| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
I don't understand why my Anti-Incumbent movement hasn't been adopted by everyone yet.
I voted against every incumbent last time and I plan to do so again. It's the only way to get them out of there.
Super Moderator
The only thing more nutty about the happenings in DC is the folks that keep voting these clowns in, election after election after election. If the candidate you pick this time screws up, toss them out next time. Sooner or later the bums will get the idea of who really is in charge.
Andrew
Senior Member
I'm not so sure they will. From what I've seen the trend seems to be they get replaced by someone else just like them.Originally Posted by apb
Senior Member
I have adopted it in theory.... I say that because I know for the most part I could not vote for a Democrat whose fundamental ideals are polar opposites of mine. Now if one comes along that is saying the right thing and has a record of doing close to what I believe I would consider it......just being honest.
If a GOP member comes along whom I think is a terrible choice then I'll have to make a decision and during this past (Governor) election I did and voted for Gatewood. I knew he couldn't win but wouldn't for the GOP and dang well wouldn't vote for Stevie.
So I guess I'll vote Independant if I feel its appropriate as a protest vote and unfortunately that could mean keeping a Democrat in power but it will be a case by case choice....We need a viable Independant third party to choose from. We will see.....
Senior Member
That's because the vote 'em all out theory doesn't work. If all of the democrats vote republican next time and all of the republicans vote democrat, we are still stuck with the same s***!
Senior Member
"Think Tea Party" and before you say it I know all of them are not the best buy a lot are better than others. Send a message!
Senior Member
So TRUE........I think you MUST vote who best meets the value and system you believe in, and THEN hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, I believe none of them on the hill really believe what they are selling. They might believe what they are selling, IF they didn't have to worry about running for re-election. That is why I such a stickler for term limits.
Next, maybe this is the best time in the history of our country for a new peoples political party. Unfortunately, a new "peoples party" would be a hard sell and would be a moving target, based on what the two other parties are doing. BUT IMAGINE if a 3rd party actually existed, AND could get some traction...........HM.
Later,
Geo
Senior Member
Finally you have said something I can agree with.
Senior Member
The uh 'Super' committee was never intended to succeed, the appointment of that committee was pure politics. It was formed so President Obama could do just what he's doing right now: point the finger of blame at Republicans.
The gulf between the right and left is bigger than ever.
The Dems are further left than ever in history, and the GOP is solidly on the right. Both of them are that way because the voters are more polarized than ever. Not too many moderates out there, at least any who'll admit it.
The Dems voters want to tax and spend the country into a European style social democracy, and the GOP voters want the same America we've always had.
The Dems have done a great job convincing a large portion of America that if we just tax the 'rich' more we'll be just fine. Never mind the absolutely idiotic levels of spending during the period they totally controlled the government, and the fact the government could confiscate ALL the 'rich' peoples' money and it wouldn't make a dent. They've shifted the blame using class warfare and attributing all ills to Wall Street greed.
It escapes me how anyone who thinks federal spending needs to be controlled could even consider voting Democrat. Step one when they got complete control of the legislative and executive branches of the government was to pass an 850 BILLION dollar spending bill without even reading it. Over 3/4 of a TRILLION DOLLARS WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BILL. Stimulus my ass. It's been record levels of spending since, despite the miserable economy and unemployment rate.
The President's answer? More taxing, and yes, more spending.
Thankfully the voters did something about it and put a Republican majority into the house, so at least there is some resistance to the Washington spending machine. Not that the Republicans are much better, they'd be helping Mr. Obama and the Dems spend our money like drunken sailors if they weren't afraid we'd vote em out.
All I can say is the Republicans I voted for dang well better not compromise an inch. The deficit spending has got to stop NOW, and the cutting has to start NOW.
Next November elect a President who can actually lead, and get rid of Harry freakin Reid as Senate majority leader.
Let the Democrats and CNN/MSNBC/NBC/ABC/CBS say what they will, don't raise ANYONE's taxes, cut the federal government to the bone, and let this great country get back on track.
Rant over.
Senior Member
I agree Jim the spending spree that everyone griped about when these guys had two branches of gubment seems to be a past memory to alot of Americans. Maybe because its not been mentioned enough in the national news? My hope is that it gets hammered down his throat during the potus debates and if its Newt doing the pushing obamy will be in trouble.....Our memory is short and the media will assist in that if they want a certain party in power.
