I could also see the argument that term limits inspire apathy, since you know the end of the road is ahead and you don't have to compete anymore.
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."
Except that former Presidents can live easily on retirement and public speaking fees without having contributed much of anything (looking at you, Dubya).
See Harry Truman for the reasoning why Presidents get retirement income.
I don't have a problem with Presidents getting retirement income. I'm just rebutting the point that term limits encourage Presidents to be productive for the sake of résumé building.
I'd think I'd rather see them expand how long a presidential term is. It seems like having to campaign makes it harder to, you know, GOVERN.
I know South Korea has a 5-year presidential term and you only get one. They are thinking about making it two terms as we do, but keeping the length 5 years.
More time between elections would mean less time campaigning and more time running the country.
There was one idea of doing a 6 year term, having to sit out the next term but being able to run again after that. Equally lowering the age down to 18 to be a Senator or Representative or President would go a lot farther to give the youth something to aspire for. Even if it ended in failure, there's always going to be that one 19 year old in the Senate towing the youth agenda. It would at least stop all the elderly people talking about their grandchildren and actually have someone there that gets affected "down the road" by policy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."
Except that former Presidents can live easily on retirement and public speaking fees without having contributed much of anything (looking at you, Dubya).
Understood, and I can look at Jimmy Carter and see the same lack of presidential accomplishment, yet somehow he's considered a "statesman".
Partisan bickering aside, while the President may have the ability to do that, Joe Schmo, Representative from North Dakota, will not. He's going to have to go back to his home and either go back to his former career or try to make a new one, and it's easier to sell your name when you're seen as having done something than having coasted for X terms.
If you don't want to go with term limits, then pay these people less and see how many people want to make a career of "public service". Rank and file members of the US House and Senate make $174K per year, while also receiving fully-paid health and retirement benefits, while the average US citizen has a per capita income of about $42K. The fact that our Representatives and Senators make far more than the average American is reprehensible, IMO, so how about we give them the per capita income +10% and make them pay for their health care benefits. What you get then is people who truly want to serve their country rather than people making four times that of an average citizen who are constantly looking to do whatever they can to keep their position and benefits.
Limited terms means a president, or politician in general, has to live with the changes he's (she's) made. Imagine if politicians had to live with the health care bill they passed...
I'd think I'd rather see them expand how long a presidential term is. It seems like having to campaign makes it harder to, you know, GOVERN.
I know South Korea has a 5-year presidential term and you only get one. They are thinking about making it two terms as we do, but keeping the length 5 years.
More time between elections would mean less time campaigning and more time running the country.
There was one idea of doing a 6 year term, having to sit out the next term but being able to run again after that. Equally lowering the age down to 18 to be a Senator or Representative or President would go a lot farther to give the youth something to aspire for. Even if it ended in failure, there's always going to be that one 19 year old in the Senate towing the youth agenda. It would at least stop all the elderly people talking about their grandchildren and actually have someone there that gets affected "down the road" by policy.
I don't trust a 19 year old to make decisions that will effect my life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I don't trust a 19 year old to make decisions that will effect my life.
And a lot of 19 year olds don't trust 55 year olds to make decisions they won't even be around to see the ramifications from.
In general, a 55 year old will have more foresight than a 19 year old. I'd sooner take my chances, but bear in mind I have a dislike of professional politicians.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
In general, a 55 year old will have more foresight than a 19 year old. I'd sooner take my chances, but bear in mind I have a dislike of professional politicians.
Perhaps more foresight, but depending on the issue, much less insight. I fear politicians making decisions that only effect future generations.
My grandma is a wise old lady, but I wouldn't go to her for computer advice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
In general, a 55 year old will have more foresight than a 19 year old. I'd sooner take my chances, but bear in mind I have a dislike of professional politicians.
Perhaps more foresight, but depending on the issue, much less insight. I fear politicians making decisions that only effect future generations.
My grandma is a wise old lady, but I wouldn't go to her for computer advice.
