Originally Posted by jazzguru
I disagree. The government should not be controlling the economy or the people. The military, yes, as it is constitutionally responsible for defense.
We don't disagree on that point. The reality though is that the Federal Government is spending one out of every four dollars in our entire GDP. The guy who can get it to one out of every five is a winner for now versus the guy who wants to take it to one out of every three. The guy who wants to take it to one out of every twenty is best but doesn't do me any good if all the people collecting those dollars work to make sure he isn't elected. It's sort of like complaining about gun control not working. The people who follow the rules don't need gun control. The people who do need it don't follow the rules. Principles don't matter much when someone has a gun pointed at your head so you figure out the best route to keep yourself safe and improve the situation.
You're acknowledging the system is corrupt, broken, and in need of serious reform, yet claim a corrupt, establishment politician who has personally profited from the mess is needed to get us going in the right direction. It doesn't make any sense.
First Gingrich hasn't been found corrupt in any regard and while the Paul commercial alleges alot it doesn't offer much but slow moving images and large fonts. How has he personally profited? By possibly doing a little lobbying? While not my favorite endeavor it is still regular work and again I'll take it over Obama spending $800 billion with nothing to show for it any day. Ron Paul has about as much chance of making something happen as Dennis Kucinich.
If you know anything about addiction - dependency, if you will - you know that in most cases, recovery cannot begin until you hit rock bottom. We, as a nation, haven't hit rock bottom yet. I'm not saying I want us to "fall into the abyss", but Newt and company offer no substantive solutions. At best, they will delay the inevitable. At worst, they will accelerate its arrival.
You don't at all have to hit rock bottom. The recovery begins whenever you choose as does regaining control. That myth is no better than being a "suffering artist". A fat person doesn't have to be morbidly obese and having sleep apnea before committing to good health. Additionally plenty of people hit bottom and just die. They take their choices with them to the grave. The U.S. is in the best position relative to a very bad lot the world has cast right now. We have decent demographics with regard to population growth. Our immigration problems are with countries and cultures that adapt well to our own. Our institutions and personal behaviors need reform.
Europe has massive immigration from a culture completely incompatible with it. The native population is so far below replacement level that the native population will shrink by half while the largely Islamic culture will double.
Japan has massive demographic problems and they are far too racist to fix them with immigration. China is similar and on top of it still have massive peasant classes who will start starving and rioting if their economy were to ever grow slowly let alone stall.
The U.S. isn't in a great spot but it is better than most. If we can get a certain percentage of the Boomers to wake up, we can come out of this in a very good position. If not, well, it will be a nice race to the bottom and a gold standard or anything won't change that.
Nobody is talking about reigning in our overseas empire (except Ron Paul).
Who cares if they talk about it. Talk is cheap if it can't be acted on. The reality is that a bunch of base closures and slow downs in spending happened during Gingrich's time. The Soviet Empire was gone and I remember the base closings. The talk is of getting America in a reduced role from what we have been doing since the end of WWII. That is still headway and again, people can get support for it. You aren't going to find much support for bringing everyone home and doing nothing when Iran is on the verge of going nuclear as an example. You can't do one thing for 60 years and just flip it on a dime.
Nobody has a detailed, specific plan to balance the budget (except Ron Paul).
It doesn't matter if no one will pass the plan. That is really the point. I have a great plan for winning an NBA championship. My problem is no one will hire me as an NBA head coach. If someone has a plan even 60-70% as effective as mine and they are hired, they are magitudes of order more effective because making a good chunk happen in the world is better than being right on paper.
They're only now starting to talk about auditing the Federal Reserve because Ron Paul has been talking about it for 30 years and people are finally starting to listen.
Who is they? If he's been talking 30 years and all he has is a bunch of people parroting a few ideas then that isn't a great track record. I'd rather have the guy who has made things happen.
Gingrich has no intention of lopping a trillion off government spending, and even if he did, he would not be able to do so without killing any Federal departments. It is mathematically impossible.
What if he is capable of using language like CONSOLIDATE instead of kill and thus people who watch Jersey shore don't buy the like that they will be dead in a week in the street due to the evil bad people making things better? Message is important, especially when the media gives you a whole 90 seconds of air time in the debate or when they will lie and play upon any verbal problems to scare everyone.
And voting for the candidate I feel can do the best job regardless of party is not "throwing up my hands". Not voting at all would be "throwing up my hands".
If you aren't a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem. That is the very reasoning you are talking about. If your person can't get to a position to put into place a solution and you endorse that or it enables part of the problem, then you are part of the problem by your own reasoning.
There is a time to compromise and there is a time to stand firm on principle. For me, this is not a time to compromise. I compromised when I voted for Bush and I won't make that mistake again.
You didn't compromise when you voted Bush. You made the best choice of those given. Eight years of Gore would have been far, far worse. Anyone who could get us back to $250-400 billion dollar a year deficits would be a big win in my book because right now they are a trillion plus. Do I wish he had kept the budget balanced and done more things right, absolutely. Would the alternative have netted anything better? I don't believe so.