Wouldn't term limits solve most of the problems caused by politicians in Washington?

Question

If a politician only gets to serve one term, lobbyists & special interests groups can't buy/influence that politicians vote because that politician doesn't need any money for his re election. And the shorter amount of time politicans have in office the less chance they have of screwing things up.

The only problem is special interests groups & lobbyists would never allow this to happen.

Answer 1

Newt Gingrich tried to accomplish this with his Contract With America, back in 1995. The Democrats didn't let it happen.

And the answer is so simple. Bring it back, and simply grandfather all sitting politicians, so it won't apply to them. That's what they did when they passed presidential term limits after FDR; they didn't apply to the sitting president, Harry Truman, and he could have run again, had he wanted to.

Vote for Rudy!

Answer 2

The President has a term limit. That hasn't worked out so great. The corporations have and always will control the politicians in Washington with or without term limits.

The best thing to do would be to make it illegal for corporations to give money to politicians either before, during, or after they leave office. Too bad the greedy jerks would never pass such a law.

Answer 3

No, I think only a part of the problem has to do with multiple terms.

This is just because right now we have two camps of mostly middle-of-the-road politicians. They pass laws and vote in blocs because it's in their best interest to do so. Periodically, we vote more blue people in, then more red people in. Then we go back to blue for awhile.

The best thing we have going for us is that no one bloc gets to stay in power, a la the defunct communists. One group gouges awhile, then the other gets to curry big-time favor. 'Tis not the best possible system, but it's all we have.

Answer 4

The "improve" replaced right into a cost of living adjustment that went without delay to all federal workers, which includes all armed forces, and it replaced into purely or 0.5%, this is far less that final years inflation value of two.2%, so they are truthfully making much less in spending ability. so which you would be able to not often point a grievance at Obama for this. this is confusing to shrink spending, whether, for the two events, and Congress continuously reflects super cowardice as they kick the can down the line.

Answer 5

No. Instead, a requirement that the legislators read the bills before voting on them may cause a lot of them to not seek office again. As it stands now, most of those clowns vote for anything their party leaders endorse, regardless of Constitutionality or economic impact to the taxpayer.

Answer 6

don't see why not he has just got to learn a load of shite like on the back and front foot.gamble.in the hole.in the mix back to back.postage stamp.apsolutly.one game at a time.did not see it.open up yer body.at the top of the show.up top.at the end of the day.there is more but Ill give some body else a chance

Answer 7

And would leave us without any experience in Congress. Fair trade off? Maybe. I don't know if I want a new group every 4 years. Maybe every 12.

Answer 8

You got it! Now we can only zap all incumbents, even at the state and local level. Clean house asap. Then we can unite and get some meaningful change. Cross one bridge at a time.

Answer 9

I used to think so, but the courts have ruled it unconstitutional. In any event, the presidency is term limited, and they don't seem to be getting any better. I see no reason to believe it would be any different with congress.

Answer 10

Are you kidding? The REAL problem is they are mostly lawyers. Talk about Dumb and Dumber! Exchanging one dummy for another ain't gonna help. We need a benevolent King - I suggest Jon Stewart.