Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Show that we’re tired of Big Government

Letter by L. H. Smith, University Place on Aug. 9, 2012 at 3:47 pm with 48 Comments »
August 9, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: “Consider third-party candidates” (letter, 8-9).

The writer is spot on concerning the 2012 presidential election. He correctly points out that we really have no real choice in the “Rombama” candidates running for our country’s highest office. Once again we are faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils.

The Big Government Party (that is, the Democrats and Republicans) has led our nation to the brink of financial collapse by involving our country in building an unsustainable military empire, engaging in wars with no clear plan for victory, and wasteful spending on enslaving our citizens with “entitlements.”

In this coming election, voters should vote for the candidates who clearly reflect their values. If that means using the write-in feature of the ballot, then do it. Let’s send a message to the same old tired politicians that we are no longer going to vote for the same old thing. Let’s show government we’ve had enough of the Big Government Party’s business as usual.

Leave a comment Comments → 48
  1. SwordofPerseus says:

    While this might sound like good advice it is the wrong approach. We cannot change the system from the top down. We must change the system from the bottom up. We need to start at the local Democratic and Republican caucuses. Build platforms and candidates based on local grass roots needs and ideas. This way we can establish a strong delegation at the local level which in turn could bring about change at the national conventions for both parties. Neither the R’s or the D’s represent the common American anymore. It is time for real change. Although the write in vote is probably very self satisfying it is a short term losing approach to a very long term problem. It will take years to change this system, it has taken years to get to its current dysfunctional state. Go to your local caucuses next year and make yourself and your ideas heard.

    I have listed below a link to the Democratic and Republican parties headquarters in WA. Let’s change this for the better.

    http://www.wa-democrats.org/content/become-pco

    http://www.wsrp.org/party-staff

  2. Republicans in office will be business as usual also: huge tax breaks for the rich and oil companies, that’s what we have too look forward to? De-ja-vu, any party/politicians have any NEW and better ideas for America? Tired of dancing to the same music from BOTH parties.

  3. Frankenchrist says:

    Romney’s economic plan is identical to George W. Bush’s: tax cuts for the wealthy, massively increase the size of government, and make the middle-class pay for it all.

  4. aislander says:

    For once, I agree with SoP: third parties never succeed in our system (no, the Republicans were never a third party).

    The thing to do is to become involved with one of the major parties and move THAT–to the degree possible–in the direction you prefer by supporting those candidates who most closely embrace your point of view. Or become a candidate yourself. After all, primaries are easier to win than general elections.

    Now the question becomes, for all you libertarians out there: which party to embrace…

  5. In this election – voting for a third party = voting for the GOP!

    During both the 2008 and 2010 GOP money back Green Party candidates in several, close elections.

    Now we are being bombarded with pleas to ‘vote for a third party’.

    IMO – this is another Republican dirty trick to swing the election.

  6. LeePHill says:

    Voting Republican again, Smitty?

  7. RegisteringFool says:

    xring The dirty trick is being played by the puppeteers that manage the Democrats and the Republicans. You are one of their puppets. Yes, you.

    They want us to think we have a choice. We don’t. Not as to the stuff that will make any difference.

    We have to listen ad nauseam to twaddle about school records, tax records, flip-flops, broken promises and the cost of horses and party dresses.

    Meanwhile we will not hear about an exit strategy from the Middle East. We will not hear where the finish line is in the War on Drugs. We will not get a chance to see how the Federal Reserve really works.

    And we will not get to hear or see any of that because the puppeteers want us to stay in the dark.

    Who are those puppeteers? Ask George Soros and Charles Koch.

  8. RegisteringFool says:

    SoP – I wish you were right. I wish there were a way to make a change merely by ratcheting up my (our) participation. However, after 30 years of activism at several levels of the system, after watching public interest in politics to near zero, and after watching the dirty tricks that have occurred (and are still occurring) within the Republican presidential race, I have very grave doubts whether the current system can be fixed from within. There are too many entrenched special interests, from the teacher’s unions to the military-industrial complex, from the home-health-care industry to blooming homeland-security industry.

    What’s the solution? Demand meaningful choices. Demand that the Presidential Debate Commission open up the field. Demand that the mainstream media stop saying “but he can’t win” about every candidate whose ideas are off the beaten path. Demand that the single member plurality district be abandoned in favor of multiple member districts.

  9. bobcat1a says:

    We will never end the two party duopoly until money is removed from election process and Americans learn to use their minds to make wise choices. Since neither proposition is likely, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils. Ask yourself which of the two parties is working hardest to remove money from its primacy, and you will see it’s the Democrats (which party supported Citizens United and which opposed it?). As long as big money is the route to victory, any party would be insane to abjure it. Unilateral disarmament is suicide.
    How to solve American’s intellectual laziness is a bigger problem. Forrest Gump said it best, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

  10. RFool – the other dirty trick is to make the weak minded think they can make a difference by voting for a third party.

    Bobcat – militarily we need to revamp our military to focus on the types of warfare we will most likely face in the coming years and not hang on and expand the types of weapons we developed during the cold war.

  11. SwordofPerseus says:

    ‘slander – has to finally agree with me! oh joy. Then proceeds to parrot my points, thanks for that moment of détente.

    Reg – I hope I am too, the alternative I fear is open revolt. As this income inequality spreads from a gap in the late ’70’s to the gaping chasm we face today this is a prescription for violent reaction and worse. If something doesn’t give in the next few years (say 2016/18) I say the SWHTF. By demand I assume you don’t mean like what we saw with the occupy movement. You see how well peaceful demands were received. I say we have a national day of demands and I mean everyone go into the streets and cause a little panic at the top, let them know “We The People” are still alive and kicking. And then fire every last member of congress up for re-election in November.

    I find myself posting these same three ideas for the cure of our political ills.

    1. End the Federal Reserve Charter.
    2. Amend the Constitution to allow federal funding and only federal funding of all elections, limited to $0.25/per human constituent. That would be the total sum to be divided equally among the candidates. Also amend to define a person as a living breathing human born of a mother and father.
    3. Re-instate Glass-Steagall and repeal GATT, NAFTA, and the Gramm, Leach, Bliley act.

    You would hear cries of foul from the Bankers and the defense contractors, tuff s%#t. We need a leader unlike any we have ever had. Not holding my breath until one shows up either.

  12. As long as people are dumb enough to make choices based on political talking points, it is hopeless. The commenters here talk about the rich like they are evil. That is President Jugears’ rhetoric designed to keep the masses from paying attention to his pandering to the very rich for contributions, which are paid back with special deals with tax money.

    As long as people blame successful people for being successful, we cannot change our situation. Poor people never provide jobs or charity – that is what wealthy people do. All taxes are paid by the people – corporation taxes are included in the price of the product. Corporations never pay taxes so any taxes imposed on corporations are essentially people voting to tax themselves.

    As far as what the letter writer said, I agree because until the economy is allowed to break down and repair itself, we will not move from where we are. Until the risks are allowed to be balanced out, we are stuck with a capital strike a la Atlas Shrugged.

    We have to allow the economy to reset itself. The longer the government prevents this, the more painful it will be when it finally happens. The only people who favor maintaining the status quo are people who already have their wealth and who could not keep it if the risk was priced back into the system. So they have no incentive to change – more importantly they have lots of incentive to prevent anybody from even trying to change.

    Those in power must be deposed because they will not go voluntarily.

  13. RegisteringFool says:

    SoP – You are right that my “demands” were not of the Occupy variety, but rather more of the consumer variety. But that would require a major increase in public consciousness, which is, sad to say, not very likely.

    I’m rather ambivalent about public funding of elections and would prefer to change the election system itself. The single member plurality election district is responsible for the two party system and I have no doubt we would all be better off if the Ds and Rs had some real competition instead of token opposition. As much as I dislike the Top Two system it may well turn out to be preferable in the long run, because it is a majority system, not a plurality system.

  14. Vote for Status Quo!

    BOTH Parties are responsible for this mess – make sure they stay in power because that will surely fix things!

    “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
    Albert Einstein

  15. alindasue says:

    Well said, beerBoy.

    The key is for EVERYONE to vote for the candidates that each person feels most qualified for the job regardless of any party affiliation. If everyone voted according to his or her conscience rather than the candidate he or she thinks will win, perhaps we wouldn’t be locked into such a two-party system.

  16. RegisteringFool says:

    bB – I am interested in your take on what will happen at the Republican National Convention, and the Paul Festival that will precede it.

