Don't worry, I dont think our president has a snowballs chance in hell of getting re-elected. I think even O' Sara could beat him, and that come from a hard core democrat.

I'm not so sure. If there's one thing Obama is good at, it's campaigning. By all rights, he never should have had a snowball's chance of getting nominated 4 years ago, let alone elected. On paper, even Mike Gravel was a better/more experienced candidate than Obama.

http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Proper use of rainbows and unicorns, if I remember.

Too bad we don't live in a dictatorship where we could get gunned down for protesting against the government. Maybe in a few years Libya and Syria will join the debate.

What xD ? Are you implying that there have never been any protesters killed in the USA XD ?

... and the Civil War was the only threat of succession and there haven't been any rebellions since the Revolution.

There is no American citizen blood on the hands of our government.

As a former Minnesotan I can tell you why you are dissapointed.

Bachmann is a moron. She truly is just not smart. She is only able to create excitement. She will run for President if "God calls." I'm fine with religious people, but I don't want people in office with a religious agenda. There needs to be a separation of church and state. Oh, and the founding fathers were mostly Episcopalian/Anglican. Incidentally this is one of the first large denominations to have openly gay ministers. Something the strong religious people don't seem to get.

Pawlenty only won in Minnesota because both of the times he ran there were two strong democratic candidates who split the vote. Neither candidate dropped out after the primaries. Then when instant runoff voting was being discussed, Pawlenty stated that he would veto it. Well, no crap, if there was instant runoff voting he wouldn't win. Under Pawlenty's run the deficit grew and the state overall declined in education and other measures. He also was so against any sort of tax increase (including one that would put it on par with Wisconsin) that he chose to borrow money from future generations after he was unable to adequately balance the budget. More ridiculous deficit spending without a clear plan.

Then you have Mit Romney, who will have difficulties because of his religion in the Republican party.

I will say that I'm liberal but I'm pretty pissed off with both parties.

One group is is catering to the people on the top who just continue to make their friends richer at the expense of the middle class. Its been painfully obvious that the rich don't "invest" in america when they have more money. They simply indulge in ways that don't really benefit society. In fact they are so caught up in this policy that they continue to chose to protect health insurance companies. No one should make runaway profits off of other people's illnesses. It is just wrong.

The other refuses to address failed safety net programs that they continue to support. Unemployment and welfare programs are needed, but without any sort of checks or incentives in place to move people out of the programs they also drain the middle class.

Basically you have two parties both draining the middle class. One caters to the rich and tells the middle class that they can one day be rich. History shows that these polices have the opposite effect by putting more money in fewer hands. The other uses copious amounts of cash to pay for people who don't work.

I feel like my choices are support corporate welfare or traditional welfare.... AWESOME!

Disappointment across the aisle (not really, I haven't associated with GOP since I was a kid).

Awesome, indeed.

Copious amounts of cash would be only peanuts in Europe. If this is the true distinction between Liberals and Conservatives then Europe should be super liberal but somehow it isn't.

Obama really has not handed out cash with both hands, at least I don't know of anything. Of course in a crisis the coasts of supporting unemployment increase, because there is more unemployment. And it's good like this, without this support 10% of americans would be really screwed. The same with universal health care. Not having any healt support for a considerable amount of citizens (20% or so?) is something very special for a modern society. Just yesterday I red the story of an american who did not have any money but needed treatment so he robbed a bank for 1 dollar (without any guns) because in jail health care is better.

Really, the expenditures during Obama have not increased at all except for the normal and expected costs of higher unemployment. What america needs are higher taxes and in the future a much more efficient health care system for everybody (because for the ones who can enjoy it, it's kind of an expensive system). This is the future and compared to this, the GOP looks like a ghost from the past. Only because of the screwed electoral system which favors the two biggest parties beyond measure, the GOP is still there and alternatives cannot become present. What is a democracy worth, if you can only choose between two options? It's not like beef or chicken. It's that these options know that you have to choose one of them, so there is no incentive to do any good for you.

