When our founders went to represent us in congress, they came with a specific job to do ...did it...and went home.
Shouldn't congress be limited to two terms like the presidency?
Davey Crockett hated the congress and served only to push through the important issues of his day. He then went back west ( Kentucky) and said it was "too crowded" there and went even farther West to Texas. Remember the Alamo.
2007-07-20 08:25:33 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
YES!! I couldn't agree more. I'm sick of these lifetime congressman, getting fat off our taxes, while they vote themselves pay raises and withdrew from social security when they voted themselves THE most comprehensive medical package (at our expense) in the world. Mean time, we struggle to make ends meet, and can't afford the cost of medical care.
2007-07-20 09:38:12 · answer #1 · answered by randy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are limited by your voting them in term after term.. Davy crockett would be consider a hill billy in this day and age. He didn't like cities what has that got to do with todays congress. You people kill me you hear a line term limits for congress and you fall right in line. I think times are a little more complicated then when the founding fathers where here. Your congressman can only get power by being in congress more than a couple of terms. By the time they fine there way around you would be sending them home. With nothing gettting done. You need to think that over a little more I want a congressman in there that can get things done for my state so he would have to be over some kind of committee that comes with being there the longest.
2007-07-20 08:37:23 · answer #2 · answered by margie s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Long term congressman can get a lot of things done as well though. LBJ used his long terms in office to build up good support within the institution. During his years as president he used that influence to pass the Great Society laws.
I think there should be limits; however, not to two terms like the president. I think senators should be limited to 3 terms and Reps should be limited to 5 terms. This will allow them each to get things done on a longer term if necessary. The citizens of the state do vote them back each term so there wishes should garner some respect.
Oh and I think Davy Crockett left for Texas to escape debts (lots of the origianl white Texans were more like original white Austrailians)
2007-07-20 08:36:25 · answer #3 · answered by the_hilton 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's an option. But consider that Representatives are elected every 2 years -- it's not hard to wait out two years before choosing someone else.
Senators are elected for 6 year terms, so term limits make more sense there.
2007-07-20 08:38:15 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
8 years optimal, then out. Banned from being a lobbyist besides. Pay must be right now halved (on no account to enhance back), besides as scientific advantages of Obamacare in simple terms (you handed it, relish it), and pensions equivalent to time served, no longer existence. No exceptions. they do in comparison to that? ... do no longer run. hundreds of thousands of others might like the job. Take the money out of politics and the criminals will bypass someplace else, according to risk the racetrack, a on line casino. we've an all yet everlasting "Royal" ruling classification, and that they valuable as F_ck are not grateful, humble, non everlasting "Public Servants". precise now firms love the present set up ... purchase the grasping chump as quickly as ... very own him/her for existence. They wont have the skill to have the money for to purchase new ones each and all of the time. while it incredibly isn't any longer -all-approximately-them- according to risk it is going to alter into all approximately us. term limits is the "flea tub" our government (canine) desperately desires.
2016-09-30 09:30:38 · answer #5 · answered by keva 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-07-20 08:50:01 · answer #6 · answered by Steel Rain 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The founders weren't paid either.
definitely term limits are in order (some of the perks should
be removed too -- paid only for days in session/sessions
attended)
2007-07-20 08:36:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If the voters want them to go home after two terms, they can make them go home by voting them out. Apparently, a majority of voters want their congressmen to stick around longer - that's democracy.
2007-07-20 08:37:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes i think they should be it would cut down on the power of big lobbies to get in their pocket. it would also vut down on their urge to get this earmarked money for stupid projects their state doesnt need becuase they wont need to get yet another re-election again.
it would also give us a refreshing of ideas.
out forefathers never intended on our reps getting retirement from thier service and neither should we.
2007-07-20 08:36:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should you not be addressing this question also on the yahoo USA board?
2007-07-20 08:29:53 · answer #10 · answered by Ellie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