  17. From what I have read it seems that, for the true believers, Rand is seen – at best – as a poor imitation of his father – at worst – an apostate to the cause. Rand having a speaking slot is not likely to sate them.

    From the site whatreallyhappened.com, I see that there is a very strong anti-Mitt feeling that has not dissipated. I don’t see those very passionate and vocal folks suddenly toeing the Party line – even if Ron gets a speaking slot.

    These folks are pretty convinced that the reason their guy lost the nomination is due to a conspiracy by the Party regulars. Unless RP pleas with them to support Romney (and even if) it is likely that they will either sit out the election or peal off to vote Libertarian.

  18. Ring the bell,
    Close the book,
    Snuff out the candle,
    ErnestTBass is a right-wing troll.

  19. SwordofPerseus, I’ve got to agree with you. I would only change “human constituent” to ‘living, human, US citizen’. Two good posts!

  20. I believe that a good portion of the electorate are fiscal conservatives and social libertarians or liberals. I identify with that philosophy and Lord knows no one in political office represents my beliefs. Probably the closest either party has ever come was the Republican party of the 1960s and 70’s; now derisively referred to as “Country Club Republicans” by the bible thumpers who have overrun that party.

  21. sandblower says:

    dtacoma, I basically agree with you, but there is only one party that will continue to fight for women’s rights, the environment including combating global warming, a just and fair tax system, public education, universal health care and the other things that make up and promote a just and free society.

  22. RegisteringFool says:

    bB – I think the Daily Paul is pretty reliable when it comes to the reporting the pulse of the “liberty movement”. Here is the link: http://www.dailypaul.com/

    Last night Judge Andrew Napolitano asked bloggers on Gretawire http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/open-thread/judge-napolitanos-question-for-you-watch-answer/ what they intend to do if/when Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination. You need to see for yourself what the majority of answers are. It doesn’t much confidence, I have to say.

  23. arttheshark says:

    Right on! All you have to do is look at where the “Republicrats” get their money. Both sides get most of it from Wall Street. It’s called hedging and is a common practice among the big donors. By giving to both sides they are assured of having leverage no matter which one gets elected so they really don’t care who wins.

  24. A “fair” tax system? Most progressive in the world.

    http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

    Darn facts getting in the way again. You need a NYT link to back it up?

    Just and free society, the hallmarks of America. Now you want to follow Europe? Have you learned nothing from the centralized, dependent govt systems of the past?

    Before you whine about the macro, address our real tax inequality.

  25. bobcat1a says:

    xring, I agree totally. We could spend half as much on our military and have a more effective modern force but we never will as long as big business lives on government welfare, i.e. huge contracts to build stuff we don’t need.

  26. sandblower says:

    The article for which you provided the link is inconclusive from what I read.
    I’ll take Prof. Krugman’s analysis first anyway. He is the one with the credentials afterall. The others are simply commentators.
    CT7, you need to broaden your world. Europe’s democracys provide many positives from which we can learn.

  27. RegisteringFool says:

    SB

    1. Joseph Goebbels had credentials too.
    2. Whatever Europe’s positives may be there is one overwhelming negative – it’s nearly bankrupt.

  28. SB, we are either the most progressive or number two. Krugman has embarrassed himself with his partisan support of BHO. He is writing to fit a political ideal, not economics.

    Either way, be a man and admit you were sold on some bad rhetoric. Don’t deflect or make excuses. Rise above it. Be better.

  29. SwordofPerseus says:

    Sovereign nations do not go bankrupt, they simply print more money or discharge the debt. If a central bank is in control of the money supply well that is a different matter. Where central banks are involved the actual sovereignty of a nation can be questionable.

  30. SwordofPerseus says:

    conc only you could be deluded enough to believe that the tax structure in America is “progressive” and to further say that Paul Krugman has embarrassed himself just shows how little you understand economics. You might want to quote someone of note or intellect to support you positions in the future. Not that you will find a reputable source to back your thoughts. However to quote Clive Crook (yes crook that’s the guys name) from an obscure blog like the Atlantic Mobil does not help you back your claims.

  31. From the magazine the “The Atlantic”? Not exactly obscure.

    Argue the point with facts. The rich in the US do pay the highest income % in taxes. Fact. The amount paid by the rich in America is higher, as % of govt revenue, then other western nations. Fact.

