Dear Mr. <fill in candidate's name>, How exactly would your economic policies differ from the George W. Bush Administration's economic policies specifically related to tax cuts, government regulations, spending, and deficit reduction? Name any significant differences between the economic policies you'd implement as president from the economic policies there were in place during the George W. Bush Administration.
What is failed always in these policies is when they don't listen to the people. The spending is used way too much in enforcing the military so that they can continue to fight in other countries when they should be paying attention to this country. The USA has a bigger crisis than other countries now and will continue to look worse until somebody says "oops", and usually by the time this occurs it's too late. What deficit reduction? They've spent so much money for their own expenditures that they can't see past their nose anymore to see what is wrong and fix it. They don't even want to fix what's wrong because they have too much up their pipes in debt and they can't even begin to repay it back because money is everything to them, and it just isn't there anymore. Government regulations are not helping people. They are initially created with promises and they seem to work at first but by the time they really pay attention to the regulation it turns out that the original plan is not working. While the government is focusing so much on enforcing "regulations" the little man is hurting because they haven't had any "tax cuts" where it really is needed. Families need tax cuts more than businesses do. When was the last time they gave us a break? All those "credits" we get offered during "tax time" don't even begin to put a dent back in our pockets so why should we even begin to pay attention to what is going on in Washington D.C.? The only reason America has their eyes glued to their television sets looking at Washington is because we are hoping, but will fail to see, our government give us what we really need and that is money back in our pockets so that we can live at least, at minimum, at decency level.
My guess is that most would answer along the lines of 'Bush was a big spending, big government liberal second only to the current President' and that they would do most everything different. And Ron Paul would add 'we need to cut the military too.' But I could be wrong...
Dear Mr. Moen, At this stage of the game, it is immaterial what economic policies the government follows from now forward - so long as there is a significant reduction in the current administration's planned spending. (I cannot use the term budgeted since they have not seen fit to pass a budget in three years!) The other requirements for future growth would be a stable foreseeable future economic conditions and and a dramatic reduction of government interference in the free market. If you believe that is an extension of Bush's policies, so be it. <fill in candidate's name>
Dear Mr. Moen: My policies will be entirely different from any of my predecessors. There will be no new taxes. After all, it's the economy, stupid. The people need a secure nation and I will do whatever it takes to wage a war on terror, particularly the dual terrors of privacy and financial security. I want nothing but the best for the country and will bring it the prosperity it deserves. But honestly, Mr. Moen, no matter what I say at this point in my candidacy, it really doesn't matter. I will lie and cheat and bargain my way into office and will peddle influence to keep people supporting me. If I am elected, then I will do the minimum I need to do, between visits back home to Arkansas and Texas and Kennebunkport and Hawaii and give my wife a fake political office to make her feel good and to insinuate her into future administrations--and then I'm going to collect my pension for the rest of my life. So, Mr. Moen, elect anyone you choose. We're all the same. I just hope it's me, so that I can milk the system for a lifetime. Sincerely, Candidate X
We must be watching different candidates. Other than stating that marriage is a traditional institution being reserved for being between a man and a woman, I don't see a lot of/any anti-gay sentiment from them. As I've said before, I don't think the government has any business involving itself in marriage at all. Marriage was a religious institution, not a civil one. It should go back to being a religious institution and each religion should deal with *any* form of marriage as they see fit. If government wants to have civil marriage, then it needs to be done equitably and people need to understand that their civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage--while both might carry the same civil/legal rights, people of individual faiths would have the freedom to practice their religion without government intrusion. Funny, I seem to remember a document that said kind of that same thing . . .
That is what I would want to hear but more important see if elected and I am not speaking of the latter.
I agree on the marriage thing. I don't think it needs any government recognition at all. Many of the politicians are saying that the issue for gay people could be handled through contract law, but they don't want to extend that reasoning to all forms of romantic relationships. On the subject of anti-gay you must have missed the level of anti-gay rhetoric from Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachman. Each one keeps getting more extreme to catch the attention of constituents.
The Repubs you mentioned are no more anti-gay than BO (they hold the same opinion on gay marriage) though you seem to have bought into the far left medias plan to make certain issues front & center for conservative candidates.
Well, Bachman is already out of the race and Perry has little chance of going anywhere. I seriously don't know how Gingrich can be taken seriously as a candidate, with all of his baggage. Not only is he famous for his Contract on America, but he was also (apparently) one of the people who fought hard to keep the MARTA trains from passing through Cobb County (where I went to school) to Cherokee County (where I lived at the time) because the MARTA would bring "undesirable elements" from Atlanta to Cobb. You can probably guess what those elements were . . . As to Santorum . . . yeah. I think he might be a bit anti-anything that is not part of fundamentalist ideals, but I don't think he's simply anti-gay. That's just simplifying him too much. On the other hand, I think he's extremely liberal in some ways, since he's very big government in terms of animal legislation. Anyway, Romney and Paul are more likely to be the last men standing in terms of candidates and I don't see them on your list, so maybe it's because they're less anti-gay and whatever? Anyway, I'm still stunned that any of those men are the best the party has to offer.
The choice of acceptable politicians is generally sad. I really, really wish we could kick out all the lawyers and get some scientist and engineers in their place. People who actually understand the real problems like fixing the sad state of Americas infrastructure and getting us out of this decline in science and technology.
Perhaps. However, despite Obama's personal opinion of gay marriage he is acting properly and trying to do the right thing despite what his personal convictions might be. The current spate of Republican candidates are espousing the same old rules and trying to ensure discrimination as part of government doctrine.
You can tell rather easily which the more extreme political party in this country is these days. Republicans consider it an insult to be called a moderate but Democrats consider it a compliment to be called a moderate.