The spend to get out of debt and tax tax tax is where I have a problem with obamy.....and when it comes to politics he acts like a big spoiled rotten baby. He is so quick to blame others and toss smoke screens when he doesn't get what he wants or knows he better do that so others can't see what he is trying to do.
Super Moderator
Yep, memory is short. Bush started the spending spree while reducing taxes, thus starting us down this path. Obama tried to out do Bush in the spending department. Congress, who pulls the purse strings, did nothing to curtail any of that. Now we are in a mess. Time for a whole lot of them to go.
I think you'll find that there are plenty of folks who dislike the far left of the dems as much as the far right of the repubs. A third party that is somewhere close to the middle would scare the hell out of both parties and likely have a good shot.
Andrew
Senior Member
It's been my experience that if and individual or a group of individuals can't meet dead lines, can't meet budgets, etc...are usually let go or assigned a lesser task and possibly face pay cuts. I wish it worked amongst the politicians like that.
On a separate note....while the government idiots hold onto their cushy jobs nearly half of all Americans lack economic security, meaning they live above the federal poverty threshold but still DO NOT have enough money to cover housing, food, healthcare and other basic expenses, "according to a survey of government and industry data". Read on >>>>>>>>
The survey, released on Tuesday by the advocacy group Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), found that 45 percent of U.S. residents live in households that struggle to make ends meet.
That breaks down to 39 percent of all adults and 55 percent of all children, the group found.
"This is a wake-up call for Congress, for our state policy-makers, really for all of us," said Donna Addkison, President and CEO of WOW.
"Nearly half of our nation's families cannot cover the costs of basic expenses even when they do have a job. Under these conditions, cuts to unemployment insurance ... and other programs families are relying on right now would push them from crisis to catastrophe."
The WOW survey compared 2009 pre-tax incomes to a budget of basic and essential monthly expenses for various families that it developed along with researchers at Washington University with funding from the Ford Foundation and W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
For example, in a budget for a family of one worker, it put housing expenses at $688 and food at $244. In a family of two workers with two young children, it assumed housing would cost $821 per month and food $707 a month.
It did not include nonessentials such as vacations, recreation, hobbies, college tuition, and other common expenses of the middle class.
A congressional effort to find $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years failed on Monday, raising fears that emergency benefits for the long-term unemployed would not be extended when they expire next month.
Other social programs including Medicare are also under threat as lawmakers seek to slash the nation's huge debt.
Some economists said while they agreed that the debt had to the reduced, targeting programs that helped the low income group survive the harsh economic environment was not the correct path to take.
"I am in favor of austerity, but not in this area," said Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research in New York. "This is the only austerity going on and this is hitting the long-term unemployed. It's not improving the long-term budget situation anyway."
Currently, the poverty threshold for the United States is an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four.
A little more than 15 percent of the country lives at or below that level, and the group wanted to look at the remainder, "many of whom live on the edge and are chronically at risk of financial crisis or falling into poverty."
More than four out of 10 adult women live in households that cannot cover those basic expenses, slightly more than the proportion of men, 37 percent.
That may be because in 2009 women's median earnings were 70 percent of men's median earnings, the group said.
More than 60 percent of single women live in economic insecurity, it added.
"While married women are more likely to have economic security than unmarried women, much of the stability is attained through a husband's earnings or other household income," the group reported, which can put those women in economic jeopardy if their husbands die or lose their job or if the couple divorces.
The group also found "that full-time work fails to provide economic security for 25 percent of adult workers," because of stagnating and falling wages over the last decade.
"A chief cause of economic insecurity is 1970s level wages that fail to cover modern expenses," it said.
While households with two full-time workers can help boost a family's economic security, 22 percent of adults with children who work full-time and have a partner who also has a full-time job cannot cover basic needs.
At the same time, 21 percent of homes headed by a college graduate lack economic security.
"In the past, threats to economic security were supposedly clear -- dropping out of high school, being a single parent or having a large family. In today's economy, we cannot assume we know who lacks security," it said.
As for me...I have a pretty decent job, make a decent wage, have decent health insurance, my wife works and has her own health insurance...we have no credit card debt, both of our vehicles are paid for, our house is nothing modern, it doesn't have tall cathedral ceilings and multiple roof lines that reach to the sky, it's just a 1957 ranch style home with a basement, 3-bedroom, etc. But yet sometimes I feel "this close" to financial difficulty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote