The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

A new idea on term limits

Kulindahr

Kulindahr

Knox's Papa
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Posts
122,824
Reaction score
4,067
Points
113
Location
on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
While reading a post by TexPatriot in the "Stuff we can agree on" thread, an idea popped up that I thought would be fun to throw out for the wildlife.

The topic of term limits pops up regularly on the political smorgasbord. Another favorite topic is balancing the budget. I propose we combine the two:

Any time the budget is not balanced, all incumbents are forbidden to run again; only if there's a surplus will they be permitted to stand for re-election.
 
Probably a good idea, assuming they have something smaller than a Bushesque (you like that?) deficit from which to recover.

Besides, evidence shows that the President has far more control over the budget surplus/deficit than congress.
 
RandomAccess said:
Probably a good idea, assuming they have something smaller than a Bushesque (you like that?) deficit from which to recover.
Click to expand...

OMG, don't let the French know you coined that word! :eek:
They'll hate you twice for it....

RandomAccess said:
Besides, evidence shows that the President has far more control over the budget surplus/deficit than congress.
Click to expand...

Well, no -- Congress has to pass it all. The President can't buy a spot to spit in without Congress passing it.

Besides, I mean to include the Pres, too.

















And for good measure, any year there's a deficit, we round up all the lobbyists whose proposals got used and added spending to the budget, and shoot the buggers.
 
Why does the U.S run so many deficits? You guys seem to have seriously large ones at all levels of government as well as in foregn trade! If we had those sort of problems with our government spending we would be having major tax hikes and spending slashed. Why are your leaders so reluctant to bite the bullet? If only we could reign in our trade deficit here....:(
 
^ ^^ To answer both of you, it's only SOME of us Americans (mostly Republican Presidents, Kuli ;)) who have real trouble with deficits:
264449.gif
 
sparky95 said:
Why does the U.S run so many deficits? You guys seem to have seriously large ones at all levels of government as well as in foregn trade! If we had those sort of problems with our government spending we would be having major tax hikes and spending slashed. Why are your leaders so reluctant to bite the bullet? If only we could reign in our trade deficit here....:(
Click to expand...

I attribute it to what Jeffrey Snyder argued in his book A Nation of Cowards -- Americans have come to be spoiled brats, seeking comfort above all, not caring who gets hurt because of it.
If we did care, we'd be seriously cutting back on our use of the world's resources, among other things. But we'd rather -- fittingly with our preference of avoiding responsibility -- "let the government do it"... and that results in deficits, because we want more than we're willing to pay for.

And presidential adventurism doesn't help....
 
Just remember JUB'rs, The national savings rate of all Americans is -0.1%. So yeah, then you wonder why we have such high deficits, its because people spend more money then they make. Of course credit cards are to blame because most people dont know how they work. Also, we all know who's buying our debt, the Chinese. Why do you think back in April when the Chinese market fell, our market fell as well. Im just looking forward to the day when the Chinese call in our debt and you see our market plunder severely. I do believe were starting to buy our debt back now but we are still far into the red.
---
Future economist.
 
Kulindahr said:
I attribute it to what Jeffrey Snyder argued in his book A Nation of Cowards -- Americans have come to be spoiled brats, seeking comfort above all, not caring who gets hurt because of it.
If we did care, we'd be seriously cutting back on our use of the world's resources, among other things. But we'd rather -- fittingly with our preference of avoiding responsibility -- "let the government do it"... and that results in deficits, because we want more than we're willing to pay for.
Click to expand...

If Americans cared about "who is getting hurt" we would be controlling access to guns.
 
iman said:
If Americans cared about "who is getting hurt" we would be controlling access to guns.
Click to expand...

Amen.

I'm convinced that more innocent people are killed and maimed by "legal" firearms in this country than are "protected" by same. Alas, noone keeps statistics on this, so it's difficult, at best, to prove.

For instance, in any given city, you hear daily of people being shot by legally registered firearms. There is only the occasional, anecdotal story of someone using a legally registered firearm for defensive purposes. The imbalance is magnified, because defensive use of firearms is such an exception to the rule, the media clamors for stories like that!
 
Once again, my idea on term limits, and probably the only one that will ever fly long enough to make it into statue or into a constitutional provision:

This is what needs to happen with term limits. Instead of just mandating definite term limits, procedures need to be installed in the law so that those disappointed with a certain leader can put a referendum on the ballot a certain period of time before their first/second/third/insert-however-many-terms-they've-had-here term is up. This can work w/local, state, and federal candidates. In the case of president, it should be the year before reelection (in Bush's case it would have to have been gotten ready so that a question would have been put on the ballot in November of 2003) and it should be something like 100,000 signature need to be collected in each of 15 states or so to put it on the ballot in every state. It's only fair if a certain amount of states can ratify constitutional amendments that every state has to abide by, even those that didn't ratify it.

This has the advantage of being able to block an excessively horrendous politician from running again without forcing someone from one of the two 'major' parties to vote for the other 'major' party's candidate just to get rid of their man, just because they can't stand any more of said 'man's' blundering. That way Republicans that were appalled by Bush's actions when the war started could have voted to block him from running again w/out having to vote for someone like Kerry to knock him out. Combined w/Democrats and independents, there would have been enough votes through the term limits referendum so that we would have had a different president by now, even if it was John McCain. I'd rather have him than Bush, fer sure...

And until the major civic organizations amend their plans to try something like this instead of forcing every politician in the country, even if at just one of three (federal, state, local) levels and not all, we will *never* have universal term limits in this country. *NEVER*! Politicians will unite to block it, and it will be dead in the water. Organizations like US Term Limits need to learn this, or they will look ineffective organizations that won't ever get anything done ever.
 
People have the right to elect any idiot they choose too. The real culprit, the incentive to send a crook or a moron repeatedly back to elected office is seniority and it's privileges. The power of seniority needs to be lessened, but I can't imagine how it can be done.
 
Homoaffectional has a good idea up there, but such a referendum should be allowed at any time. It also reminds me of something we did in high school -- if an officer got ousted or whatever, the runner-up took over. I'm not necessarily recommending that, but if a system was in place to provide a replacement on the spot, things would work better. With today's technology, it might even be possible to have an "ongoing election", in which a citizen can change candidate at will, and whenever a term ends, for whatever reason, whoever's on top at the time gets in.

As for seniority... replace it with a lottery.
 
Kulindahr said:
While reading a post by TexPatriot in the "Stuff we can agree on" thread, an idea popped up that I thought would be fun to throw out for the wildlife.

The topic of term limits pops up regularly on the political smorgasbord. Another favorite topic is balancing the budget. I propose we combine the two:

Any time the budget is not balanced, all incumbents are forbidden to run again; only if there's a surplus will they be permitted to stand for re-election.
Click to expand...


Kind of hard to do would take a Constitutional Admendment
 
Kulindahr said:
While reading a post by TexPatriot in the "Stuff we can agree on" thread, an idea popped up that I thought would be fun to throw out for the wildlife.

The topic of term limits pops up regularly on the political smorgasbord. Another favorite topic is balancing the budget. I propose we combine the two:

Any time the budget is not balanced, all incumbents are forbidden to run again; only if there's a surplus will they be permitted to stand for re-election.
Click to expand...

Give me an idea what inspired you here, and maybe I could comment better? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top