For $50,000 a year--I'd still be money ahead. ;D

Stevie, we don't necessarily disagree--I think you have hit the issue squarely when you mentioned "honorably" stepping down.

They won't...I mean, let's be honest here...this is their job. It's their source of exaggerated income, but their income, nonetheless.

Hence the lesser of two evils...term limits. Whether we vote them out (and don't get me started on non voters... >:() or set up a time for them to ride off in the sunset, too many of them have been there too long.

And since whee the people don't seem inclined to change things until they are all f*cked up, it is tough to stop the truck once it gets moving. Think we'd be off to war on two fronts if we could get a reasonable turnout and turnover?

By leaving them in there like stinky fish, it makes it harder, Ricka, for a new person to get on the ropes... because the esteemed Senator from Buncha-Bologna has been there, in that seat, since the Roosevelt administration. (Teddy's...not Franklin's.)

This makes it tougher, kids, for some folks to show what they can do...and besides, being an elected public official was supposed to be a part time gig, anyway. You were supposed to go home and work your old job, and show up once a year to handle the country.

Hence, a needed, necessary evil...term limits.

End of today's Civics lesson. Your homework is to get out and vote!

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I think we should limit their income to $50,000 a year or less and see how many of them stay,  after all they are supposed to be "PUBLIC" Servants, besides most of them couldn`t hold down a real job anyway :o

I also agree that term limits are a necessary evil.  It is a good way to counteract the influence of money and the extreme ignorance of the voters.  But it will not solve all of our problems.  People need to quit listening to television advertisements; instead, they need to do a little research.  It is not that difficult.  A reduction of the influence of money would also go a long way towards fixing the problem, but even with no change in campaign finance laws, voter education would counteract much of that influence.

Unfortunately, the United States seems to be largely inhabited by stupid and lazy people who are easily swayed by lies presented on commercial television stations, so I don't have much hope.

Until (and if) our public wakes up, term limits may help to reduce some of the damage that politicians are presently doing to our country.

Heather H.

Term Limits.

I'm for them.

Seems to me if you spend more than 12 years out of your "home turf", you have lost touch with your constituents. (In the case of the US Government, you will also have lost touch with reality and/or sanity.) ;D

Same thing on the State and Local levels.

Feedback on this is most welcome, even if you find yourself in agreement--because we might just find a new topic that we disagree on.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I know what you're saying, but I still want manual control. Governmnet isn't supposed to be easy and care-free. We're supposed to have to work at it. If we're so lazy that we let things get screwed up, then we don't deserve democracy anymore.

As Alan Keyes pointed out in his 2000 campaign, if it's evil, then why is it necessary?  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

We had a streak of agreement going for a while, but leave it to me to break it. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

I'm against mandatory term limits. We already have term limits in the USA. They're called elections. If the voters think certain incumbents are out-of-touch or have simply been in an office for too long, then the voters are free to toss them out via the ballot box. However, if the voters want to keep someone who's done a good job for many years, they should be able to choose to hold on to that official.

I don't like placing automatic limits on the people when it comes to elections. True, many voters are idiots (depending on whom you ask - http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif), but the last time I checked, stupidity wasn't unconstitutional. If mistakes are to be made, I'd rather allow the voters to choose their own mistakes. I don't want to do anything to encourage voter laziness - they are lazy enough as it is! Don't even get me started on the non-voters. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

Having said that, I agree that most politicians have a shelf-life, if you will, and the voters should keep a close eye on the expiration dates. After they've been in office for several terms, many of them tend to get a little too comfortable. The honorable thing for candidates to do is not run for office beyond their shelf-lives (at least not for the same offices), but when politicians don't bow out gracefully, we should throw them out. I just think we should throw them out manually, not automatically.