2006-08-14 07:14:50 · 20 answers · asked by DC 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Most people would prefer term limits, but, as usual, the politicans know that we wont stick together for nothing so, they dont ever push the issue.
I think, two terms in any elected federal or state position should be long enough. Once done, unless you run for Governor or President, you cannot hold another office.
Too many politicans are draining the American taxpayers dry. If we could stand our ground, make them do away with their fancy taxpayer funded retirement system, and go to social security, they would jump thru hoops to fix that system.
2006-08-14 07:20:23 · answer #1 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Polls show that Americans are greatly in favor of term limits. It would reduce corruption and get politicians to focus more on legislating than on building up a campaign warchest and ammassing personal power in D.C.
However, if one state were to introduce term limits for their Senators it would put that state at a disadvantage because it takes a long time in the senate before you can amass power and start "bringing home the bacon" to your constiuents in the form of government-funded "pork" projects - ala the "Big Dig" in Boston (ha, ha - funny how that turned out) or the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.
And so, term limits would have to be implemented at a national level, - and thus by Senators and Representatives themselves, - and the chances of that happening are zilcho. Regardless of how much their constituents want it, they'll just give lip service to the idea and never move on it.
Perhaps there needs to be a federal "initiative" process whereby voters nationwide can put intiatives on the ballot to be voted on at the same time that we vote for President. The requirements to get something on the ballot would have to be very stringent so that the process couldn't be abused. But again, a process like that couldn't come into being without Congress and since it would limit their power they wouldn't go along with it either.
Over the last couple of hundred years, power has slowly progressed from the people to the centralized government. Our founding fathers would not approve, but hey - they're dead and we're left on a slow trajectory toward tyranny.
2006-08-14 14:26:45 · answer #2 · answered by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Term limits might be a good idea. I'd prefer the voters elect whomever they want, but in Massachusetts and other cases, the rest of the country has to put up with a liberal (or a conservative) buffoon just because one state voted him or her in.
As for why incumbents do so well, one reason is seniority. If a senator "brings home the bacon" for the state, and has power because he or she has been there a long time, then the people of that state are unlikely to switch to a new person. Even if the senator is deficient in other ways.
2006-08-14 14:21:09 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not only in the senate, but also for all government positions where the same people keep lingering on and on forever, like Ted Kennedy, and some of the Supreme Court justices. I totally agree with you.
2006-08-14 14:20:58 · answer #4 · answered by WC 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Kennedy is owned by the Irish Mafia, he will stay in the Senate as long as Massachusetts stays as crooked as it is.
Don't believe me? Look at the Big Dig. Union labor, money in Kennedy's and Kerry's pocket.
Kennedy, a drunken, philandering sot will never relinquish his much padded seat on the Senate.
THERE should be term limits on every elected official in the country. Incumbency leads to complacency
2006-08-14 14:24:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is a term limit. When the people of Massachusetts get tired of him, they will put a limit on his term in office. Each one of us hires (through election) our Senator, and each one of us has the ability to limit their term (through the next election). If you are tired of him, work to vote him out.
2006-08-14 14:19:49 · answer #6 · answered by andreo3375 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes to term limits but NOT just for or because of Kennedy-- it applies to the other goof-ball politicians in DC-- republicans too.
Here we go folks-- everybody, and I mean everybody vote AGAINST the incumbent in November -regardless of party. Impose our own term limits.
2006-08-14 14:23:10 · answer #7 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should be tired of all incumbents and the entire political process that's been hoodwinking the public forever till most give-up or in and let them do what they want to ya. You have to take it from them, if you want real change.I tired of looking at Dennis H the speaker of the house he can't hardly button jacket! lets face it they all need elimination and replaced with legal citizen majority rule and control amending the constitution as needed!
2006-08-14 14:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by bulabate 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say there should be limits. elect them for a period, then they cannot run for the next term, but can be re-elected. Same with president. Say a 6 yr term, can be re-elected but not consecutively.
Purpose of actions while in office, get re-elected. If you cannot be re-elected, maybe, just maybe you will put the country ahead of your own personal desires. While we are at it overhaul their medical and retirement bennies.
2006-08-14 14:24:26 · answer #9 · answered by auhunter04 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES!!! Get rid of Fat A** Kennedy, Hanoi John Kerry,
Harry "A**Hole Reid, Nancy "Ugly" Pelosi, Barbara
Boxer, "Turban" Durban, "Cut and Run" Murtha, Biden,
Robert "KKK" Byrd, Hillary "white water" Clinton Chucky
Schumer and the rest of these DimocRAT weenies!!!!!
2006-08-14 14:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