Really a good read here. Quite good today Friedman NYtimes.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by Wags

Finance Dude, Please do not edit my posts. I am sure that the others in this forum would agree with my request.

Sorry........

As for term limits for our representatives in Congress that will never happen as long as they are the deciders. By the state of affairs in the U.S it appears that neither the Congress or Old George W are listening to the needs and wants of our people.

I guess I am in a minority.........I feel that the President is more of a figurehead than making stuff happen. After all, he can't pass legislation, and vetoes can be over-ridden..............

I often wonder what would happen if all the Senators had to live the "real American's" world, instead of the cushy protected world they live in.

I hear Tatoo calling from Fantasy Island, supper is being served to the US Senate...............

[travelover]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

................. Here's an idea: TERM limits for the Senate.......what a concept!!

At the risk of hijacking a hijacked thread - we voted for term limits for Michigan legislators and have been paying the consequences. It is like having a kindergarten class, instead of a legislature. Now they really have got us - if we vote off the term limits, we are stuck with these children and if we don't, the problem continues!

IMHO the issue is really campaign funding. If it costs a billion dollars for a presidential campaign, the candidate will end up owned by the largest contributors. Alternatively if every American kicked in $3 (a gallon of cheap gas) we would have candidates that worked for us.

Rant / hijack ended.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by travelover

At the risk of hijacking a hijacked thread - we voted for term limits for Michigan legislators and have been paying the consequences. It is like having a kindergarten class, instead of a legislature. Now they really have got us - if we vote off the term limits, we are stuck with these children and if we don't, the problem continues!

IMHO the issue is really campaign funding. If it costs a billion dollars for a presidential campaign, the candidate will end up owned by the largest contributors. Alternatively if every American kicked in $3 (a gallon of cheap gas) we would have candidates that worked for us.

Rant / hijack ended.

So the dreaded "campaign financing reform" surfaces again??

[travelover]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

So the dreaded "campaign financing reform" surfaces again??

No go back to term limits - I wanna hear your suggestions on this one!

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by travelover

No go back to term limits - I wanna hear your suggestions on this one!

How come the House only has 2 year terms, but the Senate has 6 year terms?

I suggest the following:

1)4 year terms for all Senators

2)A limit of 5 4-year terms, they do NOT have to be served in succession.

My opinion? If you couldn't get it done after 20 years, it ain't gettin' done by you........

[Brat]

Months ago my daughter was considering speakers for her employer's annual partner's meeting. These partners fund innovation and have a global prospective. Friedman was on the list but scratched because he 'stated the obvious'.

The real question is how do we go forward..

Even if the US significantly decreased its reliance on foreign oil development in other nations would off set it and cash will keep rolling in. In time the Gulf nations money machine will dry up but in the interim we must deal with their emotional difficulties. They are not the only potential problem spot, don't forget possible competition with Russia over Arctic reserves.

There are many reasons why we need to be energy independent. I am wary of Fed intervention in the energy sector. Research is fine, but I think that economic forces will be more efficient than Fed funding. This transition will be very difficult for families living on the economic edge as the cost of energy will consume ever greater % of their budgets.. even indirectly through increasing food costs as corn is diverted to ethanol.

[travelover]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

How come the House only has 2 year terms, but the Senate has 6 year terms?

I suggest the following:

1)4 year terms for all Senators

2)A limit of 5 4-year terms, they do NOT have to be served in succession.

My opinion? If you couldn't get it done after 20 years, it ain't gettin' done by you........

I'd agree the 2 year representative terms are too short at 2 years, but lots of luck with the term limits.

[haha]

Originally Posted by Brat

Months ago my daughter was considering speakers for her employer's annual partner's meeting. These partners fund innovation and have a global prospective. Friedman was on the list but scratched because he 'stated the obvious'.

Apparently not obvious enough, considering some of the board-members reactions to his piece.

Ha

[Wags]

Originally Posted by haha

Apparently not obvious enough, considering some of the board-members reactions to his piece.

Ha

Unfortunately some people refuse to face reality and when they do not agree with a person's political or religious views at times they will use tactics such as this to silence the messenger and to stop the disenting speech. And then at times they will resort to personal attacks, physical violence, name calling, gay bashing, false insinuations, false assumptions, bullying, attacks on a person's religion, etc..., etc....

Whether the left or right do it - It is not right and all it does is hurt democracy.

God Bless

[Rustic23]

Travelover,
Not to hijack the tread, but public financing of campaign will lead to the end of the US as envisioned by our forefathers. IMHO. The wealth of our nation is in the shape of a pear with the very rich at the top, a large middle class and a large lower class. One Bill Gates and lots making 0. The founding fathers realized that politicians would have to go to the rich to get the money to run for office but they would have to pay attention to the poor or middle class if they were to get elected or stay in office. If you change that by allowing politicians to ignore the folks with the money, then they will take rich's money in the way of added taxes and give it to the poor. i.e. they will buy their office with your money. They currently practice this and are only held back by having to get their finances from the wealthy and business today.

