Mandatory retirement age for all politicians: Swingers Discussion 211902101

155
Mandatory retirement age for all politicians: Swingers Discussion 211902101

Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Mandatory retirement age for all politicians

Created by: sa_interracialcpl Original Starting post for this thread:
Thoughts?

GoTo Page: 1 2

1 to 10 of 13

End

User Details are only visible to members.	Mandatory retirement: No Term limits: Yes (Just not as they stand) President: 1 term. 6 years. Congress and Senate: 5 terms. 4 years each term. Local levels. As long as the people want them to be in to office. 6 year term limit. Campaign Reform: YES Every candidate gets X amount to use as they see fit and not one penny more. We want to see how well they can budget, right? Also, no single contribution to their campaign can equal more than 1/1000th of the total allotted amount for their campaign. Once the contribution cap has been met, no more donations can be made on behalf of the candidate. It doesn't matter if it's from an individual or corporation, BUT every penny must be accounted for and the party that has donated must be recognized in a public way (ie, on the candidates webpage). This will allow the American people to see just who is helping to get an official elected to office. It also forces people to get behind their candidate early on or be left behind. No more last minute "push" to join in on a bandwagon. All radio, Television, and internet media campaigns can no longer just be of the "And I approve of the message" type. The candidate HIM or HERSELF must be present within the media and speak his or her mind on the issues. Stop the mud-slinging and half truth nonsense. Granted, all the talking heads on Fox News or MSNBC can talk up their candidate of choice on their own dime, but they are not allowed to contribute anything monetary to the campaign.
Long Beach CA			Username hidden (1608 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Mandatory retirement? No Term Limits? Yes Life Benefits? No Based on the President only being able to serve for 2 and 1/2 terms. We should have term limits on the House and Senate. And there should be absolutely no lifetime benefits for former members of the House and Senate. If you or I worked for a private sector employer for 2 years. Then get fired. Why should we be entitled to lifetime benefits. There is an old saying. A Congressman/woman with 20 years in Congress is much more powerful than a freshmen Congressman/woman. They get more for their districts. This is why we keep them around so long. No one approves of Congress. Yet everyone approves of their own. This is both parties. No one party is exempt.
Greece NY			Username hidden (23 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	We have had term limits in California for quite some time. The consequence is that the corporations and the unions are now the institutional memory of the Legislature, and they do what the special interests want them to do. Well, they did that before, now they do it more.
Lakeside CA			Username hidden (15728 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	VA, the best and the brightest do not need any money to serve. They are usually the wealthiest also. This after who led this country in the beginning. The office of president as an example probably cost Romney more money than he could expect a return at for the next four years. And was probably better suited to run the country economically. People who do it for the money and the benefits are probably the WORST people to run the country. The money that the best and the brightest donate to charity far exceeds a government paycheck. If we want the best and brightest we need to stop vilifying them for being the best and brightest.
Sanford NC			Username hidden (18796 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Reason: I would hate to see a competent politician (sorry about the oxymoron there) forced out of office by term limits. The voters are the boss of these people. If the voters want to keep the same moron around for 40 years, that's their choice." It's sound in theory but the reason I'm in favor of term limits is because sooner or later, a person would become disoriented with their agenda. Those fresh ideas they had in the beginning are outdated beliefs after 30 years in office and it's practically impossible for most people to remain progressive over time. T The biggest difference between "conservative" and "liberal" imo is about 30 years. What is seen as progressive and liberal today will be old hat in 30 years and so an older politician will be fighting to keep things the way they were rather than looking forward to how things could be. If he/she is a good politician when elected and is still a good politician at the end of their tem (say 8-10) years, it's likely that they'll still remain strongly involved in the political process.....they'll just do so as a regular voting citizen.
Danville PA			Username hidden (1840 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Retirement age: No. Term limits: No. Reason: I would hate to see a competent politician (sorry about the oxymoron there) forced out of office by term limits. The voters are the boss of these people. If the voters want to keep the same moron around for 40 years, that's their choice. As for their salaries and benefits package: I would happily pay far more if it meant attracting better people to the job. The pay of elected officials is actually very small in the grand scheme of things the government spends money on. I realize this is a laughably simplified argument - but if fixing all the country's problems could be solved by hiring the "best and brightest" to run it, wouldn't that be worth practically anything they could be paid in a salary?
Chesapeake VA			Username hidden (11785 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	SA no, because I really do not want them accomplishing anything. I want them only to do what is absolutely necessary and stay within the constitution. That goes for both republicans and democrats. The more they put their grubby fingers on our liberty the more we lose.
Sanford NC			Username hidden (18796 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Should they have a performance clause in their contract.. You don't perform, you don't have job security.. You get fired just as fast as the janitor!
San Antonio TX			Username hidden (6280 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I'm really curious how you came to that conclusion. Did I complain about the rich and the money they have? Um, no. Did I say that politicians shouldn't pay taxes on their income or on any of the "freebees" that come with the job? I don't think I did. I didn't really get that in depth on the topic because it's more or less a senseless discussion since Congress will never vote themselves out of office nor would they ever vote on lower wages, or taxing their perks and benefits so it's all really a moot point. T
Danville PA			Username hidden (1840 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I find it hilarious that libtards whine about the rich and their money, but they don't care if a president lives like a king off of tax payer money, and pay no taxes on the freebees.
Sanford NC			Username hidden (18796 post)

GoTo Page: 1 2

1 to 10 of 13

End

TOPIC: Mandatory retirement age for all politicians