u May 17 cajeanpaul v Yes This is the reason for all of the government corruption. They truly don't have to cater to the people since they are are there for life. With the incumbency advantage added to that, where they get to mail free through the Postal system, they always have the means to get the word out about themselves whether tire or false whereas a potential candidate will have it that much harder to defeat them. This is why so many of them have been in office for 1 and even 2 decades. If the president shouldn't serve more than 2, they shouldn't either! Post
u May 13 topcattopcat v Yes One term should be the limit and no congressman or senator should benefit from legislation passed during his one term. And there should be no retirement income or benefits from serving in congress. It was never intended to be a full time job. Post
u May 6 fraps v Yes One term. No pension. Same benefits average employed citizen receives. No perks. No subsidies. May not serve at same governmental level for at least 4 years after his term ends. Post
May 6 ZombieMedic v Yes For Senators yes, and their last term should only be for 2 year instead of the usual. Post
May 5 Nurse8493 v Yes We live in a free world. Look what hitler was able to do in ten years! Killed a total of 6 million Jews and 5 million other supposed trouble makers. Post
o May 4 Republican1050 v Yes No life time appointments for anyone in government. Lets start with the Supreme Court first. Post
May 4 Nautilus v Yes Not only congress but the supreme court as well. No retirement no golden parachutes just two terms and get a real job r1 reply Post
u May 3 fistv v Yes Not only term limits but no retirement and the same medical care our active duty and retired military get IN THE SAME FACILITIES. All their assets are placed in a blind trust and they are not allowed to benefit financially while in office. Oh, and no exemptions from their own laws. B1 Post
u May 17 cajeanpaul v Yes This is the reason for all of the government corruption. They truly don't have to cater to the people since they are are there for life. With the incumbency advantage added to that, where they get to mail free through the Postal system, they always have the means to get the word out about themselves whether tire or false whereas a potential candidate will have it that much harder to defeat them. This is why so many of them have been in office for 1 and even 2 decades. If the president shouldn't serve more than 2, they shouldn't either! Post
u May 13 topcattopcat v Yes One term should be the limit and no congressman or senator should benefit from legislation passed during his one term. And there should be no retirement income or benefits from serving in congress. It was never intended to be a full time job. Post
u May 6 fraps v Yes One term. No pension. Same benefits average employed citizen receives. No perks. No subsidies. May not serve at same governmental level for at least 4 years after his term ends. Post
May 6 ZombieMedic v Yes For Senators yes, and their last term should only be for 2 year instead of the usual. Post
May 5 Nurse8493 v Yes We live in a free world. Look what hitler was able to do in ten years! Killed a total of 6 million Jews and 5 million other supposed trouble makers. Post
o May 4 Republican1050 v Yes No life time appointments for anyone in government. Lets start with the Supreme Court first. Post
May 4 Nautilus v Yes Not only congress but the supreme court as well. No retirement no golden parachutes just two terms and get a real job r1 reply Post
u May 6 fraps I think Supreme court should be more permanent but have an age limit and/or a 20 year limit. The Supreme Court adds stability. Stability was the reason for six year Senatorial terms. Post @fraps
u May 3 fistv v Yes Not only term limits but no retirement and the same medical care our active duty and retired military get IN THE SAME FACILITIES. All their assets are placed in a blind trust and they are not allowed to benefit financially while in office. Oh, and no exemptions from their own laws. B1 Post
May 2 Mr_GO_HERD v No The idea of "term limits" gas been talked about forever. MANY studies have shown that set term limits would hinder many processes of congress as well as open the door to even more special interest groups influence if that even possible. Want term limits? VOTE THEM OUT! Post
u May 2 IMAQT v Yes Sadly I have little confidence in the average American voter who knows the recent winner of American Idol but has no clue who their representative is. Post
u May 2 seedtick v Yes Yes...but you cannot force term limits unless you have an alternative method of insuring each state that they will have equal say in government. That means something to replace the all powerful seniority rules in congress. Otherwise you will wind up with too much time spent on funding or unfunding programs depending upon what so many new congress members want....and those dependent upon these programs will always be in limbo. And this instability may be more harmful than long term congress members. Post
