I agree with all of that. Now let's add taxes and make the road to not being in debt faster. http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/ Some of the best economies in this world have very high taxes. Also, the American economy has had it's best moments when tax rates were higher. And when you increase taxes, you can pay for programs that many of us have come to love (social security, Medicare, etc).
Yep, I think I've mentioned the Netherlands' 60% tax rate here before. BTW your pic of Emma Watson is outrageously hawt. Edit: Having just read a full draw-out on New York Times, I must make a slight revision: if this new debt ceiling deal does pass through Senate, we can expect a Congressional vote on tax increases/entitlement cuts before the end of the year. So in a sense revenue is actually part of the deal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/31/super-congress-debt-ceiling-deficit-deal_n_914272.html Very disappointed in congress and their incompetence. I do not trust a Super Congress for one second, and not only that it only gives two separate points of view. And last I checked, America was made up of more than just Republicans and Democrats. Also, 6 Republicans? 1 is a massively destructive force, 6 has tragic potential. Anyway, to give just 12 members this much power is absurd and I cannot even articulate how much I loathe this entire situation. And just why in the world do republicans hate higher taxes? It's good for the economy and good for the consumer and good for businesses. Taxes along with budget cuts would help exceedingly. As of right now, I have no faith in either Republicans or Democrats. It seems to me that a Super Congress isn't much more than a gang. But what do I know? I think that Obama should have involved the 14th Amendment, impeachment be damned. It's better to try to fix something and be squashed than to sit back and let talking-heads squabble. --- Sorry, for my rant. It's just, I believe this country is getting worse by the day and I'm very sad to say it but I'm even more sorry to see it. But if I can see anything good to say about this whole situation it's that at least a deal has finally been reached. It's not one I look at kindly, and is extremely less than ideal but let us just see how it goes, shall we?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...-a-compromise-without-revenues?xrs=share_copy http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-1-2011/dealageddon----angry-tea-party?xrs=share_copy Why does a comedian have to be the only person who has an influence on a lot of people to have COMMON SENSE. Please watch both videos.
He praises his social views but not his beliefs on taxes. And very recently (I want to say it was his interview with Chris Wallace) he was asked which candidates on the GOP party he thought could potentially be a good president. He never mentioned Ron Paul.
Regarding this recent Debt Ceiling craziness. Keith says it better than I can, so I'll let him say it. http://current.com/shows/countdown/...t-the-four-great-hypocrisies-of-the-debt-deal
I've been craving a speech like that for a long time now. If you haven't done so, watch the video Jesse linked. The emotion that Keith brings makes it even better. The problem we have is that we can't get the president to make a speech like this. And of course, the reason is that he wants to get re-elected. I'm starting to wonder if we should have it where no one gets re-elected. All politicians would only get to serve one term. Make it the case for governors, senators, house representatives, and the president. Maybe if that was the case, politicians would start doing their jobs instead of "trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs." The hypothetical possibility where a great politician only gets to serve one term sounds better than the actual reality where crazy people (cough Michelle Bachmann) can constantly ge re-elected. I also really liked the end of it. We Americans expressing our disapproval in a fucking poll just isn't going to cut it. We need to be more creative than that to truly get our voices heard. Let's use the powers of Twitter and other sites to our full advantage. Congrats Keith Olbermann, you got me to be even more mad than I already was.
It's sad, it really is, but the way of the hippie died long ago. Which is a shame, because I'd go out and be a part of it in a heartbeat.
Not a big Romney fan. I'd be lying if I said I was a political expert, but he simply isn't very conservative. He proposed a healthcare bill, which is another argument in itself, and ththough he has corrected himself on abortion, he is still a gay rights proponent. Also, he's Mormon. First off someone who sticks out. In 2008 two people stood out for Democrats, Mrs. Clinton and Obama, and while he wasn't the best candidate, we had McCain. A lot of people don't seem to have a believable face. I know Obama was full of bs, but you could tell from what he said thats at least what he wanted, and would try to do. The Replublicans need someone with some backbone, a moral Chrisian man who will seize opportunity, and as said a post or two above me, is doing it cuz he knows hes right, and not making decisions based on bi-partisanism or to get re-elected.
