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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (132567)	3/20/2001 9:30:32 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

A constitutional amendment is exactly what I propose James. Your comments ignore the fact that incumbents have a tremendous advantage in getting re-elected. Franken privileges alone give them a HUGE step up. Not to mention, access to all the media outlets, and the ability to make news headlines aligned with helping them get re-elected. When the President was limited to two terms, the House and Senate should have been limited in a similar manner. We've created a ruling class who use special privileges and access to financial rewards, to ensure re-election after re-election. Turnover in the House, after a person has been there 8 years, is equivalent to the former Soviet Politburo. People do what you reward them for doing. Today, politicians are rewarded by distancing themselves from their constituents. Heck, some don't even pretend to reside in their home state anymore. Congress should represent and work for the people. Not the other way around. It should be a temporary position, not a life-long position. Today, we have a ruling class so disconnected from the people, and receiving so many perks, many don't even believe we need a tax break for the middle class. With a pension plan second to none, and pay and perks reserved to former King and Queens. It's no wonder so many of them are corrupted by the power of the position. We need to turnover the House and Senate and get more people to serve who have come from the private sector. Who still understand what it means to meet a payroll, drive in traffic jams, and struggle to find a decent public school for their children. Term limits will go a long way toward accomplishing that. Michael

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (132567)	3/20/2001 9:51:03 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

res- Remember Slick? Well, according to the hyper-Dems, if he had ran again he would have won again. So if he is one of your heros (RETCH!!!), you'd still have him as President without term limits. What point of view are you arguing? You made the exact case FOR term limits. Just imagine, without term limits we might be stuck with Clinton for another 4 decades.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (132567)	3/20/2001 10:03:46 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I'm a reluctant convert to term limits. However, there is evidently a flaw in the system. Incumbents always win. At least often enough to prove there's an institutional and (in my opinion) unhealthy bias. Only way I can see around an institutional bias is an institutional check on it. Not sure what your point is with slick. He's a walking billboard for term limits. You seem to be contradicting yourself with that one. As far as needing a Constitutional amendment, I'm not sure SCOTUS has ruled definitively that states can't set them for themselves. Are you? Term limits is the panacea of the stupid and lazy. As far a me being a "campaign reform" geek, you couldn't be farther off. I think it a travesty for the Senate to be wasting 2 whole weeks on this dangerous nonsense.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (132567)	3/20/2001 10:09:06 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<< If you and enough other people don't like the incumbent, why not just retire him?>> Please get real. Could anyone ever defeat Teddie Kennedy? Not with all his power and ability to pass out jobs and projects.