Implying you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I need to be more clear: I believe there are two issues here.
1. Older legislators have less vested interest in the future of the country because they're not going to have to live with most of the ramifications of their decisions.
2. No matter what you teach the "old dog," he still grew up decades years ago. The world's culture has changed and will continue to change. He can learn new tricks, but his perspective will not change. Younger legislators (19 may be a bit extreme, but early 20s would be more agreeable) could bring fresh perspective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
1. Older legislators have less vested interest in the future of the country because they're not going to have to live with most of the ramifications of their decisions.
You even read my ****?
2. No matter what you teach the "old dog," he still grew up decades years ago. The world's culture has changed and will continue to change. He can learn new tricks, but his perspective will not change. Younger legislators (19 may be a bit extreme, but early 20s would be more agreeable) could bring fresh perspective.
Implying old people don't understand young people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
2. No matter what you teach the "old dog," he still grew up decades years ago. The world's culture has changed and will continue to change. He can learn new tricks, but his perspective will not change. Younger legislators (19 may be a bit extreme, but early 20s would be more agreeable) could bring fresh perspective.
Implying old people don't understand young people.
No it's not. You even read my ****?
I said that an old person has a different perspective than a young person because they grew up in different generations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I said that an old person has a different perspective than a young person because they grew up in different generations.
You said their perspective can't change. That's bull****.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
My personal opinion isn't whether or not it's 'American' (which is a very Jingoistic measure). I'm of the opinion that term limits are necessary to avoid de facto dictatorship.
I'm not sure that's a realistic fear. I can't think of a democratic government with loose term limits where that's been a significant issue. And that's coming from a Canadian enduring Harper for seven years. We've had a few prime ministers in power for significantly longer than eight years, but the ones who have were legendary. Like the kind of guys that get put on money legendary. And they still had to earn 4-6 mandates to serve that long so they must have been doing something right to keep garnering votes for decades.
I think enforcing the arbitrary two-term limit does as much harm than good, there's something to be said for consistent leadership.
Term limits were introduced because we had a defacto dictator.
Consistant leadership doesn't require a king nor a President for Life. If 8 years isn't enough, you're not a leader.
Frankly, I have a hard time in not having term limits for EVERY office our elected leaders.
Oh really? A defacto dictator? Just because you disagree with what FDR did does not mean he is a dictator. I strongly disagree with what W did and said but that doesn't mean hes a dictator. Moron perhaps.
You just can't handle the truth that the majority of americans completely disagree with you. Get over it.
I said that an old person has a different perspective than a young person because they grew up in different generations.
You said their perspective can't change. That's bull****.
No, he said that by and large, their perspective DOESN'T change, which is true: age is one of the biggest demographic factors in differences on many issues. Old people are not by nature inflexible – people in general tend to reflect the circumstances they grew up in. Political views, once formed, do not change easily.
To summarize, I'd just say what I tell every Congressman who proposes a constitutional amendment: "Workin on that amendment there, buddy? How's that amendment going along? Have you got enough votes for that amendment yet?"
Because seriously, look at the history of the Equal Rights Amendment, something we all agree should be uncontroversial. Still hasn't gone through.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Oh really? A defacto dictator? Just because you disagree with what FDR did does not mean he is a dictator. I strongly disagree with what W did and said but that doesn't mean hes a dictator. Moron perhaps.
I see that you quoted approval ratings later.
Remember that being a dictator does not necessarily mean you are disliked. In fact, it's often quite the opposite. That's how many people become dictators, because they are extremely charismatic.
FDR was certainly well-liked, but so were many (if not most) dictators throughout history.
I would not personally call FDR a dictator, but he was about as close to one as the U.S. has ever come, short of Washington and Lincoln. He was an extremely forceful President. Lincoln was reviled by many, though, so I would more compare FDR's career to Washington's.
Based on his charisma and status, Washington got away with virtually anything he wanted to do, just as FDR did. However, there are three main differences in my mind. First, Washington was not at odds with the balance of power in the U.S. government to the same degree that FDR was. Second, Washington did step down after two terms, creating that default expectation for future Presidents. Third, Washington did not have too much of an agenda compared to FDR.
