Politics

[FinancialWorld]

@Learflyer: Wow, very concise summary of the situation.

@Geezer:

Quote:
*If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt,
Which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year,
Would you have approved?*

False. Obama did not double the debt in one year. The debt owed to the public was $6.3 trillion the day he took office. A year later, it was $7.8 trillion, and as of June 1, it was $9.7 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure, but nothing close to a doubling, either in Obama's first year or in his first two-and-a-half years. The same holds true when looking at the total outstanding debt, which includes both the public debt and money the government owes to itself. That figure was $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009; a year later, it was $12.3 trillion, and it’s $14.3 trillion today.

Now matter how much or how little they're increasing it, they are still increasing the debt by leaps and bounds. And yup Bush did it and Obama, but I'm not excusing either of them.

Even if we elected Ron Paul as President, it wouldn't fix the many of our biggest problems (and I believe that he knows that). The people need to wake up and elect true Representatives that are willing to stand up for what is right. This may include getting rid of the status quo two party system. When the elected representatives of us focus more on doing their duty rather finding ways to keep their job by always campaigning (jab here at Obama and basically every elected official in office), then things will begin to go in better direction. Notice I did not say it will fix the situation, because nothing will totally "fix" anything.

[brothert69]

It's been a while since I took an American government class but unless somethings changed since the 90's the president does not have the power to increase debt. While the president can ask for anything at the end of the day only congress has the authority to make budgets, spend money or levy taxes. If you are unhappy with the finances of this country maybe you should direct that displeasure toward the correct people your congressperson and your two senators. You do know who your congressional representatives are don't you.

[IgnazSemmelweis]

*If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt,
Which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year,
Would you have approved?*

Just sayin'....

Opinion by chain e-mail. This is why political conversations are rarely worthwhile.

[Elinor]

I was reading a book about the French Revolution a while back, and I found this quote. Of course, assuming we're headed in the direction of the 1870s French is rather extreme, but I thought this was surprisingly applicable:

Little needs to be said concerning the political weaknesses of the Old Regime. A government which could not raise adequate revenues clearly revealed its lack of political effectiveness. General confusion and inefficiency prevailed in the royal administration, which consisted of successive layers of offices, bureaus, and agencies that had piled up over many centuries, with jurisdictions that were now ill defined and sometimes contradictory.

I believe it's going to take a lot more than a new president (or giving this one another shot) to redeem this country. I can't help but think that the people are going to have to start thinking for themselves for a real, lasting change. I would be very interested to see what happened if the media was shut down. How would the people react/respond to the candidates then? How would the candidates act? But that's never going to happen, so forget it.:leaving:

[Lindagerr]

I have been voting for almost 40 years, I have voted in every Presidential election I could, I can only think of one time I liked the person I voted for. I was always a registered Democrat until I moved into my small town and found out all local elections were decided in the primaries because no one ran on the democratic ticket. By the time I changed my party affiliation I realized it didn't matter in NJ anyway because by the time they got to our primary the presidential candidates were already decided.

Most years I vote for who I think is the lesser of two evils. Yes I voted for Obama for that reason, I don't know if I will vote for him again it depends on who else is running.

The President can only do so much if the congress will not cooperate. The recent Bull Shoot with everyone fighting for the most TV coverage and no one caring about the little guy and how he/she was going to survive with no Social Security was a prime example of that.

Yes I think there is a lot wrong with our government now, but if you really read your history books you will see that at different times in the history of our nation we have had similar or worse problems with our government.

I don't know how to make things better I just know until you have ALL the facts you can't blame it on just one person.

[dcan]

@Elinor,

Good quote, but you highlighted the wrong part. We have plenty of money, that's not the issue.

Little needs to be said concerning the political weaknesses of the Old Regime. A government which could not raise adequate revenues clearly revealed its lack of political effectiveness. General confusion and inefficiency prevailed in the royal administration, which consisted of successive layers of offices, bureaus, and agencies that had piled up over many centuries, with jurisdictions that were now ill defined and sometimes contradictory.

I would be very interested to see what happened if the media was shut down. How would the people react/respond to the candidates then? How would the candidates act? But that's never going to happen, so forget it.:leaving:

I guess it would be better than the media tanking for one candidate over another. People scream about Fox, and yes they are wrong, but why no screaming about the media shilling hard for their favored candidate? Politico admitted on camera the other day that they intentionally eliminated Ron Paul from their stories because they think he has no chance, even though he came in second to Bachmann by only 9/10s of a vote, meaning he essentially tied her for first place.

Regardless of who you support, having the media take sides is dirty and shameful.

[burbuja0512]

@Elinor,




I guess it would be better than the media tanking for one candidate over another. People scream about Fox, and yes they are wrong, but why no screaming about the media shilling hard for their favored candidate? Politico admitted on camera the other day that they intentionally eliminated Ron Paul from their stories because they think he has no chance, even though he came in second to Bachmann by only 9/10s of a vote, meaning he essentially tied her for first place.

Regardless of who you support, having the media take sides is dirty and shameful.

I think that the only way for the media to change is to have us change our viewing habits. I am a raging liberal, yet I refuse to watch MSNBC because of their bias. Even though they are on "my side," I will not support such an obvious slant in journalism. I really think that everyone on both sides of the aisle need to do this. Ratings are really what any TV networks care about. Right now their current tactics are gaining viewers, so we need to make it stop.

Speaking of Ron Paul... here is an article with a link to a Jon Stewart commentary about the issue:
Is the news media treating Ron Paul’s presidential campaign unfairly? | The Cutline - Yahoo! News

Yes Jon Stewart is a liberal comedian, but more recently he's been calling out any media outlet that is being ridiculous regardless of which side they're on.

[Lyanne]

Yes Jon Stewart is a liberal comedian, but more recently he's been calling out any media outlet that is being ridiculous regardless of which side they're on.

I have to admit that I have become so disgusted with the media that Jon Stewart is now my only source for political news. :-) It's much easier to laugh at how idiotic it all is than to take it seriously.

[ryoder]

I worry when a lot of people get their education on current events from a comedian that is decidedly partisan.

I tend to get my news from CNN and my commentary from a mix of Fox and MSNBC.

[FinancialWorld]

I worry when a lot of people get their education on current events from a comedian that is decidedly partisan.

Haha.....yeah.

I tend to get my news from CNN and my commentary from a mix of Fox and MSNBC.

I think that main thing is to know your news network's bias (because we all know that they are heavily biased). When I know that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or some other news group, is biased in a certain way, I just take that into account. But it would be nice to just hear the plain facts about issues once in awhile. I always like having "read between the lines" for the truth about an issue.

Just my two cents.....