8 years max for all representatives, senators, governors, with a max of 16 if you make it to VP or President. Thoughts?

Limits on staffers as well. Term limit isn't that helpful if there's some 30 year staffer behind the office with all of the connections to lobbyists that can pass from one legislator to the next.

Age limits too…

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Limits on staffers as well. Term limit isn't that helpful if there's some 30 year staffer behind the office with all of the connections to lobbyists that can pass from one legislator to the next.

---

This. The lobbyists run the country

Been screaming this for 25 years to deaf ears

And no participation in stock market during service.

No future jobs unrelated to the background of the politician.

Convert those 80,000 IRS agents to non-partisan DOJ anti-corruptions agents and haunt every federal and top state politicians financial transaction.

Agree with all of these…

I'll add: no media related jobs until out of office, or out of your position, for 5 years.

I'd go as far as 2 terms for house and 1 term limit for senate.

I doubt it'll ever happen, but at minimum there should be an age limit. No one older than 65 can hold office. We recognize that you must be a certain age to hold office from a youth perspective, the same should hold true for elder. You have mandatory retirement at early ages for jobs air traffic controllers, why not elected officials?

100% needed which is why our idiot leaders will never bring it up for a vote. They crave the attention, money, status, power, etc. The minute they get elected they stop working for the people and start working for the lobbyist and special interest groups.

Here's a few more items that should be changed.

1. They are required to live in the equivalent of section 8 housing while in session.
2. Cannot buy, trade, sell individual stocks.
3. Do not take a salary in any year where they do not pass a budget.
4. Take a 50% pay cut in any year that they do not balance the budget unless we are in times of war.
5. Must use Obamacare
6. No more cushy pension/retirement plans they must use a 401k.
7. Prevented from being a lobbyist or working for a lobbyist for 10 years after their final term ends.

I am sure there are a lot more that we could add but this should be a start.

I think if you reduced the retirement and healthcare incentives combined with a ban from trading stocks for term+2 years you would weed out a lot of bad actors.

Age limit 70.
Term limit 20 years in congress.

We do need some experience in Congress so making it basically 1 term is not a good idea. Also, Senators serve 6 year terms.

Max of 5 terms in the House.
2 terms in the Senate (and nuke the 17th Amendment while we're at it)
Max age limit when starting a term can be no older than 70. After that term, they're done.

Ban all of the "perks" they use/get to enrich themselves while in office such as stock trading.

Why do people continue to pray for this pipe dream. Texas will secede from the US before term limits are enforced and neither will ever happen.

No. We need restrictions on voting. Politicians are not the problem, the electorate is.

I get the frustration about all the crap we have in office, but this whole argument is just an admission that citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote for whoever they want because they're too stupid to know what's good for them. And maybe that's true. But just say that instead. This whole thing makes me picture those railings in the lanes of bowling alleys to keep the kids from putting every ball in the gutter. Don't tell me what score your kid got when failure was simply not allowed.

Either let people be free to choose to vote for dementia-ridden 90-year-olds and foreign nationals and so on ten elections in a row if they're that stupid and suffer the consequences or just get rid of voting altogether. This "Let's pretend we like voting as long as people have their choices pre-filtered for them because otherwise they'll end up voting for a 12-year-old with brain damage from Ecuador as president!" nonsense is ridiculous. Just put a damn dictator in. Hell, if we're going to tell people who they can't vote for anyway why not just skip ahead a few steps and say you simply can't vote for democrats?

It's like arguing in favor of those idiot-labels on products. Once you acknowledge that you have to warn people "Do not replace chainsaw blade while it's running" or "Do not drink bleach" or "Do not stand in front of moving steamroller" you might as well quit pretending that they should ever have any involvement at all.

Here's the deal: People suck. Therefore, a government freely selected by those people will always suck. True representative government.

Maybe this is why most of human history has been filled with kings. Freedom is a nice idea but most humans are unworthy of it.

I used to be in this camp, but I'm no longer in favor of term limits

Term limits allow for rapid, emotional, and progressive changes in our government

Even if you don't currently like our current guys who have been there for 1520+ years, they are going to be better than anything that would get elected right now on the Democratic side

We would not need 50% of our Congress being replaced in some wild hysteria like Covid or BLM.

SirDippinDots said:

---

No. We need restrictions on voting. Politicians are not the problem, the electorate is.

---

Both are the problem

Congress is subject to every law they pass

SirDippinDots said:

---

No. We need restrictions on voting. Politicians are not the problem, the electorate is.

---

Wrong. It's both.

Quote:

---

who have been there for 1520+ years

---

Love it

Vivek represents the idea of introducing term limits with a grandfather clause. (i.e. if you vote YES, you get to stay as long as you are voted in. Once voted out, that spot must comply with term limits.)

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Limits on staffers as well. Term limit isn't that helpful if there's some 30 year staffer behind the office with all of the connections to lobbyists that can pass from one legislator to the next.

---

Yes, we're already being run by unelected bureaucrats. We don't need more.

I'd say repeal 17th amendment and make the Senate a lifetime term.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I used to be in this camp, but I'm no longer in favor of term limits

Term limits allow for rapid, emotional, and progressive changes in our government

Even if you don't currently like our current guys who have been there for 1520+ years, they are going to be better than anything that would get elected right now on the Democratic side

We would not need 50% of our Congress being replaced in some wild hysteria like Covid or BLM.

---

I get your point. If they're not distracted with getting reelected, they'll probably start passing a crapton of stuff.

Yessir, we don't need Roman Consuls rushing head long towards disaster in order to beat the clock before the next guy shows up to take over and gets all the glory.

Joes said:

---

I get the frustration about all the crap we have in office, but this whole argument is just an admission that citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote for whoever they want because they're too stupid to know what's good for them. And maybe that's true. But just say that instead. This whole thing makes me picture those railings in the lanes of bowling alleys to keep the kids from putting every ball in the gutter. Don't tell me what score your kid got when failure was simply not allowed.

Either let people be free to choose to vote for dementia-ridden 90-year-olds and foreign nationals and so on ten elections in a row if they're that stupid and suffer the consequences or just get rid of voting altogether. This "Let's pretend we like voting as long as people have their choices pre-filtered for them because otherwise they'll end up voting for a 12-year-old with brain damage from Ecuador as president!" nonsense is ridiculous. Just put a damn dictator in. Hell, if we're going to tell people who they can't vote for anyway why not just skip ahead a few steps and say you simply can't vote for democrats?

It's like arguing in favor of those idiot-labels on products. Once you acknowledge that you have to warn people "Do not replace chainsaw blade while it's running" or "Do not drink bleach" or "Do not stand in front of moving steamroller" you might as well quit pretending that they should ever have any involvement at all.

Here's the deal: People suck. Therefore, a government freely selected by those people will always suck. True representative government.

Maybe this is why most of human history has been filled with kings. Freedom is a nice idea but most humans are unworthy of it.

---

The problem with this is that the original framework has been destroyed and replaced - by politicians - with a system that is designed to favor politicians.

You would have an argument if we went back to a system where state legislatures appointed senators and voting was restricted to those that paid taxes, but since neither of those are the case, we are left with a voting populace that at least half have zero skin in the game and will willingly vote themselves perks at the expens of the 50% that pay the bills. Senators are not beholden to the states in which they were created to serve, which neutered the construct that states retained significant power over the federal government.

When the idiots continue to elect the same people over and over again that have put us $30T in debt and who have less than zero concept of anything remotely resembling fiscal or social responsibility, change is necessary because the system has proven over the last ~120 years that it is not a system that works. Unless you are a senator, congressman or federal employee of some sort anyway.

Problem isn't term limits.

The problem is people keep re-electing them. Incumbents win almost every time.

I agree though they should not be able to vote themselves a pay raise when we have a deficit year.

Term and age limits on all of them, INCLUDING the SC justices.

We've had seemingly non-stop "rule" by the Boomers (either by them or those they elect) since at least the Eighties. Next, it'll be the Millenials, which for the far-left will be their wet dream come true. The thing is we need to stop having one generation be the begin all and end all of our political system.

Can we add in spouses

While you are restricting voting, government employees should not be allowed to vote. We now have a large percentage of the population who work for the government. What government employee would vote for smaller government and reducing spending?

Military might be exempted from this restriction.

Term limits then sacrifices.

Term limits on laws

Think most want term limits but years allowed is much debated. I would think 20 years It's not long considering Joe has been in office about 50.
And limit retirement plans, ability to lobby.
And as above it's also those who work there. Twenty years and out
You can finish current term.

Shooter McGavin said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Limits on staffers as well. Term limit isn't that helpful if there's some 30 year staffer behind the office with all of the connections to lobbyists that can pass from one legislator to the next.

---

This. The lobbyists run the country

---

I hate to rain on your parade but if you are constantly turning over Congressmen and staff, who do you think they will turn to for the expertise to write a bill? Lobbyists and bureaucrats.

Quote:

---

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

---