At that point, however, we raised and slaughtered our own food in our backyards, lived locally (for our resources), created our own transportation systems, died young and hardly left our national borders.

The world simply is a quite different place today. I have no desire to give up the federal programs that keep us all safe, such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Food & Drug Administration, FEMA to help with the rebuilding when something like Katrina strikes, etc. We are a socially interdependent country, not Galt's Gulch.

We are the ones that elect our leaders. If our leaders suck, it's our own fault :D

I personally am thrilled (and relieved) we elected Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin. Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the Presidency of the United States. Yes, we can't ignore our history.

Having term limits removes all incentive (re-election) for responsible behaviour.

What would be the point? This is America, that would be illegal anyway.

I think if Paine,Jefferson,Washington,Revere,Hale,et al.....all those who braved that wretched big ol' sea and an unsettled land to escape tyranny....if they put themselves in a bottle and had it thrown in another far off sea in hopes of returning here to take in what the future held...and they washed up in this room...


what would they say?



I think it might be:









"Oh boy."

I think it would be, "You're kidding - you can drink the water?"

One rarely thinks of FEMA, CDC or FDA when we think Gov't intrusion

I think it would be, "You're kidding - you can drink the water?"



That was awful.

Really?

But probably true. Potable water commonly available. And no smallpox.

No, I just made it up out of thin air.

So what you are saying is that the ONLY incentive to "behave responsibly" is re-election? That positions that have term limits must be rife with irresponsible behavior then right?

So Governors and Presidents are immune to this rule?

Good point, I'll change it to say not only, but yes, I think term limits makes one a lame-duck from day one in the last term, and removes nearly all the responsibility for those so inclined.

BTW, McCain's presidential election committee (during the primary) had him running as a "one term and out" promise (because he was old, had cancer, etc. They thought it would help with his election). He got all the way to the day he was going to make that announcement, then they backed off. They determined it would render him mostly useless in office. I agree.

So, anyone who disagrees with your political views should leave the US? Interesting! As I've stated before, nobody receiving a salary should make over a million, if you want more...start your own business, be creative and innovative and you can earn as much as you make...the American dream is related to being creative, creating jobs, new products and services...our economy is driven by such bold, creative folks, not those who are selected to be CEO's and other upper management folks or sports stars. This country stands for individual freedoms and fairness not getting rich sitting behind a desk reducing everything to dollars and cents or playing games.

make weed,gambling,prostitution,speeding, legal.death penalty for cocaine/and smack.make horse racing the national sport. limit player contracts in all sports to 95k a year.fire obama and the rest of congress.start new elections for 2014. in all spots..get rid of the irs make a flat tax...and get pete rose in the hall of fame.

LOL - did you see what my completely moronic Senator Rand Paul just said? According to Paul, if you are listening to speeches about violent overthrow of the goverment, you should be arrested.

What a complete jackass.

Google: rand paul speeches overthrow

But the positions where one person has a huge responsibility have term limits yet Congress which is I believe 538 persons doesn't. Wouldn't the fact that a Congressman has but 1 vote out of 538 kind of police non responsible behavior? The Congressmen (and women) that people seem to distrust/dislike the most are the career politicians that are usually from districts/states where they are practically unbeatable. They not only have little worry about reelection, they gain far too much power because of time served. That is what those of us who are for term limits are worried about. If you are a dedicated public servant (lol), then you can serve in another capacity until you run for election again after the next term has been served.

See what I mean?

( ;) )

clyde for prez

:{>::{>::{>::{>:

So if I start my own business you are going to limit what I can pay my employees?

The idea that CEO's simply fall into the positions that they are in is ludicrous.
The idea that all upper management people are over paid buffoons is silly
The idea that sports stars salaries matter to the economy is idiotic. As a matter of fact based on 98% of athletes spending habits they are the ultimate in economic stimulator's.
Fairness can come into play when people start getting off their asses, taking responsibility for their own situations and stop worrying about what someone else is making.

Charlie Finley lives...

lil wayne should be forced to give byk his griiizile

Good point about Congress and the dilution factor. The Presidency was limited to prevent the creation of a King, wasn't it?

No not my political views, but what the country actually stands for. Last I checked we live in a free country. If you start telling people what they can and can't make you are no longer living in our current country. You have no idea what it is like to be a CEO and what they have to do or give up in their life to do so. It is interesting to me that you think someone who is creative can make $, but a CEO who has the responsibility of employing hundreds of thousands of employees can't. So in your world it is perfectly ok for Mark Zuckerberg to make $13.5 billion, but Lebron James should be limited to $1 million. Makes perfect sense:zz:

Yes, if you are foolish enough to pay over a million a year. Not saying they are all baffoons, good ones should be compensated and would be at up to a million a year.

:tro:

Halas, Steinbrenner, Davis, Johnson, DiBartolo, McCaskey, Reinsdorf, Cuban et al would have loved you!

