colourwheel

If Romney was in office the country could be in worst debt then ever concidering Romney's purposed policies were almost exactly the same as Bush's and look how well Bush has handled America's economy... Bush sure made America strong economically when he was in office... :rolleyes: How have the democrates even remotely tried to damage the economy or threaten to shut it down? Have the Democrates ever threatened to default on the nations bills or block every economic legislation when Republicans control the white house? It could be argued both parties are to blame yet the blame is very "disproportionate" for them to be even remotely equally to be blame the same. Political agendas or not Democrates can actually comprimise reguardless who is in the white house.

I would have to disagree with you again. I have stepped back and looked at the whole picture... IF you look at "current" U.S. politics It's the Tea-Party conservative movement in the Republican party who fits more about what you are talking about. Democrates ussually don't have much of a problem recently trying to do the "right" thing and looking after the "vast majority of the people" of the nation. Recently unlike The Republican party, The democratic party seems to actaully listen and care about the vast majority of the people they repressent, regaurdless if it pisses off their backers, big business, or uninions, etc... The Democrates the last few years have proven this more so than the Republicans in power. How is failing to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way good for the people? what's happening in the west is our children and grandchildren are being sold into debt slavery. They won't be able to enjoy the lifestyle we have because they'll be busy paying for our largess. And what for? so we don't have to face up to reality. What's happening in the west in no different to stealing childrens savings. If the political class had the interests of the country at heart they would take the difficult decisions required, they won't though, they don't want to risk their seat on the gravy train. Going back to how divided America's government is it's because of the obstruction going on in government from the right-wing tea-party movement. They are not actaully in office to try help government, they don't even believe in government let alone want to help it and could care less if the country will fall apart if they don't get what they want.... this is why our government is failing to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Republicans can't compromise. If you can remember, the republicans the last few years have been trying to block any and every economic legislation to try throw out Obama hoping to make him look bad and in the process damaging our economy and making the people suffer. Even though Obama has been re-elected the republicans are still just as hard headed as before threatening to throw the country into a complete shutdown. The question you should be asking is "why the Republicans do this kind of thing to America and the people to begin with?"...

Am I not part of my district? doesn't a congressman repressent the people of a district? Am I not a person they repressent? If a congressman does not think even one person is important enough who they are suppose to be repressenting they are not doing their job. reguardless how many thousands or maybe millions of other people they represent. Its their fault for not being able to give attention to the people they repressent. But was never implying they were trying to snub me personally, just it's obviously in the public eye I seem to not be important enough right now to even make a robo reply back. Be realistic here, your email is probably on page 5297 of this congressman's email page, and for them to personally sift through these and get to you is like hitting the lottery. If someone was sending you that many emails, would you personally have the time to sift through each one and give an adequate reply back to each and every one of them? Even if your congressman spent 24/7/365 reading and replying to emails, chances are they would STILL never get back to everybody. More realistically this congressman probably picks 10 random emails a day or something, and gives a well written response to. You are taking this personal, and being sorta immature about it. lets be realistic.... for one thing personally attacking me calling me immature will not help your arguement. Another thing we are not living in the 1800's... A crongressman has a staff that goes through these emails and paid well to reply to all matters of attention wheather it's personal or just a robo reply. If a congressmen doesn't have a good enough staff to beable to handle simply just replying back to the people they represent they are obviously not doing a good enough job as a repressenative... If you are active enough in the political system you would probably know this if you actually write your congressmen a lot. It's a matter of knowing they themselves or their staff has even taken the time to go through and read the peoples concerns. And yes Most people would feel better if they were actaul replied back instead of being ignored reguardless if its a personal reply or just a robo reply back. But this is besides the point... lets not shift the topic off track... I've written Rand Paul on several occasions, and haven't always gotten a reply back. I got a robot reply 1 time, and I'm not even mad, because I know I'm just 1 person out of an entire district of concerned citizens. I don't feel like I'm individually important enough for myself to be given any special attention. I don't have to write him that much, because I already know he is going to vote against the stuff that needs to be voted down. The ones voting Republican aren't doing so for them to compromise with the Democrats, they are voting them in to stonewall them, which is exactly what is going to happen with the gun control bill. Its going to be stonewalled. Won't even go up for a vote in the house. I doubt even some of the Democrats are going to back it. For one thing, I personally do not think Rand Paul is a good repressenative (Rand Paul campaigns on one thing then when elected does exactly the opposite. He reeks of hypocrisy.) But I guess to some people getting someone elected who will protect them to own an AK-47 is more important than lying to his constituents on issues he originally campaigned on and against. also a Senator is a little different than a congressmen representing a district as oppose to being a represenative of a whole state. Maybe you don't feel like you are an individually important enough for your congressman to be paying any attention too and the only reason why this would be true is because this is what you believe... These gun control bills might be stone walled this cycle... But looking at the current political state things are in, in almost all branches of government, the Republicans in office will most likely be a minority next cycle. With this in mind most of the bills being pressed in congress might pass reguardless if there is a single republican vote of support when the Democrates control the house again. It's becoming more of a reality in our nation right now as the Republican party is becoming more divided each day...

