Quite a bit actually, but it needs to start closest to home. We have to work to elect the type of people we want in our cities, counties, school boards, water bureau's, etc. You can't start at the top and work your way down, which is why the Libertarian party doesn't win races. Seriously, how inefficient of them is it to waste money running a presidential candidate every year? You have to start small and work your way up to bigger things. Show the people you can handle schools, water, local stuff, then introduce them to the political philosophies you believe in and explain to them how and why it works. We need examples. Many cities and even states (California) across the US have already seen the damage liberal ideas and ideals have done. Most are broke, even though they have excessive taxes. They have high unemployment rates because of the demands the place on private businesses. They're wasteful, bloated, and inefficient.
I've made a resolution to run for a seat by 2011, even if it's something simple such as a local board. We have to start in our own backyards if we want to take this country back. We cannot change national politics at this point, both parties are too far gone. The best we can do is limit the damage.
I believe this to be true to an extent, but not a hard and fast rule. With the support of the American people you can get quite a bit done. Pressure from constituents of congresspeople really does work, as we've seen with many of the bad pieces of legislation we've been able to squash. I know liberals don't like to think so, but the vast majority of this country is rather conservative (including Democrats and Independents). I believe something like 29% consider themselves to be 'liberal'. When you try to push through these liberal plans and the country gets upset, it's really no wonder.
Your arguments are much more effective when you leave out the name calling. If someone is a moron we'll be able to see that through his posts ;)
Aye, leave your avatar at the door :)
To be fair, us conservatives do that as well. I couldn't stand McCain, and I would have gladly voted for a blue dog Democrat rather than him.
I agree that alot of these problems were inherited, but his true test is how he handled them once he took office. Both liberals and conservatives can see that he's doing a pretty poor job. The difference between him and Bush are minuscule at best in terms of real world effect on us average citizens. This is one reason why arguing about national politics is so stupid. Think locally folks.
I'm dying to hear your reasoning behind this. As a die hard libertarian myself, Obama couldn't be further from my ideal candidate (Ron Paul). A smaller government is absolutely the answer to most questions. 6 months is not too soon to tell; it would be if he hadn't done anything in those 6 months but he has, and we can judge him based on those actions. I agree about Bush and McCain, but I couldn't have slept at night if I, a libertarian, had voted for a big government socialist.
Speak for yourself :)
I run a very successful firearms website and I'm preparing to launch a second political website very soon.
Actually, that was his hail mary. He would have been much worse off with any other VP. While Palin has more personal baggage than Paris Hilton and I don't think her as a person was a good choice, when it comes to political philosophy *most* conservatives and even a lot of libertarians agree with her more than any other national political figure. The opposition is so caught up on focusing on her mediocre speeches and her personal life that I'm not surprised one bit they can't see why conservatives like her. It's not her; it's her politics. Again, they're nowhere near perfect, but they're the closest thing we can relate to on a national level.
Simple economics could have worked miracles in the situation he was handed. If unemployment is high you have to entice businesses into expanding. Businesses operate on a profit bases. Since the economy was tanking people were spending less, so businesses laid off employees to maintain their bottom line; something an efficient organization (including government!) should do. By lowering taxes they would have been able to maintain their bottom line and even hire more people (depending on how much they're saving on their tax bills). More people = more spending = more business. Lowering taxes is something Obama would never consider, even if it helped the nation.
The stimulus could have helped, but not the way they did it. In order for it to work you would have to have divided it up between the citizens and deposited it into their bank accounts. 80% of those people would have spent it, thus stimulating the economy. 'Infrastructure improvements' is one of the WORST thing you can spend it on. The companies getting that business are the companies that aren't hurting for business, meaning they usually have enough people already on staff to complete the task.
Know where I learned this stuff? Economics 101, literally.
I'm not sure if he and the GOP did it on purpose or not, but I think that's going to be the effect. I think if Romney runs this time he's going to win it. He's a turd too but at least he knows how to create jobs and run a business.
Exactly!
I've made a resolution to run for a seat by 2011, even if it's something simple such as a local board. We have to start in our own backyards if we want to take this country back. We cannot change national politics at this point, both parties are too far gone. The best we can do is limit the damage.
I believe this to be true to an extent, but not a hard and fast rule. With the support of the American people you can get quite a bit done. Pressure from constituents of congresspeople really does work, as we've seen with many of the bad pieces of legislation we've been able to squash. I know liberals don't like to think so, but the vast majority of this country is rather conservative (including Democrats and Independents). I believe something like 29% consider themselves to be 'liberal'. When you try to push through these liberal plans and the country gets upset, it's really no wonder.
Your arguments are much more effective when you leave out the name calling. If someone is a moron we'll be able to see that through his posts ;)
Aye, leave your avatar at the door :)
To be fair, us conservatives do that as well. I couldn't stand McCain, and I would have gladly voted for a blue dog Democrat rather than him.
I agree that alot of these problems were inherited, but his true test is how he handled them once he took office. Both liberals and conservatives can see that he's doing a pretty poor job. The difference between him and Bush are minuscule at best in terms of real world effect on us average citizens. This is one reason why arguing about national politics is so stupid. Think locally folks.
I'm dying to hear your reasoning behind this. As a die hard libertarian myself, Obama couldn't be further from my ideal candidate (Ron Paul). A smaller government is absolutely the answer to most questions. 6 months is not too soon to tell; it would be if he hadn't done anything in those 6 months but he has, and we can judge him based on those actions. I agree about Bush and McCain, but I couldn't have slept at night if I, a libertarian, had voted for a big government socialist.
Speak for yourself :)
I run a very successful firearms website and I'm preparing to launch a second political website very soon.
Actually, that was his hail mary. He would have been much worse off with any other VP. While Palin has more personal baggage than Paris Hilton and I don't think her as a person was a good choice, when it comes to political philosophy *most* conservatives and even a lot of libertarians agree with her more than any other national political figure. The opposition is so caught up on focusing on her mediocre speeches and her personal life that I'm not surprised one bit they can't see why conservatives like her. It's not her; it's her politics. Again, they're nowhere near perfect, but they're the closest thing we can relate to on a national level.
Simple economics could have worked miracles in the situation he was handed. If unemployment is high you have to entice businesses into expanding. Businesses operate on a profit bases. Since the economy was tanking people were spending less, so businesses laid off employees to maintain their bottom line; something an efficient organization (including government!) should do. By lowering taxes they would have been able to maintain their bottom line and even hire more people (depending on how much they're saving on their tax bills). More people = more spending = more business. Lowering taxes is something Obama would never consider, even if it helped the nation.
The stimulus could have helped, but not the way they did it. In order for it to work you would have to have divided it up between the citizens and deposited it into their bank accounts. 80% of those people would have spent it, thus stimulating the economy. 'Infrastructure improvements' is one of the WORST thing you can spend it on. The companies getting that business are the companies that aren't hurting for business, meaning they usually have enough people already on staff to complete the task.
Know where I learned this stuff? Economics 101, literally.
I'm not sure if he and the GOP did it on purpose or not, but I think that's going to be the effect. I think if Romney runs this time he's going to win it. He's a turd too but at least he knows how to create jobs and run a business.
Exactly!
Comment