I find what you look for in a president to be disturbing. Why should you care about someone elses views on abortion and gay rights and why does it matter if he's a Mormon? This actually leads to another problem that politicians have. They lie about their social views just so they can be like everyone else in their party. Tim Pawlenty helped pass some legislation that helped homosexuals early in his career and now he's saying he doesn't like gay marriage. And Mitt Romney most likely is fine with Gay Marriage but he's still going out saying he doesn't like it.
I find what you fail to look for in a president is disturbing. Why do I care about my future presidents views? Ummm isn't that why we vote? If he's a kitten killing fire setting terrorist who beats his wife I will disagree with his views and choose not to vote for him. Why does it matter if he's Mormon? Same reason it would matter if he was a Muslim or Jainist, our views generally don't match up.
Hitler was a vegetarian, a painter and a Romantic. Barack Obama is a smoker (and allegedly smoked weed in his younger years), and Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were beholden to the bottle. And Bill Clinton sticks his wiener in his female staff members and was known to have been a draft dodger during the Vietnam War. A candidate's views or values tell you some things, but often not the right things.
Unbelievable. It's a good thing that there aren't many people that think that way or else Mormon, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, and other non Christian people would never get to vote in Presidential elections (since it seems like presidents are always Christians). What you look for in a candiate is their views on things like the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, ect. Not their personal beliefs. A good president wouldn't allow their religious beliefs to influence those issues. Are you going to tell me JFK wasn't a good president because he was Catholic? He didn't do anything as president that would have made you think he was (or was not) a Catholic.
Depends. There are kinds of Christians out there who want to install Christian leaders who want to infect government with their religion, for the sole purpose of making their God truly lord of the land and force their everyone else in the country to observe their religious law (ie, no gay marriage, no abortion) even if they don't personally hold those views. Likewise, in Europe there are Muslims trying to force Sharia Law, a very violent and sexist set of holy laws, to be tolerated or enacted into secular law. People who believe their beliefs should be forced onto everyone else are dangerous people. The only people in government should be people who recognize that religion is a very personal thing, and that the government should have no place in brainwashing or forcing it's citizens to change religion. It is freedom and a basic right that people be able to choose their belief system without fear of punishment, discrimination, but ONLY as long as that person does not punish or discriminate against others based on those beliefs. The price of freedom is living with people with you disagree with, yet listening to people with different experiences than you is a growing experience in itself. Don't be fooled. Beliefs are the core of a person's being, and saying that a beliefs don't affect how someone governs a nation is a misguided thing to say. We need to carefully consider the beliefs of anyone we put up there. I would go as far to say that a person's religion decides their stance on everything else: ie, God exists and is just, therefore poor people did something to deserve their fate. I DO vote against evangelicals, because their beliefs are inherently anti-freedom and their beliefs impair their judgment to make decisions based on reality. I hope people like Handyman live to see the day where their religion becomes a minority and they must rely on the protections of the first amendment (which people like Handyman work so hard to destroy) to protect them from the tyranny of the majority. Maybe then he will respect that everyone in America is American and all people deserve freedom, not just one sect of Christians.
If I heard a candidate say that "poor people deserve to be poor", I wouldn't vote for them because of that statement. Their thinking behind that statement is irrelevant to me. I'm not going to vote for someone that says gay marriage is a bad thing because I think that's a horrible thing to think and it's plain stupid. Whether or not their religion is the reason they think that way doesn't matter. You get what I'm saying? Besides, there are plenty of Christians out there that don't have the same social/economic views as the kind that are in the Republican party. Likewise, there are atheists that think, for example, that gay marriage is wrong. You just can't vote for someone just because they share your religious views. You just look at what their beliefs are. What influences those beliefs shouldn't matter. And I completely agree with the rest of your post. I didn't say that there aren't politicians that are like that. I said that the GOOD ones aren't.