My homeland is in a world of hurt

Our executive branch of the federal government has failed us. Our legislative and judicial branches aren’t much better, though their added checks and balances make them less susceptible to corruption than our most popular branch of government, the one the POTUS oversees.

From my cursory vantage, here are some of the issues that concern me most, both from political and economical perspectives:

We spend more money than we make at the Federal government level. Last I heard we were $900* trillion in debt and rising faster than ever thanks to China’s willingness to loan us money from that trillion plus reserve they are sitting on. Nothing against China, but negative cash flows are just bad business. That makes me worry about my country’s future, not to mention my IRA.
We have overextended our defense resources. Can we pull out of Europe and Japan already? C’mon, this is ridiculous! Lets downsize this mug and focus our efforts stateside, at least for the time being.
Our federal government has ballooned into a bureaucratic monster lacking in efficiency. Guess who pays for such inefficiencies? We do with wasted tax dollars.
The Patriot Act and national ID card talk deprives citizens of privacy, privacy to do both good and bad. That privacy is sacred nonetheless. Lets ditch these policies built on inflated fear. Not reform. Ditch ’em!
I fear that the likely 2008 replacement president will do little if anything to change our depressing status quo. Here are my thoughts on the most popular candidates (subject to change at anytime): Clinton – I don’t want to talk about issues, Hilary, I want you to change them. I fear you’ll just talk during your tenure. Obama – I kinda like this dude, though I fear he might just pander to the public rather than change how we execute policy. I also fear he’ll keep the size of our government as big as it already is. Edwards – No thanks (yawn). Giuliani – I like this guy too, but I fear he’ll play up the terrorist card way too much largely leaving us where we stand today. McCain – Meh. Next. Romney – I respect your faith, my man (note: I’m Mormon), but you reek of insincerity and your ambiguous replies will get us nowhere.

So who do I like so far? A man who can’t win, Ron Paul. Here are some of the things he’d like to do; 1) Get rid of the IRS and income tax. Paul alleges that only one third of federal government revenues comes from income tax. I doubt that claim and appreciate that money doesn’t grow on trees to support our infrastructure. Still, I like the sound of getting rid of the IRS. Why not tax on sales instead of income, that way everybody freakin’ pays according to what they buy.

2) Paul wants to pull out our troops in Iraq and basically a majority of the world to cut mucho costs. Amen, brotha; 3) Paul is in favor of reducing government, letting people dictate their own lives as they see fit while the government protects the rights of citizens. Right up my alley. 4) Paul wants to get rid of the federal reserve to protect the dollar. Don’t ask me how, that’s just what he says. 5) He really favors the constitution, and I hear that’s a pretty good and inspired document to follow.

Basically, I think Paul has more gumption than most. A bit extreme, but I’m thinking that’s what is needed to really change 1/3 of our federal government. Not reform. Trimming the fat. And there is plenty we can trim before we start to reform.

From what I can tell, I can’t find any dirt on Paul. Can anyone tell me why Paul would not be a good president? Also, who was the biggest presidential underdog of all time to actual win a race? Paul’s got like, what, 2-5% of polling right now? It takes marketing to win a presidency. Paul has got Digg, and that’s about it. I’m betting he’ll become the next Dean… it’ll be a beautiful disaster.

So while I’d like to sweep the executive branch clean this next term, I don’t think we’ll be able to keep the bloated dross of candidates from coming back in. Clearly my futility does little to help. I guess I’m just a talker like Clinton 2.0…

So who should I vote for and why? And what issues have you most concerned?

* Thanks, Chris.

—August 14, 2007

20 Comments

Nicholas Roussos

Aug 14, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Sales taxes suck and aren’t fair at all. Think of it this way, if the only things you buy are those necessary essentials, it hits you hard to loose some of your buying power to taxes (that means less necessary essentials). However, I’m sure you could exempt certain items (food, toiletries, rent, etc.) but you probably see the slippery slope. Maybe you could provide exemptions for different income levels — I don’t know. I’m sure the federal sales tax would apply to computers — which would only further the digital divide.

Vote for Hillary. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of sexist peeps out there. Putting a women in the oval office would be a huge blow to that way of thinking. If that’s the only change that it initiates, it’s worth it (at least it is for the future of America’s daughters.)

Connor

Aug 14, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Why can’t Ron Paul win?

Blake

Aug 15, 2007 at 9:24 am

@nic

I think an economically and politically stable America will do more for the future of our daughters than a “statement president.” That said, if Hilary can convince me she’s the best person for the job, then I’ll vote for her. Same goes for Obama.

