Six Year Term for President? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

popeye1250 -> Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 11:21:32 AM)

I'd like to see one six year term for President instead of two four year terms.
Most President's last two years in office are wasted anyway. They are "Lame Ducks" who have trouble getting anything done.
And with the exception of Ronald Reagan, most people are tired of Presidents in their last two years anyway.
Your thoughts?



Sicarius -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 11:24:07 AM)

Absolutely ... but let's go one step further:  six year term limit for all congressmen.  I think Supreme Court justices ought to have a term limit, as well.

-Sicarius



vield -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 11:31:57 AM)

I would like to see the US change to one two year term for President and Vice President with no re-election allowed for anyone serving in either position. One term in either office per lifetime.

I would like the rules to include a total freeze of all debts and assets of those and their immediate family serving in either position, with all of their family expenses paid via a US government credit card. All prchases would be public record.

Upon leaving office all pay, benefits, insurance coverage, security staff and other freebies will stop.

I think this should be true for congress too, for both houses.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 11:58:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
I'd like to see one six year term for President instead of two four year terms.
Most President's last two years in office are wasted anyway. They are "Lame Ducks" who have trouble getting anything done.Your thoughts?


popeye,
The result would be a six year "lame duck".

The problem is a doubled edged sword, but the side on term limits may be a bit sharper.

First look at the other side of the sword. Once elected, the "job" of a congressman, serving for only two years, is to get reelected. The congressman needs "ammunition" for the campaign. As currently legislated, the major source of campaign contributions come from PACs and not people. Which is a major reason why our elected officials don't represent individuals but corporations. This is true of every office, regardless of term, that does not have a term limit.

I'm against fixed term for the most basic reason - it denies me a choice. Pragmatically, I'm against anything that has that impact on me. But the "lame duck" aspect makes the official impotent. Once elected to the last possible term, the office holder lacks the political clout to direct his/her political platform. They can not go directly to the people, because the people can't impact the one aspect that gave him power in the first place - reelection.

Rudy Guilliani in NYC and President Clinton are two examples where the ability to chose was taken away from the electorate. The options we were given in both cases were very much lacking.



CuriousLord -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 12:10:40 PM)

Longer term, less election.. makes for a more productive chance yet less of a check and balance.

One thing I would consider is that, if a president has six years in office with little worry about any upcoming election, how would he act differently?  In our current system, those in their second term only carry this status for four years, and these four years directly follow another four years in which they're intimately aware of the importance of public opinion.

With regards to the idea of supreme court justices have limited terms.. it could be neat.  However, that would make their terms far more predictable and people will understand that the party assocation of their president would likely be shared by any justices due to retire during his election term.

There are more effects to consider, too.  I'm not for or against the idea, but it'll remain incomplete until these ideas and others are addressed.



Nastgargoyle -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 12:28:56 PM)

I'm against terms of service for supreme court justices, but I'm all for enforced retirement based on age.
I don't believe in compensating any elected official with any salary that is above the per capita american middle class.
Limiting the terms of office a president could hold was put into play as a political party ploy when after Roosevelt held off, becuase he was such a damn good president that the opposing party couldnt get him voted out, so to keep it from happening again they limited the number of years a man could sit behind the desk.
And unfortunately Mercbeth as a citizen of the united states of america you dont have any say in who your president is anyway, that decision is made by the electorial college who may or may not listen to what your choice in the matter would be.



dogthing -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 1:08:02 PM)

quote:

Your thoughts?


Yep, you're right, the election cycle takes up too much productive time. But six years might alarm people. How about five years, as a compromise? I think people might be persuaded to go for that.

cheers,
dt



FirmhandKY -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 1:42:59 PM)

I'm basically with Merc, but what I'd really like to see is this:

Remove all term limits. 

Remove all funding limits and restrictions, but make it absolutely mandatory that all funds spent for any political purpose be avowed, and publicly published on the net. 

No legal entity of any kind could provide funding, only individuals, and their names must be disclosed immediately.

