Our problem is simple, hilariously simple (ignoring your moronic self-written assessment because, you know, it's moronic): our system of governance was designed to only operate when there is compromise, which means that when one of our two actors doesn't choose to compromise we don't have a real vehicle for problem-solving. That means when things are less than ideal they're going to stay that way until a deal is struck to start addressing the poor conditions, whatever they are. If we remove obstructionists from the ranks of government and replace them with people that are actually interested in governing, we will have fewer problems and they will be less severe. We've seen this time and again.



If the Tea Party actually stood for what they claim to stand for then I'd actually consider supporting them. They don't though (in reality they stand for little to nothing), and that's unfortunate. I'm all about actually doing something when you're entrusted with a position of authority and that keeps me from supporting do-nothing groups like the Tea Party. There's something very undesirable (and pathetic) about a candidate running around a district or a state doing nothing but spreading hate-speech about "the people that don't want to work" only for that candidate to win an election, go to Washington, sit on their fat ass and collect a check at the end of every month and great healthcare for their families, while focusing solely on securing the best post-office retirement for themselves while the people that were stupid enough to elect him/her are back in the district suffering.

In this way I am similar to a Tea Party supporter because I don't support propping up lazy, useless people that don't want to work, in this case Tea Party politicians.

I swear, you just can't fix "stuck on stupid." It's disappointing.

Total government spending (federal, state and local) has steadily grown over the last century, from ~7% of GDP to over 40% today:



You do not compromise when the compromise means this gets worse. There is too much baggage on the train, and the engine is getting weaker, relatively speaking. People like you interested in "governing" in your sense are the problem, not people who have had enough and have the temerity to stand up and so NO MORE!

"Hurr fucking durr, government can't fix problems because government is the problem, loud noises, no more government, they's comin' to take mah guns, rarrrrr!"

Typical claptrap. Go lay down by your dish.

I merely captured the attitude and substance of what you posted in fewer words. If you don't like it, then stop holding troglodytic views concerning the role of government.

Now you just need to add concise, or possibly succinct to your repertoire. It's not just enough to use fewer words when you can't say anything at all. I can't help that you have no conception of what I consider legitimate government, but I assure you, it is NOT "no government." You stereotype constantly, and assume your stereotypes are correct. I'm content for the most part to let you think that, because I find amusement in your flailing.

...

i think that the reason we are in debt so much is because there are less jobs and therefore less money comming and going, people started replacing humans with machines to do the work for them it was quicker anhd it saved the company money, but in return we have what we have now, if we took away all those machines and replaced them with humans again i think it would balance us back out and maybe even stronger the economy

So much butthurt.