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.
When complaining about the huge size of government, it's worth taking things in the proper perspective. The US government is indeed huge, but relative to what? Size should be measured relative to GDP. We should also take into account population growth. The US economy and population have been consistently growing over the last 200 years. We cannot expect the US government to be the size of what it was in the 18th century.
Shouldn't it still cover the same things that it did in the 18th century? The Constitution, aside from a few amendments that tend to favor more liberties for the people, hasn't changed.
That is very true. Which just points up the false read that the Democrats have when they say that they have a mandate for change. Talk about a non specific word - change. What do it mean? When you get into the details, people hate change. Most people prefer the status quo than anything which causes them to change.
Even so, when you look at this result
Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.
it could be worrisome for Democrats. With roughly 50 percent of the country voting Decocrat and 50 percent Republican, when half of the Decocrats who favor less government get into the voting booth and think about the definition of change, that could be problematic for them.
I think you bring up an interesting point about the large divisions within the Democratic party itself. This is why even though Democrats far outnumber the Republicans, they cannot always pull together a win. The Democratic party really consists of several different parties. The Liberals probably make up about half of the total Democratic party.
The problem is Republicans are well united under Economic Conservatism, whilst Democrats do not have any common goals or long-term plans. This of course makes them very weak during election time. The Republican party's ability to attract Independent and swing voters is also another downer for the Democrats.
I suspect that the Democratic party will be split in the coming years, the divisions are quite clear, and the inability to unite will ultimately prove a horrendous weakness.
As we know, it's all in how you phrase the questions.
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/benchmarks/america_s_best_days - broken link)
But what really stuck out:
So how did we end up with these three candidates? Higher taxes vs continuing the war vs more entitlements. There doesn't seem to be a lot of hope.
I would love to say Amen but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that American public is ignorant and fooled easily.
I think you bring up an interesting point about the large divisions within the Democratic party itself. This is why even though Democrats far outnumber the Republicans, they cannot always pull together a win. The Democratic party really consists of several different parties. The Liberals probably make up about half of the total Democratic party.
The problem is Republicans are well united under Economic Conservatism, whilst Democrats do not have any common goals or long-term plans. This of course makes them very weak during election time. The Republican party's ability to attract Independent and swing voters is also another downer for the Democrats.
I suspect that the Democratic party will be split in the coming years, the divisions are quite clear, and the inability to unite will ultimately prove a horrendous weakness.
What you are saying is that Republicans have to really screw up (which they definitely have from time to time) to not win and the Democrats have to.... well just be Democrats?
Which is what folks will find out after the election, especially if the Republicans are routed (a distinct possibility).
The Republicans will try to see what to propose for elimination as part of their new message "part of the Paul group chant", and will find insufficient support for proposed reductions or eliminations. But they will need to see this for themselves.
The Republican party is no different when it comes to seeing their flaws than the Democrat party. That is why we have these swings pretty regularly. The worst thing that can happen to a party is getting the Presidency and control of Congress. When either party has this they go into the winner takes all attitude and screw up one way or another. The public reacts and cleans house. I think we all if we are honest can admit that. That is why I am all for having a split government. When Clinton was in office the agenda stayed somewhat neutral and believe it or not some okay things happened. It is just common sense. The worse thing that can happen with a split government is logjam and in Washington DC that is not a bad thing.
No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not make it so. Congress, controls both spending, and taxes.... Not the White House!!
According to the Constitution yes Congress and the people should have control of the spending and taxes...
But the sad reality is that this is becoming less and less true. Bush and other presidents with similar agenda's have done all they can behind the scenes to strip the American people of their power. Unless someone like Ron Paul comes in and restores the power back to the people, we will only continue to have our rights striped away from us...
Look at the Patriot Act in detail and how many Constitutional rights of the people it violates...
I have to say I agree with the statement that Bush lowered taxes yet increased spending... he is partly to blame because he has too much control... Our current administration are basically Soft Fascists.
No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not make it so. Congress, controls both spending, and taxes.... Not the White House!!
"Congress legislates both spending and texes, however, a president with a veto pen or a sympathetic congress may destroy a budget he does not like or have the presidential budget recommendations passed without changes.
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.