Of course a bunch of players would have hated you. But screw the worker! :zz:

term limits were put in place because it was felt that since the first president served two terms, that was plenty enough for every president after. thank goodness for george washington; it's amazing the different ideas that were put forth at the time of the beginnings of our govt.
interesting to read tho that pols were already accusing the opposition of attempting to destory the country. some things never change.

why a million? surely people could live on half that? or a quarter of that. i think you're being far too generous. the national average is 50k. i think we should limit top incomes to 100k. yep, that's a good round number.

send the rest to enemy countries and we can be friends with the world!

So if I have a really great business and my chief executive is a integral part of its success, and say we had profits of...250 million dollars... He shouldn't be rewarded? I get to keep it?

So if I buy an NFL team for $300 million and get lucky enough to draft a Tom Brady who leads my team to Super bowls and increases the value of the team to say 1 billion dollars, I shouldn't be allowed to pay him more than $999,999?

I'm glad that you are the arbitrator of all salaries in the US and have decided that 1 million is the cut off point. You effectively want to place the entire country under a nationwide salary cap? I just hope I qualify for the mid level exception...

I would limit the owner of a business to two million profit a year and take the rest to fund wars and our excessive cocaine habit...










cause lets face it...only coke heads can f.uck s.hit up this bad.

no, silly....by not paying your big guy so much, you have more to pay the low level workers. duh :D

Trickle down has been proven not to work. The problem, I freely admit, is to find a way to deal with the super rich, excessive salaries is a first step...yes, I think a million a year is plenty for anyone. As I said, if you create jobs, start a new business, or create meaningful innovation, there would be no limit to profits. This concept will never gain popularity in my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my kids and grandkids...maybe someday.

you say on one hand no limit to profits, while on the other talking about limiting salaries. you say trickle down doesn't work-so exactly what would be the point of limiting top salaries? all that money wouldn't go elsewhere, so i don't get why you're suggesting it!
like i said, the tax breaks should be to those with money who provide jobs to those who need them. not tax breaks for shelters to grow the wealth, which sits there-or pays for the likes of paris hilton. the rich are those with the means to provide jobs-the trick is to entice them to do so. cutting top salaries isn't how to do it-it's encouraging higher bottom salaries, and more of them. tax breaks for providing benefits, encouraging more employment-not making it more sensible to work the employees you have 80 hours a week to avoid paying ss, workmens comp, and other costs of hiring. it shouldnt be cheaper to pay overtime rather than to hire more, but it is. besides, i'd imagine those top salaries include stock options-start giving some of those to your employees-paying a bit more to those you have makes them happier, and more productive. congress needs to rethink job creation, and taxes.

I agree! Limiting top salaries is just the first step, the trick is having those savings go toward a more equatable salary structure (I mentioned increases in salaries for those involved in direct care for example). I'm not smart enough to figure out the best way to do that but merely limiting top salaries is not the total answer. Somehow, we must entice the super rich to "spread the wealth" and I have no idea how we do that unless we tax all income over a set figure at 100% which has drawbacks as well. In a capitalistic society limiting wealth effects job creation, innovation and risk taking...we don't want to do that, at the same time we want to reduce the ever growing gap between the rich and the rest of society....I see a sane salary structure as but the first step.

You realize that the "super rich" usually dont work for someone else?

"Spread the wealth" is un-American. Make something of yourself and stop whining about what others make. The Govt doesn't belong in the "fairness" business because it most certainly isn't fair.

You tell 'em, Chuck.

Survival of the fittest.

And that is why I have no idea how to go about reducing the distance between the rich and the rest of us.

That's way too low. There needs to be the right mix of both Capitalism, and Socialism. Conservatives hate Socialism until you mess with their Medicare, or a twister tears their shyt up....... The emphasis in this country has been on getting rich, and we've been willing to give our jobs away to people (in other countries) in order for rich people to keep making tons of money (off poor people.) We've finally come to the point where that has caught up with us. There aren't enough jobs here, and it's because we've given our jobs away to other countries. One of the reasons we would ever do such a thing is because we have a lack of concern for fellow citizens. Part of the reason for that is because we don't give value to American Citizenship. That's a huge mistake. The 1st thing I'd do is to treat our borders, immigration, and healthcare the way most other industrialized countries do it. We are paying about 7k a year per person for healthcare, and they pay roughly 4k. If we value citizenship rights, jobs for Americans, and the health of fellow citizens, then, we can start cleaning this up. You can't just give jobs away to people in other countries (because they will do it for almost nothing,) and then bring the products here to sell. O.K., we've tried that. We don't have enough people working anymore to buy those products. I can guarantee you the solution to most of our problems lies in giving more respect to citizenship rights of Americans. People need to know exactly what they belong to. They don't right now. We keep giving the club memberships out, and wonder why people don't care about fellow club members..duh. Put Americans 1st. Do that, and people will care a lot more about their country. That will lead to a better economy. We can't keep worrying about every stray from every culture that overproduces beyond their means. That's a problem they need to come to terms with. Our culture has specific problems that need to be dealt with, and that starts with giving citizens something definite to belong to. If we want to solve our problems, we have to care about us a lot more than we do now.