I am a fairly staunch conservative, but I would not want to see term limits go away. In fact, I think it should be expanded for Representatives and Senators. The biggest problem I see is stagnation. No matter which political party you are part of, if you look at the Congressional approval ratings, it is abominable. And yet, both major parties keep getting the same people who have horrible records and horrible approval ratings re-elected. We need newer ideas.
Term limits were introduced because we had a defacto dictator.
1) FDR was a "dictator" now? Hilarious to say the least. He ran once, twice, third time and then a fourth time (when he was trying to opt out from his health!) because the party refused to run someone else.
2) He was out of office when the Amendment was suggested, and by half a decade before the State's ratified it.
In fact most of those that supported the 22nd Amendment did so from quotes in the era because of the fact that HE DIED IN OFFICE because he was in the office for too long, FDR was unbelievably popular from both sides of the spectrum, he had very few critics.
And for being a "dictator" he often vetoed his OWN SUGGESTIONS like the corporate tax rate hike because Congress took his wishes TOO strongly. (Although in that case Congress then overrode his veto).
Some people really need to open a damn history book and stop listening to talking heads spouting bull**** and taking it as fact.
Dictator n. 1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
So we managed to have a dictator in a system with checks and balances. Especially when the acting lever of those checks and balances is voting. The votes of the people are directly related to their approval of their leader.
So in a system where the approval of the people is the key factor. I ask, how exactly (besides stuffing the ballot box), does a person who is democratically elected EVER take the form of a dictator?
I'm sorry I called you dumb. I just figured that someone who had the sound body and mind to read three pages into a forum would be capable of understanding what a dictator is.
I still stand to say that the characterization of FDR as a dictator is little more than partisan mud slinging, and a method of breaking down the argument to partisan bickering. Which by the way, in a debate forum, is DUMB.
Oh really? A defacto dictator? Just because you disagree with what FDR did does not mean he is a dictator. I strongly disagree with what W did and said but that doesn't mean hes a dictator. Moron perhaps.
I see that you quoted approval ratings later.
Remember that being a dictator does not necessarily mean you are disliked. In fact, it's often quite the opposite. That's how many people become dictators, because they are extremely charismatic.
FDR was certainly well-liked, but so were many (if not most) dictators throughout history.
I would not personally call FDR a dictator, but he was about as close to one as the U.S. has ever come, short of Washington and Lincoln. He was an extremely forceful President. Lincoln was reviled by many, though, so I would more compare FDR's career to Washington's.
Based on his charisma and status, Washington got away with virtually anything he wanted to do, just as FDR did. However, there are three main differences in my mind. First, Washington was not at odds with the balance of power in the U.S. government to the same degree that FDR was. Second, Washington did step down after two terms, creating that default expectation for future Presidents. Third, Washington did not have too much of an agenda compared to FDR.
You may want to grab a dictionary and look up dictator. FDR was a damn good president in a system even without term limits was still a democratic republic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
In general, a 55 year old will have more foresight than a 19 year old. I'd sooner take my chances, but bear in mind I have a dislike of professional politicians.
Perhaps more foresight, but depending on the issue, much less insight. I fear politicians making decisions that only effect future generations.
My grandma is a wise old lady, but I wouldn't go to her for computer advice.
Implying you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Or you keep the 19 year old and the 55 year old in the same caucus so they can work together to make better legislation, more representation vetted through the election process. Heck, Joe Biden was 29 and had to wait till his 30th birthday to be able to be a Senator. It's little things like that, a 29 year old does have different priorities than a 55 year old as well as an 19 year old.
To be honest, we've basically degraded 18 year old people into "stupid kids" because we basically institutionalize them for most of their lives and group them with people their same age and wonder why they don't have too much "worldly wisdom." It's more of a matter of how society segregates the youth and the elderly than the "kids or the old people."