    How can you argue this when 50% of the US pays nothing? Because of that clown Buffett? He ha been debunked time and again.

    You are a waste. You will spread the same rhetoric and lies even though you know it is BS. Says a great deal about your character.

  32. sandblower says:

    CT7 and your advanced degree in economics is from where? There is an article that lists 6 or 7 people in the top 400 who paid no income tax at all. There may be more. They pay more in taxes because they earn a disproportionate amount of income. The rates for the top earners need to be adjusted upward and the loopholes removed.
    The bottom 50% pay nothing because they are virtually at the poverty line. The way you use that as an example must mean you don’t care that 50% of the population is in or near poverty.

  33. aislander says:

    “… 50% of the population is in or near poverty.”

    You mean the trillions we have spent to fight poverty haven’t worked?

    THERE’S some programs we can get rid of!

  34. aislander says:

    …and half the population of “taxpayers” pays nothing because George Bush and Congress raised the threshold of taxable income. That threshold is, therefore, an arbitrary number and says NOTHING about poverty in America.

  35. SwordofPerseus says:

    CT7 – As I have noted in your case before you never let facts get in the way of your unsubstantiated opinions. To argue a point with facts in your case is senseless, so I refrain.

    Plain and simple you have no clue what you are talking about.

    ‘slander you seem to also be fixated with the false assumption that the poor pay no taxes, which as anyone who actually understands economics knows is a complete falsehood. aka BS. Also to state that the poverty line is some arbitrary number which says nothing about poverty in America is a complete lie as you know.

  36. sandblower says:

    Hey islander, try living on the income specified for the poverty level depending on your family size. You will love it I am sure since you seem to believe it is adequate.

  37. aislander says:

    Not talking about the poverty level, only the threshold where taxation begins. Read for comprehension, lefties…

    By the way, those who pay federal income tax (read that as those who provide the cart that all the takers ride in) ALSO pay all those other taxes you’re whining about…

  38. SwordofPerseus says:

    ‘slander-I was once at a rally for Amway, the guy on stage was bragging about paying 3 million in income tax on the previous year. He couldn’t wait for this year because he was estimating his taxes to be around 5 million. He was glad, know why? ‘Cause he was pocketing about 12 million! I would love to have to pay 5 million a year in income tax!

    ps. the only one I hear whining is you and CT7.

  39. sandblower says:

    Ok, try living at the income threshold just below which taxation begins. And then get a life. You can call it whatever you wish. Try that for comprehension!

  40. aislander says:

    SodoffPerseus: I have heard happiness defined as earning a dollar more than you spend. Oh–and not envying others.

    You should try both…

  41. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “Not talking about the poverty level, only the threshold where taxation begins.”

    The threshold where taxation begins for an average family of four is $27,370. That’s adding standard deduction for a married couple, four exemptions, and earned income credit.
    (source: irs.gov form 1040 instructions)

    The poverty level for the same family of four is $23,050 in the contiguous states, $26,510 in Hawaii, and $28,820 in Alaska.
    http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml/#guidelines

    Make of it what you will – but, as you can see, the threshold where taxation begins and the poverty threshold are pretty darn close to each other.

  42. SB, you thought you beat data by attacking the source. Weak. Fail.

  43. Alindasue- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.jpg

    The number has nothing to do with poverty. 50% pay nothing. Blame a broken tax code that enables people of all incomes to pay nothing.

    Ryan and Romney, with a conservative house and senate will fix this. BHO wasted his majority and faced a huge backlash. Shame on him and his party.

    Romney 2012!

  44. aislander says:

    See, alindasue, the poverty level does not take into consideration all the programs designed to mitigate poverty. That means you can keep beating the same horse no matter HOW much of other people’s money is spent on it…

  45. averageJose says:

    Obama’s brother seems to be content living on alot less than 27k a year. Come to think of it… Obama seems to be content with his brother living on less than 27k a year… Kooky.

  46. sandblower says:

    So ct7, you are saying that a significant number or people who are not in the poverty category pay no taxes and that they are the ones on whom we should be concentrating? I could not agree more. It is not the people as individuals, but rather the tax code. I would have to see that the code is unfair in all respects before I could make a generalized comment as you have done, I think.
    So tell us what it is that you actually mean.

  47. test

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0