Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But, both of the controlling interests in these two parties that are doing ANYTHING other than what is best for the PEOPLE are completely opposed to compromise...(snip) If the two parties want to know why they are facing competition from a group of people (Tea Party) that no one heard about 12 months ago they simply need to look in the mirror.> This ignores the fact that the Tea Partiers are even less compromising than your average Republican or Democrat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Small Business Tax Deduction> I know not everyone likes Olbermann. But you owe it to yourself to check out this video, in which it is explained perhaps better than I've seen before just what a misnomer "small business" is, all too often. "Small business" is often defined (and is defined by the GOP plans being floated), not as small because the income is small, or because the number of employees is small - but because the number of OWNERS is small. So a very large corporation that rakes in zillions but has just one or two people listed as owners can qualify as a "small business" and get these huge tax breaks we can't afford. It's nothing but a con job, that most people have no idea the GOP is pulling. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#39316659" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30...39316659</a> (fast forward to the 2 minute mark if you can - there's a lot of prologue).
Originally Posted By mawnck >>by and large I see a lot of waste.<< OK, not Breitbart ... on Fox News then? Where are you "seeing" this waste? And I'm talking actual nationwide numbers, not just one boondoggle school in LA.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I work in local government and I deal regularly with State and Federal government. There is waste. I don't agree with just about everything the Tea Partiers tout except this: The current leadership in both parties ain't doing the job. My favorite line from "The American President" spoken by the Michael J. Fox character: "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand." I don't think anything sums up what is happening with the Tea Party right now better than that line.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't watch Fox News mawnck. I watch CNN...though I consider it pretty biased as well. Oh, and when I said I have seen waste. I should have said...massive waste.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I see massive waste, too. In the form of years of wasted lives and money in Iraq. I could believe the Tea Baggers were serious about waste if more of them were screaming to the rafters about THAT sort of waste. Instead, they're largely silent about it. It's great that people are keeping an eye on spending, but why they have a blind eye when it comes to the excesses of defense spending confounds me. Far right interest groups have essentially made it an act of treason (or at least VERY unpatriotic) to so much as question why we spend so much on defense.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I mean, yes, it matters that some local politicians blow through tax dollars foolishly. But in the big picture, we get worked up about those small-scale things much more than when we tie the military up into a situation like Iraq for years and years. Taxpayer "outrage" is really quite crazily out of proportion and misdirected.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Very interesting points brought up in this topic! The "small business" information was a big one, and one I hope gets more exposure. It's definitely NOT what they are putting a public face on...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, in that case you aren't dealing so much with the waste of money as you are the case for that war being warranted or not. I can understand the divide on that issue. How about we start with something simple. In 2010 there is NO reason to spend millions, if not billions of dollars on the election process. I'm not talking about the campaign...but the actual tally of the vote on November 2nd. People can claim they are concerned about fraud on an internet based voting system but fraud exists right now. There are countless examples...but that is one that shoudn't be as divisive as whether or not a war is justified. Is it as much as defense spending? No. But all that other spending adds up.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm not wealthy (at least in the standards we are discussing here) but I take offense to the notion that the wealthy are somehow "wired" a specific way so that they never have enough. That is like saying the poor are "wired" to remain poor and I suspect most people would take offense to that.<< Some are poor through circumstance, just as some rich are rich per chance (trust fund babies), But I stand by my observation that the very wealthy are wired (with some exceptions) to accumulate wealth. Why else would people with a net worth that they couldn't spend in a thousand lifetimes get so bent out of shape over the possiblility of the income tax rate going up by a few basis points?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Well, in that case you aren't dealing so much with the waste of money as you are the case for that war being warranted or not. I can understand the divide on that issue.> It's more than that, though. Do you know how much we wasted by giving no-bid contracts to the likes of Halliburton, only to discover they were doing substandard work and giving soldiers flammable water (!)? Not to mention outsourcing the soldiering itself to private contractors who are not accountable to the military, as well as outsourcing things like laundry that the army used to do itself and now pays through the nose for.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Well, in that case you aren't dealing so much with the waste of money as you are the case for that war being warranted or not.<< Regardless, engaging in a war of choice bears significant costs. What are we spending each and every day in Iraq? I bet a week's costs in Iraq alone would amount to more than a year's worth of waste at all other levels of government combined.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And here's a chilling challenge: If we'd have left Iraq a year ago vs. a year from now, ultimately will it make much difference 5 years from now? If not, that boosts the waste factor further into the stratosphere.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Ok, then why hasn't Obama pulled us out? And, from Afghanistan for that matter? Incumbents are about to take a whipping like hasn't been seen in some time. I think the American public is about to put its collecive foot down.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Ok, then why hasn't Obama pulled us out?<< Good question. But the Tea Party ain't asking it. >>I think the American public is about to put its collecive foot down.<< What does that mean? It's another "I'm mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!" thing, I get that. But what is it people are voting FOR? That's what interests me.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> But what is it people are voting FOR? That's what interests me.<<< None of the above
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Incumbents are about to take a whipping like hasn't been seen in some time. I think the American public is about to put its collecive foot down." Well, Americans are stupidly fickle then. They "put their foot down" in 2008 for the presidential election. So...now it's not all fixed and they're going to "put their foot down" again? It's just a cycle...attention spans of fruit flies, and ignorance, in my opinion...Whoever wins in November will be expected to turn things around quickly, or else, come next election cycle, America will "put their foot down" yet again...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan We have a guy running for city council here in my town. He says things like "city hall doesn't listen to us average folks!" And then a reporter asked him what he wanted to do if he is elected. He said he wanted our town to have a fireworks display again. It was cut due to falling tax revenue. The reporter asked if he wanted to pay for it with some sort of tax. No, the candidate said, he'd cut waste from somewhere else. Where, asked the reporter. Where is the waste? The candidate just said there was waste and he'd cut it and that would fund the fireworks. He wanted no new taxes and more services. We have tons of empty light industrial buildings here. Tons of empty storefronts and strip malls falling into disrepair as shoppers stay away. His idea for a recently shuttered factory is to turn it into a new shopping center -- which would be about a 1/2 mile from a brand new center that opened only a few years ago (and already lost Circuit City and Mervyns and a couple other anchor tenents.) We have simpletons like that getting swept into office on a tide of outrage, and we're going to wake up to a hell of a hangover when we realize what we've done.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper They aren't voting FOR anything. They didn't vote FOR anything in our last Presidential election either. They voted AGAINST ongoing Bush policies. "Change" worked great for candidate Obama. But, it is biting him because the people aren't getting the change they want. So, they are about to change again. I think if an engaging figure came along and took very firm, public positions on any of a number of issues...avoided a negative campaign against his/her opponent...and answered questions without ducking them...I think that person, regardless of party...would win an election walking away.
