I don't think that's the argument for term limits.
-
-
-
That’s the argument I heard an hour ago when I tweeted that over half of the US House will have 6 years or less of tenure on January 3, 2019.
-
While I see two sides to this issue, my argument for term limits would revolve more around complacency and posturing of long-term congressmen.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ok I’m a big terms limits fan and I’ve never heard that argument before, nor do I subscribe to it. If anything, I recognize lousy lawmakers will be bad until their last minute.
-
It’s one of the top 4 reasons I hear for term limits. But what reason compels you to support term limits the most?
-
It will break up long time political dynasties, of which there seems to be a lot of.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Never heard that argument. Thought the primary argument was that we dont need a bunch of out of touch millionaires running the government 30 years at a time.
-
You’d rather they run it 6 years at a time? Also, over half of the US House has been there 6 years or less. (come Jan 3, 2019.)
-
I'd rather they not stay long enough to become out of touch millionaires.
-
Spoiler: US Congressmen arrive to DC as out of touch millionares
-
Most of them don't start as millionaires.
-
The average net worth of incoming congressmen is well over 1 million.pic.twitter.com/9TUo8Jyend
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As a term limits activist, I don't say this. I think members behave better at the beginning of their tenures and support more spending with time. Ergo, don't give them a lifetime in office.
-
Please see my previous post then. On Jan 3rd, 2019, over half of the House will have 6 years or less of tenure.
-
See mine about power being primarily concentrated with leadership. Initial badness and a worsening with time aren’t mutually exclusive. Also, “not a silver bullet” applies to every policy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Haven't sifted the data, but observation over the decades shows a so-called "lame duck" is FREE- free from chasing reelection money- free from having to "toe the party line"- free from PC Speak- free from establishment moneyed Primary Challengers. Yes? No?
-
I will note there is a SHARP difference between a retiring-from-politics "lame duck" vs. a "lame duck" who leaves office to take a executive branch job or to get on a payroll lobbying Congress.
-
In a world with term limits, I expect most of them will head straight to K street.
-
What if the power of K street was diminished? What if K street had no reelection money to wave around because there were no reelections? What if most (maybe not all) just went home after one long single term?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.