Top Priorities

[zzzz]

Without jobs and a vibrant economy everything else is worthless!

 

[Foxfyre]

that is a nice roundup, foxfyre.

i think that many of the topics are interrelated to the first and foremost. they have to do with how the economy and job creation are approached, and what solutions for immediate and long-term concerns that exist within our economy.

from the national perspective, don't trade agreements impact the domestic job market? with healthcare as one of the biggest and fastest growing sectors in the country, isn't that an economic concern?

Well, I don't know how aligned we are poltically Antagon as I haven't had a lot of discussions with you.

But I'm definitely a minimalist when it comes to the Federal government. I want it to secure and defend our rights with just enough laws and regulation to do that and then get the hell out of our way. I can't think of any government meddling that has worked out to our advantage long term, so I would really like for our fearless leaders to limit their priorities to those specified in the Constitution.

 

[Samson]

I voted "other."

Across the board government spending cuts.

I'd love to see 10%/yr reductions in the Federal Budget for the next 7 years, but I'll settle for HALF that!!...even less!!! ANY FUCKING PLAN to reduce Federal Spending would be welcome.

 

[lizzie]

Jobs and the economy should be the top priority, because without economic growth, in light of our debts and increasing expenditures, this will lead to further economic deterioration. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of this administration and congress on just how job and economic growth happens.

 

[Spoonman]

Jobs and the economy should be the top priority, because without economic growth, in light of our debts and increasing expenditures, this will lead to further economic deterioration. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of this administration and congress on just how job and economic growth happens.

Amen! This alone would solve half of the other problems. Get people working and many of our other issues will take care of themselves. When people are working the are paying their bills, their mortgage, buying stuff. Borrowing, lending, it all leads to a healthy economy. Make goods and services that are exportable. The dollar is week, what better opportunity than to increase our exports.

 

[Nosmo King]

I dont think it will change washington very much. Just a slower roll down the hill.

We need new blood that dont subscribe to the republican/democrat doctrines.

Find the candidate who can run and win with that philosophy and you'll find yourself the the 1st congressional district of Oz!

So you agree that the majority of americans are too dim-witted to realize the 2 party system is a sham to keep us divided while they garner more and more power for the government at the expense of our individual liberty?

No, not at all. Indicting the American electorate as 'dim-witted' isn't the conclusion you should jump to.

The two major political parties are, for lack of a better term, professionals. They organize and campaign with well oiled machines. Americans aren't dim-witted. They're hog tied by professional politicos.

 

[Samson]

Jobs and the economy should be the top priority, because without economic growth, in light of our debts and increasing expenditures, this will lead to further economic deterioration. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of this administration and congress on just how job and economic growth happens.

My theory is that when government creates uncertainty, Huge Spending increases for nebulous reasons (We "NEED" healthcare, We "NEED" a stimulous package, We "NEED" to be in Iraq, We "NEED" a new high tech fighter...)....without any clear plan to pay for it, individuals and businesses become paranoid, waiting for the other shoe to drop, Higher Taxes.

Unless Government can say: We won't change the current tax law for the next 7 years, and we will DRAMATICALLY decrease spending during the same time, what was initially paranoia becomes justifiable habit.

 

[lizzie]

Jobs and the economy should be the top priority, because without economic growth, in light of our debts and increasing expenditures, this will lead to further economic deterioration. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of this administration and congress on just how job and economic growth happens.

My theory is that when government creates uncertainty, Huge Spending increases for nebulous reasons (We "NEED" healthcare, We "NEED" a stimulous package, We "NEED" to be in Iraq, We "NEED" a new high tech fighter...)....without any clear plan to pay for it, individuals and businesses become paranoid, waiting for the other shoe to drop, Higher Taxes.

Unless Government can say: We won't change the current tax law for the next 7 years, and we will DRAMATICALLY decrease spending during the same time, what was initially paranoia becomes justifiable habit.

True. That reminds me of when my children were small, and they wanted to convince me that I should buy them something -whatever- they would say "But I need it". The American mindset has become somewhat dependent and needy these days.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Find the candidate who can run and win with that philosophy and you'll find yourself the the 1st congressional district of Oz!

So you agree that the majority of americans are too dim-witted to realize the 2 party system is a sham to keep us divided while they garner more and more power for the government at the expense of our individual liberty?

No, not at all. Indicting the American electorate as 'dim-witted' isn't the conclusion you should jump to.

The two major political parties are, for lack of a better term, professionals. They organize and campaign with well oiled machines. Americans aren't dim-witted. They're hog tied by professional politicos.

Thanks for clarifying and good post

 

[Foxfyre]

Other, Interesting the the Issue that is in the top 3 in every single poll in America is not even on your list.

Deficits and Debt.

I hope Charles is still following this thread because I missed this post until just now.

And though others of you have expressed your convictions that less spending and elimination of the deficit and debt should be a top priority, it is indeed interesting, and I believe significant, that our fearless leader has not made that a top priority or any priority.

Unless we can turn that around, in my opinion, we are screwed.

