SoPinesHeel - 20 July 2012 11:37 AM

I will retreat from the politics argument here since I seem to get enough action about the ACC…but I will say one last thing: The two parties have worked hard to get us to where we are. If you don’t like it, why would you continue to support one or the other?

Very well said. I completely agree. However, we need government and that’s what separates us from other places.

The structure is suppose to be these elected officials go to Washington and do ‘our’ work. However, because term limits are so screwed up these elected officials use their position to build a career. In other words, it’s no longer for the people, it for their career.

And that’s both sides.

I think a President should only have 1 4 year term. And Senators and House members should only have 2 years. I think that’s the only way these folks are going to govern and eliminate special interests knowing they can’t run for re-election.

Just my 2 cents.

TB12 - 20 July 2012 02:10 PM

SoPinesHeel - 20 July 2012 11:37 AM

I will retreat from the politics argument here since I seem to get enough action about the ACC…but I will say one last thing: The two parties have worked hard to get us to where we are. If you don’t like it, why would you continue to support one or the other?

Very well said. I completely agree. However, we need government and that’s what separates us from other places.

The structure is suppose to be these elected officials go to Washington and do ‘our’ work. However, because term limits are so screwed up these elected officials use their position to build a career. In other words, it’s no longer for the people, it for their career.

And that’s both sides.

I think a President should only have 1 4 year term. And Senators and House members should only have 2 years. I think that’s the only way these folks are going to govern and eliminate special interests knowing they can’t run for re-election.

Just my 2 cents.

I don’t disagree. The problem is that they will never push that agenda on their own and the public isn’t likely to force it out of their own apathy.

I used to not be on board with the terms limits but I’m warming up to the idea. My take was that we have natural terms limits in the form of elections and that if someone is excellent, then constituents should be allowed to vote them back in countered by the ability to vote them out if desired. Clearly incumbents have not been voted out very often and we allow the problem to continue while pointing fingers and complaining but not being energized enough to do something.

To be clear - yes, it’s both sides.