To those that don't know, China has its own debt problems..

[Bitter Clinger]

. As far as the Tea Party influence, we will see if this was a tactical "retreat" while planning and hoping for a major victory in 11/12.

Somehow I have my doubts though.

Don't worry. In the words of my favorite Governor: "We're not retreating, we're just reloading."

 

[edsinger]

Next election - we take both houses of Congress and the White House, and then WE call the shots.

Sorry but we had our shot under Bush....all 3 branches for at least 2 years.


Its time for a fresh start........I mean repealing the laws that took our freedoms both financially and otherwise.

 

[firehawk1]

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken in The Divine Afflatus (1917)

But the fools still keep coming up with them. See the approximately half dozen examples preceding this post. It's too hard keeping a watch on government so let's keep coming up with "god in a box" gimmicks to do it for us.

Please elaborate. Or is this just an arrogant, narcisistic comment? If it isn't I apologize, but that is sure how it appears.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

They are smart enough to realize you can't call the shots from one house of Congress - you take what you can get. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, there wouldn't even have been a debate - Obongo would have got another blank check.

One election, we have gridlock. Gridlock is good when you have a socialist president. Next election - we take both houses of Congress and the White House, and then WE call the shots.

If next election they magically fill every seat - just like the politicians before them, they will flip flop on ideology and and how they vote... their opinions will change, they will vote yay where we expected them to vote a nay in some cases (*cough* patriot act)... and the next election after that, the cycle continues.

As the problems evolve, so do the solutions... sometimes they even devolve.

No political party is going to provide the answers to all of our societal problems. The power of political parties will always ebb and flow with voter satisfaction.

 

[88GT]

What less drastic method than cutting the large entitlement programs?

Simply requiring all legislation to be justified based on its Constitutionality. Exactly as I said in the post you quoted.

The "class warfare" angle has everything to do with voter representation - always has, and always will.

So were you arguing with me that changing the politicians would improve things or not? Because if so, you just contradicted yourself.

Regardless, my point was that we have little hope of expecting the ignorant moochers of this society to make right and proper choices if the people who are supposed to know better continue to buy into the idea that there's some magical aura surrounding the middle class.

Well you are so entitled to believe how you wish. In saying a fresh start, I am more inclined to believe it would work but with caveats.

Thanks, I will.

But for how long? Is that your caveat? Will you be technically correct for two election cycles, and then when Slick BillyBob realizes he can bribe people for votes like they're doing now, you get to claim that this was one of your caveats?

Are you familiar with Tom Clancy's novel "Executive Orders"? This was a drastic event and Congress did start over, and one of the great things is NO lawyers allowed. They had very little time for politics.

They all must go, fresh start.

As for the reflection of the electorate, I would change one simple rule. If you are receiving ANY government aid, you are not allowed to vote. That one part will solve most of these dependency issues.

No, I'm not familiar with it. But I wouldn't be relying on a work of fiction to justify a position that ignores human behavior either.

No lawyers? Do you really think being a lawyer is what causes somebody to be sleazy? Do you really think prohibiting lawyers has nothing but positive consequences?

How about simply eliminating government aid in the first place? I'd rather see all people have a say in choosing who gets to represent them in Washington than limit their franchise because they participate in an unConstitutional program.

I as a farmer receiving a subsidy based on the land that I farm, and not because I have a mailbox, wouldn't get to vote. (Remember the LAND is subsidized, not the FARMER) And I think that's a good idea!

Voting should be done based on being a stockholder in America IE: 1 vote for every $500 paid to Uncle. Pay $5000, get 10 votes. Maybe I can vote a few shares for the amount I pay in excess of what I receive?

How about eliminating the subsidies? I get that many of you are offering solutions, but basing them on a status quo that violates the Constitution doesn't seem very smart. Keeping Congress in check by limiting what it can do will have greater effect than limiting who can vote.

So you're suggesting we buy our votes? Would you oppose the idea that a man would refuse to take advantage of the opportunities to reduce his tax liability simply for the benefit of having a greater voice? If the vote is tied to money, corruption, fraud, and bribery are sure to follow.

[quote[]One more idea: Eliminate political parties and campaigns. Every eligible person in this country who desires to TAKE A TURN running it, puts their name in the lottery. If your number is picked, you take your turn at congress, at senate, etc. Then go home and back to your real job. No lifetime benefits. Only one term. There's 350 Million people here, we do not need career politicians.[/quote]

I hate it. It completely eliminates the idea behind a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. What if the guy picked is someone nobody would have cast a vote for? That method just screams death by unintended consequences. What if I want to be a career politician? What if a really great Constitutional candidate like Ron Paul (OMG, did I just say he was a great candidate???? ) wants to hold office as a check on the slimeballs and crooks? We run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water just because we erroneously equate number of years served with corruptibility.

Honestly, the only solution that makes sense is to return to the Constitution and hold Congress and the President accountable to it. Nothing else actually addresses the root problem.

 

[CarmelHP]

Please elaborate. Or is this just an arrogant, narcisistic comment? If it isn't I apologize, but that is sure how it appears.

Yes, it must be "narcisistic" because I gave credit to viewers to be able to figure it out. Balanced budget amendments, term limits, disenfranchisement of the boogey-man of the day, and other legislative devices are merely palliatives to make a citizenry too lazy to do the hard business of being vigilant of government feel better. They're parlor tricks that are either easily circumvented, or have their own built-in unintended consequences that have been discussed numerous times on here. That grown men and women think that any or all of them will solve real problems is a sad commentary on the gullibility of the electorate.

 

[firehawk1]

Yes, it must be "narcisistic" because I gave credit to viewers to be able to figure it out. Balanced budget amendments, term limits, disenfranchisement of the boogey-man of the day, and other legislative devices are merely palliatives to make a citizenry too lazy to do the hard business of being vigilant of government feel better. They're parlor tricks that are either easily circumvented, or have their own built-in unintended consequences that have been discussed numerous times on here. That grown men and women think that any or all of them will solve real problems is a sad commentary on the gullibility of the electorate.

Ok, I apologize, your point is well taken. I was reading it wrong.

 

[Stschil]

The simple solution is re-education of the electorate. The voters of this age in general have absolutely no idea what is written in the Constitution outside of their bastardized versions of the 1st, (Separation of Church and State, it doesn't say that), the 2nd (Well regulated Militia means standing army), and to some extent, the 4th. I agree with 88GT, view each and every law, policy, regulatory office, etc VS their Constitutionality and if they don't pass muster, out they go never to be seen again. It is simple in concept, but ever so detailed in it's implementation.
Our Country could flourish if only the Federal Gov't powers were stripped back to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the States were once again made responsible. It would in effect, put them into a sort of free market style competition with each other for if one placed undo restrictions upon it's citizenry, eventually residents would move away to other, more habitable states. The liberal bastions, such as NY and CA would soon fold under the weight of the non productive residents, unable to support the handouts, just as the Federal is beginning to at present, however this would occur on a smaller, more manageable scale and the Productive members would actually have a voice in what would be done about it.

 

[superjoe76]

The World Bank and Deutsche Bank predict China's economy will pull ahead of the US by 2020... Goldman Sachs predicts it will happen by 2028... JP Morgan predicts it will pull ahead between 2020 and 2025...

China does have their own problems... but China's economy has been consistently growing...

Yep, but then one day the people will cry fowl and protest unfair work practices. They will form Unions and demand higher wages. The government will start over taxing the economy to get a cash grab of their own. Once the profitability is gone, they will move some where else. :two cents: