Everyone..this isn't political...its about reducing the debt.....

[Panjandrum]

There are TRILLIONS in cuts to entitlement programs written in Harry Reid's Senate bill right now....which are in direct opposition to any of the lobbyists which put many of the Dems in office.

this is a bald faced lie

Yea, unless MSNBC is lying, there is only $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years, mostly discretionary spending. This looks like a big do-nothing bill and will have no affect on reducing the debt. I would guess we will be another $6-$7 trillion deeper in debt within 10 years if we don't do something about entitlements, which is 80% of our spending.

There is absolutely no way that they are realistically going to reduce the debt without massive cuts to the military, reform entitlements, and increase taxes.  It just won't happen.

It can be done.  We'll massively cripple our economy and pretty much screw the baby boomers out of their entitlements, and we'll piss off the Christians wanting their holy crusade, but we should probably embark on that path.

[pike]

I don't really see why we have to raise taxes 

All we have to do is reduce the size of government, by a lot.

[Panjandrum]

I don't really see why we have to raise taxes 

All we have to do is reduce the size of government, by a lot.

With all due respect, man, it's all defense, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment at this point.  The last 2012 budget I saw, those four things were 2.52 trillion dollars, and revenue was $2.6 million.

Maybe my thoughts on what constitutes the size of government differ from the next guy, but when I think of the 'size' of government, I think of a lot of discretionary programs, and that's pretty much $800 billion.  There's some you can shave off of that, but really, a lot of it is infrastructure, education, agriculture, etc.  You can cut funds from the NEA, EPA, National Parks, etc., if that's what a person finds extraneous, but that's a drop in the bucket.

Honestly, everything has to be put back on the table.  Military spending, entitlements, taxes, discretionary spending...everything.  If we really want to cut into the debt, we can use the Clinton method of cut a dollar, earn a dollar in revenues.  That will get you there twice as fast.

In down economic times, the government can be a driver.  Rebuilding infrastructure puts people back to work.  Investing in education can be a driver for innovation.  Incentives to get people to invest in real estate can help prop up and cause recovery for that sector.  Government, if used properly, can drive positive outcomes.  However, it relies on the right people with the right motivations to make it function properly.

Personally, I'm growing fond of the idea of term limits for Congress.  I believe wholeheartedly in a complete restructuring of campaign finance.  I believe in abolishing PACs and diminishing the power of lobbyists.  If we want to change Washington, we need to really change Washington.  The way to fix government is to make it about service and nothing more.

Anyway, I'm moving off topic, but the root cause of the problem is that the system is broken.  Fix the system, fix the debt.  Everything we do to resolve the debt without actually changing how Washington operates is just a band aid.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I don't really see why we have to raise taxes 

All we have to do is reduce the size of government, by a lot.

Anyway, I'm moving off topic, but the root cause of the problem is that the system is broken.  Fix the system, fix the debt.  Everything we do to resolve the debt without actually changing how Washington operates is just a band aid.

This is why raising taxes right now is a really bad idea. It will be a complete waste. We are much better off letting people spend in the private sector.

[Panjandrum]

I don't really see why we have to raise taxes 

All we have to do is reduce the size of government, by a lot.

Anyway, I'm moving off topic, but the root cause of the problem is that the system is broken.  Fix the system, fix the debt.  Everything we do to resolve the debt without actually changing how Washington operates is just a band aid.

This is why raising taxes right now is a really bad idea. It will be a complete waste. We are much better off letting people spend in the private sector.

It will reduce yearly deficits in the meantime and help cut into the debt and our yearly obligation on servicing.

Fixing the system will take a lot of time.  Cutting down the debt can start before that if we attack it appropriately.

[Stupid Fitz]

Its fun to come here and read posts of you guys blaming each other's parties and all, but neither of you are dumb enough to believe it one party's fault right?  RIGHT???

This is the funny part of politics these days.  No one is right.

Yeah but the scary part is that a lot of people still think it is all the other party's fault.  BUSH DID IT!!!!!!!! 

[Panjandrum]

Its fun to come here and read posts of you guys blaming each other's parties and all, but neither of you are dumb enough to believe it one party's fault right?  RIGHT???

This is the funny part of politics these days.  No one is right.

Yeah but the scary part is that a lot of people still think it is all the other party's fault.  BUSH DID IT!!!!!!!! 

