Max, what you say is true...if Obama gets the job, look out, your taxes will go thru the roof. The defficit will increase because they will increase spending on everything from supporting illegal immigrants to increasing subsidies for ethanol.

If Mcain gets in, yes, the deficit will probably increase also because he will probably extend the Bush tax cuts, fully fund our military and maybe push a few other items that will not put a burden on the tax payer. Problem is, unless the people also change the mix we have in congress now, things won't change as easily because the DEMS are in control.

So where is the real risk???
Electing Obama is the real threat.

We The People need to push for term limits of 2 terms max for the house and senate as well as POTUS. That is the only way to prevent the partisan [PoorWordUsage] we have come to enjoy no matter who is in the white house. IMO...BOTH parties are more worried about staying in power and keeping themselves up on the pedastal they have so smoothly managed to put themselves on than they are worried about governing our country in a manner that allows each of us as individuals to be successful and prosperous as well as a nation that is strong and growing. We seem to be going backwards in both categories lately and its all because both parties seem to think their positions as politicians makes them royalty when in fact they are supposed to be public servants.

I'll second that motion. Our biggest problem in politics today is there is really only 2 parties to choose from and they spent all their time and effort fighting each other rather than fighting for us. And yes after a while in office instead of public servant they start to view themselves as a ruling class. 2 terms and you are out of office would help, after that they seem to lose touch with reality.

Yep, look at old Teddy K. How does he keep getting elected. I think it's out of hand with just two parties. I like more money in my pocket (rep) but I see a lot of social views (not all as some are corrupt and need reform) as valid (Dems). I wish there was a valid third party that could honer both of these values and find a nice medium. I think that's what this country really needs. No matter the party, it's bad to have them in total control.

I'm all for the 2 term also.

Jump on board to the ''croixflats agend''a we'll fix it all

I would be for no parties. Where do the candidates stand on the specific issues? The somewhat one-size fits all platform that you get with any party doesn't make sense. What works for Minnesotans might not work for Floridians or Hawiians or Nebraskans, etc. I would want a candidate that votes the way their constituents would want them to or vote the way they think would best benefit their respective jurrisdiction (country, state, county, city, etc.) A candidate that didn't just vote the party line would be a great politician. That is why, IMO, it would be best to have no party. Voters would have to be better educated on each candidates platform/values/beliefs etc. but that would probably make for better governmentt, IMO.

The problem is that it has been this way for so long it would take a huge shakeup to change things. And the worst is we keep voting the same ones in time after time.

Yep, it will take a big shake up. Dont forget we live in the land of the "want". And no political party has figured out how to pay for these "wants" in a fair way.
Maybe we all could rely less on the government(the people) to pay for things like stadiums, golf courses and bridges to know where and toilet seats that cost $500 and million dollar bicycle bridges.

Strange things is we have $$$ for that and non for infrastructure, the maintenance of it

Having no parties at all is a pipe dream. Parties are like unions, they are made up of many individuals each with their own preferences and yet they get together to work out a platform that fits for the majority of the party, somewhere in the middle of their varied views. That's why we have primaries. When it comes time to decide which candidate the party or group will endorse (put their money behind) it can be difficult to find that one individual. Consider this year's race. It started out with many different persons interested in representing their party and the primaries are used to narrow the field to one. All parties go through the process but not all hold primary elections. In the end they hope they get the best person to represent the majority of the interests of their party members and that person will attempt to win the general election.

Why two parties? It's not because of the parties that we have two, it's because that's the way we the people vote. If we the people truly want more than the two major parties we have to vote accordingly. It has been done and it has been successful. The truth is, most of us (the people) are too uncaring and unwilling to get educated enough to make a choice based on the merits of the candidates.

Forget about the garbage that we can't get educated. We can if we really want to but we rarely take the time or put in the effort to do so. We wait until we are standing in that voting booth and then we make our choice without knowing much at all about any of the candidates much less those that represent parties with less financial support.

Party financial support comes from the party members and all those that contribute. You want to give a third, forth, or fifth party more opportunity? Put you money where your mouth is and give them your support. The two major parties have learned and done a great job of fund raising and it shows. The one time in recent history when a third party made a competitive stand for the presidency was when their major candidate financed most of it himself. I'm referring to Ross Perot. Had he been backed by even a small number of other supporters, who knows where he could've ended up.

Bob

If you like the conservative fiscal agenda, but a more liberal social agenda the liberatarian party might fit well. Lets have the gov't stay out of our business on both fronts while maintaining our traditional value system without amending the constitution. IMO what someone does in the privacy of their own home or private club is there business. Bigger gov't equals more taxes and more regulations fiscally and socially. God help us if Obama gets the job.

It does'nt help matters when our media scources mainly cover the two parties and then they pick a particular cannidate to follow. Obama would not be where he is now with out the coverage he has gotten. And look at Ron Paul and the coverage he didnt get. Jees,I'm not even sure if he is still in.
Like BobT says its the fault of the voters, not all, Its the lazy ones that jump on a band wagon and follow the crowd and they trust that crowd not drive the wagon off the cliff.

Now if the Libertarian party would the get same attention from the media we would be looking at a whole differant game. And These debates should include more parties at the table.

Bob Bar deserves a fair amount of coverage as the other two. I know I'm looking at what he has to say

The republicans and democrates want a two party system 50% chance is better Than 33% or 25%. And its easier two cover two parties on the media stand point

I agree accept that we must remember that the media is private enterprise and not owned and operated by the government. Therefore they are free to report the stories they wish to report and as unfortunate as it is, they will report what makes news and sells air time. What's even worse, and this is where I have trouble with the media, is that they are so gung-ho about being first with a story that they'll risk printing or airing inaccurate information for the sake of being first. There is a lack of integrity and honor in the media and it sways public opinion.

A lot of what we see is party purchased as well and when a party fails to do a good job of raising money, they can't afford to buy the air time. Case in point as I already mentioned was Ross Perot using his financial backing to get significant air time. What third party has managed to to as well since? They need to work at raising more funds if they wish to compete. Isn't that part of it? Being able to show us the voter that you can compete not only in the campaign but in the world? Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen so-to-speak? I don't think politics is the place for mercy rules.

Bob

I think the real problem is that neither party's platform is consistent with what 80-90% of the population think. The two major parties are far to the right of what most opinion polls are showing. Neither of them will give the country what the people want. The two major parties are beholden to corporate wealth concentration.

Not sure of term limits would work, or if something more drastic like the abolition of the corporation as a legal entity.

been spending time with family and friends the last few days so I just got caught up.

Chode2235, I was going to go back to our exchange on SS but your comment above just blew me away. What do you propose instead of corporations? Your actually starting to scare me a little bit and I am almost afraid to hear your answer.