Political Question

[Ken Smith]

My "type of label-based drivel" is not directed at one party or another. Like I said, they have both failed miserably. Democrats never saw an etitlement that they did not love and Republicans never pass a chance to increase the size and scope of government. Of course Democrats are fond of that too, but Republicans claim they are against it. You cannot have huge government and abundant freedom simultaneously. The regrettable catastrophe that we are all now a part of is the fact that our American Republic has been replaced by a corrupt system of political correctness. Through fabianistic debauchery, the elitists of Washington DC, including those of both major parties, have turned America into a socialistic democratic dictatorship. We are a police state and a welfare state all rolled into one enormous gluttonous debt. In the words of Albert Einstein, "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

[CG031]

My "type of label-based drivel" is not directed at one party or another. Like I said, they have both failed miserably. Democrats never saw an etitlement that they did not love and Republicans never pass a chance to increase the size and scope of government. Of course Democrats are fond of that too, but Republicans claim they are against it. You cannot have huge government and abundant freedom simultaneously. The regrettable catastrophe that we are all now a part of is the fact that our American Republic has been replaced by a corrupt system of political correctness. Through fabianistic debauchery, the elitists of Washington DC, including those of both major parties, have turned America into a socialistic democratic dictatorship. We are a police state and a welfare state all rolled into one enormous gluttonous debt. In the words of Albert Einstein, "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

You seem to love the idea of government deregulation when the corrupt and greed on Wall Street was one of the main reasons we headed into a recession and came close at one point to entering into a depression.

[TheNatural]

That was depressing, and sadly that lost money could have been spent on education or prisons.

LOL Madoff was a democrat though. Ironic

[Ken Smith]

When our country was founded, the framers of our new government devised the Constitution specifically to LIMIT government in order to prevent a recurrence of the abuses from King George III. Having served in the U.S. Marine Corps, and spending most of my adult life in law enforcement, I have taken the oath (more than once) to uphold the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Exhaustive and strenuous efforts went in to the development of the Constitution, thus guaranteeing that those serving in government would not violate the rights of citizens, particularly and especially, by those serving at the federal level. Now, more than 230 years later, we have a Federal Government (Republicans and Democrats alike) that is completely out of control and seemingly unaware of any of the limitations, or checks and balances, as set forth in the Constitution. We have a 9 trillion dollar debt, unsecured borders, out of control spending, huge corporations funding campaigns of both major parties, and excessive taxation and inflation. The biggest point to bear in mind is that government cannot keep growing and have our freedom increase at the same time. That is precisely why our Founding Fathers devised our government with few, discreet, and enumerated powers; to ensure that it would never become exactly what it is today. We now have a government that will do whatever it takes and spare no cost to take care of you, to feed you, to educate you, and basically to protect you from your own stupidity. So yes, I am for a decentralized and limited government based on principles of personal choice, individual accountability, and self-determination. Make no mistake, corporations and bureaucracies run America today with complete complicity from our Congress, and that is how we got into the mess we're in today, not because of the deregulation of our citizens.

[sp33d]

I would say I'm 70% republican 25% independant, 5% democrat. Just depends on the canidate. 9 out of 10 times Ill vote republican, I did vote a democratic sherriff in, because well I know him and he is very pro gun rights (weird)

Iowa is a really weird place to live as far as politics go, its very conservitive however votes democrate most of the time. Esp in my city, very conservative, lots of old money, but lots of low income as well, and a thriving middle class. Most of our city goverment is democrats and their almost all completely wortheless money hungry do nothings.

I'm not bitter. :)

[ChiChiIsMe]

You seem to love the idea of government deregulation when the corrupt and greed on Wall Street was one of the main reasons we headed into a recession and came close at one point to entering into a depression.

Yea, it was all because of greedy wall street. Had you noticed that throughout the Bush administration the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission grew steadily? Where were you in 2002 when President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law, subjecting the economy to more, not less, regulation? Are you aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government-sponsored entities, both under pressure from Congress, devoted tens of billions to the purchase of dubious mortgages, in effect creating the market for the very subprime instruments that got us into this mess? Greedy Wall Street indeed.

[st0wgolf08]

When our country was founded, the framers of our new government devised the Constitution specifically to LIMIT government in order to prevent a recurrence of the abuses from King George III. Having served in the U.S. Marine Corps, and spending most of my adult life in law enforcement, I have taken the oath (more than once) to uphold the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Exhaustive and strenuous efforts went in to the development of the Constitution, thus guaranteeing that those serving in government would not violate the rights of citizens, particularly and especially, by those serving at the federal level. Now, more than 230 years later, we have a Federal Government (Republicans and Democrats alike) that is completely out of control and seemingly unaware of any of the limitations, or checks and balances, as set forth in the Constitution. We have a 9 trillion dollar debt, unsecured borders, out of control spending, huge corporations funding campaigns of both major parties, and excessive taxation and inflation. The biggest point to bear in mind is that government cannot keep growing and have our freedom increase at the same time. That is precisely why our Founding Fathers devised our government with few, discreet, and enumerated powers; to ensure that it would never become exactly what it is today. We now have a government that will do whatever it takes and spare no cost to take care of you, to feed you, to educate you, and basically to protect you from your own stupidity. So yes, I am for a decentralized and limited government based on principles of personal choice, individual accountability, and self-determination. Make no mistake, corporations and bureaucracies run America today with complete complicity from our Congress, and that is how we got into the mess we're in today, not because of the deregulation of our citizens.

i agree, and i don't think our government cares about the effects of their own actions. Our money just keeps going down in value, because we keep printing it. Our new head in charge says he's gonna go 180, yet he just spends more and complains more. At some point our country is going to have a major collapse. We are so far in debt it's scary. We care so much about the minorities(not just racially, I mean the minorities in any view).

