Besides that, there are people that do rely on the system and really don't know a life without it. As such if or should I say when that runs out, they won't know what to do, and that's just how they want it I feel.

It's the same thing with food, everything now is geared toward prepared, pre-packaged meals or fast food. Actual cooking is almost becoming a lost art because we're so used to getting it right then and there. Ergo when food becomes harder to come by, again people will not be equipped to handle it a good majority of them anyway because they were not taught to be self reliant.

Ok I will put it to you like this then. There may be people who THINK they are doing the right things, but even if they are good intentioned they are STILL serving another agenda of those that are above them. They may not even realize they are doing it, but it doesn't change that fact.

As the saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

there MAY be

there may also be people who ARE doing the right things for the right reasons

there are always choices,,,and not one career, or gender, or race, or nation is exempt from making good OR bad ones,,,

Yes but the bottom line is, if you are gonna be in politics you pretty much have little option but to do what you are told to do. If you don't you can and will be replaced. There is no room for real truth in government, particularly the higher you go up the food chain. How Ron Paul is being burned at the stake for some of the things he says, is proof of that. He will never get a fair shake at being President so long as those in control have much to say about it.

The entire thing is a big illusion, a mind game. You either go along, or they find someone else who will.

and just how can it seem to you that i and others who want to see government spending cuts don't care about most of the people? seems you're using this logic; you care about most of the people. you don't want to see spending cuts. i want to see spending cuts. it must follow that i don't care for most of the people????????????

therein lies the buld of the problem. the average american can only carry on a rational, give and take discussion with folks who agree with him/her. the idea of a fair exchange of differing views is preposterous to most of us. absurd. what might happen in a forum such as this if everybody just assumed that everybody else here was at least as smart as everybody else and cared equally about the wellfare of the people and the country in it. after all, nobody here is a known scam artist out to screw the world for his own benefit. so how can it seem to anybody here that anybody else here cares less about the country or the people who live here than anybody else??? because they disagree with you about what's best for the wellfare of the country and the people??????????????????

Well, it seems to me that to advocate policies that can be demonstrably shown to be detrimental to most of the people in the country, then that would seem to be an indication.There may be subtleties that i am not recognizing here.

Further, I wouldn't be espousing opinions if I didn't think they were right. That would necessarily mean that I think that opposing views are wrong. That's how people argue politics. It wouldn't be a very coherent discussion to argue, "Well, I'm right and you're right but we just have different opinions, so we can just exchange views so that both of us can be right and nobody is wrong and we can both argue for the things that are good for most of the people in the country even if they are opposite things".

I see the conversation has taken a turn concerning what is "best" for the nation. Does sustainability factor into thought here?



How about known economic American history? Is it "best" to drastically reduce levels of government spending upon public education and other forms of social investment while drastically increasing it on housing prisoners?

The levels are around 7K per year per student and around 35K and up per year per inmate.



More spending on the former results in less on the latter. That is a fact.

The art of compromise...

Find the good in both sides, then find a way to limit the bad. Put it all together so both sides are happy, and the net outcome is good.

If it wasn't for compromise, the Constitution would not exist.

Refusal to compromise leads to stagnation which in turn leads to decay.

Now...

Wasn't it JFK who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? I think this is part of the problem because as a nation, we keep asking for more and more from our government. It has overwhelmed Congress with a flood of requests, investigations, and committees. This in turn results in much more proposed legislation, so much so that lawmakers no longer are able to read all the bills put forth so they can have an informed vote. There are people in Washington who realize this, and take advantage of it....by proposing bills 1,000+ pages in length and riddled with pork projects.

So...

1) I think we should stop demanding government to be involved in so much. Steroids in baseball? Sports anti-trust hearings? School lunches? Farm subsidies? Business regulations and building code changes every 3 years? Etc. We all may disagree on some of the things which occupy Congress' time, but I am sure we all can have topics which we believe lawmakers should not waste time on.

2) Reduce the number of Congressional committees and hearings. In other words, stop kowtowing to every group that comes beating on the door to bend Congressional ears.

