I very strongly doubt it. You don't have any debt? No car payments? No credit card payments? No mortgage? What you need to be able to do is afford your payments, correct? You don't need to worry about the total amount of debt, just the payments. If you can afford the payments, it isn't a problem. While governments are much more complex than households, the same basically holds true. Debt is irrelevant if you can afford the payments on your debt. We CAN afford the interest payments on our debt. The problem is we are on a path that will lead us to a point where we won't be able to afford those payments, but we are not in a debt crisis yet. The best analogy to a household would be that right now you have a large amount of debt, but you just lost your job. You need to use your credit cards to support yourself and your family. However, that will only increase your debt levels. Should you start "austerity measures" immediately, or should you wait until you find a job, and then worry about the debt problem. I think the answer is quite clearly the latter. Again, government should do the same. We DO have to deal with our debt problem, we should just not do that until the economy is back on firmer footing!!
I think he's probably an honest guy who means well.. but his ideas seem highly impractical to me.. I will vote for Obama or Huntsman... I don't want anymore evangelical cowboys in the WH.
I'd say impractical honesty is far better better than efficient dishonesty. There have been many efficient presidents, but few honest presidents, which is why I hope you change you mind about voting for Obama. But I will agree that evangelical cowboys have been drastically over represented in the WH and thus no more are needed for the remainder of this century....or the next.
I agree with RP concerning the war on drugs. I think he's too old and I think that he would be weak on foreign policy.. I am not much of an ideologue.. and Libertarianism completely baffles me.
I also agree with his policy on the "war" on drugs. But you say he is weak on foreign policy? I disagree. He is not an isolationist, but finds the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be complete wastes of time, money, and blood. He is opposed to ideological foreign wars with no direct relation to national security. He has been VERY outspoken on foreign policy for decades. True, he is a libertarian running on the Republican ticket, but a very moderate libertarian. His small government policies are more directed at giving states the power to decide (rather than Washington) on how involved and regulatory government should be.
I admire your wit Bowerbird. Still we could get an executive branch director in the United States that shares your gender , wouldn't that be neat?
Which means he doesn't actually care about liberty at all. Of all the busy-body laws that infringe on our freedom to live as we see fit, the vast majority of those laws are passed by states. It is states that tell us when we can smoke, drink, eat, walk, park, build on our properties, etc. Not only do they tell us when we can do those things, they tell us where we can eat, drink, smoke, walk, park, etc. It is states that want to ban salt, make sodomy illegal, etc. Just look at this website, to see how absurd and poorly run states really are. http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama The federal government is corrupt, and has A LOT of problems, but the answer is NOT to hand power over to the states, because the states are even worse!!
I emphatically disagree, especially with your last line. The federal government imposes massive restrictions on your liberty and has a strong tendency to overrule the states in almost all matters. Plus the federal tax rates and spending schemes are astronomically higher than the states. The issues you brought up about smoking, eating, and parking are small potatoes compared to immigration, 2nd amendment, social security, healthcare, defense, industrial subsidies, etc. We WERE a nation founded on the principles that we are a collection of states working for a common defense and trade, not one giant over-bearing federal juggernaut.
Your right we all use, both sides use government for their benefit. Thanks so true words of wisdom...
Nonexistent? No, there actually are people who want creationism taught in public schools as the equal of a "Scientific theory." There are approximately zero people who believe children should be taught to have gay sex. For one thing the only people who believe being gay can be taught are the kinds of people who this would anger.
I do not trust Perry because he is not conservativ enough like Bachmann or Palin. IMO he is more a fluffy-bunny nice conservative with some ties to RINOs.
Thats what I been saying he is an insider. I don't think Bachmann wouldn't be as loyal to the party machinery as he would be. Bachmann 2012-
We are almost winning. We only need 6 more votes... Do your part help this thread- Lets put apair in the White house. Time for a Woman to lead America.
Is this about which one is the least qualified or how i think is better. If its the second one then I think it would be best if you put a "None" option as well. -PP Party Blogger http://peoplesparakeetparty.blogspot.com/
Your analysis is apt, but why would anyone settle for either one? The arguments for either candidate would be laughable if they weren't so tragic. To give support to either means you have to be stunningly ill-informed, gullible or just plain dumb, if not a combination of all three. To say that Perry has loads of experience is nonsense. The governorship of Texas was designed to be the weakest of all 50 and is largely a ceremonial office with the power to appoint officials and commute criminal sentences as the most significant. Perry's record of appointments is frightening, he, more often than not, names political hacks or religious zealots. As an example, naming creationists to the committee that selects the state's text books is hardly an act that will be looked upon as enlightened 100 years from now. As for the power to commute, it may as well not exist because the good Christian governor has not seen fit to exercise one of Christianity's central doctrines: FORGIVENESS. As for Texas's economic record, again no governor of Texas has enough power to ever be able to lay claim to economic success (or failure). That not withstanding, Texas may have a better economic record than most states but it has come at the expense of the other 50. Texas's economy is and has always been dependent on oil and the prices attached to it. With the soaring price of oil Texas's economy has experienced a boom. That, combined with Perry asking for and receiving a good share of federal dollars that he used to increase the size of the public payroll, has meant that Texas has had somewhat lower unemployment than the average state. So much for Perry experience and supposed accomplishments. Bachmann is nothing more than a silhouette in the shadows; there is no substance to her other than empty rhetoric. I defy her supporters to name any accomplishment (even one that is insignificant) she's achieved since entering the U.S. House of Representatives. Her speechifying appeals to those who base their decisions on emotions rather than reason. Her supporters can best be described as those who most fear the change that is and has been coming demographically to our nation. The list of their hobgoblins is as follows: African-Americans, gays, Latinos, and ironically feminists. Their fears, both conscious and subconscious, are that they are being passed by and power is slipping away from white "Christian" males to those who hitherto had always known their place and kept to it. Much the same can be said for all Tee-Pee supporters, but Bachmann seems to attract the most unthinking of all.