Am I not part of my district? doesn't a congressman repressent the people of a district? Am I not a person they repressent? If a congressman does not think even one person is important enough who they are suppose to be repressenting they are not doing their job. reguardless how many thousands or maybe millions of other people they represent. Its their fault for not being able to give attention to the people they repressent. But was never implying they were trying to snub me personally, just it's obviously in the public eye I seem to not be important enough right now to even make a robo reply back. Be realistic here, your email is probably on page 5297 of this congressman's email page, and for them to personally sift through these and get to you is like hitting the lottery. If someone was sending you that many emails, would you personally have the time to sift through each one and give an adequate reply back to each and every one of them? Even if your congressman spent 24/7/365 reading and replying to emails, chances are they would STILL never get back to everybody. More realistically this congressman probably picks 10 random emails a day or something, and gives a well written response to. You are taking this personal, and being sorta immature about it. lets be realistic.... for one thing personally attacking me calling me immature will not help your arguement. Another thing we are not living in the 1800's... A congressman has a staff that goes through these emails and paid well to reply to all matters of attention wheather it's personal or just a robo reply. If a congressmen doesn't have a good enough staff to beable to handle simply just replying back to the people they represent they are obviously not doing a good enough job as a repressenative... If you are active enough in the political system you would probably know this if you actually write your congressmen a lot. It's a matter of knowing they themselves or their staff has even taken the time to go through and read the peoples concerns. And yes Most people would feel better if they were actaul replied back instead of being ignored reguardless if its a personal reply or just a robo reply back. But this is besides the point... lets not shift the topic off track...

So this is a personal attention thing? I'm Colourwheel, and I'm supposed to be important enough where a Congressman has to stop what they are doing to personally get back with me. In the mean time this said congressman has no telling how many thousands or maybe millions of other people they represent, but its their fault for not being able to individually give you a reply and filter you out from no telling how many others who are trying to contact them as well. I'd guess they hand pick a few emails and give a reply to, or whatever they have time for, and that doesn't mean they are trying to snub you personally. Am I not part of my district? doesn't a congressman repressent the people of a district? Am I not a person they repressent? If a congressman does not think even one person is important enough who they are suppose to be repressenting they are not doing their job, reguardless how many thousands or maybe millions of other people they represent. Its their fault for not being able to give attention to the people they repressent. But was never implying they were trying to snub me personally, just it's obviously in the public eye I seem to not be important enough right now to even make a robo reply back.

I'm not defending government or anything, but in a way that seems kinda selfish. Chances are they are being flooded with 10s of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of emails, and don't have the time or the ability to filter through it all to return an email to you personally. Last cycle I made a donation to my congressmen to help get them re-elected, I get a personal letter in the mail thanking me for the support in less than a few days after. The last few weeks I have been spamming my congressmen under several different email accounts, not even a robo reply back.... You might think of me as being selfish, but I see it as ignored when he is supposed to be representing me.

