Nick87
Well-known member
I wouldn't hold my breath. Reasonable folks on the ballot unfortunately still wouldn't get elected. They don't blow enough smoke for what the average voter wants to hear.
Ukraine / Russia
- Thread starter Cheesehead
- Start date
BrentD
Well-known member
Because the bottom end is constitutionally defined
BrentD
Well-known member
I'd have to disagree with you on that 1. About 100% or slightly more
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If that is true then term limits would serve zero purpose as the only thing that would change is the name of the crazy, not the crazy.
KB_
Well-known member
I mentioned it before but to get around term limits and age limits. I think a Proctored Assessment would be a more fair way to go. I dont know of any constitutional right that allows people to do a job without proving they can do said job.
Even better, a physical assessment.... picture some of those folks trying to do three pullups and run 3 miles. I like it.
Even better, a physical assessment.... picture some of those folks trying to do three pullups and run 3 miles. I like it.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
When you look at who is running the country, you can't help but think really? This is who was voted in?
I have a funny feeling he wouldn't get a call back if he submitted an application as a Walmart greeter.
I'm positive other countries are laughing at us.
I have a funny feeling he wouldn't get a call back if he submitted an application as a Walmart greeter.
I'm positive other countries are laughing at us.
BrentD
Well-known member
Not like they were during the last administration.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I have become very pessimistic about the whole situation, and it's only Oct 2023. The problem isn't the American political system directly, it's Americans. We are both greedy and lazy and spend our time trying to balance the two.
Here's a test.
Inflation reduction and deficit problem - if printing all that the money caused inflation and deficit, then we should take some of it back.
- If your income is under $50,000- You get to keep it
- income between $50,000 and $100,000, pay back $500
- Income between $100,000 and $300,000, pay back $750
- Income 0ver $300,000 pay back $1000
- Corporations that took the money should pay back half the amount received over a 5yr period.
Anyone willing to be for that?
Here's a test.
Inflation reduction and deficit problem - if printing all that the money caused inflation and deficit, then we should take some of it back.
- If your income is under $50,000- You get to keep it
- income between $50,000 and $100,000, pay back $500
- Income between $100,000 and $300,000, pay back $750
- Income 0ver $300,000 pay back $1000
- Corporations that took the money should pay back half the amount received over a 5yr period.
Anyone willing to be for that?
KB_
Well-known member
I dont think that cash they were giving away during covid was the biggest cause of our inflation. Its the fact that we ship in almost everything that we buy. We ship out almost everything we make. We spend billions of dollars we dont have on other countries.
Not a chance a years worth of taxes is paying for a years worth of expenses in this country. We just keep accruing debt. More debt accrued the less the money is worth.
What's really scary is that Paying off this debt to get back into the net positive I dont think is feasible anymore. So folks are saying screw it, keep spending with IOU's and made up funds. Your average American does that with credit cards all the time.
Self admittedly I dont know a ton about the financial system. But I do know accruing large amounts of debt generally a bad thing, especially if the return is essentially none.
Last edited:
rjthehunter
Well-known member
I'm not going to get in to it. But I'd rather be a smartass than a dumbass.
We've gone from smartass to dumbass.
BrentD
Well-known member
That's a fairly bizarre statement in of itself
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Obviously, but that isn’t the point. Americans are against everyone else getting a check but want to keep the ones they get. Politicians know this. The clearest example was GW Bush’s first term. Running a surplus for the first time in modern times and the decision was made to send checks to everyone and cut taxes. Not more than a passing thought of paying down debt. Then a recession and 9-11. Knowing we were getting into long and expense wars, in 2003 they cut taxes again. Rinse and repeat for 20yrs.
My point, Americans still think they are taxed too much (but the rich or corporations or whoever else they can think of are not taxed enough. Individually we don’t want to make any sacrifices, but collectively think someone else should. Add to that we have zero foresight and risk assessment is tossed to the side of it means more $$$ is paid to someone else.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Great points!
Look around and you see a minute sliver of the population that is really destitute. By and large the attitude is that taxes are too high, someone else should pay for national expenses, and I'm having a bad year financially if we can't have a new truck, can't dine out at least weekly, and take that cruise to Aruba after spending a week with the kids at Disney World!
KB_
Well-known member
I totally agree here.
Of course Americans are going to say they are taxed to much when we are watching "Tax dollars" get sent over to overseas wars that most people dont want to be apart of. I dont think most people like watching that happen. Especially considering there is zero foresight and risk assessment that the American people cant see clearly.
"The clearest example was GW Bush’s first term. Running a surplus for the first time in modern times and the decision was made to send checks to everyone and cut taxes. Not more than a passing thought of paying down debt."
^ Knowing what we know now that quote is a great example of mistakes we continue to make as a country.
ismith
Well-known member
npaden
Well-known member
I clicked back to see if there was some discussion on the Ukrainian special forces crossing the Dnipro but it is just a couple of pages of people talking about politics that have nothing to do with the conflict in Ukraine.
How do you know a fraction of what is being reported is accurate. Lots of outside actors which would like to prolong the conflict to make money. Bottom line Ukraine doesn’t have the human beings to fling at this thing. We are betting on a lame horse, horrible way to spend money and Ukrainian lives, should have tried to settle this before it ever started. Also I’m fairly certain the prospect of getting dragged into WW3 does involve our internal politics quite heavily. Or is this just a thread of FUDDs who are too old to have ever strapped up and “fought” for our country but want to fantasize about sending young men to die for other countries?
KB_
Well-known member
Do you have a link on the topic, I'd like to see what's going on there?
npaden
Well-known member
Ukrainian forces cross Dnipro river in major tactical advance
Analysts say ‘high-risk, high-reward’ amphibious operation may soon begin after bridgehead secured in Russian-held terrain
www.telegraph.co.uk
Another that doesn't require signing up - https://www.kyivpost.com/post/22902
Very true... It seems a huge amount of voters actually buy into the banter and b.s. mudslinging that american politics has become instead of actually doing their homework.
Too many years watching Days of our Lives
Similar threads
