• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is American Democracy For Sale?

Is the USA a Democracy For Sale?


  • Total voters
    33
Never said I agree or disagree with it, I'm just simply stating what it is.

Now if you're asking about my political beliefs, I believe in small government. I do not believe in heavy regulations, or laws that prevent a person from living their life as they see fit. I believe in the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed to us by our forefathers. Those freedoms cannot be attained with large government like we have today.

I don't want to go off track; I understand your Libertarian philosophy. I just though it strange, that a fact as you stated it with regard to deomcracy for sale; as such, does seem to clash with your philosophy, no?
 
I disagree with you 150%: democracy has failed. Democracy as a social contstruct has allowed itself to be put up to the highest bidder. This has ended in disaster for this country every time. What has happened is that the aristocracy has purchased the suppression of the democratic process in this country, and such supression has been molded to fit into The Constitution (by the lawyers hired to do it), and then the Supreme Court rubber stamps it.

And there ya' go.

Thus we end up having a choice between Obama and Obama-lite (Romney). Both see gov't solutions to all problems and both see borrow and spend as acceptable 'during hard times' and neither will cut spending/raise taxes (in any combination) anywhere near the 40% required to achieve budget balance. No they can't!
 
Last edited:
it is for sale almost everywhere including turkey.....but that is not democracy which is for sale ,people's honor.in a democracy it cant be sold.

This kind of thing is actually what started WWI.
 
I don't want to go off track; I understand your Libertarian philosophy. I just though it strange, that a fact as you stated it with regard to deomcracy for sale; as such, does seem to clash with your philosophy, no?

Of course it does. However, just because i dont like it doesn't mean it isn't the truth.
 
Thus we end up having a choice between Obama and Obama-lite (Romney). Both see gov't solutions to all problems yet both see borrow and spend as acceptable 'during hard times' and niether will cut spending/raise taxes (in any combination) anywhere near the 40% required to acheive balance. No they can't!

I agree. The difference however, and why Obama will win this year, is that he's not a Republican.

BTW can you show me where Obam has gone ona borrowing spree; I think I missed that.
 
Of course it does. However, just because i dont like it doesn't mean it isn't the truth.

Right; okay, that's what I thought.

Thanks
 
I agree. The difference however, and why Obama will win this year, is that he's not a Republican.

BTW can you show me where Obam has gone ona borrowing spree; I think I missed that.

really?.. you have missed the trillion dollar deficits we've been having for a few years now?
 
I agree. The difference however, and why Obama will win this year, is that he's not a Republican.

BTW can you show me where Obam has gone ona borrowing spree; I think I missed that.

The average federal spending under Bush was 20% of GDP and is now 24% of GDP under Obama (yep, that's a 20% increase) while the Bush/Obama federal taxation rates are still 17% of GDP which now yields a federal "budget" deficit of 40%. The "proof" of this speaks for itself with the over 5 trillion dollar increase in the national debt under Obama.
 
Rich people? Its not like every"rich person" owns the media. Its corporate owned and corporate bought. EX: Rupert Murdoch scandal, every other news station was all over this scandal but one news station was very very silent for some reason, what was that station?? FOX.
Sorry I dont watch FOX so I had no idea that they were silent. So I thought I should check and see if you were correct.


Turns out that an Advanced google search of foxnews returns ten plus pages of results when typing in Rupert Mudoch

Here is a story in May this year. Murdoch scandal follows classic media baron script | Fox News

Isnt it kind of silly for you to make claims when we can all just google it?
 
The average federal spending under Bush was 20% of GDP and is now 24% of GDP under Obama (yep, that's a 20% increase) while the Bush/Obama federal taxation rates are still 17% of GDP which now yields a federal "budget" deficit of 40%. The "proof" of this speaks for itself with the over 5 trillion dollar increase in the national debt under Obama.

But where is Oabama borrowing money from? I agree that he's spending money hand over fist, but I just don't recall reading that he's been borrowing money. Now, if you wish to equate borrowing with, say govrnment bailouts . . . then, yeah okay. But he's not borrowing rom outside of our borders that I know of: he's paying on those debts . . . The 5 trillion dollar debt you speak of is the direct result of the crash.
 
Does it ever hurt the....what 4 or 5 people who own all the media? Look at that Murdoch thing in the US. You'd think that everyone but Fox would have a field day and never let it go. HA! Forgotten ASAP.
Yet here we are talking about it?
 
Exactly. Those in DC get voting instructions along with campaign cash. Should there votes so enrage their state/district that they get the boot in the next election, then the powers that control them offer them a back-up "after office" job that keeps them "in the game", just in a different (perhaps lobbying) position. Example: Newt Gingrich.

It's my money, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend it as I please?
 
Sorry I dont watch FOX so I had no idea that they were silent. So I thought I should check and see if you were correct.