@HeyYou Wind power needs a very good grid to work properly. Putting wind turbines in Michigan is not very smart. Obviously the grids need to be placed in areas where there is lots of land and constant wind flow. Just because a state is being powered by wind doesn't mean the actaul turbines need to be in the actual state. In all practicality a grid could be setup on the other side of the country to help power a state on the opposite side of the country. Even the energy we commonly rely on such as nuclear or coal, etc... isn't always localized to it's own state alone. Wind power and solar can be and will be improved over time becoming more effective, less costly, and safer. Environmentally friendly power sources is always something people should be help promoting.

I can agree the NASCAR and film industry part is kinda messed up yet Wind energy is something I could get behind. Wind won't damage the environment and I see this technology as an investment that will eventually be exported to other countries creating a vast amount of jobs for the future of America.

Reguardless if the original story has stated the AR-15 was left in the car it was still at the scene of the crime. Since there is huge public pressure for gun reform even before the Sandy Hook shooting, advocating banning of such weapons has been put on the table and has given more of a reputable excuse for making more restrictions on existing gun laws. There was a CAR at the scene of the crime as well. Perhaps we should ban cars, so the shooters wouldn't have as easy transportation? Sorry Colour, that's a REAL stretch. I most certainly do NOT agree with your rationalization here. You seriously want to ban a device simply because it was in the vicinity of a crime? And so far as I can discover, wasn't even USED in the crime???? My Rational? I was just simply explaining why these weapons are probably going to be banned. I personally do not have the power to pass legislation of banning anything. For one thing there is no reason why an AR-15 should be even near a public elementary school. Since the weapon was at the scene of the crime there has been huge public pressure to ban such weapons as the AR-15 as well as other assault weapons, reguardless if you just think this is an excuse or not for banning them it has been put on the table. If you have a problem with this you really should be going after your congressman not me. Looking how dysfunctional congress has been recently goodluck. My congressman still has not even replied to any of my emails the last few weeks which is why I may not vote for him next cycle.

Ten gun bills alone have been introduced the 1st day for the 113th Congress http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/275587-10-gun-bills-introduced-in-first-day-of-the-house Not sure where this pressure of support for reduction of gun control is coming from. Some of these new bills have been in work even before the Sandy Hook shooting ever happened. You seem to be forgetting about some of the other historical violent shootings in america just in 2012 alone... Oak Creek, Wis.: A white supremacist shoots six people and a responding policeman at a Sikh temple before shooting himself in the head in August 2012. Aurora, Colo.: Lone gunman kills 12 and injures 58 at a July 2012 screening of “The Dark Knight Rises.” Oakland, Calif.: A former student at a Christian college fatally shoots seven people and injures three in April 2012. I can understand your desire for this not happening in America but legislation being pressed for gun reform is happening within the next 4 years. Agent Smith from the matrix - "It's Inevitable!"

Here is my big issue with The Republicans in office right now..... People are blaming either Rupblicans and/or Democrates for how dysfunctional our government is and to a certain degree both parties are to blame. Yet the blame is very disproportionate to equally blame both parties. Republicans in office are over reaching for mandates they don't even really have based on gerrymandering districts and over using Political capital they never even had to begin with as well as trying to obstruct government at the same time just to get what they want. The Republican party doesn't seem to understand compromise which is why the bill pass on the The fiscal cliff was rushed the day after and had nothing in it that would make their constituencies or their caucus happy. They basically lost on being too hard headed trying to push things they wanted. Now that the The fiscal cliff is kinda over they are trying to use the Debt Ceiling to lure Obama to negotiate things they want trying to make him to specifically and publically put forth spending cuts that would be highly unpopular in the public eye for either party. Both Political parties know there needs to be spending cuts done in our country yet Democrates don't threaten to destroy our government and our country just to get their way... Negotiating and trying to compromise with a Republican is like trying to get a little kid to eat their veggies at the dinner table...

Reguardless if the original story has stated the AR-15 was left in the car it was still at the scene of the crime. Since there is huge public pressure for gun reform even before the Sandy Hook shooting, advocating banning of such weapons has been put on the table and has given more of a reputable excuse for making more restrictions on existing gun laws.

