Michael Bloomberg disgusting display of power

[BlackAsCoal]

Yuh, but if the people want to reelect them, that is their option.

Actually term limits are a buffer against the ignorance of voters.

Incumbents are usually always going to have the advantage in elections .. and they gain that advantage by doing "favors" while in office. Those favors are often at the expense of the constituents. Running for office in America takes way too much money to do and incumbents spend much of their time in office currying favor/money to stay in office.

Term limits are a good idea in my opinion .. and obvioulsy it WAS a good idea to New Yorkers.

 

[Ravi]

Do you believe those same people who continually elect the same person year after year then complain about their situations because they are not being represented properply have much ground to stand on when it comes to complaining about it then?

I'm not following you. Do people complain about how they are represented and then continue to vote for the same people? That's the definition of stupid.

 

[Ravi]

I take it then, Ravi, that would be in favor of removing term limits for the office of POTUS, particularly if the majority of voters wanted to re-elect a specific president.

If not, why not?

I don't see a point for term limits, even for POTUS. For appointed officials, yes...but not elected ones.

 

[CSM]

I don't see a point for term limits, even for POTUS. For appointed officials, yes...but not elected ones.

Interesting.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm not following you. Do people complain about how they are represented and then continue to vote for the same people? That's the definition of stupid.

It happens all the time Ravi, you will see people complain loudly about the government then walk into the voting booth and vote for the same person that has represented them. IMO term limits tend to remove those people from government who like to sit there and do nothing to represent those that elected them but park and collect power.

 

[Ravi]

Actually term limits are a buffer against the ignorance of voters.

Incumbents are usually always going to have the advantage in elections .. and they gain that advantage by doing "favors" while in office. Those favors are often at the expense of the constituents. Running for office in America takes way too much money to do and incumbents spend much of their time in office currying favor/money to stay in office.

Term limits are a good idea in my opinion .. and obvioulsy it WAS a good idea to New Yorkers.

But we don't have a requirement for intelligence to vote.

I don't disagree that pols gain advantage by doing favors, but at the same time the vote is mainly cast by people that don't receive the favors. And while I'm uncomfortable with how much is spent to get someone elected I really can't see a way around that.

 

[Ravi]

Interesting.

Are you for or against term limits and why?

 

[Navy1960]

I will go you one better than that Ravi, Federal Bench appointments are lifetime appointments, IMHO those should even be subject to term limits.

 

[DavidS]

Do any of you live in New York City?

No.

Has Bloomberg helped or hurt any of you?

No.

Bloomberg is going to get re-elected in a landslide. The financial sector makes up 1/3 of New York City's economy. Who best to guide us through a financial sector recession or even downright depression then.... a guy who made billions of dollars off of guiding people through the financial sector!!

All this is doing is giving voters the opportunity to tell Bloomberg that either we do or we don't want him another term. I, for one, definitely do.

 

[DavidS]

I take it then, Ravi, that would be in favor of removing term limits for the office of POTUS, particularly if the majority of voters wanted to re-elect a specific president.

If not, why not?

I sure would. I wish Clinton would've been able to run for a 3rd term. Senators and Congressmen ignore term limits... why shouldn't everyone else? In the end, the voters get to decide.

 

[CSM]

Are you for or against term limits and why?

I am for term limits. To paraphrase one of my favorite libs: term limits will "save us from the tyranny of the majority".

 

[BlackAsCoal]

But we don't have a requirement for intelligence to vote.

I don't disagree that pols gain advantage by doing favors, but at the same time the vote is mainly cast by people that don't receive the favors. And while I'm uncomfortable with how much is spent to get someone elected I really can't see a way around that.

Term limits are a way around it brother .. and it also puts a damper of money flowing to a particular politician when it's known that politician won't be in office forever.

At some point in the election for that office, there won't be an incumbent and the impact of money and favors is reduced.

No we don't have an intelligence requirement .. which is another reason why term limits are a good idea.

 

[Ravi]

I will go you one better than that Ravi, Federal Bench appointments are lifetime appointments, IMHO those should even be subject to term limits.

I agree.

