Positive Plan For Changeby Josh on November 20th, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...I sent the following idea to my senators. Â I am 99% confident that means nothing, but it is nice to do something constructive.
I believe that the President should be allowed to run for a third term if he can reduce the national debt.
President-elect Obama would have elbowroom to spend on recovery plans the first two years. Â The following six years could be focused on the budget. Â A constitutional amendment would attract attention. Â Hopefully, the term limits of other elected officials would change to a similar policy. Â The plan would also provide hope for holders of US debt.
Nah, they’d just find a way to cook the books and make it look like the debt was lower, to hold on to power longer.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pmSaying there is a “they” holding on to power implies we need a system reset.
I am willing to believe confidence would improve for a few years (with a stock market rise/stabilization). At the same time, profiteers would just have new rocks to hide under, and nothing would change in the long term.
Fixing this system seems like the way to go.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:33 pmMy father and I have been pleading Term Limits for these madmen on Capital Hill since the start of this trash back in January. Phenomenal idea, and I’d back that up anyday.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:53 pmWe used to have the best system ever devised. It died in the 1860’s.
Increasing presidential terms isn’t the answer.
What we really need is to increase the number of representatives in the house by a factor of 10 - get the ratio of citizens per legislator closer to where it was 150 years ago. And to limit the fed gov’t to enumerated powers, as originally intended.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:05 pmI do not know if you watched Paulson and Bernanke interacting with Congress. From my perspective, it seemed to me that many senators were virtually clueless about our economic problems. I felt the questions they asked in general were intended to make them look busy/concerned.
I have not heard house members speaking about the economy, but it seems unlikely that they are an improvement.
Most citizens that wrote in to their representatives objected to the bailout. There is no way to get a direct comparison of where we would be without the bailout or government backed accounts, but I look at hedge funds and money managers as a close example.
Fearing further market declines people pulled their savings out of funds. Withdrawal demands forced managers to liquidate, with little regard to timing or fundamentals. Large selling volume with weak countering demand caused further drops and other people requested their funds (a feedback loop).
If people truly did what was best for themselves I would agree with more representatives. Most times I do what I want. In bad times, I tend to take action regardless of long-term consequences. I think other people generally react the same.
I would rather have a single knowledgeable person making the decisions, than 10 ill or hastily informed. I am sure the one will make mistakes, but not as often.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:28 pmI do not believe in an Obama miracle if you got that impression.
People demand honesty and responsibility but tend to reward politicians who promise funding or favorable tax cuts.
To get honesty and responsibility, we need a reward for it. That is all I mean to say.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm