I think term limits are a ridiculous concept. If the people want someone multiple times, than that person is obviously doing something right and should be allowed to stay. As long as there are election cycles, there shouldn't be a problem. On top of that, there's always those last four years where if the person gets elected, s/he can go completely against their campaign with little repercussions. Term limits encourage this. Whereas if there were no term limits the person would have to continue fighting for the public's approval.
I disagree. No term limits make politicians do things that are temporarily beneficial for their reelections, but long term harmful for the people. Why do you think Obama and Bernanke committed to keeping interest rates near zero until 2013? They are trying to keep the economy somewhat afloat until after the elections, thereby causing even more damage in the future as a consequence. Things like this happen all the time at all levels of government. Term limits are good.
I don't understand your logic here. If it is long-term harmful, and they are still in office, wouldn't they more likely be to blame? They can do this already, as you just stated.
The goal is to obviously push it far enough in the future so that the effects come when someone else is in office. Even if it happens when they are still in office, at least they got one more term didn't they? Their goal was still met of extending their length of service at the cost of the future welfare.
I don't see how term limits stop this from occurring. If anything they make it more desirable to do so because they know they won't be in office. One more term isn't as good as two more, is it? Like I said, theoretically, they should keep fighting for approval.
We disagree then. Imo there is much more incentive to try and gain approval when a second, third, whatever term is on the line as opposed to when there is nothing on the line except the general approval rating.
No. I'm saying term limits would make it more likely for them to do the right thing, even if it causes temporary harm overall, because there is no worry of losing a reelection.
term limits would not be an issue if government was confined to its constitutional limits. however we all know that is not the case. i can see where you are coming from bum, but i think it is an extra concentration of power in an edifice that is already too concentrated. i would not however think that the executive should be able to get re-elected ad infinitum. it would be far too easy for the executive to tilt the scales to ensure continuous re-election. in fact i think two terms as pres is too much. i would gladly trade two 4 year terms for one 6. a two term president has already spent the better part of two years in office campaigning, IE not doing their job. i could be talked into unlimited non-consecutive terms though.
Term limits are necessary as a safety net for circumstances like we are under today. For presidents who use their stature as a stage to win the votes of ill informed voters.
FDR is a perfect example of why executive term limits are important, the man was a dictator, who neutered all the other branches of government, created a cult of personality around himself and if it weren't for his health would have continued his reign indefinitely.
In a Constitutional government, we would worry much less. It's true though, many times in these days Presidents use the Executive order to override Congress, which is dangerous, but if people didn't like what he was doing, he would be taken out of office. And if people like what he's doing but they can't vote for him anymore, they will vote a similar guy in. What exactly do you mean by tipping the scales? Why would this be easy? Because if he is doing things to get reelected, he must be doing something "right" (according to the majority opinion). Technically, Congress is supposed to have more power than the President, yet they don't have term limits. Ill informed voters will vote for ill candidates whether it's the same one over or a "new" one. We never got away from FDR, he is still worshiped today, and we've been electing "FDR"'s for the last 100 years. The only few that have deviated have been taken out of office one way or another.
The reason for no term limits in the House and Senate is we directly, democratically elect these politicians through popular vote. The president is voted through an electoral college (as it should be, anyone arguing against this hates half of America) These specific governing bodies - the House and Senate - are supposed to consist of individuals representing the raw interests of their constituency. If you don't even give their constituents the freedom to choose who they want representing them than that's just one more nail in our coffin, eh? If we had term limits in congress most of you wouldn't even know who Ron Paul is and he wouldn't have had the privilege to bitch and moan (in a good way, sorta) about everything for the past few decades.
I'm arguing against term limits. Another thing... When there are term limits, it seems often the proceeding president will effectively blame things on the last president in order to continue on the same path. For instance, the recent tyrants we've had say that we shouldn't of gone into this war in the first place, but since we are there, we have to finish it.
I agree as well, we would probably had Harry Truman until the 1980's as well. Perhaps we would have never went through Vietnam or Truman would have had it all over within a year with the A-Bomb. But personally I think limit terms are a good thing.
The President has an 8 yr limit Congressmen should have a 8 yr limit This would help to keep the establishment from gaining control over everything and would keep new blood and new ideas in congress
I heard the tea baggers wanted a limit, unfortunately the idea soon fizzled out as soon as their guys got elected.