Warren Buffet says balance the budget in "5 minutes..."

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

I actually ask that because this particular user has a habit of rolling his head on a keyboard until a completely formed sentence appears. Needs some meat, some foie gras pâté to this nibble dish. Nothing really worth getting the fancy cheeses out on some lovely whole grain le biscuit salé.

I would say that people qualified are interested in making a career out of politics if they got their degree in politics. Having a term limit kind of throws a wrench into that doesn't it?

EDIT: Oh ****, made a reference to Europe, must be a socialist.

I think the problem here is that you think people with "degrees in politics" have such degrees, or that such degrees make them qualified.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by Huntn

On some level, the idea of a benevolent dictatorship is starting to look good ...

The reality is a despot, no matter how tyrannical, still has to be reasonably responsive down the ladders. The ruler cannot just say "this is how it will be" and expect blind obedience. If things go bad and enough of the people get pissed off, the king could well become a thing of no thing. Some degree of democracy is unavoidable, for the despot must have people to have power over and the people must be reasonably compliant to having it wielded over them.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

Maybe a military junta is the way to go, but without the dictatorship part?

You have to be a one star general, or equivalent, to stand for Federal office.

This is another complicated situation. Thomas Jefferson argued that because he could run a farm, he could run a government. Alexander Hamilton argued the exact opposite. So this is a longstanding argument and one that probably won't be resolved anytime soon. I would personally argue that merit within the public sector and merit within the private sector are two different things (of equal importance) that have some things in common but should not be presumed to be the same thing.

The problem with politics is that it is easy to elect someone who was wasteful in the private sector, wasteful in the public sector, and is hailed by the public as the best thing since sliced bread. Elected politics are a major portion of democracy. However, I dare say that those who voted 200 years ago were more involved on politics than they are today, and probably less prone to media bias (in any direction).

How many people do we all know whom chose to vote for someone for perhaps the stupidest reasons imaginable?

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

I think the problem here is that you think people with "degrees in politics" have such degrees, or that such degrees make them qualified.

Well people either have a reputable degree in political science or they don't, and if they did they would be far more qualified than any tom dick and harry.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Well people either have a reputable degree in political science or they don't, and if they did they would be far more qualified than any tom dick and harry.

Political Science gives them the skills to perhaps get elected.

Too bad that there isn't an Administrative Science to go along with it.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

Political Science gives them the skills to perhaps get elected.

Too bad that there isn't an Administrative Science to go along with it.

The Administrative Science is Public Administration, which explores research, public finance, strategic planning, and advanced logistical management. However, elected officials rarely have degrees in PA. Law degrees are far more common.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

I would say that people qualified are interested in making a career out of politics if they got their degree in politics. Having a term limit kind of throws a wrench into that doesn't it?

Most (US) politicans don't have a degree in "politics". Most are lawyers or are career politicians, meaning they've never had to punch a clock in their life or have ever had to produce a useable work product.

In other words, otherwise useless people.

[dukebound85]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Just don't allow congressmen to run for another term without a balanced budget.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22...conomic-change

Term limits, no pensions, same healthcare as America, service to the Nation.... What a refreshing thought.

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Chances are you will be waiting a long times. The right seems to have issues when confronted with basic facts.

Indeed. Quoted the OP so he gets a notification. He has a tendency to post a snippet that supports his views and subsequently disappear when it is proved false

I must ask....where was this mindset now exhibited by the right back in 2000-2008? ironic

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

Most (US) politicans don't have a degree in "politics". Most are lawyers or are career politicians, meaning they've never had to punch a clock in their life or have ever had to produce a useable work product.

In other words, otherwise useless people.

Which would seem to call for the Golgafrinchan Solution

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Well people either have a reputable degree in political science or they don't, and if they did they would be far more qualified than any tom dick and harry.

Have you taken a political science class and learned anything? Have you spoken with a political science major? The things they "learn" are things that anybody who watches the news and has an interest in political philosophy already knows.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

Have you taken a political science class and learned anything? Have you spoken with a political science major? The things they "learn" are things that anybody who watches the news and has an interest in political philosophy already knows.

That's an awfully big claim and incredibly disrespectful. How about you argue instead of belittling a group of people.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by skottichan

Term limits seem inherently un-American.

While I may quibble with the description of term limits being "un-American", I'm not a fan of them either. I'd rather let the electorate decide through elections whose term gets limited and whose gets extended. California state legislators have had term limits since 1990, and I haven't seen any improvement in their performance.

[skottichan]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

While I may quibble with the description of term limits being "un-American", I'm not a fan of them either. I'd rather let the electorate decide through elections whose term gets limited and whose gets extended. California state legislators have had term limits since 1990, and I haven't seen any improvement in their performance.

I hated using that term, but I couldn't think of anything better to get my point across. It just seems to defeat the purpose, I mean, everyone screams "Democracy!" yet want to limit the democratic process, it boggles the mind.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

That's an awfully big claim and incredibly disrespectful. How about you argue instead of belittling a group of people.

I am arguing. And what group am I belittling? Career politicians with 4 year poly sci degrees with an emphasis on American history?