Adam

I see the majority of Americans as people who want a constitutional monarchy, where the King doesn't make decisions unilaterally, but takes the blame for everything. The deficit started under Bush, but the democrats blaming him for it is ridiculous. He didn't cause 9/11 or Katrina, although they would have him thinking that he did. Some would have you believe that Obama is the culprit. Sure, it grew under him, but to take the steps to fix it would be political suicide. It is very popular to want to cut into the deficit, but once that gets painful, the fickle public will change their tune. Is that hypocricy? Maybe, but I say it is human nature. We have developed a lifestyle that is not sustainable and then we tell our politicians to do as I say, not as I do. Personally, I am for the said draconian cuts. People that think you can slowly pay off this type of deficit and remaon comfortable are in fairy tale land. Maybe economic theory says so, but that doesn't take problems like hurricanes and war into account. I see a very dim future ahead of us. One that makes the "out there" 2012 prophecies look bright

It really doesn't matter if the man in the white house changes is 2012. America will change when the demeanor of its people changes and not before. People have to stand up and do things, instead of thinking they deserve things because they are american. We can succeed with any party in office, but not until we focus on succeeding instead of making the other party fail. And by the way- both parties are guilty of all the above

Are the decisions that we do or do not like supposed to be made in the context of what is going on in the country and world? Or should they just go with the political ideal. I really would love to live in a vacuum, like some of you.Be a realist, not an idealist.

You aren't going to be given alternative. The American people have to make their own alternative. The government is there to serve the people, not be served by them.

It is a terrible piece of legislation. But I don't want the country to be run by a bunch of 8 years old that talk like idiots. The first thing needed to be done is to pass a bill mandating that people can get their insurance from wherever they want in the country. That won't happen, because of all of the special interst money and the fact that this country no longer has a will to get things done. The two parties have both failed us and the people registered to those parties are more of a failure than the politicians, because they both want everything handed to them, regardless of what they say. Gutless, spineless jellyfish

Neither PRESIDENT Obama, nor PRESIDENT Bush are empty suits and unfortunately not too many people still respect the office, itself. President Obama is dealing with a more partisan country than even President Bush did. He is dealing with a number of wars and a terrible economy, while the other party in our failed political system wants to play political games. It is very hard to win at anything. Take Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Instead of just trying to repeal it or improve it, they play partisan games and label it Obamacare. It isn't Obamacare- it is what Congress sent to his desk. President Bush helped to fix a broken intelligence system, in which everyone kept what they had instead of used information to protect the country. He also pushed to revamp medicare to help pay for prescription drugs. Although he was ripped by the right and left on medicare, many switched to the new plan AND it brought prices down. He also pushed for immigration reform, but it was blocked when the left looked to avenge his attempt to fix social security. Neither are all good or all bad. They are a heck of a lot better than the lemmings out there though.

Sounds very interesting. Unfortunately, I think the talk about cutting entitlements and the political rhetoric over it will scare the baby boomer vote away. I think his best chance- or anyone on the right's best chance is if both Obama and Clinton are on the ticket. I think that will happen. Something has to happen- the deficit and unemployment scares me more than a potential nuclear plant meltdown happening in our country. One you can leave the area to get away from, one you can't.

How about drastically cutting the corporate tax as well as making substantial cuts to social security/medicare for people not already receiving or about to receive it. A clause can be put in that when the economy recovers and the defcit is cut to a certain point, some funding to those programs could be restored. Flame away- I know your knowledge of these issues is greater than mine will be, but that seems like somethin bipartisan enough to pass and logical enough to work (at least for someone with a small knowledge of how things work)

I agree Magox! As someone who has a lot to pay off with credit card mistakes and student loans, I have to say that its time the country tighten's its belt. With over a $trillion in debt, nothing should be off limits. Not social security, not medicare and not the military. People who want eliminating the deficit to be painless are in for a reality check. Paying debt is always painful and you ALWAYS have to give up things that are a natural way of life. Best way to avoid that is not getting in debt. That said, I think I will go punch myself in the face, for being so stupid and finding myself in debt. It ain't brain surgery- If you can't pay cash, it has to be an emergency.

regime change

It sure would be nice if we could make things right for everyone, but it just isn't possible. Saddam is one of the most brutal thugs in history.

Didn't he push for privatizing social security, despite the fact that it had no chance to get off the ground?

I don't know. It's bee a long time since somebody has done it at all. 2012 is going to be interesting. I have a feeling that either Romney or Rand Paul will be the republican nominee. I have heard some of Donald trump's speeches and he is looking for publicity. I cringe at the thought of Michelle Bauchmann, after hearing her talk. I think Romney would draw the most independent votes and some votes from the left. General Petreus could be intriguing, but I don't know of his political background.

Yes, but I consider him the exception. He could sell bottles of salt water on a hot day

Fiscal conservatism is great to run on, but in practice, it won't get you re-elected. And we all, know, that is what's important.

Just a mistake- I was half working on baseball notes and half asleep when I wrote that......16 hour work day on Saturday + 5 hour work day on Sunday = very tired Adam

The military tribunerals were a bad mistake on Bush's part. He allowed the ridiculous notion to continue to exist that they wouldn't be fair and would lack integrity. If this was dispelled early on, Guantanamo might already be closed as everyone may have been tried. I raise my hand on this- I bought into that misconception for quite some time.

I have always just narrowed it down to good people and bad people. All religions have them- both Jones and the assassins (which is what they are), are looking for power and attention. Both had messages to get across and they chose a very poor way to do it. What Jones did in no way justifies killing anybody, I have seen the results of burning an American Flag, and I can understand the emotion involved. From what I have heard, this wasn't an emotional response, it was terrorists taking advantage of a situation that presented itself, which is worse, if that is possible.

I am just trying to point out that as President, sometimes situations call for decisions to be made outside of your typical philosophy- based on what the problem is, or what solution could get through Congress and the judiciary.

Now, I never said that the media was always responsible- it's not. That's why we have so many opinion shows- they are irresponsible. The Quran burning was a big story, as would the protest of any major religion or country. Terry Jones is an evil man, who is not representative of his religion, just like the assassins are not representative of theirs.

That would be irresponsible. The media's job is to report what happened, not to edit reality. The devil priest shouldn't have burned the book and the lunatics shouldn't have killed people. Neither is justifiable.

Wow, this is one of the first times that I have actually defended President George W. Bush. He had two wars and a huge deficit to deal with- you can't fix everything, which included border security. The guy identified problems in national defense and reorganized it. He did some bad things during his eight years, but he did accomplish more than a lot give him credit for. Is President George HW Bush a liberal, because he went back on his promise and raised taxes?

I don't understand the mindset either. I know I saw a veteran that was absolutely despondant about a flag burning and I can't say I understand that either. The world is screwed up, I just hope to make it through this life without making things harder for anyone else......

Then try a thread on Bush. There are some pretty bad things (just like any politician). But in reading his book, I find it amazing how he revamped national security. Also, it is ridiculous that people say he isn't conservative, just because he spent a lot- each successive president spends more than the last. Its all a political game, which hopefully will come to a stop soon.