Btw. Is there any reasonable, rationally, sensible, moderate, promising presidential candidate available for the conservatives? Because if not, then the GOP might as well not run at all the next three times. That's my judgment, the strictly-conversative, quasi-religious tea-party voters are surely a considerable amount, but far away from any majority. Without the center, the GOP will not have the slightest chance.

Btw 2 (gay marriage): 50 years ago interracial marriage was still not legal in some states. Can anyone today empathize what this meant at this time? Seems ridiculous now. Sometimes it's better to embrace progressive, liberal ideas, I think.

I agree with this. Also you are correct in that spending doesn't increase. My issues with the individual safety net/welfare programs is that there are no incentives to leave. I work in health care and I see it all the time. If people start to work, they lose most of their medicaid, food stamps, payments etc... With the cost of health care, child care, food, housing etc... they actually CANNOT make it working two jobs at 30+ hours per week. It is a net loss. This is a broken system. As a result, they stay in the program.

The same goes for disability. When you start working you lose the payments. Rather than have it as partial payments when working or something. It isn't a reasonable transition. Again, these programs were broken by people in Washington in order to make them fail.... At least that is my feeling, because no person of average intelligence would think they are acceptable in their current incarnation.

The other issue of course is that entry level work pays to little to support anyone but yourself. When minimum wage was established it was enough for one man working 40 hours per week to support a spouse and one child. Now, to do that you need to make about $16-20 per hour. Some people are going to work retail jobs for the rest of their lives. Why is this not an acceptable way to take care of a family?

I hardly think the solution is so simple as Vote Obama.

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.

Hehe, the solution is that a majority of americans get on their feet and install a new and more democratic constitution. But how likely is this?

Knock out the internet for a few days and you would be amazed how quickly we would rise.

Wow. Wrong on so many levels.

- 'Hasn't handed out cash with both hands.' Where, then, has that $2 trillion or so of spending above and beyond the last budget that Congress actually passed gone to? The majority was handed out to car companies, banks and insurance companies, states, foreign countries, etc etc etc.

- 'Supporting the 10% of unemployed.' No, you support them with policies that spur long-term job creation, in order to take them out of the situation that has them needing support. He hasn't done anything remotely close to that, and has no plans to do so after 2 1/2 years in office.

- 'health support for 20% of Americans [no idea where that number comes from, but okay], and story about jail health care.' Just 2 minutes ago I did a search for "socialized medicine waiting list". It ain't pretty. We have roughly 9% without insurance (some ~30 million, a large percentage who are getting along fine without it because they're healthy) but who can still get care if they pay out-of-pocket, while many nations with social med have months-long waiting lists for simple screenings and procedures. Remind me, again, how that's better?

- 'sensible, reasonable, etc, conservative candidate.' Does the DNC have one? The candidate they have now, Obama, doesn't meet any of the criteria listed. If the GOP puts up a bad candidate, it'll be a perfect match for the Democrat's bad candidate.

When the minimum wage law took effect in 1938 (25 cents per hour), it was NOT enough support a wife and kid. In fact, adjusted for inflation today's rate is almost double what it was when established in 1938. Speaking for myself, in 1986 I made about 50% above the then-current minimum wage at a job fresh out of high school, working full time. To get by I lived in a cramped 2-bedroom apartment with two roommates, and it was touch-and-go more than a few times. It was paycheck-to-paycheck the entire time, without a wife and kid, and with sharing the rent and utilities.

So I gotta ask: if one is at entry level and earning just the minimum wage, then why is that person taking on a family that he or she can't support? It's a pair of complete morons who decide to get hitched and have kids at $7.25 an hour, and expect to get by. While I sympathize with those who already have families and circumstance puts them into that situation through job loss, I have a tough time feeling that we should chip in to support the dimwits who get in over their heads right out of the starting blocks. Time was that a young feller would get himself established in life before taking on the responsibilities of family.

Instead of asking why a person on minimum wage can't support a family, we should ask why an entry-level person at minimum wage is trying to support a family. It's a parallel to part of the current recession this nation is struggling with, in particular the mortgage troubles that made the recession much deeper than it otherwise would have been.