3) More lawmakers should begin reading proposed legislation again, and speak up when they find unrelated spending in bills again. Rather than debate from an aide's briefing (hearsay), legislators should argue from an intimate knowledge of the bill in question. We might be surprised by how many elected officials will buck against the party line when they see first-hand what other party members are trying to sneak through.

One last thing...

Do we really need Homeland Security? Isn't it redundant given the existence of the NSA? With the Cold War having ended, the primary focus of the NSA came to a halt. Homeland Security was a bone thrown to the people after 9/11, but it was unnecessary, adding yet another Cabinet position which requires additional funding from Congress. We also have the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard. Revamping these organizations in the wake of 9/11 would strengthen our borders without need for creating a whole new department, and restructuring should allow them to work in conjunction with the NSA and FBI for promoting internal security. The Coast Guard is actually a branch of the military, not a law enforcement agency. In the wake of technological changes since 1900, it should be updated to perform its intended task better rather than simply busting drug runners and perform rescue ops. Instead, we keep adding to the mess rather than working within the framework that already exists. Yet one more facet to the problems our government faces...

So, as I guess that brings up another cue government should take from businesses: streamlining. It isn't all about cutting programs. It's about cutting the deadwood from the bureaucratic infrastructure that does nothing but drain government finance. Yes, that means government jobs will be lost, but it will also lead to better interdepartmental communication because there would no longer be so much "gray area" between departmental jurisdiction.

who is 'they' that has such control over ALL politicans from congress to presidents?

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE This

my grandmother taught me this from very young age,,, always ASSUME the person you are speaking to is AT LEAST as intelligent as you are

It's the most powerful people in the world, the elite, the bankers, etc. Do some research. The information is all out there.

Information is out there, so is misinformation. But thanx for clarifying the 'they' you refer to.

Yes this is true, the key is knowing the difference. Don't make the mistake of discounting it though cause you don't wanna believe it however. Just because you may think it's false, doesn't mean it is.

@Lynx...

The very notion that the congress will pass any bill without reading it thoroughly is a clear example of irresponsible action.

--

The nation has a fiscal problem, no doubt. However, when we look at what caused that problem, we will find that it is not the spending that they're attempting to cut(social welfare). If during the economic boom of the 80's and 90's, they were in place and the boom still happened, it is clear that these programs did not prevent the boom itself. There is no reason to believe that they are preventing it now. Yet that is the fallacious reasoning being used in an attempt to justify the cuts. Cutting social welfare programs will not necessarily result in job creation. In fact it will, without question, reduce job numbers.

The other popular line of fallacious reasoning is that small business owners, corporations, and wealthy people are the job creators and that government regulations are a financial burden which is preventing them from employing more people. This maybe true of the small business owners, however the large corporation profits have never been higher. Can we afford to hire more people, and is there a need for it?

The implicit claim is that if the regulations were done away with, then they could/would hire more people. The only significant change would be to the profit totals, which are already at historic levels, while the average income and unemployment rates are suffering. The profits would increase by default alone, but there - once again - is no reason whatsoever to conclude that that would cause more job creation. The profits and numbers of employees have been inversely demostrated. The profits have went up and the numbers of employees have went down, simultaneously speaking. Therefore, there is no justification for this meme in thought that if we cut social programs and regulations on big business/corporations then it will create more jobs.

What it will do, undoubtedly, is create even larger profits for those who already have already been posting record amounts.

So now Lady Gaga says she's going to take the issue of bullies to the White House. There is a push to make bullying illegal, classifying it as a hate crime.

This is exactly the kind of b.s. that we need to stop. A law against bullying? Seems to me, most people get bullied at some point, and then they learned how to get bullies to leave them alone. Why do we have to turn to the government over something like this? All this does is waste our elected officials' time, and divert attention away from real and more pressing issues.

Make no mistake - I don't like bullies. I've had a few bullies turn into brown-nosers after I stood up to them. If a person can't be self-reliant against a bully, then they are going make excuses and lie to themselves well into adulthood. Confronting bullies, and doing so successfully, is part of the maturing process during adolescence. It's an important life lesson that no one can ever take away from us. It empowers us by building confidence and self-esteem.

Sorry....I had to mentioned that in light of my last post.