On the flip side, a lot of people say Obama did it.

The problem is that the whole lot of them did it.  Both sides.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Its fun to come here and read posts of you guys blaming each other's parties and all, but neither of you are dumb enough to believe it one party's fault right?  RIGHT???

This is the funny part of politics these days.  No one is right.

Yeah but the scary part is that a lot of people still think it is all the other party's fault.  BUSH DID IT!!!!!!!! 

On the flip side, a lot of people say Obama did it.

The problem is that the whole lot of them did it.  Both sides.

This is true. Bush was really a fiscal liberal and Obama has just continued down the same path, but at a higher speed. Bush and Obama gave birth to the Tea Party.

[the KHAN!]

So our government is a clusterfuck, and the two party system is a failure...what else is new.

You are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

[Stupid Fitz]

So our government is a clusterfuck, and the two party system is a failure...what else is new.

You are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

 

I mean, I don't agree with everything he says, but I am not sure how you can argue against that quote much. 

[the KHAN!]

So our government is a clusterfuck, and the two party system is a failure...what else is new.

You are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

 

I mean, I don't agree with everything he says, but I am not sure how you can argue against that quote much. 

Look. Here's the deal.  When people say things like "the two party system is stupid...we need more party's that'll solve the problem." or "the electoral college is silly and outdated let's dump it." they are most often simply stupid people who are only repeating what they've heard smarter people (or in some cases people just as stupid) say.  I'm sick of these ignorant cunts and their opinions on our Government structure.

Why is the 2 party system good? 

1. It creates political stability and prevents third party from taking root.

Now why is that a good thing?  Not all third parties are going to be good. Let's look at the Tea Party. Look like a group of people you want with its own representatives who didn't depend on more moderate people? Hell no. 
This does not mean that problems that would lead people to want to form a third party go ignored. Not in the slightest.  In the 2 party system, the 2 major parties are forced to absorb these groups into the fold.  At the same time, these groups are forced to become more moderate, in order to win over those of the major party that has absorbed them.  In the words of William Kimberling, "Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within government."

Can you imagine if Germany had been a 2 party system? Do you think the powerhouses would have allowed the National Socialist party to take over?   If you think Tea Partiers are crazy, imagine them if they didn't have to moderate themselves to get acceptance from the rest of the party.

Lesson over.  Professor out.

[pike]

Couldn't disagree more. The two party system is an absolute failure. It's a two party dictatorship, governed by the elite and their corporations to push their fascist agenda.

I'd like to think we can do better than the crap slinging festival we have going on in this nation. Americans view their stance on things like a sports team. They cheer on their party despite the issues, and cheer on the news network that feeds them propaganda they hear from the bull crap politicians in their party, who are bought and paid for by the corporations. It's pathetic, divisive, and extremely unhealthy for our society. It's just like religious indoctrination. People are born into this bull crap system and grow up unable to think critically and think for themselves.

I'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but the point is moot since it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

[the KHAN!]

Oh, come on now.  In England they have the exact same thing when you get down to it.  They create party coalitions to form a majority Government.  As I stated previously, this is almost exactly what happens here.  The Democratic Party is nothing but a coalition of labor groups, gay rights activists, nature lovers, amongst many many others.  If they were the 4,000 different parties that they would be if the Democratic Party didn't exist, they'd simply create a coalition government once elected.  The catch is they would be FAR more extreme than they are right now.  All the two party system does is makes what would otherwise be many parties band together before the elections rather than after, and moderate their platform.

How in the hell is this a bad thing?

[pike]

I would agree with you, but there's so many underlying issues. Each party is bought and paid for. They act in favor of the corporations that get them the power they want. This is an indisputable fact, just ask the arms manufacturers, haliburton, oil companies, and pharmaceutical companies to name a few.

They all spend billions upon billions to get their way. And in the end, it's a small investment that pays off big time. The oil companies have control of Asias oil supply, arms manufacturers and the military industrial complex is obviously reaping the benefits of the status quo, Haliburton's stock was up 3000% after the Iraq war, big pharma has their guys keeping real medicine illegal and they try and put out of business a man that discovered how to cure cancer (Stanislaw Burzynski).

And the corporations' buddies in the media are spoon feeding everyone the bull crap first hand.

Like I said, IDK the answer. But at least with more political parties you could dilute down the power of our fascist government and the rise of the alternative media is providing more information we had no access to before.  

