Is more/bigger government the solution to our problems?

It's really great how a Secretary of Education fixed our nations's education problems. Government solutions are great.
A Secretary of Business will probably have the same effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Government gone wild!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

What do you think about Obama grabbing the headlines with his response to Sandy?

I'd bet that Obama gets another four years.

What do you think about Obama grabbing the headlines with his response to Sandy?

I'd bet that Obama gets another four years.

Just trying to make the people think he's doing his day job. NOT!

What do you think about Obama grabbing the headlines with his response to Sandy?

I'd bet that Obama gets another four years.

For the sake of the country's future and my grandchildren, I certainly hope he is reelected. The alternative is scary beyond belief. Even a few years of total Republican control will destroy the future of the middle class.

What do you think about Obama grabbing the headlines with his response to Sandy?

I'd bet that Obama gets another four years.

I think that it is unfortunate. He is using the disaster as a way of getting more face time on TV in a way which does not afford his opposition equal time. But then the main stream media is biased anyway. Just look at their coverage of the Benghazi terrorist attack and the presidents handling of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets another four years. And I will not be surprised when the economy suffers for it. I will also not be surprised when he continues to blame his failures on Bush.

Obama appeals to the same "fish fry" crowd we have here in the islands. He is going to give you more "free" stuff; but don't worry he is going to make someone else pay for it. The new American Dream, the Socialist Democratic Republic of the United States.

Rotorhead
I do not understand you. You agree with me about religion. You agree with me about nudity. You agree with me about civil liberty. But you allow yourself to be seduced by the outright lies coming from the republican party.

I can understand that you are a libertarian and that you would like less government involvement in our lives. BUT how can you accept that the Republicans will go to Washington and protect all of us from over-government. They will not and have never never pulled away from over regulation. They just choose to protect the special interests that support them and use anti abortion, anti women groups that are looking for representation.. They will never help to protect the middle class. If you are a rich guy, then maybe that appeals to you. I doubt that is the case.

You say that you are not supporting the republican candidate, but by attacking President Obama you are are saying vote for Romney instead. Do you really think that he and the Republican party can do anything good for regular people in America? I enjoy your comments, but I am confused by your political stance.

Rotor...

As an addendum...:D

I agree with you that government here and in the US has grown far too big. However, our views diverge when it comes to how much government should provide for those less able. (or willing)

The most important thing that I believe is that the platform of the Democratic party better protects us from abuse and exploitation. The Republican party in America is mostly about oppression and loss of liberty for the middle class.

It is easy to demonize the welfare reciepients that receive money from the federal government. Did you know that big business and agriculture get 5 times more in government subsidies than all the poor people combined?

It is ok that you and I have a fundamental disagreement about taking care of people first.. I think government's job is to level the playing field. I think everyone from the richest CEO to the bum on the streets should have access to the same medical care. I think that everyone, regardless of their character or willingness to contribute should have enough food and a place to sleep at night. Remember bottom line...the rich corporations are still getting most of the money from government.

That does not mean that I approve of some of those people, or think they are worthy. I do believe that government was set up to do just that job. The Democrats do a better job of that right now.

Rotorhead
I do not understand you. You agree with me about religion. You agree with me about nudity. You agree with me about civil liberty. But you allow yourself to be seduced by the outright lies coming from the republican party.

This is a little condescending. "the outright lies of the republican party"? They are both politicians! Do you think that the democrats always tell the truth? I would be willing to bet that I could match you lie for lie between the two parties. I don't agree with either party. I support Romney in this case as the lesser of two evils. I think they are both bad for our country, I just think at this time when the economy is the primary issue that Romney is a little less bad than Obama. Obama was never qualified to be president in the first place and he has done a very poor job. Look at his experience. He was a university law professor, a state senator and a half term US Senator. He has no business experience and has never been the executive officer of anything. He is simply a good public speaker, but that does not qualify you to be president.

You want to talk about lies and deceit, do you remember the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama identified him as his mentor. Attributed his book "the Audacity of Hope" to the Reverend. rev.Wright married him and his wife and baptized his daughters. Obama attended his church for 20 years. But when the Reverends views came out and his lectures hit YouTube Obama threw him under the bus. Obama claimed that he didn't know that he had such beliefs. Right. If this is not a lie then you tell me what it is? You should look at some of the things that Hillary said about Obama during their campaign for the Dem nomination in 2008.