 

[Samson]

So you agree that the majority of americans are too dim-witted to realize the 2 party system is a sham to keep us divided while they garner more and more power for the government at the expense of our individual liberty?

No, not at all. Indicting the American electorate as 'dim-witted' isn't the conclusion you should jump to.

The two major political parties are, for lack of a better term, professionals. They organize and campaign with well oiled machines. Americans aren't dim-witted. They're hog tied by professional politicos.

Thanks for clarifying and good post

Professional Politicos and the MSM

When there were politcial debates broadcast during 2008, how many 3rd party candidates were involved........?.......

 

[antagon]

that is a nice roundup, foxfyre.

i think that many of the topics are interrelated to the first and foremost. they have to do with how the economy and job creation are approached, and what solutions for immediate and long-term concerns that exist within our economy.

from the national perspective, don't trade agreements impact the domestic job market? with healthcare as one of the biggest and fastest growing sectors in the country, isn't that an economic concern?

Well, I don't know how aligned we are poltically Antagon as I haven't had a lot of discussions with you.

But I'm definitely a minimalist when it comes to the Federal government. I want it to secure and defend our rights with just enough laws and regulation to do that and then get the hell out of our way. I can't think of any government meddling that has worked out to our advantage long term, so I would really like for our fearless leaders to limit their priorities to those specified in the Constitution.

the constitution can't provide much in the way of guidance with respect to the role of government. i've read the whole thing; it is formulated to empower the congress to tax, spend and modify the constitution to match their agenda. neither end of the political spectrum can claim high ground over the constitution.

we'll have to rely on an idea of which direction the lawmakers should go with their lawmaking. as you said, there are different alignments as to how the government should be aimed.

if it is the late 18th century you have in mind when you say constitution, i don't think we would have made it past the jackson era like that. the countries of the world with governments who take a primative role in their economy nowadays are poor; their people are even poorer. personally, i don't see how someone could live in the US or have a cursory knowledge of our history without an idea of how government meddling has helped us in the long run.

i am aligned with a school of thought which can see a number of pivotal policy decisions which were needed to bring the US to the point where it could be the world's dominant economic and geopolitical force, and exibit our standard of living over a landmass and population of our size.

 

[Foxfyre]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries. And I suppose that is practical as there are so many 3rd party candidates the debates would be pretty thin if all participated.

Not that they aren't anyway.

Actually it would be pretty interesting wouldn't it. To have ALL presidential candidates who will be on the ballot participate?

But of course the front runners negotiate with the networks to do the debates, structure it as much as possible to their personal advantage, and refuse to participate if they don't pretty much get their way. And they will shut out all competition as much as possible.

 

[Spoonman]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries. And I suppose that is practical as there are so many 3rd party candidates the debates would be pretty thin if all participated.

Not that they aren't anyway.

Actually it would be pretty interesting wouldn't it. To have ALL presidential candidates who will be on the ballot participate?

But of course the front runners negotiate with the networks to do the debates, structure it as much as possible to their personal advantage, and refuse to participate if they don't pretty much get their way. And they will shut out all competition as much as possible.

Everyone who wants to run should be able to run and on the ballot.

 

[Samson]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries.

No.

Each party has its own primary: How could a 3rd party candidate acquire ANY % of the votes in a Democrat or Republican Primary?

 

[Samson]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries. And I suppose that is practical as there are so many 3rd party candidates the debates would be pretty thin if all participated.

Not that they aren't anyway.

Actually it would be pretty interesting wouldn't it. To have ALL presidential candidates who will be on the ballot participate?

But of course the front runners negotiate with the networks to do the debates, structure it as much as possible to their personal advantage, and refuse to participate if they don't pretty much get their way. And they will shut out all competition as much as possible.

Everyone who wants to run should be able to run and on the ballot.

They are.

But, they are excluded from nationally televised debates.

 

[Greenbeard]

They have to be showing at least 15% support in national polls.

 

[Spoonman]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries. And I suppose that is practical as there are so many 3rd party candidates the debates would be pretty thin if all participated.

Not that they aren't anyway.

Actually it would be pretty interesting wouldn't it. To have ALL presidential candidates who will be on the ballot participate?

But of course the front runners negotiate with the networks to do the debates, structure it as much as possible to their personal advantage, and refuse to participate if they don't pretty much get their way. And they will shut out all competition as much as possible.

Everyone who wants to run should be able to run and on the ballot.

They are.

But, they are excluded from nationally televised debates.

Good luck finding their names associated with one of the levers you get to pull on the voting machines.

 

[LuckyDan]

I'd add...resignation speech.

Dude needs more time with his family, less time with us.

 

[Samson]

They have to be showing at least 15% support in national polls.

Why not 5%? or 10%

How do they gain NATIONAL support if they are not allowed to NATIONALLY televise themselves and their ideas?

Obviously, fucking EVERYONE cannot be on national TV, but why not simply put the Top 10? For christssakes, if American Idol can do it, why can't Presidential Candidates?