[Rage Against the McKee]

Oh, come on now.  In England they have the exact same thing when you get down to it.  They create party coalitions to form a majority Government.  As I stated previously, this is almost exactly what happens here.  The Democratic Party is nothing but a coalition of labor groups, gay rights activists, nature lovers, amongst many many others.  If they were the 4,000 different parties that they would be if the Democratic Party didn't exist, they'd simply create a coalition government once elected.  The catch is they would be FAR more extreme than they are right now.  All the two party system does is makes what would otherwise be many parties band together before the elections rather than after, and moderate their platform.

How in the hell is this a bad thing?

If we would simply eliminate all political parties, voters might actually pay attention to what a candidate says rather than look at the letter next to their name at the ballot box. We would have candidates with actual independent thoughts to vote for, rather than 3 candidates that tow the party line or Ron Paul.

With the two party system, we end up with two political parties with the same faults who refuse to compromise over dumbass issues like abortion. Neither party wants to tackle any real issues, and both parties are in favor of appeasing their corporate overlords. At least with more political parties, or better yet, no political parties, it would be harder for corporations to own Congress.

[the KHAN!]

Like I said, IDK the answer. But at least with more political parties you could dilute down the power of our fascist government and the rise of the alternative media is providing more information we had no access to before.  

As bad as our Government can seem, it is virtually impossible for it to become Fascist, whereas there are actual fascist parties in multi party systems.

Oh, come on now.  In England they have the exact same thing when you get down to it.  They create party coalitions to form a majority Government.  As I stated previously, this is almost exactly what happens here.  The Democratic Party is nothing but a coalition of labor groups, gay rights activists, nature lovers, amongst many many others.  If they were the 4,000 different parties that they would be if the Democratic Party didn't exist, they'd simply create a coalition government once elected.  The catch is they would be FAR more extreme than they are right now.  All the two party system does is makes what would otherwise be many parties band together before the elections rather than after, and moderate their platform.

How in the hell is this a bad thing?

If we would simply eliminate all political parties, voters might actually pay attention to what a candidate says rather than look at the letter next to their name at the ballot box. We would have candidates with actual independent thoughts to vote for, rather than 3 candidates that tow the party line or Ron Paul.

Who would fund the campaigns?  It's a good idea, other than without the party campaigns turn into a nightmare.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Who would fund the campaigns?  It's a good idea, other than without the party campaigns turn into a nightmare.

The candidates would have to go out and raise their own money from contributions.

[the KHAN!]

There would probably be about 5,000 candidate for President. 500 for each senate/house seat.  No way to really get to know them all.  It's luck of the draw of who gets funded between two similar candidates.  Too many problems that I don't ever see private individuals running for office without a party.

[Rage Against the McKee]

There would probably be about 5,000 candidate for President. 500 for each senate/house seat.  No way to really get to know them all.  It's luck of the draw of who gets funded between two similar candidates.  Too many problems that I don't ever see private individuals running for office without a party.

There might be a lot of candidates, but there wouldn't be all that many that would be able to drum up enough support to actually get on the ballot in every state. I'm guessing less than 10.

[hemmy]

There would probably be about 5,000 candidate for President. 500 for each senate/house seat.  No way to really get to know them all.  It's luck of the draw of who gets funded between two similar candidates.  Too many problems that I don't ever see private individuals running for office without a party.

That's just a whole lotta stupid right there.  Guess what, it would be the job of the CANDIDATE to get their name and political views out there.  Sure, the people who have more connections/money would be the ones making it onto the ballot but the system would be improved.

Maybe the people would realize that believe it or not, it is possible to have a favorite candidate without listening to CNN or Fox News' take.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Oh, come on now.  In England they have the exact same thing when you get down to it.  They create party coalitions to form a majority Government.  As I stated previously, this is almost exactly what happens here.  The Democratic Party is nothing but a coalition of labor groups, gay rights activists, nature lovers, amongst many many others.  If they were the 4,000 different parties that they would be if the Democratic Party didn't exist, they'd simply create a coalition government once elected.  The catch is they would be FAR more extreme than they are right now.  All the two party system does is makes what would otherwise be many parties band together before the elections rather than after, and moderate their platform.

How in the hell is this a bad thing?

