Why or why not?
2007-07-11 06:04:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I definitely favor term limits. The original intent was for members to serve a term, then get back to their farms, professions, etc. It was that constant turnover that would provide fresh ideas for the country. Politicians saw an opportunity and took it, Hence, career politicians. How many John McCains, John Kerrys, or Ted Kennedys can we afford?
2007-07-11 06:15:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not... I really don't think that the problem with Congress is because of the absence of term limits. I think the problem with Congress is the amounts of money and influence that the lobbyists hold over the House and Senate. Senators and representatives are more influenced by lobbyists than their constituents. If we curbed the amounts of money that finance campaigns we could get back to working for the people... the voters' would be in more touch with their senators and more importantly the senators would listen to the voters over other interests. They would have to.
If we got back to that, the limited role of lobbyists, then I wouldn't see any problem with a lack of term limits. I would actually rather have a small number of long-term senators on the important commisions and commitees (some of those positions access actual classified information and holding a commission seat for a long time could be a huge benefit to the country).
2007-07-11 06:17:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have term limits and always have. Terms are 2 years for House Members and 6 for Senators. Each time the term ends they are up for reelection. If they are not reelected they are done. If the people of their district or state believe they should continue and they are reelected than they serve another term. Terms are limited by the electorate.
If we have term limits it could lead to a Congress of rookies knowning nothing. We need veterans to keep things on track and to help the rookies along.
2007-07-11 06:08:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. Many states have term limits, but they have not seemed to change the nature of politics in those states. Federal term limits will not change the character of our politics because the permanent bureaucracy and political culture will remain the same. Michigan has term limits and it just recycles the idiots through. Anyway, we have elections. If people do not like their elected official, vote for someone else.
The only way you are going to change the political culture is if you set up limits prohibiting people from being career bureaucrats also.
2007-07-11 06:08:38 · answer #4 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am pro term limits. The longer they're allowed to stay in office, the more corrupt the seem to become. I'd like to see longer terms given to those who are serving in Congress, but limits placed on how many terms they can serve.
2007-07-11 06:08:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One four year term for Senators, two, two year terms for representatives. Don't give them time to become professional leeches on our tax dollars. The short amount of time will give them some incentive to do good or it will limit the amount of time they have to do us damage. Letting them become career politicians in Washington is never good for us.
2007-07-11 06:08:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am for term limits in any elected position because we don't need career politicians
2007-07-11 06:08:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
For term limits, career politicians are corrupt.
2007-07-11 06:06:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am for term limits. This keeps idea's new and fresh and not enough time to get too entrenched in corruption.
2007-07-11 06:09:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
For it 100 percent.
2007-07-11 06:08:12 · answer #10 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