I can understand that you are a libertarian and that you would like less government involvement in our lives. BUT how can you accept that the Republicans will go to Washington and protect all of us from over-government. They will not and have never never pulled away from over regulation. They just choose to protect the special interests that support them and use anti abortion, anti women groups that are looking for representation.. They will never help to protect the middle class. If you are a rich guy, then maybe that appeals to you. I doubt that is the case.

I don't accept that the republicans will protect us all from over-government. I simply think that the things that the republicans would like to do with our government are less likely to occur. My only real fear about a Romney presidency is the judges that he might appoint to the bench, especially the supreme court. That is where he could do real damage. It is very unlikely that Romney could outlaw abortion, it is very unlikely that Romney could undo the gains made in the area of gay rights and women's rights. They already have too much momentum. Romney has said that himself, he said that if it came up he would vote to make abortions illegal but that is not likely to happen, America has moved past that. In most of the areas of civil liberties I feel that we have enough momentum going to be able to survive a republican presidency.

The economy is my main concern in this election and I believe that Romney has a better chance of fixing it than Obama does. I do not think that it is the governments business to "protect the middle class". It is the governments business to protect "all" classes. I make under $250,000 per year so I do not meet Obama's definition of "rich". There were times when I did make this much, so I guess I was rich but am no longer. I still do not think that wealth transfer is a government function. Where in the US Constitution is wealth transfer mentioned as a purpose of our government. What part of our constitution even hints that wealth transfer is a function of government? The 5th amendment does say "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Money is property, money can buy property and property can be sold for money.
We live in a free country. That means that we all make our own decisions. Some people make better decisions than others and are more successful than others. If government decides that it is their job to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful then they are essentially punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. This means that the government is promoting mediocrity. If the successful ( lets call it that instead of "rich" ) know that if they are deemed too successful then they will be punished then why try so hard, relax and slow down. If the unsuccessful know that they will be supported by the successful then why try at all? Just let the government take care of you. You get two classes, taxpayers and government dependents. No one tries to excel. A desire for personal success, capitalism, has always been the great motivator in this country. It is what made America the country that it is. I am not sure that socialism is better. Yes in a socialist state everyone is taken care of, everyone is the same. Please name one great socialist country that has been successful?

You say that you are not supporting the republican candidate, but by attacking President Obama you are are saying vote for Romney instead. Do you really think that he and the Republican party can do anything good for regular people in America? I enjoy your comments, but I am confused by your political stance.

Regular people? Who are these regular people? Many people in this country started off very poor and through hard work and imagination have become very successful. Are these regular people or are they the hated "rich"? Just because someone has been successful in this country does not mean that they have crawled over the back of others to get there. I am an ex-Microsoft employee. I like Bill Gates. I do not consider him a robber baron. Someone to be hated as "rich". He paid his employees well. Many of his employees went on to start their own companies. He is a very rich man. He has committed to giving away almost all of his wealth, as has Warren Buffett. When it comes to trusting someone to dispose of this wealth, I trust them more than the Democratic Party. These "rich" guys are trying to solve some of the big problems that face mankind. Cures for disease and cancer. Clean abundant energy. Space exploration. Etc. I think that this is a better use of their wealth than the government trying to transfer it to the middle class. The government is an extremely wasteful agency.

I believe that it is the governments responsibility to provide an environment where everyone has a chance to succeed. Do I believe that they can do that? Not entirely. Too many factors are out of their control. People make decisions, some bad some good. Your parents make decisions that affect you, some good some bad. Do I think that the government has the responsibility to protect all of its citizens from the bad decisions that they make? No. That would be impossible in a free country.

Every time Obama speaks these days I hear "class warfare". I disagree with his vision of our country. I disagree with his desire to turn this country into a welfare state where most of it's citizens are dependent on the government for food, housing, health care, etc. America has always been a country of self-sufficiency and personal freedom and I want it to stay that way. People need to understand that they are responsible for their future not the government. I want to see more high paying jobs in the private sector, not the public sector. I think Romney has a better chance of accomplishing this than Obama. Look at the outcome of his "green energy" jobs program. Obama has had 4 years and failed, how long are people going to accept his excuses that it is all Bush's fault?