[travelover]

Originally Posted by Rustic23

Travelover,
Not to hijack the tread, but public financing of campaign will lead to the end of the US as envisioned by our forefathers. IMHO. The wealth of our nation is in the shape of a pear with the very rich at the top, a large middle class and a large lower class. One Bill Gates and lots making 0. The founding fathers realized that politicians would have to go to the rich to get the money to run for office but they would have to pay attention to the poor or middle class if they were to get elected or stay in office. If you change that by allowing politicians to ignore the folks with the money, then they will take rich's money in the way of added taxes and give it to the poor. i.e. they will buy their office with your money. They currently practice this and are only held back by having to get their finances from the wealthy and business today.

Interesting logic. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned campaign costs like we see currently. Even up to the 1950's , people of more modest means had a shot at elected office. And, I don't think that the common man's interests are being looked after in a sustainable way - evidence the lack of progress on medical care costs, runaway energy costs, coming train wreck of Medicare.

I do worry about the "common" man's ability to make intelligent political choices. In the past the rich / upper class seemed to have a more responsible attitude of national stewardship, which seems to be replaced with a greedier outlook. So entrusting the rich to look after all of us, doesn't seem to me to be working.

[Rustic23]

I worked for an elected official for 5 years. I have had the opportunity to see them first hand. I can tell you there is nothing more the politician would like to do than not have to go to the people for their election funds! Why do you think 10% of the population pays 80 to 90 percent of the taxes? Why do you think 50% of the population pay no income tax? I firmly believe if you fund politician campaigns with public funds only, that number will grow, and I think history is on my side.

"About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years before: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.."

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by Wags

Unfortunately some people refuse to face reality

That "reality" for me is much more than a blanket statement...... We are in Iraq, and whether we should be there or not will be debated long after we all are dead. However, I grow weary of all the bashing of why we went there...........I think it is a slap in the face to our armed forces, they must sit there and think we don't give a hoot about the work they do. Do you think our military wants to "cut and run"??

and when they do not agree with a person's political or religious views at times they will use tactics such as this to silence the messenger and to stop the disenting speech. And then at times they will resort to personal attacks, physical violence, name calling, gay bashing, false insinuations, false assumptions, bullying, attacks on a person's religion, etc..., etc....

Are you talking about YOU or society in general? I know what side of the political spectrum you are on, and that's fine. Just remember half the country may feel differently. And I am prepared if a Dem gets in the White House for you to tell us all on here in a long diatribe about how they are the "best President EVER".............

God Bless



Whether the left or right do it - It is not right and all it does is hurt democracy.

God Bless[/quote]

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Rustic23

I worked for an elected official for 5 years. I have had the opportunity to see them first hand. I can tell you there is nothing more the politician would like to do than not have to go to the people for their election funds! Why do you think 10% of the population pays 80 to 90 percent of the taxes? Why do you think 50% of the population pay no income tax? I firmly believe if you fund politician campaigns with public funds only, that number will grow, and I think history is on my side.

"About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years before: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.."

I think this phenomenon (the tyranny of the majority) explains why social security will almost certainly be means tested.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

How come the House only has 2 year terms, but the Senate has 6 year terms?

I suggest the following:

1)4 year terms for all Senators

2)A limit of 5 4-year terms, they do NOT have to be served in succession.

My opinion? If you couldn't get it done after 20 years, it ain't gettin' done by you........

Good thoughts. I would like to see this coupled with a single presidential term of 6 years. It currently seems as if most of a president's first term is spent jockeying to be re-elected for a second. If you knew you only got the one shot at it, you might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

That "reality" for me is much more than a blanket statement...... We are in Iraq, and whether we should be there or not will be debated long after we all are dead. However, I grow weary of all the bashing of why we went there...........I think it is a slap in the face to our armed forces, they must sit there and think we don't give a hoot about the work they do. Do you think our military wants to "cut and run"??

As a former member of said armed forces, I can assure you that they are not stupid. If asked to go to a foreign land and wage a war, they will do so vigorously and well, and they hope and expect that the people will give them the tools they need to do the job. But they are also well aware that we live in a democracy where people are not only allowed but expected to speak their minds. Despite the rantings of my relatives, it is not treasonous to question either the reasons for going to Iraq or the wisdom of staying there. The fact that we are in a war is no reason to abrogate our civil rights. Indeed, it is for just such occasions of high passion and perceived overriding need that the founders realized we require a Bill of Rights.

Some think that patriotism is saluting smartly and doing whatever the commander in chief says, stifling all criticism in the belief that we should all stand together. I believe that the true patriot is the one who so wants his or her country to be the very best that it can be -- militarily, economically, politically and ethically -- that he or she is not afraid to say the emperor has no clothes if that is what is required.

Realizing that your country has made a stupid mistake and should cease the drain of blood and treasure is not "cutting and running". There is no glory in refusing to admit or walk away from a mistake for fear that one will somehow will be perceived as weak.

[Rustic23]

Gumby,
First, Well written. However, having also been a former member of said armed forces, I believe the time for descent is before troops are commited. Once the nation has committed troops to the field, to maintain a vigorous descent at home encourages the enemy. While some will deny this, I believe they are wrong. The nature of a gorilla war is to wear down the home front until they demand and end to the war.

Therefore a paradox exist. If you are against the war, how do you continue to protest without hurting those in the field? It is not about weather the troops feel good it is about what the enemy thinks and what he is willing to do to encourage those protest.

So, while I support your right to decent, I think it is harmful to those doing the day to day battle. I also realize that many will say 'bringing them home would be even safer'. Once more, that is why the protest should be loud and clear prior to the commitment of troops, and not after.