Making sense of what's going on in Washington DC - does it boil down to this? (extremist, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As complicated as it seems at times, isn't what's going on in Washington simply a struggle between greater opposing ideologies and which direction our federal government should go?
It's as if somehow we've arrived at a turning point and need to make a solid choice of which direction to go - left or right. It's as if we, the people, are students who just landed a project in which we were given a simulated government and instructed to adjust it so that it works for the people. Only this is reality.
As it stands, the government we need to influence through the democratic process is not self-sustaining. This government is living on debt, spending in a way that is overextending itself in relation to the income it brings in via its taxbase.
What are the options in regard to making this government self-sustaining?
We can either A) raise taxes in every way possible so that our government's income matches its spending or B) Drastically downsize our government so that its spending matches its income.
Option A would obviously have us turn left while option B would have us turn right.
Which direction do you really want to see our government go? Which is better?
It would be nice to see the politicians running for office get to the root of what's going on and profess and blatantly explain their ideology, its benefits and a summary of what it entails in political ads and let people think about the basic direction they want to go instead of attacking one another and pandering to popularity contests.
As complicated as it seems at times, isn't what's going on in Washington simply a struggle between greater opposing ideologies and which direction our federal government should go?
It's as if somehow we've arrived at a turning point and need to make a solid choice of which direction to go - left or right. It's as if we, the people, are students who just landed a project in which we were given a simulated government and instructed to adjust it so that it works for the people. Only this is reality.
As it stands, the government we need to influence through the democratic process is not self-sustaining. This government is living on debt, spending in a way that is overextending itself in relation to the income it brings in via its taxbase.
What are the options in regard to making this government self-sustaining?
We can either A) raise taxes in every way possible so that our government's income matches its spending or B) Drastically downsize our government so that its spending matches its income.
Option A would obviously have us turn left while option B would have us turn right.
Which direction do you really want to see our government go? Which is better?
It would be nice to see the politicians running for office get to the root of what's going on and profess and blatantly explain their ideology, its benefits and a summary of what it entails in political ads and let people think about the basic direction they want to go instead of attacking one another and pandering to popularity contests.
Why should living within our means be a left/right proposition?
Statists, like spoiled children, continually cry for more control, more entitlments when those Constiutitonal Conservatives want less government and more personal responsibility.
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for yourself!
Why should living within our means be a left/right proposition?
I wasn't in anyway suggesting that. Left = raising taxes in every way possible so that the federal government's income matches spending. Right = drastic spending cuts and reducing the size of government to match spending with income.
Although it does seem to me Obama and the Democrats have little regard for our government operating at expenses within its means. It's as if they are kids who have gotten ahold of daddy's wallet and are hoping to get him to pay for their splurging. Wishful thinking that by spending like crazy and adding up the debt will set a new standard in amount spent (bigger government) and that somehow they will convince folks the wealthy need to pay for it or that that's the only way to pay for it, effectively making the government sustainably larger. They want to make the "progressive" tax rates even more progressive, while screaming for "fairness". IMO the progressive tax system is NOT fair.
We need tax reform in the form of a flat tax, and yes, the wealthy who produce income via dividends and capital gains should be included in that flat tax. That's fair - everybody paying the exact same percentage of their income, regardless of its source. A truly fair, flat-tax rate would hold everybody accountable equally in regard to our government's spending. No more spending and expecting the wealthy to pay for it all. If you want bigger government, you have to be willing to see x% of your paycheck go toward it. I think this would work well and help voters decide what they really want. I can see it now. In a presidential election after a flat tax system has been implemented, a candidate could vow to lower the percentage rate by x% or they could offer to make government more efficient and offer more government for the same % or could go as far as propose raising that flat % to offer something very appealing for the increase. I think if folks could see an exact amount of their paycheck go up or down as a direct reflection of the fair, same-across-the-board tax rate percentage, then they would see how real government spending is and make better choices when voting. Everybody would be more accountable.
As you can tell, I want our country to move right. I like Mitt Romney. I want smaller federal government, more responsibilities left to individual states, the ability for politics and legislation to be better tailored to local populations, states to maintain their own cultures, more tax money produced to be dealt with and stay local, for different ideas to be dealt with in each state in different ways creating a sort of competition and examples of what works and what works better - rather than sweeping, one-size-fits-all solutions and rather than so much tax income being received and distributed by the federal government. The federal government needs to get back to basics as much as possible. It would help our country become less polarized allowing liberal states to go one way and conservative states to go the other way.
IMHO it boils down to extremists on both sides.
Ultra safe blue and red districts where the incumbent is part of the loony left/right; draws from the loons and thumbs his/her nose at anything not loony.
Political stance: Raise taxes on (250K a bit 1MM more and hedge fund managers massively... There is no excuse for the carried interest rule) AND lower spending and I mean in a REAL way (Sen Dr Coburn (OK) has plenty of good ideas inside his plan. I may not agree with all of it but there is real substance there to consider parts of)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