The argument I am saying is to allow the communities to choose their representation and then bring more varied age groups together to be able to make decisions. If you look at the wealth gap between old and young it's never been wider, the same with the ever increasing age of some senators and the amount of wealth inside of the public office is staggering.
Rich, elderly upper class people do not have the same priorities as the 18 year old starting off with little to nothing.
There's also been a strong problem in society of writing off youth issues, and youth apathy. Obama was considered a "young" president at 46, that's frankly not young. Young is more like 20ish. And in the past people such as Alexander the Great were able to conquer vast territories and control them at a very young age. He was also educated by one of the greatest minds in Grecian history and had real government experience in youth. That attests it is not the age that is the problem, but rather how we raise our children that is the problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except that former Presidents can live easily on retirement and public speaking fees without having contributed much of anything (looking at you, Dubya).
Standard: W/R Aggro
I don't have a problem with Presidents getting retirement income. I'm just rebutting the point that term limits encourage Presidents to be productive for the sake of résumé building.
Standard: W/R Aggro
There was one idea of doing a 6 year term, having to sit out the next term but being able to run again after that. Equally lowering the age down to 18 to be a Senator or Representative or President would go a lot farther to give the youth something to aspire for. Even if it ended in failure, there's always going to be that one 19 year old in the Senate towing the youth agenda. It would at least stop all the elderly people talking about their grandchildren and actually have someone there that gets affected "down the road" by policy.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Understood, and I can look at Jimmy Carter and see the same lack of presidential accomplishment, yet somehow he's considered a "statesman".
Partisan bickering aside, while the President may have the ability to do that, Joe Schmo, Representative from North Dakota, will not. He's going to have to go back to his home and either go back to his former career or try to make a new one, and it's easier to sell your name when you're seen as having done something than having coasted for X terms.
If you don't want to go with term limits, then pay these people less and see how many people want to make a career of "public service". Rank and file members of the US House and Senate make $174K per year, while also receiving fully-paid health and retirement benefits, while the average US citizen has a per capita income of about $42K. The fact that our Representatives and Senators make far more than the average American is reprehensible, IMO, so how about we give them the per capita income +10% and make them pay for their health care benefits. What you get then is people who truly want to serve their country rather than people making four times that of an average citizen who are constantly looking to do whatever they can to keep their position and benefits.
I don't trust a 19 year old to make decisions that will effect my life.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
And a lot of 19 year olds don't trust 55 year olds to make decisions they won't even be around to see the ramifications from.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
In general, a 55 year old will have more foresight than a 19 year old. I'd sooner take my chances, but bear in mind I have a dislike of professional politicians.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Perhaps more foresight, but depending on the issue, much less insight. I fear politicians making decisions that only effect future generations.
My grandma is a wise old lady, but I wouldn't go to her for computer advice.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Implying you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
I need to be more clear: I believe there are two issues here.
1. Older legislators have less vested interest in the future of the country because they're not going to have to live with most of the ramifications of their decisions.
2. No matter what you teach the "old dog," he still grew up decades years ago. The world's culture has changed and will continue to change. He can learn new tricks, but his perspective will not change. Younger legislators (19 may be a bit extreme, but early 20s would be more agreeable) could bring fresh perspective.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
You even read my ****?
Implying old people don't understand young people.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
No it's not. You even read my ****?
I said that an old person has a different perspective than a young person because they grew up in different generations.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
You said their perspective can't change. That's bull****.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Oh really? A defacto dictator? Just because you disagree with what FDR did does not mean he is a dictator. I strongly disagree with what W did and said but that doesn't mean hes a dictator. Moron perhaps.
You just can't handle the truth that the majority of americans completely disagree with you. Get over it.
Dictatorship. God. People are SO freaking dumb.
Flame infraction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
No, he said that by and large, their perspective DOESN'T change, which is true: age is one of the biggest demographic factors in differences on many issues. Old people are not by nature inflexible – people in general tend to reflect the circumstances they grew up in. Political views, once formed, do not change easily.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Standard: W/R Aggro
Because seriously, look at the history of the Equal Rights Amendment, something we all agree should be uncontroversial. Still hasn't gone through.
