Can you post any examples to substantiate your claims? Also, can you specify the actions to which you're referring? Finally, are you suggesting that a president who spent THREE TIMES the highest deficit amount on record - in every single year of his presidency - wouldn't prompt reasonable individuals to become concerned about a balanced budget?

I'm honestly trying to engage in an honest conversation but I think you are privy to a set of facts I cannot seem to find. For example, the Tax Policy Center proves your claim false regarding tax income during Obama's presidency. Tax receipts are down slighty from Bush's presidency, but then again Bush set records for bringing in tax income.

If you could explain why your position contradicts these very forthright figures I'd appreciate it: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200. See years 2009-2012.

Oh, and one last thing: why wouldn't a political party staunchly oppose a president whose policies have wreaked havoc upon its nation? And why wouldn't they fight an individual whose values are diametrically opposed to their own. That is what a representative government is all about. You may not agree with Obama's opposition but millions of people do and they're entitled to a voice just like you are.

Choose One:

The political climate is polarized. People jump to defend ideology by attacking "opposing" ideologies. The people remain divided, neutered. The elite tweak the puppet strings as needed. The status quo is blindly preserved.

The people are united. They embrace and share cultures, philosophies, entertainment, teachings, all of it. Individual people thrive within self governing communities, all of which being free to interact with other communities at will and need. From local to global. Free markets. A Free people. The market decides, because the people decide the market.

______________________________


""As reported on Digital Journal recently, May 12, 2012 will see a worldwide demonstration, a peaceful revolution in cities all over the planet, on virtually every continent.""

""Sometimes dubbed "Global Evolution", often called the "Global Spring", each event will have its own unique theme.""

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/324676#ixzz1udIePtYz

Watch a music video: http://youtu.be/u01ln91cMVM

I don't think you understand the concept of a free market. You link to a manifesto that ludicrously claims you should be given everything for free. So who gives you all of the things you demand? Is the market free for them? I should think not if they are forced to give to you for nothing in return.

If you demand free health care, does the doctor serve you for free? If so, how is he participating in a free market?

You demand retirement pensions and a minimum income. Where does this money come from? Would the source of this money be engaged in free enterprise considering it is forced to give it away for noting in return?

I have tried desparately to understand the Occupy movement but behind it all is a disappointing truth. It's a movement about taking from others so that you have to do nothing for yourself.

While I am far from a communist and agree with you in general, it's still true that as a society what happens to one happens to everyone in some lesser form. It's in everyone's best interest that the weak are taken care of on a basic level.

You have to understand that in America 1 out of 6 people receive food stamps and 1 out of 3 receive some other form of government assistance.

1/3 of Amercans are not weak. Relatively speaking, very few people are weak (disabled or otherwise afflicted). The vast majority of people who live off the government do not need this assistance nor should they receive it.

And you should know that is a drop in the bucket to that which we give as corporate welfare to private interests who are doing remarkably well in this global economic crisis. There is resource aplenty to be civilized in our pursuit of trinkets and baubles. Willing hands aplenty. Bright minds abundant. A wealth of historical precedence and teaching. United we hold the world in our hands.

I am fine with free market.capitalism as long as tacpayers are not footing the bill for corporate profits, big buisiness is not given tax breaks, and all corporate charters are suscepyltible to repeal by referendum.

THAT'S true free market capitalism. What you guys champion is caste based corporate welfare.

And all the people who agree with you will apply for medicaid and social security when it's time. And no, they have no "paid in" nearly what they generally take out. Funny how that works...

I'm just going to leave that here ...


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Because (R)s haven't done anything at all to deserve any benefit of the doubt. You're worried about deficit spending but talking about fiscal conservatism. The last president to reduce our deficit was a (D) if I'm not mistaken and that was quickly dismantled under Bush, only this time the extra spending went directly to shit (R)s like.