Turns out that an Advanced google search of foxnews returns ten plus pages of results when typing in Rupert Mudoch

Here is a story in May this year. Murdoch scandal follows classic media baron script | Fox News

Isnt it kind of silly for you to make claims when we can all just google it?

Sure they will present it but no one condemns it..
 
and the ones he shot down personally. Yes.

You mean the ones passed by the obstructionist GOP who knew he would never sign such a budget, so that they could blame him for not signing a budget: those budgets.
 
Last edited:
You mean the ones passed by the obstructionist GOP who knew he would never sign such a budget, so that they could blame him for not signing a budget: those budgets.

The point remains a budget was never passed. including the one he proposed himself that got shot down 99-0 in the senate. We can play the blame game all day, but the fact remains that our government can't cooperate with itself.
 
But where is Oabama borrowing money from? I agree that he's spending money hand over fist, but I just don't recall reading that he's been borrowing money. Now, if you wish to equate borrowing with, say govrnment bailouts . . . then, yeah okay. But he's not borrowing rom outside of our borders that I know of: he's paying on those debts . . . The 5 trillion dollar debt you speak of is the direct result of the crash.

Nonsense. The crash of what? Look at the federal defict in EVERY year of Obama's term. This is not some one time big deal, this is now the new "normal". No "budget" has been passed in over three years, it is all "continuing resolutions", "super committee" deals and plain old pass the buck nonsense. The TARP bailouts and the stimulus "loans" were but two (fairly big) parts of this massive spending binge, but the "repaid stimulus loans" were simply plowed directly into other massive federal spending, not really 'repaid' in any classic sense of the word, as in put back into the treasury to reduce the national debt. Where he is borrowing it FROM is ANYWHERE he can, whoever wants to buy the U.S. treasury securities. The real problem is that ONLY tax money can pay them back, they are simply IOUs payable by the taxpayers with interest. Next to our national defense, the single biggest national "budget" item is the interest on that national debt. We, the U.S. taxpayers, now pay China so much annual interest, on just their share of our national debt, that the ENTIRE Chinese military budget is now funded by us. Is that insane or what?
 
Last edited:
The point remains a budget was never passed. including the one he proposed himself that got shot down 99-0 in the senate. We can play the blame game all day, but the fact remains that our government can't cooperate with itself.

No, the point reamins that the GOP's mission is jam Obama up any way that they can so that they can lie about his abilities and accomplishments. If our country was a priority to the GOP then we would certainly see some proof of that. But - we don't do we . . . If the GOP wanted to pass a budget that could be agreed upon and signed, then they would create such a budget: and you know that. But a passing budget is not in the GOP agenda; you know that too . . .
 
Last edited:
You mean; this mess with an obstructionist GOP angenda? That lack?

LOL. In the senate? They dare not even attempt a budget vote or the jig is up for the demorats, much safer to fool you into believing as you do by doing nothing at all. Harry Reid is a moron, but not so much so as to leave it on record with a vote.
 
LOL. In the senate? They dare not even attempt a budget vote or the jig is up for the demorats, much safer to fool you into believing as you do by doing nothing at all. Harry Reid is a moron, but not so much so as to leave it on record with a vote.

Hey; I'm not fooled by any of these people. The GOP has nothing to run on in the way of anything that's been good for this country, moreover they have said themselves that their mission is to make Barack Obama a one term president. So what does that tell you? It tells me just exactly what I've been saying about them all along.
 
Hey; I'm not fooled by any of these people. The GOP has nothing to run on in the way of anything that's been good for this country, moreover they have said themselves that their mission is to make Barack Obama a one term president. So what does that tell you? It tells me just exactly what I've been saying about them all along.

And The Dems do? Like I said, our government as a whole is inept. You can't put the blame soley on one side.
 
No, the point reamins that the GOP's mission is jam Obama up any way that they can so that they can lie about his abilities and accomplishments. If our country was a priority to the GOP then we would certainly see some proof of that. But - we don't do we . . . If the GOP wanted to pass a budget that could be agreed upon and signed, then they would create such a budget: and you know that. But a passing budget is not in the GOP agenda; you know that too . . .

A huge pile of just such GOP house passed bills, sit in the "do not read" pile guarded closely by Harry Reid, to keep them from getting to the senate floor for a debate or vote. The demorats KNOW that many among them can't vote against them and still get re-elected so they just pretend that they do not exist, and pretend, as you do, that the GOP is the "real" problem, not the deficit or debt. The demorats want you to THINK that raising taxes would "fix" the problem but dare not actually put forth a tax increase bill because then ALL would know that it is a lie. We have a 40% federal defit, and the demorats biggest dream tax increase would cut that to a 38% federal defict and the game would be over, as they will NOT cut any spending, not even defense, even after they agreed to. The GOP is not much better, as far as cutting spending, but at least they admit that a tiny "tax the rich" game is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom