Why both parties are destroying the country

#51
#51
KiffinKiller said:
This could help...Canada's system is similar to this, but they run into a lot of the same problems we do. They also allowed a separatist party in QC. smh
Click to expand...

It will only help. No way could it hurt if the third party stayed a third major party and didn't just replace Democrats or Republicans. Would be nice to get some new ideas thrown into the ring, too. But the corporate and union sponsors behind the D's and R's wouldn't want this at all.
 
#52
#52
Would make it that much more difficult and expensive for the monied interests to hedge their bets.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#53
#53
Well it's been a long time ago but somewhere along the line they stopped worrying about the people they serve and worry more about their own personal financial gain. A lot of out side special interest groups in their pockets also. Term limits might stem it back some but it won't stop them from buying politicians. There does need to be some sort of oversight committee but who's to say they wouldn't buy them off too. It's just way too corrupt in Washington to count on them doing the right thing anymore. Government needs to be reformed but i wouldn't know the best way to go about it. Term limits would be a good start though.
 
#54
#54
What is so frustrating about the situation is that the far right and the far left both see themselves as completely in the right and the other completely in the wrong and they basically extort and blackmail their more reasonable counterparts in the middle. The TP is self-righteous and unsophisticated. The environmental and race issue groups are bitter and pollyanish. Both arepulling hard on their respective establishment groups.

Right now, the TP gets the greater attention because of their effect on the budget talks. But the far left is just as bad in terms of creating mischief. Would like to see the centrists for both the left and the right tell the outliers to f off and let them compromise. It worked for us before, it would work again.
 
#55
#55
Cartervol said:
Well it's been a long time ago but somewhere along the line they stopped worrying about the people they serve and worry more about their own personal financial gain. A lot of out side special interest groups in their pockets also. Term limits might stem it back some but it won't stop them from buying politicians. There does need to be some sort of oversight committee but who's to say they wouldn't buy them off too. It's just way too corrupt in Washington to count on them doing the right thing anymore. Government needs to be reformed but i wouldn't know the best way to go about it. Term limits would be a good start though.
Click to expand...

Wise man is wise.:hi:
 
#56
#56
Debt to GDP with anemic economic growth is the real destructive agent. A combination of significant tax reform and a version cut/cap/balance is really what we need.
 
#58
#58
I read somewhere that even if they raised taxes on the wealthy it wouldn't do enough to offset big governments appetite to spend more than they have. Someone has to get the message across to Washington that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Sadly there is no evidence to suggest they get the memo.
 
#59
#59
Cartervol said:
I read somewhere that even if they raised taxes on the wealthy it wouldn't do enough to offset big governments appetite to spend more than they have. Someone has to get the message across to Washington that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Sadly there is no evidence to suggest they get the memo.
Click to expand...


I agree with the complaint that an increase in taxes on the wealthy could be funneled to more spending. I would support language in the bill letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top wage earners that commanded that additional revenue be used to pay down the debt. Should not be hard to trace those funds.
 
#61
#61
VOLatile said:
There really is no way to vote consistently when even the candidates are never consistent with what they say.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself this question, when politicians say what they need to say to get elected... who are they trying to sway? They are doing nothing but responding to what the swing voters demand.

What happens to politicians, especially those on the right or libertarian, who state honestly what they believe? The answer is that they are demagogued to DEATH. Why does that work? Because the "middle" swing voters fall for it almost every single time.

This is the primary reason I would not vote for Romney. He's an empty suit.
 
#62
#62
milohimself said:
Would make it that much more difficult and expensive for the monied interests to hedge their bets.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think tripling or quadrupling the size of the HoR would be more effective. I think congressional districts should be small enough to win with shoe leather.

I would also like to see the Senate go back to being elected by the legislatures. The idea was that direct election would make Senators more accountable but that concept has failed. Now they are almost completely beholden to special interests. I would far rather they be accountable to may state rep/sen.

It would be pretty difficult for special interests to buy off enough legislators to control the Senate.
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
What is so frustrating about the situation is that the far right and the far left both see themselves as completely in the right and the other completely in the wrong and they basically extort and blackmail their more reasonable counterparts in the middle. The TP is self-righteous and unsophisticated. The environmental and race issue groups are bitter and pollyanish. Both arepulling hard on their respective establishment groups.