On phasing:
I see that you quoted approval ratings later.
Remember that being a dictator does not necessarily mean you are disliked. In fact, it's often quite the opposite. That's how many people become dictators, because they are extremely charismatic.
FDR was certainly well-liked, but so were many (if not most) dictators throughout history.
I would not personally call FDR a dictator, but he was about as close to one as the U.S. has ever come, short of Washington and Lincoln. He was an extremely forceful President. Lincoln was reviled by many, though, so I would more compare FDR's career to Washington's.
Based on his charisma and status, Washington got away with virtually anything he wanted to do, just as FDR did. However, there are three main differences in my mind. First, Washington was not at odds with the balance of power in the U.S. government to the same degree that FDR was. Second, Washington did step down after two terms, creating that default expectation for future Presidents. Third, Washington did not have too much of an agenda compared to FDR.
1) FDR was a "dictator" now? Hilarious to say the least. He ran once, twice, third time and then a fourth time (when he was trying to opt out from his health!) because the party refused to run someone else.
2) He was out of office when the Amendment was suggested, and by half a decade before the State's ratified it.
In fact most of those that supported the 22nd Amendment did so from quotes in the era because of the fact that HE DIED IN OFFICE because he was in the office for too long, FDR was unbelievably popular from both sides of the spectrum, he had very few critics.
And for being a "dictator" he often vetoed his OWN SUGGESTIONS like the corporate tax rate hike because Congress took his wishes TOO strongly. (Although in that case Congress then overrode his veto).
Some people really need to open a damn history book and stop listening to talking heads spouting bull**** and taking it as fact.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
So we managed to have a dictator in a system with checks and balances. Especially when the acting lever of those checks and balances is voting. The votes of the people are directly related to their approval of their leader.
So in a system where the approval of the people is the key factor. I ask, how exactly (besides stuffing the ballot box), does a person who is democratically elected EVER take the form of a dictator?
I'm sorry I called you dumb. I just figured that someone who had the sound body and mind to read three pages into a forum would be capable of understanding what a dictator is.
I still stand to say that the characterization of FDR as a dictator is little more than partisan mud slinging, and a method of breaking down the argument to partisan bickering. Which by the way, in a debate forum, is DUMB.
Infract away.
You may want to grab a dictionary and look up dictator. FDR was a damn good president in a system even without term limits was still a democratic republic.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
A lot of people would have really liked to see a President Wilkie.
Guess you do not frequent forums.... Name a game: There are people who don't play the game, but are on the forums every day.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Or you keep the 19 year old and the 55 year old in the same caucus so they can work together to make better legislation, more representation vetted through the election process. Heck, Joe Biden was 29 and had to wait till his 30th birthday to be able to be a Senator. It's little things like that, a 29 year old does have different priorities than a 55 year old as well as an 19 year old.
To be honest, we've basically degraded 18 year old people into "stupid kids" because we basically institutionalize them for most of their lives and group them with people their same age and wonder why they don't have too much "worldly wisdom." It's more of a matter of how society segregates the youth and the elderly than the "kids or the old people."
The argument I am saying is to allow the communities to choose their representation and then bring more varied age groups together to be able to make decisions. If you look at the wealth gap between old and young it's never been wider, the same with the ever increasing age of some senators and the amount of wealth inside of the public office is staggering.
Rich, elderly upper class people do not have the same priorities as the 18 year old starting off with little to nothing.
There's also been a strong problem in society of writing off youth issues, and youth apathy. Obama was considered a "young" president at 46, that's frankly not young. Young is more like 20ish. And in the past people such as Alexander the Great were able to conquer vast territories and control them at a very young age. He was also educated by one of the greatest minds in Grecian history and had real government experience in youth. That attests it is not the age that is the problem, but rather how we raise our children that is the problem.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.