Spending, not entitlements, created huge deficit

these cowards. who would that be?

@ 58rose

but you not only hear it from the right, you hear it from the left as well. so who is the one lying.

While I understand what you're saying, I think the basis of the way you said it is inaccurate. Democrats generally talk about the benefits and necessity of various social programs, but they have recently taken little action to protect/enhance them. That's not any more admirable in my book than individuals whom simply rail against any social program, but it is functionally different.

Essentially, Democrats appear to know the facts in regard to social programming but refuse to act on them for fear that the hyperbolic smear machine which is the current political spectrum will eat them alive. At this point, even *talking* about social programming in a remotely positive way will get one eaten alive politically, so acting upon it is essentially political suicide at this point.

ok i agree, but inaccurate. you just said they won't even talk about the programs, so how are they any diffident then the other side. is it not a democrats JOB to defend the programs. we didn't send them there for life, if political suicide is what it takes they should do it gladly they are democrats, we defend the poor and dieing.

i'll say again, a democrat job is to protect the programs. then what good is a conservative democrat and why are they in the party? i don't need a list i know what your saying.

@ 58rose

ok i agree, but inaccurate. you just said they won't even talk about the programs, so how are they any diffident then the other side.

No, I didn't - I said the exact opposite. I said they DO talk about social programming, and that such talk gets one eaten alive politically nowadays.

is it not a democrats JOB to defend the programs. we didn't send them there for life, if political suicide is what it takes they should do it gladly they are democrats, we defend the poor and dieing.

Agreed - which is why I said this:

That's not any more admirable in my book than individuals whom simply rail against any social program, but it is functionally different.

Moving on:

so how are they any diffident then the other side.

The difference is that , generally speaking, Democrats would vote for social programming enhancement if the general public wasn't so hellbent on being misinformed by generalized, hyperbolic bullsh*t. Republicans on the other hand, generally speaking, would never vote for it.

The true culprit here is us, the american populous. If we weren't so blood thirsty for partisan in-fighting, we'd be more apt to take the necessary time and energy to educate ourselves in regard to the facts of the matter. It's so much easier to go along with the sensationalized FOX News rhetoric of "the nanny state is killing our country" than it is to take the initiative and truly learn the details.

Sure, Democrats should have the backbone to stand up to the political scrutiny and vote accordingly, but we should have the wherewithall to not make such votes an act of political suicide as well. Our populous has turned politics into an utter mockery; we're short sighted, self centered, and full of hyperbolic angst - why would we expect our elected officials to act any differently than we do? The responsibility runs across all lines.

@ Allen

No problem; can't say I'm right, but I do spend a great deal of time talking about, as well as working with, these very issues.

ok-- i've been voting for democrats always, but this is the first time i'm just sick of them. i don't remember them ever being so ball less for lack of a better word. now that i don't see as my fault or yours or any other america, except there's. yes you state your self ever good. me i just try to say what i fell. left out.

@ 58rose

ok-- i've been voting for democrats always, but this is the first time i'm just sick of them. i don't remember them ever being so ball less for lack of a better word.

I've voted primarily Democrat a well - probably 75 to 80% of the time. I too share your level of frustration with the unwillingess of Democrats to do what's right even in the face of immense political pressure.

now that i don't see as my fault or yours or any other america, except there's.

I'd agree that they are culpable for their actions, but shame on us for creating a political environment where facts are constantly driven into silence by hyperpartisan fear mongering and misdirective propaganda. I'd like to think that the vast majority of Americans would be willing to risk their occupational livelihoods to do what's right, but I doubt that's the case. Furthermore, it disgusts me even more that we've created a political environment where such an occurence is our only hope.

. yes you state your self ever good. me i just try to say what i fell. left out.

Not only do I respect how you feel, I share much the same feelings.

ok, one last thing. how do we change the game when they run it. you know its crooked but it is the only one we got, how do we get the money out of it.its everywhere. in this little town it took 8700 for the supervisor to get the job. 500 people and it took that. it just hurts to think about all the money and what it goes for. stupid @!$%# like this. i really think he is going to have a hard time this time. good talking to some one that at least sees more then just what is in front of them.

@ 58rose

how do we change the game when they run it.

There's the $64,000 question :)

Jim Wallis, the author of God's Politics, once said that people get frustrated with the political system because they believe that changing the politicians will have an impact, and that people become disengaged when they realize that it doesn't. He describes politicians as people running around Washington with a wet finger in the air; essentially trying to gauge which way the political wind is blowing so they can follow it. Thus, he says the way to "Change the game" is to change the political wind because the vast majority of politicians are going to follow the political wind every time - no matter if they're new or old.

That's essentially what the Tea Party has done to some degree; they've thrown such a loud and obnoxious fit that they've changed the political wind, even though the fit itself isn't based on logical, rational analysis.

For things to change, our populous has to be willing to evaluate things beyond just a 3 to 5 second hyperbolic soundbite. For example, it's easy to buy into the notion that we can't "Spend our way out of debt".... but the reality is that investments in the right areas at the right times could have substantial positive impacts on debt and deficit; even though they require some "up front" spending. Of course, the latter point takes some degree of in-depth explanation, where as the former point doesn't require any explanation at all. Too often, Americans are all too willing to embrace the short, hyperbolic (yet empty) talking point as a substitute for reasoned (yet lengthier) analysis.

As long as that phenomenon continues, we'll continue to spin our wheels, in my opinion.

i agree, but how much money do ya think the tea party had behind it. where do we get that much money to even start? it is sad but IMO money is the only thing that is going to change any thing. so i come back to,the make the rules and they are for them. i look at these other country's and ask when does it start here and why has it not already?

the talking points, if we cut taxes is that up front money to make jobs. is that not what they say. but doing that is not helping all the people so up front spending has to be made for the people for down the road. invest in America. we can talk about this till we are blue in the face, ya still need money. the rich have us they have done the job Reagan had started 30 years ago.