I would have to disagree with you again. I have stepped back and looked at the whole picture... IF you look at "current" U.S. politics It's the Tea-Party conservative movement in the Republican party who fits more about what you are talking about. Democrates ussually don't have much of a problem recently trying to do the "right" thing and looking after the "vast majority of the people" of the nation. Recently unlike The Republican party, The democratic party seems to actaully listen and care about the vast majority of the people they repressent, regaurdless if it pisses off their backers, big business, or uninions, etc... The Democrates the last few years have proven this more so than the Republicans in power.

Evidence strongly suggest licenced gun ownership is gradually declining as years go by in the U.S.A. Although gun sales might be up and ownership is up the rate of ownership is slowing down, It just means existing licenced gun owners are just buying more guns. I fail to see how hundreds of thousands or even millions of people will die, Unless you are suggesting all gun owners will all of a sudden go out on a rampant shooting massacre just because law makers made assault weapons Illegal for the general public to own.

No matter how you feel, concidering how divided the Republican party is right now, Feinstein's legislative ban on assault weapons and other legislative proposals for gun reform might become a reality soon reguardless if you think it will cause more blood shed or not. The only politicians that are not advocating for meaningful gun reform are the conservatives. The conservatives in power are dwindling away in public favor almost weekly... Public Polling strongly suggest the current Congressional Republicans in office will be taken out of the majority next election cycle. When nancy pelosi becomes the majority leader in the House again it's almost certain she will bring all the purposals up for vote reguardless if they get a single Republican vote in favor or not. The only hope people who want to own assault weapons again would have is if Republicans eventaully gain power again and try to repeal the laws.

I will a agree a lot of people who have been in political office sometimes will eventually become lobbyists but a huge majority who have were actually representing the Republican party before. Also not every congressmen has left office a millionaire either. The 2012 presidential election has proved this wrong. If this was the truth, then Mitt Romney would be President right now.

The only representatives out there who seem to be less than admirable these days are the Rebublicans. Recently 67 republicans voted against a bill to help the people whos lives were effected by hurricane sandy. All Democrates voted for this bill. In short, Paul Ryan and 66 other House Republicans tried to ripoff Hurricane Sandy victims by voting to not pay $9.7 billion of approved flood insurance claims. One big thing that makes Republicans and Democrates different is the Democrates don't have to worry about a ludicrous caucus. If it was Paul Ryan's district that was effected I am sure he would be screaming and begging for money to pay for approved flood insurance claims. I truely hope this ends Paul Ryan's political career as well as the other 66 Congressional Republicans who voted against this bill... If Paul Ryan tries runs for president for 2016, It would be classic just to see Chris Christie rip Ryan appart in the republican presidential primary debates if hurricane sandy comes up... Sometimes I wish Chris Christie was a Democrate.