@Connor

I suppose he can, but on the surface it doesn’t look like he has the marketing (or money) to pull it off. Has anyone every been as far off the radar as Paul and yet still pulled the upset? If so, I’d probably donate to his campaign.

Mark Ormond

Aug 15, 2007 at 11:41 am

Blake,

One thing you need to remember is that policies like removing income tax or getting rid of the IRS are so far fetched that it would likely never happen. Its a nice thought, but in reality we need a president that knows what sort of policies he can implement while in office.

For that reason I don’t see Paul as being able to win because his ideas are nice to think about, but they are so radical that people on a large scale won’t buy into it.

Better start thinking to vote for someone new cause Paul ain’t going to win. That’s my prediction and I’m sticking to it.

Connor

Aug 15, 2007 at 11:49 am

Mark,

So instituting the income tax in 1913 was feasible, but removing it isn’t?

Granted, it’s much easier to let government become bloated and allow it to take its citizens money than it is to shrink its size and restrain its plunder. However, let’s not call it far-fetched, for if our country went 150 years without the tax, surely we can find ways to operate without it.

It’s a nice prediction you’ve made, and one that many people share, but the jury is still out. Regardless of the outcome, far more people have become aware of the illegality and un-Constitutionality of many government programs and policies. This, regardless of Paul’s success, will have a trickel effect on our national political movement and hopefully hold future politicians more accountable for their wayward actions.

One can only hope…

Jack

Aug 15, 2007 at 1:37 pm

How’s this for all kinds of crazy: I’d vote for Hillary Clinton for the simple fact that she’s a woman. Is she a bad candidate? Is she a good candidate? Irrelevant. She is a woman, and it is ridiculous that a woman has never been the president.

Even if she stinks as a president, she will open the door to more women becoming president in the future and therefore — combined with men — there will be more choices. More choices is good. There are hundreds of women out there today who would make a fine Madame President, as there are hundreds of men who would also be fine presidents.

We need to get with the times.

RussellPage

Aug 15, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Thoughts . . .
@ Mark – I have to agree with Connor on this one. Ron Paul’s ideas “appear far-fetched” because most Americans have no idea what the Constitution and the Founding Fathers saw for the Country. Wanna know? Take a look at Ron Paul’s platform.

Also, I think personally, I’ve decided “long-shot” shouldn’t matter when I’m voting. I will vote for whom I think will be the best U.S. President when the time comes to vote whether that’s the person who is most likely to win or the person who isn’t.

Blake

Aug 15, 2007 at 3:02 pm

“I’ve decided ‘long-shot’ shouldn’t matter when I’m voting. I will vote for whom I think will be the best U.S. President when the time comes to vote whether that’s the person who is most likely to win or the person who isn’t.”

I like that optimism, I really do. It’s just that I view my vote as an investment; where is it going to have the best ROI?

Paul’s business plan is dearly lacking in terms of its marketing reach making me doubt what kind of return I could get on it.

Connor

Aug 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Blake,

Your ROI depends entirely upon what you define as a valuable return…

Mark Ormond

Aug 15, 2007 at 5:39 pm

@Conner

Although I agree with you for the most part, I still think it would be near impossible to get it done. It is much easier for the government to institute a tax than to take one away. It’s like asking someone to take a pay decrease… it just doesn’t happen. The government certainly doesn’t want a pay decrease so they will do everything they can to keep any tax going for as long as they can.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for lowering our taxes. In fact, I’m all for no taxes at all.

I like Paul’s ideas as well, but I also know that the president alone cannot, in our society, remove taxes by himself. He needs government to sign off on it and it will never happen.

It’s our fault as a society that we let it get this bad, but reform comes in small doses, not giant leaps. Paul wants to take giant leaps, but what we need is a president that can push small doses of reform through.

Connor

Aug 16, 2007 at 9:53 am

“…but reform comes in small doses, not giant leaps. Paul wants to take giant leaps, but what we need is a president that can push small doses of reform through.”

Here’s where I take issue with your argument, Mark.

True political reform never comes in small doses. The train of government is barrelling down the tracks in one direction, and while we can try to apply the brakes or feed it a little less coal, it’s going to keep moving.

True political reform has always relied on revolutionary principles — ousting the current leaders, abolishing the government entirely, or lopping off programs or agencies in order to truly reform something.

“Small doses” is like giving chicken soup to somebody dying of AIDS. Sure, it might help things for a few minutes, but what are its long term effects? Zilch.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
—Samuel Adams

“If we look at the timeline of events that led up to the Revolutionary War and compare it to current day events, we will see a disturbing similarity. Must our present-day inaction, indifference, and silence in the face of tyranny cause us to march down the same dreaded path? Our wake-up call is so clear; why do we ignore it?”
—Jessi Winchester

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
—Margaret Mead

“These are the times in which a genius would wish to live. It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a pacific station, that great characters are formed. The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties. Great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the heart, then those qualities which would otherwise lay dormant, wake into life and form the character of the hero and the statesman.”
—Abigal Adams

“The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
—Thomas Jefferson

Mark Ormond

Aug 16, 2007 at 11:24 am

@ Conner

“True political reform has always relied on revolutionary principles — ousting the current leaders, abolishing the government entirely, or lopping off programs or agencies in order to truly reform something.”

I think you are mistaking reformist with extremist. True reform does come in small doses.

Think of the great religious reformist and look at what they did. Most of them never even saw the fruits of their labors. Look at Martin Luther King Jr. He never witnessed the impact that he would have on the world. True reform takes years to come about without using force. It takes a great leader that has influence to institute change.

People that want change “NOW” and that are willing to do anything to get it (including going to war) are called extremists.

People that are willing to “abolish the government entirely” as you put it, are the same people that want to start a civil war.

That is one way to reform, but it usually ends up in some form of war.

I for one believe that you can reach reform without being an extremist, but it takes time.

I negotiate for a living and I can tell you that people like you that take a hard stance on something, never get anything done. You keep the blinders on your position, but you can’t see that someone else may have a better solution than you do. That is why you will never get anything done without using force. That is what I would call an extremist. I’ve been to your website and I have no problems calling you an extremist. What I believe is that we don’t have to “abolish the government entirely” to reach reform.

Connor

Aug 16, 2007 at 11:35 am

“People that want change “NOW” and that are willing to do anything to get it (including going to war) are called extremists.”

Do you classify the Founding Fathers as extremists, then?

“People that are willing to “abolish the government entirely” as you put it, are the same people that want to start a civil war.”

And what of the Declaration of Independence?

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “

Yes, sometimes it leads to war. But some things, and most especially liberty, are worth dying for if necessary. So thought Patrick Henry…

“…people like you that take a hard stance on something, never get anything done.”

I get quite a bit done. I’m very productive. 🙂

“That is why you will never get anything done without using force.”

Have you listened to Ron Paul’s stance at all? He’s the only one up there on the stage that’s against the use of force! Everybody else wants to force morals and legislation on others, and he wants to set a humble yet strong example and use persuasion. Those who favor liberty are never in favor of using force.

“I’ve been to your website and I have no problems calling you an extremist.”

Well, good for you. One wonders what you would have thought of those in the founding generation of our country who, seeking liberty and willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it, were likewise labeled as extremists by some.

“What I believe is that we don’t have to “abolish the government entirely” to reach reform.”

Nobody, including myself, is advocating that. What supporters of Ron Paul are after is restoring the Constitution – the very framework of our government that has been ignored, sidestepped, and abused. Restoring the rule of law and demanding a strict adherence to our nation’s founding documents is quite the opposite of abolishing the government — it is simply restoring it.

Mark Ormond

Aug 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm

First of all you’re the one that said “abolish the government”. Now you’re trying to tell me that you didn’t. You might want to check your post.

Second, I said in one of my earlier posts that I agree with what Paul is saying. I like Paul and his ideas. I never said that I didn’t like Paul. Check my post.

Third, that is exactly why I called you an extremist because you can’t see anyones point of view but your own. You think that your way is the only way to reach a “right” solution.

What you need to do is learn how to inspire people and not tell people what they should think. If you really want people to side for you then you need become a leader and not a dictator.

Look at the Leaders of the Church. You don’t see them acting like you at all. They inspire change. They don’t force it. Christ inspires change. He doesn’t force it. Are you telling me your way is better than theirs.

You really aught to read “How to win friends and influence people”. It might help you in your fight to change people.

Connor

Aug 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

“First of all you’re the one that said “abolish the government”. Now you’re trying to tell me that you didn’t. You might want to check your post.”

Please note the “or”. I was simply describe how revolutionary principles are used to create reform. I was not advocated one over the other, but instead describing how they happen.

“You think that your way is the only way to reach a “right” solution.”