There's no reason to believe (R)s are suddenly concerned about the rate of deficit spending when they've failed to concern themselves with their spending and pork over the last 2 decades. Didn't the House just this week fail to implement the DOD's own cost saving initiatives and instead just hand a bigger pile of money than requested all the while bitching and moaning over the whole student loan interest rate thing? Yeah, that's what I thought.

The reason we're unlikely to have a useful conversation here is because you're insisting that one side must be "better" and I'm insisting that better doesn't matter at all when both are deplorable. Both sides are deplorable and saying "At least (R)s would be better!" is why nothing will ever change.

I'll be very honest, I earn a 6 figure income (I say this as people tend to think quiet the opposite about my success in our extremely fucked up system, when I make these arguments). Our system is fucked. The (R)s are assholes and will not save it, the (D)s are likewise assholes and will not save it. Nothing has changed in decades, I've been watching. Our economy is mostly based on the idea that we can grow forever, keep piling on consumer and business debt while pumping ever more oil out of the ground for less money per unit. The US consumes an insane proportion of the oil that gets pumped every day, 10% of all our energy (almost all of this is oil) fuels our centralized agriculture system (in case you were wondering why food prices spike as oil goes up, there ya go).

We have severe problems in front of us and there is not the maturity in either our political bodies NOR our public (even if you just count the voters) to implement the very long term and probably painful fixes it will take to alleviate them.

So forgive me, I quit giving much of a damn quiet some time ago. I don't want to watch the world burn, but when it does, I'll simply make popcorn.

Envy.

That's what this manifesto is all about, just obfuscated with pleasantly-sounding phrases.

What ever is there it needs to be supported JUST because the current world indusrty is heavily burdening simple people with heavy taxes and making less good opportunities for prosperity.

I sought to apply for food stamps once and was surprised at how little you had to make to qualify, and also the fact you needed to have a job of some sort to qualify. If 1/6th of Americans fit that bill then I would guess that's more a problem with our economy than our populace.

I really do understand what you're trying to say with regard to the deficit but you're trying to make blanket statements devoid of all context. Running a $100 billion annual deficit is one thing. Yeah, it's not good. Yeah, Republicans are as guilty as anyone. Running a $1.2 TRILLION dollar deficit is not even in the same ballpark (it's not even the same planet) so your point really isn't valid. Besides, I've already mentioned the plurality of libertarians, deficit hawks and suppy siders in the Republican party. Are they the majority? Nope. But how many Democrats are fiscally sane?

Now that said, I'm with you that both parties deserve much of the blame. You keep going to back to Bush as your one and only example, who was indeed an awful president. I probably hate as much about his presidency as you do. But you again put yourself into a position of needing to explain the contradictions of your position: I just told you that 240+ (the vast majority) of Republicans in the house voted for a balanced budget bill. No natter who did what in the past, we need solutions TODAY and you can't blame the incompetence of this presidency on actions that are half a decade in the past and irrelevant to today's needed reforms anyway.

Finally, I do believe one side is better .I do not hear the Republican side - as much as a deplore that party's stance on some social issues - calling for higher taxes on the "wealhy" (who alreay pay all the taxes in America) nor are Republicans the party whose only solution to every single problem big or small is to grow government and throw money at it with aboslutely no positive results and in most cases negative outcomes.

Since we are both 100k+ you must find that position wholly unfair. My tax burden as a small business owner is disgusting - 35% federal tax rate, 8.9% state tax rate, 15.3% of my first 100k of income (FICA and self-employment tax) not to mention all the regulation costs I have to bear in terms of being licensed, bonded and insured. How do you think I feel when I hear Democrats/Obama call for more taxes on people like me while half the country doesn't even pay federal income tax (hell some people get a refund on what they DIDN'T pay in).

Do I think both sides are bad? Yes. Do I think one side is a hell of a lot worse than the other? Resoundingly yes. Democrats are exactly what this country does not need. Please see Greece, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, the UK, etc. for proof. Europe is ten years ahead of us but we're catching up quick.