Your Attention Please : should you own any kind of right upon a picture/video posted here and want it removed, please spare yourself the hassle of contacting Blogger, instead a simple email to my address will do the trick and I will swiftly remove that picture or video. To contact me just click on my Profile picture. Thank you.
Friday, September 24, 2021
755. This Is Insane
40 years in position.
Shouldn't there be a law for a mandatory retirement at some age?
Yes. Three terms and get a life! Or move to a new position. Our government needs to evolve and have different points of view - not ones stuck in a different decade! This MF thinks it's 1952. Despise him and those of his ilk.
Three 6 year terms (18 years total) and your are out and 35% of your salary and no health/dental/eye/ear insurance either. No possibility of coming back into Federal work force and no lobbying either.
Mandatory retirement at age 67 which is the Social Security age for full benefits.
For the house members same thing. Of course they have 2 year terms so they would have to be reelected 8 more times after their first term.
He's overstayed, that's for sure. it seems most in secure districts/states do. It is time for them to be termed out. Especially Asshats like him who would vote to take us backward 70 years. Old hetero WASP men need to go away.
@Rick; 'term limits' as in 'terminating him’? Sounds like a cheat code in a video game, and that sure would be cool ;-)
Ok. Let's not point the gun - which I do not own, anyway. We - mature enough people - seem to agree that past a certain amount of years in office, whatever it'd be, a man or a woman should pass it on to whatever guy the electors may choose to be a better fit regarding their actual needs. I mean: is it not what electing representatives is all about? Is it not primarily what they are supposed to focus upon as per their campain's promises?
I think that six years in office is long enough to show their electors how committed they have been to the promises they made. Then and only then should they be worth running for re-election. Or am I getting it wrong?
OK, let's be realistic and acknowledge the non-bright-side of current history: baby-boomers had it all and still want it. That's why this senescent man will probably get his next six-year term, for he is backed-up by well-off baby boomers…
6 comments:
Yes. Three terms and get a life! Or move to a new position. Our government needs to evolve and have different points of view - not ones stuck in a different decade! This MF thinks it's 1952. Despise him and those of his ilk.
Three 6 year terms (18 years total) and your are out and 35% of your salary and no health/dental/eye/ear insurance either. No possibility of coming back into Federal work force and no lobbying either.
Mandatory retirement at age 67 which is the Social Security age for full benefits.
For the house members same thing. Of course they have 2 year terms so they would have to be reelected 8 more times after their first term.
He's overstayed, that's for sure. it seems most in secure districts/states do. It is time for them to be termed out. Especially Asshats like him who would vote to take us backward 70 years. Old hetero WASP men need to go away.
Absolutely, there should be term limits.
@Rick; 'term limits' as in 'terminating him’? Sounds like a cheat code in a video game, and that sure would be cool ;-)
Ok. Let's not point the gun - which I do not own, anyway.
We - mature enough people - seem to agree that past a certain amount of years in office, whatever it'd be, a man or a woman should pass it on to whatever guy the electors may choose to be a better fit regarding their actual needs. I mean: is it not what electing representatives is all about? Is it not primarily what they are supposed to focus upon as per their campain's promises?
I think that six years in office is long enough to show their electors how committed they have been to the promises they made. Then and only then should they be worth running for re-election. Or am I getting it wrong?
OK, let's be realistic and acknowledge the non-bright-side of current history: baby-boomers had it all and still want it. That's why this senescent man will probably get his next six-year term, for he is backed-up by well-off baby boomers…
(Futur trips’ plans)
(Visit Florida => no)
(Visit Iowa => no)
(Next?)
Oh, I like limiting him. Good idea.
Post a Comment