u May 1 gherlone v Yes would have liked an 'oh, HELL yes' button. 12 years max, and cut way back on the perks and benefits. Post
May 1 Keyjo v Yes Well, not if we're talking prison terms! Yeah, limit their terms. But also bar them from any corporate "consulting," (lobbying) activities for at least 25 years after leaving office. B2 r1 reply Post
u Apr 27 commonsense51 v Yes Should the sun come up tomorrow? It would the answer to most our problems but alas it is the politicians who would have to vote themselves out of office. That is not going to happen. Just imagine what could get done in Congress were they not worried about getting elected by those they pander to. They might actually balance our budget instead of handing our tax dollars out to those who would vote for them. Post
Jan '13 Mia v Yes Two terms max. Then go back home. Get a job. No govt pensions. No govt perks. Serve! Serve the people not lobbyists, not special interest, not yourselves. B1 e62 endorsed Post
Jan '13 methinks v Yes The founders never envisioned us having career politicians like we do today. It was supposed to be a temporary position to serve the people; not the other way around. If there were term limits, there would no congressional pensions or lifetime healthcare (they won't get Obamacare like the rest of us!). They had jobs before they came to congress; they need to return to those jobs when they leave. That being said, they shouldn't be able to move into a job based on their term in congress...something like a non-compete clause that would have a 5 year ban on using this gained knowledge. e17 endorsed Post
Jan '13 ST_Louie_Sue v No There are term limits already, it's called elections. If you don't like the job someone is doing, don't vote for them. If you don't like the job they're doing then run against them or encourage someone with you beliefs to run. But most of all do something to get the word out that the incumbent is not doing what is best for the people in their district. Sitting on your butt complaining is no solution. B2 r1 reply e8 endorsed Post
Jan '13 MadAmerican v Yes That's always been part of the problem. Too many old timers think they are due so many entitlements because they buy their elections every term. I don't congress having the power to vote themselves pay raises, burrying pork belly projects in major bills, granting themselves powers that the average citizen doesn't have, etc. I say no more than two-three terms. We don't need anymore good ole boys in there. One requirement I would heavily suggest is that no member of congress, senate, or branch ties to the oval office should have any stock period! Having ties to oil companies, the insurance field, or Haliburton, is just too much conflict of interest. You want to serve thi... e8 endorsed Post
Jan '13 MarkJM v Yes Yep, that's why I vote the NRA Ticket. N R A = Never Reelect Anyone. Serving in CONgress is supposed to be a privilege, not a full on career. B3 r1 reply e5 endorsed Post
Jan '13 DARSB v No Ever notice how people calling for term limits are usually members of the party not in power? :-) B2 r3 replies e3 endorsed Post
Jan '13 PNWest v Yes Yes. These politicians get too entrenched in the system and run it for their benefit - not ours. I think that the pay for congresspeople should be tied to the median family income in the country and that they should not receive benefits for life. Further more they should be prevented from lobbying for life. B2 e2 endorsed Post
u Jan '13 CaryNickel v No We already have term limits the voting public can institute at any time: They are called elections. B1 r3 replies e2 endorsed Post
u Jan '13 lochlomond v Yes I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for "citizen statesmen" to firmly entrench themselves for a lifetime at the public trough, complete with handsome salaries, and perks unimagined in the 18th century. It was a hardship for members of Congress to make their ways to Philadelphia or New York and then Washington. Their service was often at the expense of their real jobs as farmers, merchants, schoolmasters or lawyers. (Law was studied under the supervision of an established attorney in the form of an apprenticeship.) Congress today is a parody of the high minded intentions in the beginning of our nation's history. Two terms are sufficient for both senators and con... B2 e1 endorsed Post
Jan '13 JoeJared v Yes There should be term limits, but more importantly, they should be held accountable for every action in violation of the constitution and human rights issues. This government is bankrupt, without ethics and morals, and should be abolished. B2 e1 endorsed Post