create their own future. So let's start. Enough with the nonsense! TIME FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
     
  23. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    I find it shocking to the reelection rate is in the 90% range, and they still haven't solved the The Spending Crises, The Budget Crises, Energy Crises, Medicare Crises, Medicaid Crises, Social Security Crises, The Terrorist Problems Crises, Military Medical Care/V.A. Crises, The Education Crises, The Child Care Crises...................The ???? What Ever Crises, and yet they keep getting reelected.

    The longer they stay in Washington the less they get done, 30+ years of The Spending Crises, The Budget Crises, Energy Crises, Medicare Crises, Medicaid Crises, Social Security Crises, The Terrorist Problems Crises, Military Medical Care/V.A. Crises, The Education Crises, The Child Care Crises...................The ???? What Ever Crises, and they haven't solved a thing,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congressmen_by_longevity_of_service

    There are 79 Congressmen with 36+ years House and Senate time, 61 of the Senators have 10 or more years of government service, 214 of the House with 10 or more years, and they can't get anything done to solve the crises in Government?

    It is definitely time for Term Limits.
     

Share This Page