Discussion in 'Politics' started by acts, Nov 18, 2009.
Limiting House and Senate terms to 8 years? I think so.
Kind of hard to limit senators to 8 years when they are elected for 6 at a time
I think it has been mentioned in here before that 12 seems to be reasonable number... that way it fits with the election terms we currently have
The one thing I never understood were the 2 year terms... once you won the election, it seems like you are immediately on the campaign trail again... leaving little time for actual work...
But then again.. same thing with Obama as a Senator.. started neglecting his job and immediately campaigning for President after he was elected senator
And just think of all the good Palin could be doing if not campaigning for 2012
Why are we looking to change a system that has resulted in a country that, in a mere 300 years has become the most prosperous, MOST GENEROUS and most envied nation in the world?
Our poor have cell phones....yet countries that are 10 times our age have middle class without heat.
Our poor donated as much as they could to the tsunami victims...other countries as a whole donated nothing.
Do not fall into the Obama mantra of change. We did not need to change America.....he just simply played on the poor economy and made people believe they wanted change.
Our system works. Yes, it has its consequences....but it works better than any other.
I think term limits have been needed for quite some time, two terms and go home.
I also think that the election of US senators should be returned to the state legislators.
It was a real bad idea to have them elected directly by the people.
The long term holding of government breeds the corruption and waste we see today... we already implemented term limits on President, even though we did not have that in the original makeup... it should be no different with any other supposed government servant
Our system is better.. of that you have my agreement.. but this is one bad part of the system that could be changed
As for the generosity of our citizens... I do not think having term limits on our elected government representatives would hinder that
And yes.. I was for term limits when it was a REP controlled congress too
I understand WHY the term limits.....I am concerned about all of the "change" we are experiencing....and I guess I want it to slow down.......or before we know it, we will not be the same America we have been for 300 years.
As for the generosity part...I simply used that to demonstrate why we are great and why change sounds good but is not necessaroily nevcessary.
In other words...it was not a jab to the term limits...it was a jab to those that say "Change we can believe in"....
I have an even better idea, how about we just start educating our young people in American History rather than social studies, and providing a better education for them in general so they can through the voting booth provide the term limits that are needed by voting for the best candidates for the job. I once thought that term limits were the answer, but am more concerned with a voting population that has little knowledge on the issues or the candidates so they pull the lever for the party rather than the person. Perhaps if we spent more time doing as I suggested these term limits would not be needed.
If we repealed the 17th amendment and returned the election of our Us senators to the state legislators as the origional constitution says we would also accomplish the same thing.
A four year term is long enough and more than two terms is too much. It is obvious the current system does not work well for the people. Too many elected folks number one priority is getting re-elected.
Separate names with a comma.