lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

We're bombarded on a daily basis with examples of partisan rancor and d******eness. Democrats and Republicans seem at odds on everything, immigration, healthcare, taxes, blah, blah, blah. When Democrats are in the majority, Republicans are accused of obstructionism, when Republicans are in the majority, Democrats are accused of obstructionism. We've seen this play so many times over the decades, it's become boring. Democratic and Republican politicians, sensing this boredom, seek ways to ramp up the volume to keep emotions high................and thinking low. What we DON'T hear about, are the many issues where Dems and Repub lawmakers are in perfect agreement.............and they want to keep it that way.

When talking about record budget deficits and out of control Government spending, ever hear any lawmakers talk about reducing staffing, restricting taxpayer funded travel, reducing or eliminating per diem, or controlling office expenses? Nope, the talk is always about ways to reduce what YOU get in return for your taxes. Ever wonder why a freshman congressman is so broke he has to sleep on a cot in his Capitol office, but manages to become a multimillionaire within 3 years? They didn't do it on $168,000 a year, even with all expenses paid by - you.

Democrats and Republicans are in perfect agreement, that lawmakers are free to make as much money as they possibly can while in office, and by any means they can get away with. Insider stock trading is routine, investment or outright ownership of corporate farms that are subsidized by taxpayers, directing Government contracts to companies owned whole or in part by themselves, and other stuff reminiscent of the old Mafia glory days. Then - there's the multibillion dollar lobbying industry. Add to that unrestricted campaign financing, with lifetime funding perks, and you begin to see why being an elected official is so lucrative.

By keeping you focused on the issues where dems and repubs differ, they're hoping you won't notice all the areas where they are in perfect agreement, areas that have absolutely no benefit for you, but are worth 10's of millions a year apiece..................for them. It's like thieves that set a shed on fire in your back yard, and while you're fighting that fire......................they're inside your home stealing everything in sight.

Sometimes - it's what they DON'T talk about that are the most important issues.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Term limits and restrictions on Corporate or Individual campaign funding. Convention of States required to repeal the amendment making Senators directly elected and to enact the term limits. Maybe even an amendment preventing the same family from continuously occupying the elected seats.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Agree 100%. Years ago Rush Limbaugh said the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is Republicans get dropped off by their limousine at the front door and Democrats get dropped off from their limousine at the back door. Then they get in front of the cameras, spit venom at each other wait for the day to end and meet for laughs and drinks.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Agree with the restrictions. But disagree with the need to enact term limits because they are already in existence. If you mean that there should be a law or amendment to enforce the limits. Are you saying that you want the government to babysit so that the individual doesn't need to do want they should have been doing in the first place?

pafret Loc: Northeast

Your interpretation of term limits is puerile. I meant restrict the total number, of years, any individual can occupy the top governance positions. This should not be their life's work, it leads to corruption, nepotism, and dynasties. All the trappings of the Royalty our Forefathers fought so hard to rid themselves of.

We have a nation of roughly 300 million people yet it is the same handful of names that have occupied positions of power in government since the 1880's. It has become so bad that at the death of Ted Kennedy one of his female relatives demanded appointment to his vacant chair because it was "The Kennedy Seat". No qualifications, no public service, but she believed it belonged to her as heir. No concept that the Senate seat belongs to the State of Massachusetts and its citizens.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

There are no term limits in the Constitution. Under the Constitution, members of the United States Senate may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms and members of the House of Representatives may serve an unlimited number of two-year terms. May sound childish to you, the terms limits are already on the amount of time each person can serve. Comments are being made every day that this representative is only doing this so they shouldn't be in office. Who are the ones that put them in office it is you , me and any one who v**es. The number of times you serve isn't limited but the length is. The responsibilty belongs to everyone to make the person sitting in that chair accountable that includes me and you.If you only v**e for this or that person because they have the same beliefs as you, you are doing a disservice. Yes if you want to limit the total length of time then start a movement and get people involved that is the only way changes can be made.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Disingenuous and specious argument. You know full well that when term limits are discussed, for Congressmen, it refers to the total number of years of holding such public office, not the segment it is broken up into. There is always the potential to get rid of a public figure at e******n times but in most cases the incumbent usually has solidified his v****g block and obtained the money necessary (his v**es for "contributions") to keep his opponents out. This is why the total number of terms must be limited.

There was no argument that such limitations were in the Constitution, which is why they are called for in the convention of states agenda. Your Pollyanna riposte is in the genre of teaching Grandmother to suck eggs.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

It takes congress to put the amendment to change the limits. Or the Convention of States to suggest an amendment into the Constitution to change it. What I am saying is for amendment to be put into the Constitution you need the people in the seats to agree to the change by using your v**e,or the same with the Convention of States they both need your support.
You cannot just sit back and not get involved. It is called personal responsibility.