S&P isn't the problem, Term Limits is the problem.

[BSAM]

Quote from heypa:

There is no solution as long as:
Around 50% of people pay no income taxes and vote to sustain....

Something like this should solve a lot of our problems: www.fairtax.org

Yet, I disagree to some extent because I believe the fairtax plan is too high; plus, I believe everybody should pay some tax.

Hey, in this country, you don't even have to join the armed forces for any time period. Shouldn't a person, at least, have to pay some taxes???

Yet, the D.C. thugs claim the rich and businesses should be taxed for having the privilege of doing business in this country. Shouldn't everyone pay some taxes for the privilege of living in this country???

 

[Random.Capital]

Term limits are already there - six years on the Senate, two years on the House.

If voters can't be bothered to to use them, a formal limit will not accomplish anything.

There is no solution until voters decide they want something other than big deficits.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Term limits are already there - six years on the Senate, two years on the House.

If voters can't be bothered to to use them, a formal limit will not accomplish anything.

There is no solution until voters decide they want something other than big deficits.

Sounds nice in theory. Just doesn't work in the real world of corruption in politics.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from BSAM:

Sounds nice in theory. Just doesn't work in the real world of corruption in politics.

That's the point, BSAM.

If putting the power in the hands of the voters ends up in "corruption in politics", so will any implementation of term limits. In such an environment, putting a two-term limit on Senators will accomplish exactly zero.

If voters can't do it, when they hold the ultimate stick, then an amendment won't get it done, either.

 

[shortie]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Term limits are already there - six years on the Senate, two years on the House.

If voters can't be bothered to to use them, a formal limit will not accomplish anything.

There is no solution until voters decide they want something other than big deficits.

the decades of dumbing down the public are certainly paying off to somebody. kids learn nothing in school, adults are brainwashed by mindless TV shows, etc. one can't really expect these people to make sound decision in voting booths.

i am confident that not everybody is unhappy with the current state of affairs.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Random.Capital:

That's the point, BSAM.

If putting the power in the hands of the voters ends up in "corruption in politics", so will any implementation of term limits. In such an environment, putting a two-term limit on Senators will accomplish exactly zero.

If voters can't do it, when they hold the ultimate stick, then an amendment won't get it done, either.

I have a different point of view. If they ain't there, they can't be corrupt/corrupted.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Term limits are already there - six years on the Senate, two years on the House.



If voters can't be bothered to to use them, a formal limit will not accomplish anything.

BULL SHIT if nothing else it eliminates politicians obsession with getting re-elected. Opening the door to them making tough, necessary choices and decisions without regard for their political future - because with term limits they no longer have a one.


What would term limits hurt if implemented?

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from BSAM:

I have a different point of view. If they ain't there, they can't be corrupt/corrupted.

Doesn't matter. Somebody/something else will be corrupted. Where there are giant pots of gold, a way will be found to ride the rainbow.

As long as voters continue to insist on massive deficit spending - which they have been doing since the first Reagan election - there is nothing to be done. This starts and ends with voters making better choices.

And there is just no excuse in the US, of all places. The entire House is up for re-election every 2 years. This country has the ability to turn on the proverbial dime.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Doesn't matter. Somebody/something else will. Where there are giant pots of gold, a way will be found to ride the rainbow.

As long as voters continue to insist on massive deficit spending - which they have been doing since the first Reagan election - there is nothing to be done. This starts and ends with voters making better choices.

And there is just no excuse in the US, of all places. The entire House is up for re-election every 2 years. This country has the ability to turn on the proverbial dime.

Voter apathy, due to political corruption. We need forced turnover.

Remember, not everyone shares your level of political awareness and/or participation.

 

[hoodooman]

LUCRUM:You're obviously assuming all the military would fight on the side of the government. Remember the fall of the USSR? The soldiers were simply unwilling to fire on their own people in defense of the tyranny.
How about the middle east more recently, it was not uncommon for masses of armed forces to defect in favor of the protestors.
If I'm not mistaken most our armed forces tend to be fairly conservative as a whole. Ergo they feel much the way I do about our leaders/government leading us to ruin. Given sufficient "critical mass" of protestors I believe, and have history to back me up, that the vast majority of our soldiers will not fire on their own friends, family and fellow countrymen. The rub is getting the minimum mass of protestors necessary that they can no longer be ignored and or labeled kooks.
--------------------------------
History suggests you are right:

Remember after world war one when the military teamed up with the WWI bonus marcher and MacArthur championed their cause. And how the military teamed up with the unions when they were sent to disburse them. And at Kent State when the national guard embraced the demonstrators. Right on Bro.