Rotor...

As an addendum...:D

I agree with you that government here and in the US has grown far too big. However, our views diverge when it comes to how much government should provide for those less able. (or willing).

I divide the less able (or willing) into different categories. There are those that through no fault of their own need help. There are those that repeatedly make poor choices. There are those who lead a "help me" lifestyle. The first group I would try to help. The second group I would help a limited number of times and provide counseling. The third group I would cut loose. Too bad we don't have an empty continent somewhere to send them, like Australia. But then Australia wasn't really empty was it?

The most important thing that I believe is that the platform of the Democratic party better protects us from abuse and exploitation. The Republican party in America is mostly about oppression and loss of liberty for the middle class.

It is easy to demonize the welfare recipients that receive money from the federal government. Did you know that big business and agriculture get 5 times more in government subsidies than all the poor people combined?.

This whole paragraph is BS. No need for an answer.

It is OK that you and I have a fundamental disagreement about taking care of people first.. I think government's job is to level the playing field. I think everyone from the richest CEO to the bum on the streets should have access to the same medical care. I think that everyone, regardless of their character or willingness to contribute should have enough food and a place to sleep at night. Remember bottom line...the rich corporations are still getting most of the money from government.

That does not mean that I approve of some of those people, or think they are worthy. I do believe that government was set up to do just that job. The Democrats do a better job of that right now.

I disagree with everything in this paragraph as well. You want to relieve everyone of all personal responsibility. The government is not your mother, you need to plan to take care of yourself. The government should be the solution of last resort.

I think the government has greater issues that it should be concerning itself with rather than seeing that everyone is protected from themselves. Do you realize how fragile our existence is on planet earth? We live on an egg shell covering a molten iron core. In a solar system with things flying around in it hitting other things. We all breath the same air and drink the same water. The survival of the human species is not a certainty. The main things that would better ensure the survival of the human species is the establishment of a viable colony on another planet and cleaning up the air and water on this planet. Another thing that needs to be addressed is population control. Humans are a virus on this planet, if our population continues to grow we are in for the most extreme disasters mankind has ever seen. Water wars, food wars, etc. Limited resources. Do you realize how fast the population is growing? Species have become extinct in the past because of climate change, volcanoes and asteroid collisions just to name a few.

Solutions to these problems take money. Yet we squander our money on War and taking care of people who are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves. The two big ticket items in our budget are military and social programs. Soon to be eclipsed by interest payments on our debt. I think these big issues are more important than fighting wars among ourselves over imaginary gods and territory or than feeding, clothing and providing health care for every person in the country, especially if they refuse to take care of themselves.

As an example of a case that I am sure we would disagree on. About eight years ago there was a story in the local paper about an IV drug user who was picked up on the streets of Christiansted. He was unconscious. They took him to JFL hospital and kept him for 4 months. He had lived a rough life, organ damage, AIDS and Hepatitis. The reported cost to the tax payer was over $800,000. He was released from the hospital and ended up back on the streets of Christiansted. A couple of months later he was taken to JFL again. Kept for several months. $650,000. Released again. A few months later he overdosed. So in less than one year the taxpayer incurred a cost of $1.5m and the person OD-ed. Was that a good use of resources? This is going on all over our country. That is what our government does with our tax dollars. I would rather spend the money on useful things like improving the prospects for all of us rather than spending the money trying to save people who refuse to take care of themselves.

Wow...talk about self delusion. You sound like you have bought the whole package. I no longer believe your libertarian comments.

Wow...talk about self delusion. You sound like you have bought the whole package. I no longer believe your libertarian comments.

A very unimpressive response. I do not drink Obama-Aid.

Thank you Rotor for your insight! I enjoyed. Well outlined and thoughtful.

Excellent Roto!!!

If we really want change in this country then here is your candidate!

"With the election only days away, it is a fair question to ask how many American voters are about to cast their votes for a candidate who doesn't really reflect their views? Why would they do that?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/03/breaking-twoparty-stranglehold-gary-johnson

well said rotor

I was never an Obama fan. Use to go to towns where the Obamabots were to argue with them and knew his platform and voting history better than they did.

That said, Romney? Is this really happening? What an embarrassing joke that is. I honestly think that if that's who you want to run our country, you are either brainwashed from washing to much tv coverage, slow enough to need velcro on your sneakers or have never watched anything at all.