Right now, the TP gets the greater attention because of their effect on the budget talks. But the far left is just as bad in terms of creating mischief. Would like to see the centrists for both the left and the right tell the outliers to f off and let them compromise. It worked for us before, it would work again.
Click to expand...

Once again, it is a matter of perspective. I fail to see how a group whose stated, prioritized ideals represent more than 50% of the general public can be called "far right".

How exactly did "compromise" work? It worked to continue gov't growth to the point we see now, right? It left us with crushing debt, right? In short, it didn't work.

If your business partner had run up business credit card debt equivalent to your annual revenues and insisted on a plan that would increase that debt at 140% of revenues... would it be "extreme", self-righteous, or unsophisticated to say "no"? Would you accept a plan where he increased his spending by 8% per year while your business activity and revenues were in steep decline? Would you consider it "draconian" to demand that he hold the line on his budget at least until revenues increased again?

The TP only seems "radical" by the same measure that sane people seem weird in an asylum.
 
#64
#64
sjt18 said:
I think tripling or quadrupling the size of the HoR would be more effective. I think congressional districts should be small enough to win with shoe leather.

I would also like to see the Senate go back to being elected by the legislatures. The idea was that direct election would make Senators more accountable but that concept has failed. Now they are almost completely beholden to special interests. I would far rather they be accountable to may state rep/sen.

It would be pretty difficult for special interests to buy off enough legislators to control the Senate.
Click to expand...

Like the first idea, TRUT brought it up some time ago. The result, however, would be thousands of representatives, and presumably many, many more democrats.
 
#65
#65
milohimself said:
Like the first idea, TRUT brought it up some time ago. The result, however, would be thousands of representatives, and presumably many, many more democrats.
Click to expand...

I think it would actually move more toward an accurate reflection of the country's political "center" which is currently "right of center", correct? Either way, I trust the wisdom of the people. I think more people would see their votes and opinions mattering... and become more engaged. I really wouldn't fear an outcome from that. I trust my neighbors more than anyone inside the beltway of any political stripe.

... though that whole set of terms reflects a left leaning bias, right? I mean if the center is "right of center" then "right" is just "right of center" while what the left calls the "extreme right" is simply "the right". OTOH, if right of center is actually center then what the left refers to as center is actually left of center. Left of center would then be left while mainstream left wingers are actually extremists.
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
I agree with the complaint that an increase in taxes on the wealthy could be funneled to more spending. I would support language in the bill letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top wage earners that commanded that additional revenue be used to pay down the debt. Should not be hard to trace those funds.
Click to expand...
You have to cut spending to pay down the debt. They didn't make a serious enough attempt at it and got their credit rating downgraded for it. They kicked the can down the road and the S&P saw right through it. Government needs to go on a diet., reform the tax code but this also needs to happen.
 
#68
#68
I think the big problem is not that there is too much partisanship, but rather, not enough.

If we had more than two dominant political parties we would be much better off. If the typical Democratic candidate stands for the typical party line, then who do you vote for if you are anti-war, pro-nanny state, anti-abortion, pro-gay rights? If the typical Republican candidate stands for the typical party line, then who do you vote for if you are a warmonger, low tax, pro-abortion, anti-gay rights?

Take me for example, I am...

a pacifist (I don't expect anyone else to live by my morals though)
against capital punishment (goes with the whole pacifist thing)
anti-abortion (again, goes with the pacifist thing. don't think this is a rights issue, or rather, I think it involves the rights of more than one person)
pro-(insert any group here) rights (I hate institutionalized discrimination. however, I respect your right as a private citizen to discriminate, even if I think that makes you evil. I won't try and force my morals on you)
pro-business (without a healthy business atmosphere, we don't have a healthy economy and then we are all up a creek)
anti-tax (if you want something, earn it, don't take it from others)
anti-illegal immigration (I think they should open the borders and let people come and go as they please, then there is no such thing as illegal immigration)
anti-drug war (it's MY body, you do what you want with yours. I personally find most drug use to be immoral, but I won't try and force you to live by my morals.)
anti-morality legislation (you can't legislate morality. period.)

those are some of my stances.

So tell me, how should I vote? More parties will mean more partisanship, but will also mean more choices and representation that more accurate reflects that will of the people.
 
#69
#69
RespectTradition said:
I think the big problem is not that there is too much partisanship, but rather, not enough.

