Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the founding fathers were dead set against "professional politicians". They expected that people would do their public service for one or two terms, then go home and get a real job. They did NOT want anyone to make a lifetime career of the Senate or the House.
WE have the ability to enforce term limits; If the incumbent has been there for more than 2 terms, DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM/HER! Not in the primaries, and not in the general election!
It is just that simple!
Actually, the founding fathers were dead set against "professional politicians". They expected that people would do their public service for one or two terms, then go home and get a real job. They did NOT want anyone to make a lifetime career of the Senate or the House.
WE have the ability to enforce term limits; If the incumbent has been there for more than 2 terms, DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM/HER! Not in the primaries, and not in the general election!
It is just that simple!
The founding fathers were also dead set against a standing army. Shall we go back to volunteer militias? Quartered at your house during times of war.
The founders debated term limits, but it was not a priority and at the time as it was not considered of any merit as the pay was very low, the power of government was limited, and it was believed that anyone who would pursue such would do so to serve the people (after all, no money, no power, whats the point?).
Times have changed haven't they? The pay for such service is high, the power is vast, and many choose this avenue to serve their own needs than that of the people.
One can not honestly have read the founding fathers and think that they intended such. After all, they created the positions as a matter of part time service in representation of the people, not full time positions.
So since the pay is much higher than the average worker and the power is great, it only seems reasonable now to consider such.
That is... unless you would be willing to greatly limit the power of government and lower the wages of those who serve to such that it would not be an appealing office to seek?
Either way is fine with me, though I must admit that reducing the power and wage of government appears to be more appealing in my eyes.
The founding fathers were also dead set against a standing army. Shall we go back to volunteer militias? Quartered at your house during times of war.
Dead set? No, very respectful of their dangers? Yes. Hamilton spoke much on this and many of them knew the weights of the issue. So while they disliked the concept of one, they were not "dead set" against it as they realized that to not have such defense would only invite disaster.
The issue concerning it revolved more around "how" to apply such defense while retaining the protections of the people and not planting a power that would be of danger to the people. This is where state armies, militia responsibility, etc... comes into the discussion.
That would be the net change. They win one seat, Dem goes down so the net change is actually 2. Regardless, no evidence suggests that the GOP could pick up when they need to take over the House.
I put my money on the Dems still controlling Congress but by a slimmer lead. Knowing Americans attention spans, this controversial health care reform bill will be mostly forgotten by November. The only people that will be screaming about it are Republican voters that are already in Republican controlled districts. If Republicans want to control congress they need the support of Independent/undecided voters who always decide elections. I don't think they have that support as many of these in the middle voters are split on health care and even with it being split the Democrats still have a potentially larger voter base.
It also really all depends on the health of the economy as well. The economy is expected to get gradually stronger this year and if things are going good expect the Democrats to keep in power. I also expect Obama to be an 8 year president if the economy gets going back in full swing.
As for Pelosi, I wish the people in SF would vote her out. She is like that annoying girl in high school that thinks she is smarter and better than everyone else. Plus she is from Baltimore and spends the majority of her time in D.C. I would hardly say she represents or has anything in common with the people on the West Coast at all.
That is... unless you would be willing to greatly limit the power of government and lower the wages of those who serve to such that it would not be an appealing office to seek?
Most definitely a better solution than term limits!!!
I have no objection to our elected officials making high salaries. What upsets me is the "perks" of their office plus the huge amounts of money they get for selling their votes. Requiring ALL Federal employees and politicians to have the same Health Care that they insist the peons have would be a good start.
GL2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
