Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.
it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.
i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.
I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.
Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.
And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.
As long as he/she does everything you want, that is. C'mon, Foxy, there's really no wiggle room in your personal ideologies.
That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.
Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.
And there aren't really that many priorities there. There is really just one: being fiscally responsible, accountable, and productive, the one thing that this President has not even attempted to make a priority.
priority #1 is the economy and jobs. it is my impression that how the government pays off its credit cards has nothing to do with restoring my customer count to circa 2005 levels. while some americans might jump for joy that the government is taking self interested steps when the economy is underperforming, others will be upset.
at the moment, the tables are turned... that is, for you and those who want to see austerity from the government during an economic recovery. it is perceived by the rest of us that judgment from right of center with specific respect to the economy has lost the credibility which it had 30 years ago.
it might even occur to some that the same solutions might not fit with the dramatically different challenges the government and the economy are facing. for those folks amongst whom i count myself, a candidate like what you feel is ideal seems like he is out of touch with the top priority in your poll.
as far as obama goes, i don't get yours and spoonman's appraisal of his ineffectiveness. congress has ripped through many heavyweight legislations in the span of less than 2 years. i would say too much rather than not enough with regard to democratic lawmaking at the moment. the congress even passed a fiscal responsibility bill. it was a blur.
like you said, though: not a priority.
I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.
Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.
And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.
As long as he/she does everything you want, that is. C'mon, Foxy, there's really no wiggle room in your personal ideologies.
Since you have yet to correctly articulate what my personal ideologies are, I can only surmise you really have no clue about my personal ideologies, and you have absolutely no credibility in judging what wiggle room there is or is not.
That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.
What does it mean to you?
That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.
What does it mean to you?
To me it means being right (as in correct)
My political ideals tend towards conservative. Keep money in the hands of people who reinvest and produce. I beleive in trickle down economics. I am all for a small government with minimal intrusion in our lives. I am for a strong military and investment in technology. I have very strong religious beliefs and values but I do not believe religion should be forced on anyone. Conversely I do not believe government should be so quick to turn it's back on the importance of religion and the values associated. I believe the Warren Court was wrong. I think America needs to adopt a policy of America first and hen worry about the rest of the world. I do not believe we should be the worlds police but should not turn our backs on those who ask for help. If you ask for help, don't expect to tell us how to go about it. Strong security starts at home. Tighten our borders. You want cheap labor, offer more work visas. Minimize entitlement programs. They are nothing more than crutches. Amend the 24th amendment. You must be a citizen or here legally for your child to be a citizen. Kill political correctness in its tracks.What does it mean to you?
To me it means being right (as in correct)
Well if we didn't believe it was more right (as in correct) than wrong, we wouldn't embrace the ideology would we.
Maggie says that I do a good job of explaining what conservatism as I embrace it as an ideology is, but I apparently don't as she has yet to understand what has been said and has yet to represent it accurately.
And Sky, I'll just refer you to all the many MANY other times that I and other conservatives have explained it. I honestly think many liberals don't or can't understand or they just don't want to, because the explanations consistently fall on deaf ears. And there comes a time to give up trying.
. . . .(Sally has) been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a yearon paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. . . .
. . . .Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage; my company pays the rest$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.
Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.
Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are comingfor my company, and even for Sally too. . . .
What does it mean to you?
To me it means being right (as in correct)
Well if we didn't believe it was more right (as in correct) than wrong, we wouldn't embrace the ideology would we.
Maggie says that I do a good job of explaining what conservatism as I embrace it as an ideology is, but I apparently don't as she has yet to understand what has been said and has yet to represent it accurately.
And Sky, I'll just refer you to all the many MANY other times that I and other conservatives have explained it. I honestly think many liberals don't or can't understand or they just don't want to, because the explanations consistently fall on deaf ears. And there comes a time to give up trying.
There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.
One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.
If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.
While all conservatives don't embrace every point on your list, Spoonman, all definitely can fit easily within a broad conservative ideology. Good job.
Meanwhile, in gleanings from my daily e-mail was a telling letter written by a New Jersey businessman and is excerpted here entitled WHY I AM NOT HIRING:
. . . .(Sally has) been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a yearon paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. . . .
. . . .Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage; my company pays the rest$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.
Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.
Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are comingfor my company, and even for Sally too. . . .
So with looming increased taxes due to expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 and with the uncertainties of new taxes imposed for mandatory healthcare and Cap & Trade plus so many other spending initiatives still in the works, it is little wonder that employers are not willing to hire.
And today we received news that joblessness dramatically increased for the third straight week to the highest level in nine months.
But our fearless leaders tell us: The stimulus is working.
The priorities are obviously all wrong.
Meanwhile, in gleanings from my daily e-mail was a telling letter written by a New Jersey businessman and is excerpted here entitled WHY I AM NOT HIRING:
Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.
And there aren't really that many priorities there. There is really just one: being fiscally responsible, accountable, and productive, the one thing that this President has not even attempted to make a priority.
priority #1 is the economy and jobs. it is my impression that how the government pays off its credit cards has nothing to do with restoring my customer count to circa 2005 levels. while some americans might jump for joy that the government is taking self interested steps when the economy is underperforming, others will be upset.
at the moment, the tables are turned... that is, for you and those who want to see austerity from the government during an economic recovery. it is perceived by the rest of us that judgment from right of center with specific respect to the economy has lost the credibility which it had 30 years ago.
it might even occur to some that the same solutions might not fit with the dramatically different challenges the government and the economy are facing. for those folks amongst whom i count myself, a candidate like what you feel is ideal seems like he is out of touch with the top priority in your poll.
as far as obama goes, i don't get yours and spoonman's appraisal of his ineffectiveness. congress has ripped through many heavyweight legislations in the span of less than 2 years. i would say too much rather than not enough with regard to democratic lawmaking at the moment. the congress even passed a fiscal responsibility bill. it was a blur.
like you said, though: not a priority.
This week, C-Span's Washington Journal has been doing a five-part analysis of the financial reform bill and what effects it will have both on businesses and consumers. So far, the consensus has been among the experts who have dissected it is that it doesn't go far enough with installing new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis.
There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.
One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.
If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.
100 years ago when the Federal and state budgets were balanced and the U.S. citizens were the most free, most productive, most innovative, most creative....