Which political party is ultimately to blame for this? Republican policies and the Bush administration. Bush and the republicans deciding to paying for two wars on a credit card as well as deciding to give tax cuts and breaks for everyone and tanking the economy at the same time. Not to mention after Bush left office the stock market almost collapsed in result of the damage of republican policies Bush left behind. Then people wonder why the national debt has become so high.... :rolleyes: geeze... it must be all Obama's all fault because thats what Republicans want you to believe because before Bush took office we had a surplus.... The political class are to blame as are the people who keep buying what they're selling, it's not a partisan issue. Democracy has a rather nasty flaw, when people realise they can vote themselves more money or services they don't pay fully for then that's exactly what they do, that money has to come from somewhere so it's borrowed or printed. Who benefits the most from all the borrowing? the 1% do, it's their money and they take the interest. Politicians also represent their own self interest rather than that of their constituents, they serve those who line their pockets and only notice the electorate when it's time to vote, they'll never side with the people against the money men. Anyway the west has been living beyond its means for decades, it can't go on indefinitely, sooner or later something has to give. I would have to strongly disagree with you on this.... Example: Al Franken gave up a very lucrative celebrity entertainment career as a comedian, an actor, an author, a screenwriter, a comical political commentator, and radio show host, etc... Al Franken had no need to go into a life of politics. Infact he would have been probably making more money doing what he was doing before he took up the life as a U.S. Democratic Senator from Minnesota and making more money doing less work before he became a senator. Ever wonder why you never hear or see Al Franken in the national spotlight anymore? It's because how serious He takes being a senator and representing his state and constituents instead of his own self interests. You will only ever see Al Franken if at all on local minnesota TV or hear him talk on local Minnesota radio. Since Al Franken took up a political career as a senator he has been smart enough to never take up any national media interviews or talk to national press. Al Franken is a true example of a politician who is doing a true public service for the state he repressents and the country and he does it very well... As for the political class comment I am not even going to comment about that.... As for the current situation on the Debt Ceiling it is interesting that the republicans are willing to take the country into default when they themselves know they themselves couldn't afford to do this (our country can't afford to do this). They obviously are "trying" to use the Debt Ceiling to "try" to get dramatic cuts to social security benifits and other entitlement programs as well as change the retirement age etc... Ironically they won't publicly purpose any of this (because it would be highly unpopular) and expect Obama to but in reality it's the Republicans who really wants these things cut and/or dismantled completely... I truely do not understand what the republican party is trying to do let alone expect Obama to do when it would ultimately be the congressional republicans at fault if they do not raise the Debt Ceiling regaurdless if no entitlement programs are cut.... If they do let our country go into Default not only would it ultimately lead to their jobs being lost but would ruin not only the countries economy but have dramatic impact on the world economy as well... There is a saying... "don't take a hostage you are not prepaired to shoot." In my view I don't see how the republicans can even win on this.... either way I see it if they decide to take us into default they loose as well as the whole country and possibly the world... If they cave to Obama's 2nd term agenda they loose as well... :rolleyes:

@sukeban I honestly agree with you on a balanced approach but if you look at who has benefited the most since the bush tax cuts were introduced it was obviously the rich. I would agree if this was a decade ago I think everyone should have their taxes retoactively placed the way Clinton had taxes but times have changed as well as the world economy. If the country doesn't allow the bush tax cuts to extend for atleast 99% of all americans the hope of america to ever grow a healthy middle class back up would be no where in sight. Having the bush tax cuts completely expire for 100% of the nation would basically keep 99% of america economically repressed and the rich no matter how high their taxes would be would still be getting richer. A Country needs a healthy middle class for any capitalistic nation to thrive.

Politicians do have huge egos I can agree with that. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars make up a huge amount of the debt. It's really the decision of how to pay for them without negatively effect on the U.S. economy. Because unlike any previous wars in U.S. history, these were paid for entirely by debt at the same time the Bush administration cut taxes for everyone. While entitlements and other mandatory spending make up a majority of annual federal budgets and contribute heavily to deficits and debt, the Iraq War also contributed significantly. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Bush tax cuts, will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019. Military funding will have to be cut even if politicians don't want to face it as well as some entitlement programs. It's a loose-loose situation, Cut programs that americans rely on everyday or cut defense spending? Either way is a chance to loose their seats in the house. Even if all entitlement programs were severely cut it wouldn't even add up to the amount needed to help our country out of such debt. But this give no excuse for the republicans to hold the country yet again hostage threatening to default and miss-informing their constituencies just because they want to stop any agenda Obama might or might not have. Do people honestly believe Obama just wants to run the country into the ground?

In the last 24 hours in America from january 3rd to january 4th reports related to gun violence... - 3 police officers shot & wounded in NY City - 23 year old shot and killed in Kansas City - Man shot multiple times in California - 84 year old woman kills one in KY after argument - Man shot in broad daylight in Lockport, NY - 3 arrested in drive-by shooting in NC - Man shot and killed in San Diego I could go on but I think you get the picture... Even if the Sandy Hook Shooting fades away in the public eye as a top story, Gun violence in America is not at all dissipating, it is actually just getting worst. 2012 alone over 500 reported homicides in chicago involving gun violence.