Failure to disclose would result in the inability of the politician to run for office in the current election cycle, or removal from office if elected, for the campaign that the funds were received.

FirmKY



LadyEllen -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 2:03:07 PM)

Reading this with interest.

In the UK, government ministers have their assets frozen when they enter office (maybe members of Parliament too, but not sure on that) - this prevents any suspicion (supposedly at any rate) that they might use their political office and any inside knowledge that comes to them, to get rich. Albeit that it has been at least suspected that this system can be bypassed by way of friends and relatives.

Also, UK ministers and definitely members of Parliament on this one too, have to declare in writing all benefits they receive by way of their office - down to a cup of tea bought for them or a postage stamp loaned to them. Again, this is meant to provide a system of inhibiting possible corruption by way of bribery etc.

In the UK party system, all donations to parties must be declared if over a certain sum, which is set quite low though I dont know what it is (sorry). Equally, the spending on election campaigns must be declared in detail to the returning officer.

From what I'm reading here, none of this applies in the US system?

E



farglebargle -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 2:08:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm basically with Merc, but what I'd really like to see is this:

Remove all term limits.


Agreed. Term limits are called "Elections"

quote:


Remove all funding limits and restrictions, but make it absolutely mandatory that all funds spent for any political purpose be avowed, and publicly published on the net.


Let's go the OTHER WAY. If you're a declared candidate, your campaign is PUBLICLY FUNDED from our tax dollars. THERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FUNDING.

This levels the playing field, and removes the advantage held by Artificial Legal Entities. Special Interest Groups, Lobbies, etc..

Get us back to the ideal of , "If you don't have a Vote, you don't have a Voice", sorta thing...

Of course $BIG_MEDIA would see their revenues drop, but who the hell gives a shit about them?




Nastgargoyle -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 2:08:48 PM)

There are supposed to be certain donation limits and laws governing what sorts of gifts can and can't be recieved by various members of government in the US LadyEllen, but essentially they amount to lip service that can be sidestepped with little effort.
Instead of your husband the congressman getting handed a new car from a company, the car is donated to you for use in a charity service that you create to help find homes for the poor orphened kittens of the antartic, etc.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 2:20:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Remove all term limits.


Agreed. Term limits are called "Elections"


Damn.  We agree on something?  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Remove all funding limits and restrictions, but make it absolutely mandatory that all funds spent for any political purpose be avowed, and publicly published on the net.


Let's go the OTHER WAY. If you're a declared candidate, your campaign is PUBLICLY FUNDED from our tax dollars. THERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FUNDING.

This levels the playing field, and removes the advantage held by Artificial Legal Entities. Special Interest Groups, Lobbies, etc..

Get us back to the ideal of , "If you don't have a Vote, you don't have a Voice", sorta thing...

Of course $BIG_MEDIA would see their revenues drop, but who the hell gives a shit about them?


FB, not allowing corporations, trusts, foundations etc to fund political campaigns was the next item on my list.  Only individuals can contribute directly to a politician, or political party, as I said.

I disagree with public funding of political campaigns. A bad idea, and a restriction on the freedom of expression.  My goal would be maximum freedom of choice to an individual, not taking away his right to contribute directly, or forcing him to give to political candidates he may abhor through forced taxation.

FirmKY



Mercnbeth -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 2:46:25 PM)

Here's an example of circumventing contribution laws. It happens to be pointed at Senator Clinton, but this is standard practice.

Senator Clinton's campaign could pay $9,000 for a charter. But if they borrow a jet from a "friend" they only pay the equivalent of a 1st Class airfare. Think your $50 or even $500 contribution merits the same consideration as a Corporation or individual who can provide a private jet to a candidate?

quote:

