Should Washington's elderly leaders hand over power to a younger generation? Americans weigh in

there should be term limits IMO and frankly perhaps a mandatory retirement age
there are retirement ages....... making decision and law they most likely will pass before the consequences hit.
Many are out of touch with their constituents and some of these folks run and are elected simply because they are a big name and some voters do not really LOOK at all candidates just pick a name they have heard of
same pork belly tactics apply people assume that as a ranking member of this or that maybe some fed money will come back to thie r state or district so they keep sending people back some have been there 30 plus years.
 
I don't know about this but I think that voting is the way to go. We too have young people here in Canada but I'm not sure about some of their actions; things like throwing paint on our historical heroes, changing names to please the "First Nations" people (names that I can't pronounce) and forever digging up graves that are over 100 years old. Oh well, perhaps they can do what they want since I am not going to be around forever to see this "Brave New Canada."
 
I don't think career politicians do the people any favors, other than serve the best buck. We need fresh ideas that come from the mass of people that are struggling to live everyday out here in the real world. How are we going to get this? I don't see it any time soon. In fact we have many people who are involved in a coup in our nation. Who can unravel the mess that is straight ahead? I don't have any faith in our current government because of the $$$$$$, so if the solution is not political, it is systemic revolution in some form that will eventually turn the tide...if we last that long.
 
Last edited:
Packerjohn said:
I don't know about this but I think that voting is the way to go. We too have young people here in Canada but I'm not sure about some of their actions; things like throwing paint on our historical heroes, changing names to please the "First Nations" people (names that I can't pronounce) and forever digging up graves that are over 100 years old. Oh well, perhaps they can do what they want since I am not going to be around forever to see this "Brave New Canada."
Click to expand...
Would you prefer the First Nations people not exist? or, as Native Americans in the U.S. are sometimes told- to go back where they came from?
 
There's already been a significant systemic revolution, one of the fastest social changes in history, with the surge of unmarried births. From the 1950's when only about 3% of children were born to unmarried mothers to now where it's about 40%. This change is directly related to a huge increase in poverty, crime and homelessness.

The reason for the change is hard to understand because it came about after the birth control pill and legalized abortion. Just by biological definition this change came from the younger section of the population.
 
Della said:
There's already been a significant systemic revolution, one of the fastest social changes in history, with the surge of unmarried births. From the 1950's when only about 3% of children were born to unmarried mothers to now where it's about 40%. This change is directly related to a huge increase in poverty, crime and homelessness.

The reason for the change is hard to understand because it came about after the birth control pill and legalized abortion. Just by biological definition this change came from the younger section of the population.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any statistics in a long time, but I believe the biggest upswing came 1996+.

Welfare Reform basically told mothers they can, will, and must do everything themselves.. and told fathers they didn't need to be there (in a family unit) in order to claim 'rights.'

So, with women forced to take on both roles (caregiver/breadwinner), and guys able to continue a 'single' life, I'd stake a bet on it that it's the main reason for unmarried births.
 
The younger generation doesn't look at marriage as a "have to" thing before living together and eventually starting a family together. This factors into the unmarried births. Many couples want a family, but don't get married right away. A different generation, a different way of looking at life. We did it in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's......and continue it today.
 
The only way that will change, whether it needs to or not, is through the vote. Congress will not pass any laws that would require them to step down. Whether younger people would be better suited to the job, I can't say. It varies with the individual.
 
Right Now said:
The younger generation doesn't look at marriage as a "have to" thing before living together and eventually starting a family together. This factors into the unmarried births. Many couples want a family, but don't get married right away. A different generation, a different way of looking at life. We did it in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's......and continue it today.
Click to expand...

True, many don't look at marriage as a "have to" thing before having children, but then they have no one but themselves to blame if the relationship ends, they have financial trouble, and the children, particularly the boys, don't turn out well.

It's not just a slight generational change. People have got married before having children since the beginning of recorded history. It worked for thousands of years. Lots of laws that young women today blame as "the patriarchy" were really for the protection of women and children. Through all those centuries men proved their commitment to a woman and any children she might have by marrying her.

When women started allowing themselves to get pregnant before that commitment, they ended up being single mothers far more often than if they had demanded marriage first. Even in relationships where the couple live together and seem to be committed for the long term, the couples separate far more often than married couples do. The men lose rights over their children and the women are often left in poverty. It might be the new thing, but it isn't working very well in many cases.
 
With age comes experience in political issues, or we hope the longer a person holds office, the more well- rounded their knowledge of issues, and common sense prevails. Unfortunately, this isn't a requirement in government.
I feel one reason younger people aren't running for government jobs is because you should feel a need to step forward when needed, speak up and out when necessary, and most importantly, be committed to your state/district/region to vote as the people who elected you to office would. Younger generations sometimes lack the courage, ambition, and fortitude to take on the responsibility.
Perhaps our generation didn't insist they grow up with these qualities?
 
Right Now said:
With age comes experience in political issues, or we hope the longer a person holds office, the more well- rounded their knowledge of issues, and common sense prevails. Unfortunately, this isn't a requirement in government.
I feel one reason younger people aren't running for government jobs is because you should feel a need to step forward when needed, speak up and out when necessary, and most importantly, be committed to your state/district/region to vote as the people who elected you to office would. Younger generations sometimes lack the courage, ambition, and fortitude to take on the responsibility.
Perhaps our generation didn't insist they grow up with these qualities?
Click to expand...
More likely too many in our/my generation didn't grow up, period, and had no such values to pass on to their own kids.
 
IMHO these regulations should be determined by a vote of the citizens not by a rule of law or even a petition of younger vs. "elderly" citizens. There is knowledge then there is experience. Also the wealth should be spread if term limits are imposed on Federal government employees then all Federal employees should have to abide by term limits. Case in point "The Justices of the Supreme Court".

www.americanprogress.org/article/need-supreme-court-term-limits/
 
Which would you rather have? #1.- A guy fresh out of pilot school, and this is his first time piloting a 747. OR #2, A seasoned pilot and this is his 1,200 flight. This is the"term limits" theory. It assumes that anybody can just walk in and make good decisions, without the time to learn the levers of power. It's naive to believe experience is a hinderance. In politics, there are few easy decisions, and whatever decision one makes will harm others, in some way. It may be appealing to have a fresh face, but in politics, if you want to get anything done, you have to know where the bodies are buried. Reality bites.
 
Last edited:
IMO term limits are a good thing.

The political parties need to do a better job of grooming and promoting fresh talent instead of continuing to trot out the old familiar faces.

The political parties also need to do a better job of making sure that every American is registered to vote, informed on the issues, and encouraged to participate in our elections.
 
Robert59 said:

Washington's elderly leaders are out of touch with the average citizen, some Americans say.​

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/should-washington-elderly-leaders-hand-power-younger-generation
Click to expand...
Should Washington's elderly leaders hand over power to a younger generation? Not if they're anything like AOC! However I do believe that for some that have been in office for 30-40+ years definitely need to retire and hand over the reigns. To whom the reins are handed over to should be left up to the voters to decide who we want in office.
 
JudyB said:
Should Washington's elderly leaders hand over power to a younger generation? Not if they're anything like AOC! However I do believe that for some that have been in office for 30-40+ years definitely need to retire and hand over the reigns. To whom the reins are handed over to should be left up to the voters to decide who we want in office.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the way it is now ? I mean, if a person is doing a good job, and the voters keep re-electing them , then why should they be replaced ?

If they "go bad" then hopefully the voters will come out & replace them.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top