I was under the impression that everyone wanted the government to work for them...not in spite of them. Idealistic I know..but still. 

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to keep them from putting you in jail. :P

That's it exactly, it would be funny ...if it wasn't sad.

Again idealistic, but I would think a demonstration or accounting of the frugal and proper expenditure of taxpayer money would alleviate much of the complaints from taxpayers and probably make people amenable.  The only area that I could see being exempt would be the Military/Intelligence agencies.

I would love to be able to see that my local courthouse spent $180 on a pizza party for a judge's son's birthday, or that there was $5,000 spent on "morale improvements" at 2AM etc...

Obama has stated something like this back in the primaries but I haven't heard anything from him on it since then.  That and the earmark veto were the reasons I singled both McCain and Obama out in the primaries as the two I wanted to win the primaries..and iirc I did so back in '07 for both (never ever ever thought either would be nominated, just picked them as a preference in their given race).  Of course I've seen and heard a lot since then that has me voting for McCain but I absolutely loved that he supported the idea.

@steven - MY statements are not true? I've witnessed it. What do the democrats promote? Higher minimum wage, more assistance programs for the poor, more grants for urban development. Where does this money come from state by state? The taxpayers, the working class.

Social Security is the biggest hoax in the world. Do you know any retired people? I do, prior to and including my parents. Check this out - If you and your wife are retired, only ONE of you are allowed to receive SS, not both, even though you both paid your SS dues throughout your life. On top of that, SS checks are a pittance of what it costs to survive. Most people only get $1,000 to $1,500 per MONTH. That's roughly $250 - $375 per week. That's like working a full time job at MCDonalds. If it wasn't for my mother's retirement pension , my parents would be struggling. Not every senior citizen out there is that fortunate.

So much for me "not telling the truth". There's more to these things than what you learned in college.

----

Rubang - Sure, I have my views on things. I know that no matter WHO is in office, they're not going to change anything. Politicians are no different than door-to -door salesmen. They'll sell their souls to get through that front door, but once they're in, the game they pitch changes.

A few points, regardless of WHO is in office:
1 - The environment will continue to get worse
2 - The US presence in Iraq will last through the first term of the new present
3 - The economy will recover
4 - Fuel sources will not change outright
5 - Health care will continue to suck for anyone without private coverage

That said, are there other issues to be concerned with?

My logic is simple. This form of government has failed. The founding fathers of the United States never intended for this level of corruption. They couldn't have possibly foreseen it. It is time to tear the entire American gov't to the ground and rebuild a new one off of the philosophy of the Bill of Rights. As long as the current government exists, it will continue to fail the citizens of America and the world.

Again, with stuff that isn't true. 

First, taxes.  Through the '94 senate on, the separation between rich and poor in the US has been shocking.  Middle income workers make less now (w/inflation) than they did in 2000.  By lowering corporate taxes and tightening the graduated system, the republicans have put the burden of paying for oil wars on the middle class instead of on the stock holders.  I'm very sorry, but my practical Democrat and my ideologic day dreamer sides agree. 

If we're going to have income taxes, which I would prefer that there weren't, higher taxes should be on dividends, inheretence, commodities profits, etc. and not off the sweat and blood of the workers.

Next, money is all imaginary, it has no real value.  It's a piece of paper backed by a politcal science theory (government).  I don't think it should be this way, but that is the way it is.  The government prints as much as it needs, creating a deficit and devaluing your money.

Deficit spending is important, it's the shock absorber on economic cycles.  The problem is that it is out of hand.  Either spending has to go down significantly (which it can't as I described above - mob mentality and all... all the bridges to nowhere and pizza parties add up to very little compared to Defense and Social spending) or you have to raise taxes.

Second, it's true, that couples get one check, but it accounts for both spouses.  Of course SS doesn't pay for everything - it's not supposed to.

Remember why we have retirement and SS, in the Great Depression they needed it for two reasons: (1) to get rid of workers to open up positions and (2) because older workers were the first to get cut and had the lowest prospects for finding new work.  Senior poverty was out of hand.  Old people dying in the streets is depressing, so they had to do something to get them out of view.  People didn't retire, they used to work till they dropped.  The poor were never expected to save for retirement, modern medicine made it so we would live longer than our bodies would be useful.

