Does limiting POTUS to a maximum of two terms hurt us against our international foes? And if so should we consider changing it?

[AM64]

Maybe people would put more thought into their vote?

Nope 81M for four years would still be 81M for twelve years. Longer term consequences aren't going to fix that kind of stupid ... just more time for free stuff.

 

[AM64]

I think making congress a part time job with commiserate pay and no benefits would do more than term limits.

limited to 90 calendar days in session
no HC benefits or pension
no per diem, build dorms with cafeterias for them to live in while in DC

and canes or clubs by every seat ... and no restrictions on dueling for members of congress

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the reason for term limits of the executive branch. Once he won a third term and was entrenching himself as president for life, congress freaked out.

For president, yes that is correct. We already had the concept of term limits, and the reasoning was they did not want professional bureaucrats, rather leaders in the community that served for short terms to prevent corruption. (laughs in 1700's naïve attempt to outsmart criminal elite)

 

[AM64]

I agree. You can't ban lobbying, political parties, or some of the other things advocated here. You have to make being a politician and lobbying a less attractive career path.

It is very attractive at the moment because the government has a lot of money to dole out and the power to do it, and relatively small expenses towards Congressional campaigns or Super PACs can lead to huge income streams to corporations facilitated by the legislation the Congressperson crafts and passes for them.

I have always thought people give too much credit to the corporate angle. Corporations have no votes; true, corporations are made up of people, but few in a corporation have the same agenda as those in control. PACs do increase campaign and advertising money, so they have a chance to sell a crappy product to people who do have votes. To me the more effective method would be publicly funded campaigns that significantly cut down on advertising. I guess it's naïve to think it might lead to honest campaigns, but if you have to speak to everybody at once instead of limited audiences at differing times maybe it would affect the promises made.

 

[Vol since 77]

Thread is funny considering it was started by a Biden voter. Anywho, hog has the best answer by making it a part time gig, dorms, no HC, pensions, etc...

 

[clarksvol00]

There should be no term limits for elected positions

I'm kind of on the fence, but part of me thinks elections are term limits.

 

[Orangeburst]

I'm kind of on the fence, but part of me thinks elections are term limits.

I agree..Just an ointment

 

[LouderVol]

It’s a good thought. Much of our problems are because as a country we don’t plan any further than 4 years into the future because of our election cycle. And even good policies by an incumbent are usually scrapped when then new guy takes office.

Maybe 1 single 12 year term, no reelection possible?

I maybe thought stretch it to two 5 year terms so it's a nice even 10.

 

[clarksvol00]

I agree..Just an ointment

The opposite side of the coin is that if you get a terrible leader with a large enough cult of personality, you're stuck with him.

 

[sonofUT62]

I think making congress a part time job with commiserate pay and no benefits would do more than term limits.

limited to 90 calendar days in session
no HC benefits or pension
no per diem, build dorms with cafeterias for them to live in while in DC

They should do this for Cabinet members too. 90 days would limit the flights that Lurch could take to environmental conferences.

 

[Orangeburst]

This **** is messy as intended.
Cut the over abuse of powers, lobbying, and we are in a much better place.
But alas the parties are so diverse in policy IDK..

So cut the Feds down to size. let states be states and Feds focus on their USC powers

 

[sonofUT62]

I maybe thought stretch it to two 5 year terms so it's a nice even 10.

I literally shiver at the damage that W could have done with 2 more years of executive powers.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

The opposite side of the coin is that if you get a terrible leader with a large enough cult of personality, you're stuck with him.

81 Million

 

[sonofUT62]

All of our major international foes can play the long game on our leadership. We change POTUS way more often then China, Russia, etc.. This enables them to "wait it out" with administrations. So should we consider changing it?

If the federal government abided by the powers given to it in the Constitution, it wouldn’t matter so much who was President or how long they stayed. The President shouldn’t have that much effect on the lives of average Americans.

 

[clarksvol00]

81 Million

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

 

[jvol1]

If the actual votes were there, ok.

The strength of a democracy comes from the robustness of qualified people ready to step in and take a leadership role -- a large group of well educated, capable people -- so while Hilary might do a great job over the long term, when that time was up, if no one else was ready to fill her shoes, whatever she accomplished wouldn't be worth anything. The same would be true of conservative leaders.

Obviously, our founding fathers were sensitive to tyrants and tyranny, so they would be mortified that people would be advocating for an executive that more greatly resembled a king than the president currently does.

 

[mr.checkerboards]

No. It usually allows our country to remain somewhat neutral. Usually when we sway too far one way the other side gets enough balance that brings it back to the middle. The problem right now is the two sides are way extreme and we are going too far in whichever direction we are headed toward.

 

[hog88]

No. It usually allows our country to remain somewhat neutral. Usually when we sway too far one way the other side gets enough balance that brings it back to the middle. The problem right now is the two sides are way extreme and we are going too far in whichever direction we are headed toward.

Both parties are selling wildly differing ideas for the future of the country, both catering to the extremes on both sides. But what they are selling and what they are delivering are 2 different things, behind closed doors both parties are hell bent on preserving the status quo for themselves and other reliable elites.

 

[mr.checkerboards]

Both parties are selling wildly differing ideas for the future of the country, both catering to the extremes on both sides. But what they are selling and what they are delivering are 2 different things, behind closed doors both parties are hell bent on preserving the status quo for themselves and other reliable elites.

Yes which is the problem. I know this is a bit off topic but even on inflation most of it right now is driven by greedy corporations who are worried about profit margins dropping .5%. A consistent 2% return is still a solid number companies don't need to set record profit margins every year. But too many of these companies have these big corporations in their pockets and thus status quo. Barring a complete collapse of the system nothing will change either.

 

[hog88]

Yes which is the problem. I know this is a bit off topic but even on inflation most of it right now is driven by greedy corporations who are worried about profit margins dropping .5%. A consistent 2% return is still a solid number companies don't need to set record profit margins every year. But too many of these companies have these big corporations in their pockets and thus status quo. Barring a complete collapse of the system nothing will change either.

Greedy corporations are not driving inflation.

 

[mr.checkerboards]

Greedy corporations are not driving inflation.

Debatable, nobody is forcing companies to change 5-6 for a carton of eggs. Nobody is forcing them to jack up gas prices. They're being greedy and jacking up prices to keep or increase profit margins.

 

[hog88]

Debatable, nobody is forcing companies to change 5-6 for a carton of eggs. Nobody is forcing them to jack up gas prices. They're being greedy and jacking up prices to keep or increase profit margins.

I guess they could just screw over their stockholders and lose money to keep costs to the consumer down.

 

[mr.checkerboards]

I guess they could just screw over their stockholders and lose money to keep costs to the consumer down.

Nobody's asking them to lose money, but like I said earlier, profit is profit. Companies don't need to chase record setting profit margins every year, take their 2% return and be happy.

 

[Vol423]

Yes which is the problem. I know this is a bit off topic but even on inflation most of it right now is driven by greedy corporations who are worried about profit margins dropping .5%. A consistent 2% return is still a solid number companies don't need to set record profit margins every year.

Good grief. What a ridiculously uninformed statement.

 

[hog88]

Nobody's asking them to lose money, but like I said earlier, profit is profit. Companies don't need to chase record setting profit margins every year, take their 2% return and be happy.

Dumb