Romney wasn't rejected on economic policy.
Americans could have chosen to give the Senate to Repubs. Instead, the Dems gained Senate seats.
In terms of total votes, more Americans voted for Dems this year.
The Republicans wanted the election to be a choice about different ideas. Well who's ideas were rejected?
I don't think people voted for gridlock. They want compromise from both sides. Which means Repubs will have to drop their idiotic stance on tax increases.
The dems were lucky they gained senate seats. It took a couple of true bozos to throw away winnable seats, which is not suprising, but still reality. You think if Akin keeps his pie hole shut about rape, he loses? I doubt it.
And the redistricting worked for both sides. Think Roscoe Bartlett would have lost without it?
If increasing the rate isn't likely to bring in much revenue then Repubs should be all over it.
Whatever deal is reached is likely to have far more in spending cuts than tax increases. If the Repubs don't take a deal that has $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, they're idiots...
Allow me to make a minor change to your statement.
"If the Repubs don't take a deal that has $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases, they're idiots.
And at the end of the day, most of them are just plain idiots anyway. But then again, so are the democrats.
Do you think that the natural result of such a system is a stable society or even one in which those paying in could have their persons and property adequately protected? Even if they could would that protection be in a cost effective manner? It's a lot harder to protect whats yours while the guy who didn't buy in up the street has his things ravaged. Disenfranchising people or casting them to the wolves on a large enough scale carries a price.It would be contradictory if it were forced. However, that is not what I am suggesting. Actual national defense (I should have also included the Federal jurisprudence system) is a 'global' (not geographically speaking) function. The best mechanism to tie in its funding without coercion is to tie it into the privilege of voting. X numbers of dollars required for actual national defense and Y citizens who want the privilege of voting. Those that want additional 'services' would be more than free to fully fund those services from their own funds without pushing the costs onto others and without stripping others of their rights.
I think this is wishful thinking. Recreating the circumstances that led to the adoption of socialism strikes me as a poor way to curb it. Indeed I think the long term result would be a demand for even more of it.I am expecting (a matter of when and not if) a semi-structured significant pairing back of the scope of government as foreigners start saying 'no' to purchasing US debt and to having to obtain US fiat for trading of critical commodities. I am expecting to see a dramatic change in US foreign policy as well as domestic policy (a stripping away of the decades of socialism that have been put in place). A collapse along the lines of "The Road" is not in the cards.
On a completely different note it's also nice to see you back, I saw you'd been gone for some time.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278