Also, your parents will probably get more money out of SS than they put in.  20 years at 1500k/month is 360k dollars.  25 years at 1500k/month is 450k dollars.  If you make 100k per year and work for 45 years you will put in 1.45% or $65,250, with your employer's contribution that will be $130,500.  That would be $276,585.84 to $365,544.70 with interest compounded biannually minus taxes.

(Edit: this also doesn't include food stamps, medicaid, local and state medical assistance, etc.)

It just is what it is.

How can you say that what I said isn't true when you failed to provide evidence otherwise? All you did was state how the republicans give corporate tax breaks and assume via some grand ideal that the end result of the cancellation puts money into the pockets of the working class. Of course things have gone downhill since 2000, 9/11 wasn't exactly a prosperous time period and put many companies out of business. Not to mention the backend of the docom crash starting to have a shockwave effect.

Im not saying republicans are much better at managing money, they aren't, sans for Michael Bloomberg, who I direly wish was running as an Independent in this election. What I'm saying is that instead of taxes getting easier for the middle class, a return to a democratic leader with a democrat-run congress is going to allow a lot of "pro-poor" plans to go through, which always results in an increase in taxes. There is absolutely no denying this. If you wish to take a look back in time to the tax differentials from 92 when Clinton first came into office and 96 when his 2nd term around came, you'll see quite a difference in the amount of taxation levied on income. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have had 8 more years of Bill than ever having a Bush in office again from a foreign policy standpoint. The biggest problem is this - too many people are looking to Obama to be their savior. Its like running from Hitler to be taken in by Mussolini. People are extremely misguided in thinking that anything is going to improve for the working class.

Next time you decide to question my statements, come with something more than beating around the bush. No pun intended.

Edit - I forgot to add something to your part on SS -  SS is collected at 62 years of age. Ive known 2 people in my life that lived past 80, the others not making your projected 20 year point. You also failed to factor in that 2 people are working, so the amount of money put in doubles.

I explained where the money comes from. But I'll list it to make it easier to read.

1. Raising taxes on the wealthy ( I don't like it but it needs to be done.)
2. Raise taxes on non-wage income.

Meaning most taxpayers will see a decrease in the amount that they pay.

I didn't say that it would make life better, just: "Lower taxes for most taxpayers." Which I provided links to non-partisan analysts who explained it.

Minimum wage isn't a government cost. (Lie 1)
Working Class paying most of the bill (lie 2) Obama's plan shifts it to a top heavy revenue stream (again, not something to be proud of)
One SS (lie 3) 1 check, yes but based off of both contributions.
Working full time at McDonalds (lie 4) Minimum Wage is $6.55, McDonalds mode pay is ~$7,
(6.55*40)*.88 (taxes, fica, etc.) = 230.56
(7*40)*.88 = 246.40

People always complain about having to pay for the poor, but what is the alternative? If people in a society do not have their basic needs met, they can become unruly and even violent.

In my city, for instance, crime rose significantly during the summer because of the economy. And this was on top of the normal rise of crime that happens during the summer. I frequented the courthouse for my job, and the head DA's secretary was shocked at how many people were being booked in.

So here are your options, spend some money to keep the poor from revolting (happens in China more often than the government would like to admit), or live in a less safe society where you have to pay police more to protect other citizens from all these suppressed poor people.

And, for better or worse, we sometimes have to give welfare to families if they have children and those children's needs aren't being met. Do we just let the children starve? I am not saying the parents should be able to have kids if they are poor (we should have court-ordered vasectomies!), but you can't just let a kid suffer for their parents mistake. Ironically, pro-life people rarely take this stance. They care about a kid before his born, but fuck him once he's here.

The children are far more likely to turn into a criminal too if they are excessively poor, which ends up costing society both money and safety in the long run. It is expensive to prosecute criminals and to arrest them.

Its easy to badmouth the government for taking care of the poor too much, but would you really want the alternative? I would rather spend a little bit more to live in a safe country. And people also drastically overestimate how much welfare, CHIP, and foodstamp programs actually cost us and how difficult they are to get on.

double post

In all fairness, the "Bush Doctrine" has had more than one definition since it was created.

Also, it's a media term, not an official doctrine. It's not that ridiculous that she doesn't know the term. I've only heard it used a few times over the years.