Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (155)	1/12/2002 8:48:07 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

t's been shown time and time again that the people more likely to vote have a higher income and more education. Welfare recipients are typically neither. You can't buy their vote, because as a group they don't vote. ********************************************************* If it was not for the black vote in urban areas, Al Gore would never have received as many votes as he did in the last election.

To: jttmab who wrote (155)	1/12/2002 9:08:51 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

That doesn't seem to be what the Framers thought. We had term limits under the Articles of Confederation and they were dropped when the Constitution was drafted. [Personnally, I shy away from making statements that imply that the Framers didn't know what they were doing.] The voters have every opportunity to vote someone else into office. If they decide the individual in question best represents that State or district, why should they be excluded from voting the individual into office? IMO, term limits is the ultimate denial of the responsibility of the voter. If the voters can't determine what's in their best interests then why give them a vote at all? ******************************************************** 1) The framers could not imagine the evolution congressional service would make from 1776 to 2002. At the time the constitution was written, it was considered a terrible burder to serve in congress. Those who grudgingly performed their duty were thrilled when their terms expired & they were able to return home. Today, not even a crowbar will remove a congress member who does not lose an election. The heady air of power, being in the limelight & other perks evidently are very addictive. Look at Gary Condit....can't believe he has the gall to run again---what a characterless jerk. Those in office spend more time raising re-election funds than on any other endeavor. Term limits would free them from that pressure. 2) The reason it is no longer productive to allow congress members to stay in office indefinitely, is because once elected it is no longer a level playing field. The incumbent has a huge advantage, especially financially, over their future opponents. That fact makes it extremely difficult to unseat them. So, we end up with the same tired & ineffective ideas yet again for another term.