If we had more than two dominant political parties we would be much better off. If the typical Democratic candidate stands for the typical party line, then who do you vote for if you are anti-war, pro-nanny state, anti-abortion, pro-gay rights? If the typical Republican candidate stands for the typical party line, then who do you vote for if you are a warmonger, low tax, pro-abortion, anti-gay rights?

Take me for example, I am...

a pacifist (I don't expect anyone else to live by my morals though)
against capital punishment (goes with the whole pacifist thing)
anti-abortion (again, goes with the pacifist thing. don't think this is a rights issue, or rather, I think it involves the rights of more than one person)
pro-(insert any group here) rights (I hate institutionalized discrimination. however, I respect your right as a private citizen to discriminate, even if I think that makes you evil. I won't try and force my morals on you)
pro-business (without a healthy business atmosphere, we don't have a healthy economy and then we are all up a creek)
anti-tax (if you want something, earn it, don't take it from others)
anti-illegal immigration (I think they should open the borders and let people come and go as they please, then there is no such thing as illegal immigration)
anti-drug war (it's MY body, you do what you want with yours. I personally find most drug use to be immoral, but I won't try and force you to live by my morals.)
anti-morality legislation (you can't legislate morality. period.)

those are some of my stances.

So tell me, how should I vote? More parties will mean more partisanship, but will also mean more choices and representation that more accurate reflects that will of the people.
Click to expand...

You should have voted for Bob Barr in the last election.
 
#71
#71
RespectTradition said:
I did, but I knew that it would have no affect on the outcome of the election. Third parties are so marginalized and the rules are stacked against them.
Click to expand...

Keep doing it. You may soon be joined by millions of TPer's and folks like me who have had it with the GOP running out candidates like Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, etc...
 
#73
#73
B-b-b-But It's HIS Fault

cid:DD6E1F393E7248F1B37D88DEFD156D2D@usere0b2f95d7a


The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi
cid:F88241BA5DAB4B319193F3C671DA8350@usere0b2f95d7a
&Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama
cid:9144BFDBD1974C9AA9175B1034913A40@usere0b2f95d7a
could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets..

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)







cid:807BDD6E8C50449BA6020D746CC3E452@usere0b2f95d7a
​


If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.





​


If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for​
​

and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
cid:45C4952A622C42F3B28C4B9E9E5B9018@usere0b2f95d7a
​
​


​
 
#74
#74
VolsMcGee said:
So are you hoping Ron Paul ftw?
Click to expand...

I still don't know. I would vote for him and support him if he weren't so naive on foreign policy matters. He seems to think if we left the rest of the world alone then it would leave us alone. He seems to have an almost Chamberlin naivete regarding the evil of some countries, ideologies, and leaders.

I personally think we should take a more "black and white" approach to foreign policy. We should treat our friends as friends and our enemies as enemies. There's no way we should be giving billions in aid to countries where terrorists operate with relative impugnity. We should be finding and destroying terrorist operations with or without their knowledge, participation, or even permission.

The costs to being our enemy should be proportionately extreme to the benefits of being our friend. Countries that cannot or will not control what goes on inside their borders... are not our friends.
 
#75
#75
sjt18 said:
I still don't know. I would vote for him and support him if he weren't so naive on foreign policy matters. He seems to think if we left the rest of the world alone then it would leave us alone. He seems to have an almost Chamberlin naivete regarding the evil of some countries, ideologies, and leaders.

I personally think we should take a more "black and white" approach to foreign policy. We should treat our friends as friends and our enemies as enemies. There's no way we should be giving billions in aid to countries where terrorists operate with relative impugnity. We should be finding and destroying terrorist operations with or without their knowledge, participation, or even permission.

The costs to being our enemy should be proportionately extreme to the benefits of being our friend. Countries that cannot or will not control what goes on inside their borders... are not our friends.
Click to expand...

I think our relationships with foreign countries should be limited to exactly what is in our own best interests. I agree with Washington (the man that is, not the cesspool) that we should avoid entangling alliances and be friends with any nation that is friendly with us. Ignore anything else unless we (and I mean the actual US and our territories) are directly attacked. (this is difficult for me because I am a pacifist for religious reasons so understand I am not advocating even defensive war, but I am saying it is the only kind that can in any way be morally justified.)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top