I am rooting for Romney. I am sad that the GOP thought he was the best man for the job though. But look this is the same party that chose Mccain in the last election.

I agree 100 percent with rotor. I believe it is the governments role to make sure the conditions are correct so that anyone who wants to succeed has a chance to do it. Remember the "pursuit" part of pursuit of happiness? That means you have to go get it! This idea that rich people owe me something is ridiculous. If I want what they have I need to go out and try and get it.

That said, Romney? Is this really happening? What an embarrassing joke that is. I honestly think that if that's who you want to run our country, you are either brainwashed from washing to much tv coverage, slow enough to need velcro on your sneakers or have never watched anything at all.

Romney is as big of an embarrassment as Dubya. His legendary flip flopping on major issues comparable to the latter's vacant stares of total incomprehension. I was wryly amused that, in these last days of campaigning, Romney's now relying entirely on teleprompters for his final speeches. Obviously a good ploy by the party as he contradicts himself from dais to dais.

That said, Romney? Is this really happening? What an embarrassing joke that is. I honestly think that if that's who you want to run our country, you are either brainwashed from washing to much tv coverage, slow enough to need velcro on your sneakers or have never watched anything at all.

Romney is as big of an embarrassment as Dubya. His legendary flip flopping on major issues comparable to the latter's vacant stares of total incomprehension. I was wryly amused that, in these last days of campaigning, Romney's now relying entirely on teleprompters for his final speeches. Obviously a good ploy by the party as he contradicts himself from dais to dais.

He is so comfortable making things up, that it makes my skin crawl. It's an embarrassment and IMO, proves that the ignorance of the American people has reached a critical and dangerous point.

I was fine with Bush W in his first term, but he was an absolute let down. Obama has done thing much further from the left that I thought he would.

This is how I feel today.

http://doonesbury.slate.com/

The Obama lies

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says.

"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

It is easy to demonize the welfare reciepients that receive money from the federal government. Did you know that big business and agriculture get 5 times more in government subsidies than all the poor people combined?

Please provide the source for this statement.

"The largest portion of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s budget consists of food subsidies, not farm subsidies. Food subsidies will cost taxpayers $79 billion in fiscal 2009 and account for about two-thirds of USDA’s budget. The largest food subsidy programs are food stamps; the school breakfast and lunch programs; and the women, infants, and children (WIC) program. The federal government as a whole has about 26 food and nutrition programs operated by six different agencies."
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/food-subsidies

You will note that since the "rich" pay most of the taxes and since the "poor" are the overwhelming beneficiary of these subsidies, this is another example of government wealth transfer.

"TAX SUBSIDIES
The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion). "
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm

Subsidies to the oil and gas industry have the effect of artificially lowering the cost to the American consumer. Have you compared the cost of gasoline in the US to the cost in most western countries? And again, where do the tax dollars come from to pay these subsidies? The "rich"! Who benefits from these subsidies? Everyone, including the "poor". Another government wealth transfer.

By all means, let's get rid of these subsidies!

More Obama lies

You all probably remember the controversy of the second presidential debates and the clear bias displayed by the moderator Candy Crowley. She later admitted that she showed favoritism to the president. Remember the exchange about whether or not the president had been honest with the American people about identifying the Benghazi attach as a terrorist attack?

Check out this article. It includes links to transcripts of the Rose Garden speech in which the president claims that he called the attack an act of terror. Did he?
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/oct/16/candy-crowley-lies-during-debate-obama-never-said-/

Shortly after his Rose Garden speech, on Sept. 12, he did an interview with 60 minutes. That episode was aired Oct 19, five weeks after the attack. The interviewer actually asked the president point blank whether the attack was a terrorist attack. But that question and the president's answer was edited out by CBS News.

Yesterday, yes yesterday, they finally released the full interview. Why hide the facts for so long when there was so much controversy about who knew what and when? The president claimed in the second debate that he had called the attack a terrorist attack the next day. So why then answer like this:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

Why didn't the president call it an act of terrorism as he claimed in the debate and why did CBS news edit out this exchange from their aired broadcast?
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/11/05/what-president-obama-really-said-60-minutes-interview-about-benghazi/

The above link includes links to the full transcripts.

In order to succeed, you first have to try!