We can't let our country change for .005 percent of it's citizens.

[TheNatural]

Sarbanes was an ENRON reaction,,,,probably is needed.

[Leftygolfer]

I disagree with Obama on many, many issues. I did not vote for him (I voted for Paul). But I'm very happy he won and think he is a very good President.

He has some really intelligent speech writers and a great presentor. Do you think we would still be in a reccession if he would have cut taxes on business? That doesn't take time and our economy would be soaring if we would have taken that approach instead of creating a even bigger more corrupt government.

[jonnythan]

Do you think we would still be in a reccession if he would have cut taxes on business?

Yes. I see no reason to think that a simple business tax cut would have reversed the recession.

[CG031]

Yea, it was all because of greedy wall street. Had you noticed that throughout the Bush administration the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission grew steadily? Where were you in 2002 when President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law, subjecting the economy to more, not less, regulation? Are you aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government-sponsored entities, both under pressure from Congress, devoted tens of billions to the purchase of dubious mortgages, in effect creating the market for the very subprime instruments that got us into this mess? Greedy Wall Street indeed.

I didn't say that's all that contributed to it. Obviously there is more to a recession than just that, but it was a contribution because they were able to run wild.

[Leftygolfer]

Yes. I see no reason to think that a simple business tax cut would have reversed the recession.

What did GWB do after 911 that sparked enoumous econmic growth? Do you believe that Obama should be held responsible for the market going down after he has been in office?

The market has not liked alot of decisions he and congress has made. I do not believe his stimulus package is doing anything for America except those in power. So, yes, smart tax cuts and incentives in the private sector would have been more effective in getting us out of the recession. And a heck of lot cheaper.

[jonnythan]

What did GWB do after 911 that sparked enoumous econmic growth? Do you believe that Obama should be held responsible for the market going down after he has been in office?

I'm not a professional economist. Clearly you are since you know exactly what would have happened. So I won't directly argue with you about economics.

I'm a Libertarian, which means that I very much want as little government intrusion into finance as possible. However, I also realize that simply nudging the system very slightly in that direction does not mean automatic improvement. The situation following 9/11 was a very very different one from the one we face today. I don't really see the value in saying "in 2001, we did this and this happened; therefore, if we do that again right now the same thing will happen again." Besides, what did Bush really do following 9/11? Spend enormous sums of money on wars . What is Obama doing? Spending enormous sums of money. Of course, Obama is spending that money bailing out American companies that went bankrupt before he even assumed office. Not sure how he can be held accountable for things that took place before he took office. The Dow Jones is higher now than it was when he was sworn in.

[CG031]

What did GWB do after 911 that sparked enoumous econmic growth? Do you believe that Obama should be held responsible for the market going down after he has been in office?

The stock market has gone up since he took office. How has the "market not liked a lot of decisions he and congress have made." ?

[Ken Smith]

This bailout plan is from an article written in the St. Petersburg, FL Times Newspaper. The business section asked readers for ideas on "How To Fix The Economy".

Dear Mr. President:

Please find my suggestion for fixing America's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan:

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan.

There are about 40 million people over 50 currently in the workforce.

Pay them each $1 million severance for early retirement, with the following stipulations:

They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

They MUST buy a new American car - Forty million cars ordered - Auto industry fixed.

They MUST either buy a new house or pay off their current mortgage - Housing crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!

If more money is needed, have all members of Congress and their constituents, pay their taxes.

I laughed so hard when I read this that I had to pass it on. I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.

[Power_fade]

It's socialist, but it sounds like it would work. The bad part is most of that million will probably go on medical bills, insurance, etc. Depending on where the $40 million comes from, I would support that. I especially liked that last line.

Usually I go for Lassiez-Faire economics, with some control to prevent corruption, but not as much control as the average blue dog democrat supports. But I have liberal views on personal rights. Pro-choice, gay rights, but I do think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. The main thing is as a scientist, I can't support a party that has stifled advance for medical engineering for the past 8 years by banning stem cell research.

[CG031]

But I have liberal views on personal rights. Pro-choice, gay rights, but I do think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. The main thing is as a scientist, I can't support a party that has stifled advance for medical engineering for the past 8 years by banning stem cell research.

Well put, pretty much my opinions to a tee.

[booman32]

It's socialist, but it sounds like it would work.

Nothing that's socialist has ever worked... It's socialist, nuff said.

The GOP has mainly been banning embryotic (spelling?) stem cell research. If an adult would like to contribute stem cells to the research, go for it. But when it's embryos that don't have a voice, it is violating human's rights.