May 2, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Jet-setting Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is a fussy frequent flier who used three different planes in a single day during a recent campaign swing through South Carolina. Presidential campaigns can pay as much as $9,000 for a charter flight, but get a break when borrowing a corporate jet - like Clinton did with the Hawker 800.   That's because ethics laws allow candidates to pay the aircraft's owner only the equivalent of first-class airfare.   Clinton, who has warned against global warming from the stump and hyped the need for alternative energy such as ethanol, burned through thousands of gallons of jet fuel swooping along the campaign trail - and it's not clear why she sent an empty plane to wait for her in South Carolina then flew a different jet from Washington the next day. Source: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05022007/news/nationalnews/flighty_hill_changes_planes___constantly_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm



pahunkboy -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 3:52:18 PM)

6 year terms 4 prez wont happen.

i think we should grab the next10 shoppers at the grocery store and have THEM write a campaaigne finannce bill- and one that sticks.

campaaigne finance reform has been a joke. we get more of the same.

i am really tired of shoddy legislation to. for example- "clean air" bill which is the opisite- a bad trend in the last umteen years.

even w frozen assets a "buddy" can cash in. its all about greed. power currupts weather it be that oh so awefull soviet union, or the new american centrury.



Griswold -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 4:24:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I'd like to see one six year term for President instead of two four year terms.
Most President's last two years in office are wasted anyway. They are "Lame Ducks" who have trouble getting anything done.
And with the exception of Ronald Reagan, most people are tired of Presidents in their last two years anyway.
Your thoughts?


It's the first fucking time I've ever agreed with you Popeye.

4 years was valid prior to 1910...since, it's a tough job.  One requiring at least 6 years.

(And I was tired of Reagan the day after inauguration).



Griswold -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 4:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Let's go the OTHER WAY. If you're a declared candidate, your campaign is PUBLICLY FUNDED from our tax dollars. THERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FUNDING.

This levels the playing field, and removes the advantage held by Artificial Legal Entities. Special Interest Groups, Lobbies, etc..



Riiiiiiight.

(Uh huh).



Sinergy -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 5:07:35 PM)

 

While I understand your argument about making a 6 year lame duck President, Merc, I disagree with the proposed solution.

We elect somebody President for 4 years.  They waste 4 years of time when they should be doing their job trying to get reelected.  They get reelected, they waste 4 years as a lame duck.

I agree with the one (1) 6 year President term limit, 2 year term limit for Representatives, 6 year for Senator, etc.  I think justices should be elected not appointed.

Since a corporation is a fictional entity, it should be under the same campaign financing guidelines as a real entity.  In other words, if I can give up to $1000 to a candidate, the same rule should apply to Ford, GOPAC, whoever.

I think that the biggest kickback or whatever from a company to a politician should be things like coffee mugs, pens, bumper stickers.  Anything bigger than that seems very unethical to me.  When I worked for a large Aerospace contractor I was under those guidelines for just those reasons.  Why is it unethical for me to get tickets to the Lakers, whereas it is not unethical for a Congressman to use ENRON's private jet?

If a person wants to be a politician, their primary reward for it should be their paycheck and the feeling of giving back to their country. 

Sinergy

p.s.  Of course, when I am feeling outrageously cynical I tend to think that the term limit should be a well placed bullet to the politicians head.  This may seem obstructively hostile to the criminal class known as politicians.



minnetar -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 5:11:07 PM)

i see nothing wrong with the current term limits in place for Senators, Congressmen or the President.  However, i would like to see mandatory retirement for judges.  It is ironic.  my uncle was a federal judge but failed to retire at an appropriate age and was still on the bench when he passed.

minnetar



farglebargle -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 6:13:20 PM)

quote:

A bad idea, and a restriction on the freedom of expression.


I disagree. YOU can go on tv and say ANYTHING YOU want to say.

YOU. Not "A Non-profit". Not "A Committee". You.

Write whatever letter to the editor you want. Publish your own newspaper. Start a website.

There is no "Freedom" on FCC licensed stations. They obey The Peoples' will as filtered through the FCC.

Well, in theory.

But go try to exercise your freedom to say "Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cock-sucker, Mother-fucker, and Tits" on tv.




luckydog1 -> RE: Six Year Term for President? (5/2/2007 9:15:21 PM)

Farg, where in the Constitution does it explicitly give the Gov the right to fund campaigns?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.125