Close to winning this poll. Come on Bachmann supporters lets push her over the top!!! Vote against the established two party mongers we have them nervous!!
help us...Help her win this poll. We can all share in a moment of caring thru trust and be selfless with our political passions. For the good of everyone," won't you put a woman in the White house?
Gov. Perry has actually done something. Senators and Representatives don't necessarily have any experience running anything. Look what we have now.
You do realize that this poll signifies nothing at all? Take a deep breath, try to relax and realize that there is not the least chance that Bachmann will ever see the inside of the Oval Office, except by invitation. So don't stress yourself out by building up for a very major disappointment. You might try reading the period in U.S. history that immediately preceded the Civil War. You will find great similarities between the Know-Nothings of that era and the Tee-Peers of this. Unfortunately for those adhering to the current movement, it is not the great grassroots political uprising that you believe it to be. It is, instead, a carefully orchestrated, manipulated and financed tool of the corporate oligarchy to assure that their agenda dominates. As always look to the money, if you do you'll find that funding comes from those like the brothers Koch. Don't be deceived, think and vote in your self-interest, which is also in the best interest of the great middle class that made this country what it is. Don't become a victim of Wall Street/Madison Avenue propaganda.
As pragprog says, this poll means nothing. And don't think of Rick Perry as the establishment and Michele Bachmann as the people, both represent the establishment. Ron Paul is who Bachmann wishes she was, a true representative of the people.
I voted for Perry, because Bachmann has already been proven to be an idiot, she doesn't have a chance. Perry has yet to be uncovered, and it ain't going to be pretty. He calls his governance the "Texas Miracle" - but it turns out to be more of a mirage. Texas has as high unemployment as the country or close enough (8%) - so why do Reps/cons agonize over the nation's unemployment rate but think Perry's Texas unemployment is okay? Also, all those jobs he has created - they are all minimum wage jobs, jobs most other states wouldn't brag about. And, Texas is #47 on education - thanks to Perry, since he opted not to use the rainy-day fund and save some of our teachers, we can now beat Mississippi for having the worst education - now that's a goal to be proud of. And, for all the bad-mouthing that Perry gave the Stimulus, he sure didn't mind sticking out his hand to receive some of it. Hypocrite. Can hardly wait to see him squirm in the debate - I hear he is probably in the same category as Palin when it comes to being able to explain themselves, hmmmmm, doesn't look good. Oh, and he wants to cut spending, but not where if affects him. He opted to live in a $10K a month house while the governor's house is being renovated - really! I think there are places that rent for a lot less that are just as nice for a governor, especially one who claims frugality for others. And, finally, most Reps/cons will vote for Perry because he is "Pretty" - never mind he is not too bright.
What has he done? Texas is #47 in education - competing with Mississippi or Louisiana for the #50 spot - and the jobs he brags about, they are minimum wage jobs. Perry claimed that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme, now that he finds out that many Republicans actually like SS, he is trying to do damage control. But, of the two, I guess Bachmann is more of an idiot than Perry - not by much, though.
Are either of them fighting the good fight? No. Should we pay interest on money that international bankers print? No. Is our massive debt and deficits because of our governments ties to banking cartels? Yes. Republicans pretend to support ideas of our founders but don't even seem to know why we really fought for our independence. Investigate the Currency Act. That is why Ron Paul fans are so adamant. Both are "force their values on others" conservatives? I'd have to pick Bachmann, just because I know that Perry is a lying, flip-flopping shrub. (Little Bush, that is.)
A conspiracy? No way you mean two people can keep a secret from millions of disillusioned Americans who disagree with the direction America is taking. And because your a staunch Party adherent you must draw parallels between this and what genius? Slavery? Seriously your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nuts. OMG money? No way. Lets see if I was gonna be into world domination I (*)(*)(*)(*) sure wouldn't give up my financial controls ( send my capital) to ASIANS or Mexicans. The world economy is cheap labor- profits drive the globalism of today. The tea party is popular because like free trade it gives the electorate another choice or a place to spend their political capital. The supply was to small for the demand of the American people so they changed the market place of politics from two choices to THREE. So hows that feel to have competition in the free market of American federated republicanism, kinda gotcha creeped some? You'll be fine and we will all be a better nation for confronting our established institutions and making them more user friendly.
