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: CYBERKEN who wrote (543102)	2/20/2004 12:26:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You didn't answer about a Balanced budget amendment... As to an amendment for 'term limits', I used to support the idea... until I saw how easily the lobbyists got around the issue and conducted 'business as normal' in the States who had enacted term limits. I no longer believe it would be very effective at it's stated goals. Now... amendments for a Presidential Line Item Veto, and or mandating a balanced federal budget (like many of the states have) except in instances when there has been a formal declaration of war... these things would be VERY BENEFICIAL, IMO. Re: 'You don't change the constitution for narrow specifics.' >>> I agree with that totally. It's served us pretty well thus far.