Not really. I think that the Constitution is the only way to reach a “right” solution. Inasmuch as my position is out of harmony with the Constitution then I welcome correction and feedback.

“If you really want people to side for you then you need become a leader and not a dictator. “

I’m not trying to be a leader, nor a dictator. I’m trying to simply illustrate why the Constitution and those who support it are the ones that we should be following. Don’t follow me–follow Ron Paul.

Am I forcing change? Am I saying that “my” way is better than anybody else’s? Not that I’m aware. If you feel that I’m “forcing” my opinion then I’m sorry, but I really don’t see how mere words constitute force. I’m not implying that I’m the source of all truth, I’m simply trying to point out why truth is necessary and from whence it can be obtained.

And you didn’t answer my questions regarding the Founding Fathers and extremism. I’m honestly curious as to how you perceive their bold political stances and quest for liberty.

Mark Ormond

Aug 16, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Connor, Connor, Connor,

I’ll amuse you this one last time. I have to put my foot down somewhere cause this could go on forever because I have accurately described you as being an extremist that doesn’t listen, but hey, no hard feelings.

The funny thing about you is that you seem to think that I have opinions that are so drastically different than yours. The truth is that my opinions are more in line with yours than you seem to think, but yet you want to attack everything that I say. That’s the funny thing about you extremists is that you can’t even see when someone is on your side. You just automatically think that someone with a slightly different opinion is against you. “The World Against Me” attitude.

As far as the constitution goes, it is a document with words on it. That means that it will have many different meanings to many different people. So I don’t understand how your meaning of those words is the right meaning. In fact, you may very well be out of line with what the original founding fathers meant. They may have even called you an extremist. How would anyone know?

But to answer your question that you so adamantly want me to answer…I haven’t even thought about it so I have no opinion on the matter. I bet that will ruffle your feathers.

Connor

Aug 16, 2007 at 3:22 pm

“I’ll amuse you this one last time.”

When was I ever amused? 🙂

“…this could go on forever because I have accurately described you as being an extremist that doesn’t listen, but hey, no hard feelings.”

In your eyes I’m an extremist. You go onto say that written words mean different things to different people, and that I might very well be out of line with what the FF meant. Could not this logic also be applied to your labeling me as extreme? Something to chew on…

“In fact, you may very well be out of line with what the original founding fathers meant.”

Let’s go to Jefferson for that one:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probably one in which it was passed.”

So, the key is to do a little reading and understand original intent. But that’s another can of worms…

“That’s the funny thing about you extremists is that you can’t even see when someone is on your side. You just automatically think that someone with a slightly different opinion is against you. “The World Against Me” attitude.”

How is “the world against me” different from “us versus them”? That’s the mentality you encourage when you paint somebody as an extremist in an attempt to classify their thoughts and paint them a certain way. “Us extremists” vary in so many degrees that we can’t be grouped together, just as Republicans, Democrats, or any other epithets used to classify somebody only go so far in being an accurate portrayal of that person’s stance and opinion.

“I bet that will ruffle your feathers.”

Meh.

P.S. Thank you for finally spelling my name correctly. 🙂

Chris

Aug 16, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Connor is pretty much the ma when it comes to this stuff.

BTW is it $900 trillion or $9 trillion? Given the fed budget is $2.5 tillion I find the $900 number hard to believe. Source?

Trent

Aug 17, 2007 at 11:57 pm

From reading around it seems like any mention of Ron Paul brings out the inner Digg circle. Did you smell blood Connor? If I ever need to get a hold of you guys I will make sure to just spam his name in my blog.

Dragon

Aug 28, 2007 at 1:39 am

“…The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing…” —October 1964. Reagan

“We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as his strength and ability will take him…. But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure.” —October 27, 1964. Reagan

It is time for a FairTax:
fairtax.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax

The reason things will be cheaper is because embedded taxes will disappear. Taxes will be on every -new- item sold as well as every service except tuition. The tax base will be broader and the country will grow faster. A lot of money parked in out-of-country banks in OFCs, amounting to around 11 trillion dollars will be repatriated. According to Alan Greenspan, that process would take only a few months. Read up on it. BTW, there’s also a book called “The Fair Tax Book” by John Linder and Neal Boortz. I suggest you get the latest version which has a few clarifications and replies to critics.

Blake Snow

writer-for-hire, content guy, bestselling author

My homeland is in a world of hurt

Featured stories

Some of my favorites

Published works