 

[Ravi]

I am for term limits. To paraphrase one of my favorite libs: term limits will "save us from the tyranny of the majority".

mmm...I don't like tyrannies of any sort--the majority, the minority--but I get your point.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Yuh, but if the people want to reelect them, that is their option.

That's not the point- there are pro's and con's to having term limits and to not have term limits. The point is that he's overturning TWO referendums. It means that he's overturning the will of the voters. There is absolutely nothing defensible about that, especially not when the a decision TWICE ratified by VOTERS is overturned purely by political maneuvering.

The only other special thing about this is that, of course, Bloomberg can effectively become mayor for life if he really wanted. He has 20 billion dollars at his disposal, and neither democrats or republicans have any viable alternative. If you want to looks at the future this is what it looks like:

Bloomberg's own net wealth has reportedly increased by $8.5 billion in the last year, but last January he called for budget cuts totaling nearly $1.5 billion over the next two years, including across-the-board cut of 5 percent for all city departments, while anticipating future budget deficits of more than $5 billion beginning in 2011.

 

[Navy1960]

Do any of you live in New York City?

No.

Has Bloomberg helped or hurt any of you?

No.

Bloomberg is going to get re-elected in a landslide. The financial sector makes up 1/3 of New York City's economy. Who best to guide us through a financial sector recession or even downright depression then.... a guy who made billions of dollars off of guiding people through the financial sector!!

All this is doing is giving voters the opportunity to tell Bloomberg that either we do or we don't want him another term. I, for one, definitely do.

David, your missing the point of the thread here, the point is not if Michael Bloomberg has hurt me or anyone else here or even if we live in New York. the point is that the voters of New York twice voted for term limits for the mayor of your city, and the mayor and your city counsel usurped the will of the voters without asking the voters. That is a display to the entire country of how far a public official will go to hold on to the reins of power. If the people of New York decide to retain Michael Bloomberg then all they are doing is making a statement to future mayors that the will of the voters can be usurped at anytime at the whim of the mayor or any public official.

I would not have made this statement had the mayor gone to the city counsel and said, can we put a ballot proposal forward that will recind the term limits for mayor and done so long ago prior to the end of his last term. The fact that Michael Bloomberg has been the best mayor ever for New York means nothing in the face of usurping the will of the voters.

 

[GigiBowman]

David, your missing the point of the thread here, the point is not if Michael Bloomberg has hurt me or anyone else here or even if we live in New York. the point is that the voters of New York twice voted for term limits for the mayor of your city, and the mayor and your city counsel usurped the will of the voters without asking the voters. That is a display to the entire country of how far a public official will go to hold on to the reins of power. If the people of New York decide to retain Michael Bloomberg then all they are doing is making a statement to future mayors that the will of the voters can be usurped at anytime at the whim of the mayor or any public official.

I would not have made this statement had the mayor gone to the city counsel and said, can we put a ballot proposal forward that will recind the term limits for mayor and done so long ago prior to the end of his last term. The fact that Michael Bloomberg has been the best mayor ever for New York means nothing in the face of usurping the will of the voters.

can I say Amen twice in one thread?

 

[Ravi]

That's not the point- there are pro's and con's to having term limits and to not have term limits. The point is that he's overturning TWO referendums. It means that he's overturning the will of the voters. There is absolutely nothing defensible about that, especially not when the a decision TWICE ratified by VOTERS is overturned purely by political maneuvering.

The only other special thing about this is that, of course, Bloomberg can effectively become mayor for life if he really wanted. He has 20 billion dollars at his disposal, and neither democrats or republicans have any viable alternative. If you want to looks at the future this is what it looks like:

You misunderstood me. I agreed that Bloomberg looks stupid, and I agree with your point about overturning what his constituents wanted. I'm just not for term limits in general.

 

[Navy1960]

can I say Amen twice in one thread?

You can GiGi and I have to say that one sign you have everytime I see it makes me laugh. I had to go online and look for a picture of it and send it to a friend. "were screwed 08" I love it.

 

[Larkinn]

I will go you one better than that Ravi, Federal Bench appointments are lifetime appointments, IMHO those should even be subject to term limits.

This is a terrible idea. Federal judges need to be impartial and not subject to political whim.