Which political party is ultimately to blame for this? Republican policies and the Bush administration. Bush and the republicans deciding to paying for two wars on a credit card as well as deciding to give tax cuts and breaks for everyone and tanking the economy at the same time. Not to mention after Bush left office the stock market almost collapsed in result of the damage of republican policies Bush left behind. Then people wonder why the national debt has become so high.... :rolleyes: geeze... it must be all Obama's all fault because thats what Republicans want you to believe because before Bush took office we had a surplus....

If you look at the current state of the republican party and their followers a majority of them kinda are behind the times. Even though the next Congressional elections are aways away the legislative purposals for gun reform have already been written up and a few of them are probably going to be held back till next cycle. Even if the purposals are not even brought up to a vote this cycle, meaningful gun reform is on Obama's agenda this term. Unlike the Democratic party, The republicans can't get anything done in congress other than pass legislation to name buildings after people. (112th congress - 220 bills passed the lowest ever in recorded history, a majority just to put names to buildings) The average IQ of the Republican base is very low when you have their constituencies being lied to by their very own party to believe Obama has the authority to approperiate money and spend it. This is the current republican campaign over the debt ceiling and threatening to defualt. The republicans in power sometimes I think they have never even read the constitution yet alone even understand what the pressident has the power to do or not.

Right now looking at the new makeup of the 113th congress a majority of the republican congressional party a lot of them are from the south and very much in high favor of advocating to protect gun rights. Concidering the recent national political discussion surrounding the Sandy Hook incident, If Congress doesn't some how push meaningful legislation to fundamentally change gun laws in america the Republican party is looking at being a huge minority in congress next cycle. Seeing that congress couldn't even draft up any legislation to deal with The fiscal cliff that could pass, I doubt they could even draft up any meaningful gun reform. (and they are being pressured for gun reform) I have a feeling no matter how the people in congress stand on this issue of gun reform the Republicans in office have not much of a choice but to try to pass Dianne Feinstein legislative proposal of banning assault weapons concidering the low approval rating congress already has, unless they just wish to be out of a job next cycle. Politics have a weird way of swaying away fundamental ideology despite their actaul feelings or beliefs. Even if Dianne Feinstein legislative proposal of banning assault weapons doesn't get through congress this cycle it's almost definitely going to pass in 2 years from now when all those ideological stubborn teaparty advocates are thrown out.

With a new congress in session this year even though a few seats were gained by the Democratic party the makeup as a whole hasn't change that much. Congress has the same majority and minority leader. The Debt Ceiling issue is back. If you don't know what happened in 2011 The republican majority in the house threaten to default on the national debt as bargaining power to try to stop any legislative agenda Obama might or might not have had. Since Obama has won the Election and finally the fiscal cliff issue has been solved The Congressional Republican party has already started their campaign threatening to use the Debt Ceiling as leverage/bargaining chip against Obamas 2nd term. A little bit of knowledge to know.... I think it's an obligation of public service to make people a aware of a few facts... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fouu_uSG1iU&feature=player_embedded fouu_uSG1iU If the debt ceiling is not raised, The U.S. would still be fine... only takes about $200 billion a year to service our debt, and total revenue to the federal government about $2.2 trillion. So the U.S. can service the debt with $2 trillion left over. I don't really see the real threat here... Republicans are already telling everybody that we must raise the debt ceiling because we cannot let the U.S. go into default. I think that's just their cover story to justify kicking the can down the alley. It's pretty much known or thought the Democrates can not balance our budget seriously. Yet the Republicans can not blame Obama about over spending since the president has no authority to approperiate money or spend it, It's congress with the power of the purse. The reality is that the debt ceiling cannot be raised without Republican complicity since it's the Republicans in control of the house. The U.S. is running out of time to get the financial house in order before it fall into an abyss of economic irresponsibility that could be impossible to climb out of. In reality the Debt Ceiling is more of a cliff than the The fiscal cliff was. This is how I see things but would be interesting to see how others feel. Let the Debate begin....