If we would simply eliminate all political parties, voters might actually pay attention to what a candidate says rather than look at the letter next to their name at the ballot box. We would have candidates with actual independent thoughts to vote for, rather than 3 candidates that tow the party line or Ron Paul.

With the two party system, we end up with two political parties with the same faults who refuse to compromise over dumbass issues like abortion. Neither party wants to tackle any real issues, and both parties are in favor of appeasing their corporate overlords. At least with more political parties, or better yet, no political parties, it would be harder for corporations to own Congress.

This would be the end of the Democrat party.  The people that are told to vote for the donks can be taught to know the difference between "D" and "R".  Good luck getting them to remember an actual name.  The number of write-in/absentee ballots would have to increase by 10 fold for them to survive.

[the KHAN!]

There would probably be about 5,000 candidate for President. 500 for each senate/house seat.  No way to really get to know them all.  It's luck of the draw of who gets funded between two similar candidates.  Too many problems that I don't ever see private individuals running for office without a party.

That's just a whole lotta stupid right there.  Guess what, it would be the job of the CANDIDATE to get their name and political views out there.  Sure, the people who have more connections/money would be the ones making it onto the ballot but the system would be improved.

Maybe the people would realize that believe it or not, it is possible to have a favorite candidate without listening to CNN or Fox News' take.

You, sir or madame, are an idiot.  Obviously you have no experience in political campaigns either. It takes an incredible amount of people to run a campaign and even more to fund it.  Canvasing is done by party faithful. Calling party voters, also the job of party faithful.  Rarely do non-party individuals volunteer to help with a campaign. Not to mention, you're not going to be able to get ANYONE to a campaign fund raiser if they're not sure they can support you.  That R or D in front of a name helps supporters put people into the category of "might support" and "probably won't support".  But go ahead, try and run a campaign without party support. See what kind of logistical nightmare it would be. Oh, and eff off too.

There might be a lot of candidates, but there wouldn't be all that many that would be able to drum up enough support to actually get on the ballot in every state. I'm guessing less than 10.

So we stop being a democratic republic and become a democratic oligarchy, as only the super rich would have the means to run for office.

[hemmy]

Oh man, the khan is a funny guy.  The system would be different if there were no parties.  They wouldn't be playing the same games as they currently do, because there would be no party voters to call, parties would not exist. With no parties, and no party affiliations, some people might actually vote on the issues the candidate stands for. Why did so many people vote for Obama (change???) or Bush (tax cuts? little did they know he was just another neo-con)

I never said parties should be abolished, but how can you be content with electing a virtual clone of the previous person every 4 years...

Also, your Hitler comparison would never be able to happen with a system of checks and balances. Hitler appointed himself as Reich President (führer), unless you argue that everyone in congress and the judicial branch is an extremist.

[Rage Against the McKee]

There would probably be about 5,000 candidate for President. 500 for each senate/house seat.  No way to really get to know them all.  It's luck of the draw of who gets funded between two similar candidates.  Too many problems that I don't ever see private individuals running for office without a party.

That's just a whole lotta stupid right there.  Guess what, it would be the job of the CANDIDATE to get their name and political views out there.  Sure, the people who have more connections/money would be the ones making it onto the ballot but the system would be improved.

Maybe the people would realize that believe it or not, it is possible to have a favorite candidate without listening to CNN or Fox News' take.

You, sir or madame, are an idiot.  Obviously you have no experience in political campaigns either. It takes an incredible amount of people to run a campaign and even more to fund it.  Canvasing is done by party faithful. Calling party voters, also the job of party faithful.  Rarely do non-party individuals volunteer to help with a campaign. Not to mention, you're not going to be able to get ANYONE to a campaign fund raiser if they're not sure they can support you.  That R or D in front of a name helps supporters put people into the category of "might support" and "probably won't support".  But go ahead, try and run a campaign without party support. See what kind of logistical nightmare it would be. Oh, and eff off too.

There might be a lot of candidates, but there wouldn't be all that many that would be able to drum up enough support to actually get on the ballot in every state. I'm guessing less than 10.

So we stop being a democratic republic and become a democratic oligarchy, as only the super rich would have the means to run for office.

And the last non-super-rich presidential candidate with a shot in hell of winning was?

[Rage Against the McKee]

\\
This would be the end of the Democrat party. 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what I'm advocating for when I say "Let's get rid of political parties."