Enlighten me

[PriscillaMS]

In the past 3.5 years we've added 5 trillion to the deficit. The US Senate has not passed a budget in over three years. The president's proposed spending plans received not a single Democrat's vote of approval. Unemployment has exceeded 8% for over 40 months straight (and of course is much higher, that is, some have just given up looking for work). Left untouched entitlement spending will add between 7 and 9 trillion to the debt in the next 4 years. (Keep in mind that no politician, even Paul Ryan, has proposed even holding spending level one year to the next. His "cuts" are simply reductions in the rates of spending growth.

And yet has the Obama campaign offered any new ideas as to how to remedy these issues? I mean don't we deserve a real debate rather than just a negative campaign? It is a cliche, but where is the beef?

[Synful_Poet]

I'm with you, Priscilla....a good old fashioned debate would be awesome. One with facts, points and rebuttal, instead of all this boisterous condemnation of the opposition. It gets old, real fast.

[Jennifer23]

Hi all. Bill Clinton, although morally irresponsible wasn't when it came to fiscal issues. He balanced the budget and left office with one of the highest public approval ratings in history. Al Gore received more popular votes in 2000, but because of corruption (especially in Fla.) lost the election to W. W then took a budget surplus and destroyed it. Obama is trying, but nobody can clean up the W mess in 4 years. Forbes Magazine said that the deficit will increase with a Republican administration, too.

[PriscillaMS]

While Bill Clinton was in office the budget was balanced true enough. But this occured only after the Democrats lost control of both the House and Senate in the mid-term elections. With the Republicans controlling the purse strings (congressional powers), yes the budget was balanced. Remember a President can propose a budget but it first must be passed by both houses for it to be enacted. And yes, President Clinton took credit for the balanced budget - and in his speech he declared the era of "big government" to be over. I won't defend President Bush (he spent way to much, the most in his last two years when the Democrats once again had control of congress). But my non-defense dosn't change the facts. In 2009 and 2010 the Democrats had control of congress (a super majority in the Senate) and the presidency. They enacted everything they wanted, even Obamacare and a near trillion dollar stimulus. Four years later we have trillion dollar deficits every year and an unemployment rate that the president said would never happen. So...what are the plans for the next four years? I hear and see nagative ads but no plan being offered. Romney just announced his "energy" initiative and Ryan the plan for entitlement reform. So far nothing from the Democrat campaign. Obama said "I won" and the Republicans coud come along for the ride but must "sit in the back seat". But does Obama still have the steering wheel and a map? This year I just can't understand voting for a party with no plan.

[Jennifer23]

Priscilla, for a number of years now I've said that we should do away with political parties and just vote for people. I'm a Democratic Anarchist.

[PriscillaMS]

Jennifer, as an anarchist and rebel against government, I have sympathy. For I believe power, potential and happiness lay within the individual and not the collective. So support those that desire to limit the size and role of government. Acting as individuals we optimize the likelihood for freedom. Big government and the collective never will.

[Jennifer23]

I agree. But, Dems and Repubs are both guilty. When I said that we should do away with the Party system, I think of John Lennon's song "Imagine".

[PriscillaMS]

No, I think the two party system makes sense but only if we continue with our historical free enterprise economy. That is, one party better represents the worker and the other the business investors. The pendulum of power must find a balance between these two groups that is both fair to the worker while maintaining profitability. (Of course many people fit into both groups as workers and stock holders in their businesses.) Both parties have "platforms" that cheracterize most, although not all, shared concerns and values. I kind of understand your disgust with the parties. But to get something done productively even individuals would need to form coalitions with common goals. And with multiple to many coalitions, it would become more difficult to reach a single consensus. Hence more chaos. I think the real problem today is that one party no longer sees free enterprise as the basis for our economy and leans now to socialism. And since you really can't operate the two together (free enterprise and socialism) there no longer exists a basis for compromise. Hopefully this election with help reconcile which economy we will have in the future. Me, I'm for free enterprise.
PS. Jennifer why is it there is so little use made of this very excellent website?

[Jennifer23]

Priscilla, I think that compromise works the best politically, and I'm wondering why more people aren't on this site too.

[PriscillaMS]

Hey thanks for the reply. I do enjoy this site and the chance to air viewpoints. It is surprising more don't visit. Hope you and I can communicate on other topics outside lousy politics LOL. Everybody needs someone to talk with at times. All the best, Priscilla.

[Jennifer23]

Back at you!
Jennifer