Comments on: To Become A Real Player In Reform, Tea Party Should Make Term Limits Its’ First Order Of Business

By: citizen legislators

citizen legislators — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:00:27 +0000

[...] No comments yet … Citizen Media Business Issues: Traffic Rankings, Search Engines, and …To Become A Real Player In Reform, Tea Party Should Make Term …More junior legislators are incline to support a balanced budget. 4. Term limits limit the value of [...]

By: Cleary

Cleary — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:18:47 +0000

I don’t know of anyone in Congress right now who has a Churchillian mettle. But as you say the *current* system apparently doesn’t allow for it. I think that if you change the system, maybe you change the people who rise to the top. If you know that being an American stalwart will be rewarded, but that you truly have to earn it with 90% of the vote, someone that sincere in his or her efforts to do right by the American people would likely be noticed. Then other politicians might realize that this is actually good for the country AND their own careers and legacies. And again – if they can’t muster the 90% in that fifth term – out they go. It surely would require a Constitutional amendment to make this reality; that alone would cause this idea to be debated – which would be for the good, yes?

By: admin

admin — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:17:57 +0000

FDR had a 3rd and 4th term as President; however, his last term was marked by ill health that proved disastrous for our foreign policy when dealing with Stalin at the Yalta Conference. U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd will be 95 at the end of his current term and not to sound ageist, but does he give the appearance of physically and mentally being able to carry out all his duties? The Brits have a system for removing unpopular or out-of-touch elected officials by a vote of no confidence, and immediately a new election is called for in a timely manner. We have to wait to the end of their term to vote our representatives and senators out-of-office. We would have to change our entire system to be able to do that and I am not sure that we want to see the U.S. Senate become the House of Lords–although it appears that’s what we have now. Lastly, do you know of a statesman or stateswoman in the U.S. Congress equal to a Churchill? The present system doesn’t allow for it. The only one that I met personally in the last 2 decades was killed in a plane crash.
Having said that, I appreciate your thoughts and that now we are having a dialogue on this issue.

By: Cleary

Cleary — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:52:06 +0000

I overall agree that politicians should be limited in the fiefdoms that they are prone to create. But I don’t like the idea of voters being punished because of politicians’ weaknesses. After all, if you happen to get a Winston Churchill who has a chance at a third term would you really want to tell him, “Sorry – your terms are up. You’ve gotta make way for Chamberlain.” Not me. I’d want to be able to vote for Churchill again. So what to do? I propose this: after the 2nd term, make the amount you have to win by greater and greater for each successive term. So for the third term, you have to win more than 50% of the vote. For the fourth term, you have to win 75% of the vote. For a fifth term, 90%. If a politician can get 90% of the vote, he or she has to be doing something right, wouldn’t you agree? So this gets rid of the jerks but lets people who are truly stellar continue on. The percentages should probably be tweaked, but I think my suggestion is a good start. Thoughts?

By: I Hate Tea

I Hate Tea — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:10:44 +0000

Did you hear something?

By: admin

admin — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:04:24 +0000

Any democracy, pure or representative, requires knowledgeable and vigilant citizens. An independent media is vital in revealing potential conflicts of interest as in the case of Mr. Geithner. The legislative branch that reviews nominees of the President will be more inclined to do a thorough job of advise and consent if they are not “in the pockets” of corporations or special interests. Mr. Geithner did not “cave” to the corporations, he was part of them all along.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:20:04 +0000

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

By: Daisy Duke

Daisy Duke — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:07:35 +0000

Americans who are hurting get angry when they learn that Timothy Geithner, as head of the New York Fed before becoming Treasury secretary, caved to the insistence of Goldman Sachs and other A.I.G. trading partners that they get 100 cents on the dollar when he could have struck a far better bargain for taxpayers. Term limits do nothing when people like Geithner get appointed to positions that screw the tax payers by multiple politicians. Shame on you for thinking term limits could solve everything. You are very simplistic and a canker for true patriots. Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.

By: John J.

John J. — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:55:22 +0000

Brilliant!

I brought up these points at a meeting last night and everyone thought I was a genius. They had no idea I was standing on the shoulder of a political thought giant who writes at ButAsForMe. Thank you.

By: Kathy King

Kathy King — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:47:04 +0000

This is a the work of a mastermind. I will become a regular follower of this very powerful and masterful blog.

Ms. King

By: Simon D.

Simon D. — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:24:58 +0000

This article is pure genius. It should be included in the founding documents.

Simon