• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Term limits

Free episodes:

Originally Posted by Tommy Allison
I also believe that EVERY politician should be limited to ONE term in office. ONE TERM ONLY.

When that term is up, they must return to where they came from and live amongst the people they represented. No gated communities, No secret service detail, NO RETIREMENT PAY, NO FREE MEDICAL CARE.

MAKE THEM LIVE LIKE THE REST OF US WHEN THEY ARE OUT OF OFFICE.

That way, it removes the riff raff that look at being a Senator, Congressman, or whatever looking to get rich while fucking the people they supposedly are paid to represent.
 
DREW UK said:
Don't you have elections in the US any more?

Drew, good point, yes we do have elections. But, what happens is people gain power in Washington and get on committees that oversee spending, then they move more money back to their district, and in essence voters are 'paid' with pork, power expands, and corruption ensues. Then, corruption extends the longevity of the career by underhanded means.

In essence, to answer a question before it is asked, no, the majority voters cannot be trusted to overlook money in their pocket and do what is best in principle. I hate I have to say that, but it is true. 100 years ago that was not true. People were much more interested in politics and in what was going on in the meeting houses around them. Not anymore. They want their computers to work, TV's to be on, Nintendos and Xbox's to work, an easy job, government money pouring into their district for every cause under the sun, and fast food.

If that is happening, then the incumbents win and grow in power and build small empires in Washington because nobody else can afford to fight them and win. Then those politicians get so settled and so out of touch with the normal, working American that they start to make bad decisions. Decisions that are based on winning the next election as opposed to doing what is right.

Think of it. If a politician were to know that they could not be elected to that office again, how much more unencumbered would that politician be to make decisions based on what SHOULD be done instead of worrying about polls on his or her next re-election campaign?

The framers never meant for some senator or representative to be there for 20-40 years. They wanted a working person to go to Washington, bring in fresh ideas from home, stay a few years, then go back home and let someone else with fresh ideas come in. No career politicians.

I am for term limits because they would enforce that.

(OOPs, I broke my pledge. -- OK my pledge should have read PARTISAN politics, not politics in general.)
 
Thanks - and I agree with everything you have said, and the interception in this debate was largely rhetorical - since the distrust in the democratic system is mirrored here in the UK in these times as well.

But I would like to take this portion of your statement:

They want their computers to work, TV's to be on, Nintendos and Xbox's to work, an easy job, government money pouring into their district for every cause under the sun, and fast food.

And use rhetorism to state - Who's corrupt bob... The politician or the electorate?

Were both part of the same hypocrisy -aren't we?
 
Thanks - and I agree with everything you have said, and the interception in this debate was largely rhetorical - since the distrust in the democratic system is mirrored here in the UK in these times as well.

But I would like to take this portion of your statement:



And use rhetorism to state - Who's corrupt bob... The politician or the electorate?

Were both part of the same hypocrisy -aren't we?

Yes, we both are. And that just fortifies my support for a term limit law. Just like both police and citizens can be guilty of crime -- the law applies to both. That is why I want a law limiting terms to prevent that type of corruption -- whether that corruption comes from the electorate or the power hungry elected politician. Term limits would eliminate both.
 
How does it?

What guarantee can you offer that the "bribe" assured for the longevity of power is not transformed into the back pocket of the quick step politician?

What happens to stability and continuity?
 
How does it?

What guarantee can you offer that the "bribe" assured for the longevity of power is not transformed into the back pocket of the quick step politician?

What happens to stability and continuity?

There may be that, but his power will be short lived, and the potential for extended corruption minimized.

Stability and continuity are maintained by the institutions of Congress, The President, and the Supreme Court, regardless of who occupies the seats.
 
Bob... what the hell? You took a non-political OATH, man!

I thought it meant something.... I'm so disillusioned...
 
Bob... what the hell? You took a non-political OATH, man!

I thought it meant something.... I'm so disillusioned...


I KNOW, I KNOW. But I clarified it later in some obscure thread and said that I meant to stay out of partisan politics. (wincing)

Pretty weak, huh?

But, all I did was move this thread to it's own because people were talking about this in my (apparently now forgotten) executive pay thread.

Tough day for me. Phew. Thus the new avatar.
 
But... all politics is partisan. Even if it doesn't fall under the traditional left-vs-right dialectic, you're still drawing a line in the sand and asking people to pick a side...
 
But... all politics is partisan. Even if it doesn't fall under the traditional left-vs-right dialectic, you're still drawing a line in the sand and asking people to pick a side...

Not necessarily. I'm on the side that thinks that NOT all politics is partisan. :p
 
How about expanding the term from 4 years to 10 and limiting it to one term?

My justification in this is simple. The workd hates us because we flip policy radically one or twice a decade. Not just minor tweaks here and there, I'm talking 180's. Most of the world appreciates our current/impending reversals but all to often they are paradigm shifts. With exanding terms to 10 years at least you get 1 major set of rules for other countries to work with and it will probably stabilize our financial viability in the process.
 
Back
Top