It would be if we weren't spending 54% of our federal tax dollars fighting two wars and maintaining the second largest military in the world with more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. After that maybe we could scale back on the 11% of federal spending that government bureaucracy gobbles up. Then we could lighten the tax load, so that more families could afford to have one income winner in the house. Which would drastically reduce social issues that lead to increased spending in the criminal justice system. This would free up even more money to start chipping away at the $ 13 trillion in national debt and the $110 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, which would let us spend money to bolster our education system, public services, research grants (including alternative energy sources) and finally some much needed infrastructure. Infrastructure that would include a nationwide rail system that will never pay for itself, but would be a great service for many Americans and allow me to sleep on my way to the office.
You're absolutely right. Neither Bush nor Kerry's people would allow them to debate Badnarik. Hell, Bush can barely debate one opponent anyway. But shouldn't this fact bother us a little bit?
As for the argument of "There's no real difference between the parties" I'm sick and tired of hearing it.
I would say the policies or "plans" you'll find at http://badnarik.org/plans.phpMichael Badnarik's website are huge policy differences from those posted on georgebush.com and johnkerry.com. (or many other third party sites) That said, I agree with you. There are large differences between Bush and Kerry's platform, but those radically polarized differences have emerged under George "Dubya" Bush's administration. "There's no real difference between the parties" is leftover campaign rhetoric from the elections in 2000. Campaign rhetoric uttered by a growing number of people disenchanted with the direction that Republicans and Democrats have been taking this country. While they may be voicing it in the wrong way, their sentiment is noteworthy.
Historically third parties have been the catalyst for change in American goverment. Often in the form of the two major parties adopting popular third party ideas. It's definitely time for a change, but I'm not so sure that Kerry is enough of a change.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be if we weren't spending 54% of our federal tax dollars fighting two wars and maintaining the second largest military in the world with more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. After that maybe we could scale back on the 11% of federal spending that government bureaucracy gobbles up. Then we could lighten the tax load, so that more families could afford to have one income winner in the house. Which would drastically reduce social issues that lead to increased spending in the criminal justice system. This would free up even more money to start chipping away at the $ 13 trillion in national debt and the $110 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, which would let us spend money to bolster our education system, public services, research grants (including alternative energy sources) and finally some much needed infrastructure. Infrastructure that would include a nationwide rail system that will never pay for itself, but would be a great service for many Americans and allow me to sleep on my way to the office.
You're absolutely right. Neither Bush nor Kerry's people would allow them to debate Badnarik. Hell, Bush can barely debate one opponent anyway. But shouldn't this fact bother us a little bit?
As for the argument of "There's no real difference between the parties" I'm sick and tired of hearing it. I would say the policies or "plans" you'll find at http://badnarik.org/plans.phpMichael Badnarik's website are huge policy differences from those posted on georgebush.com and johnkerry.com. (or many other third party sites) That said, I agree with you. There are large differences between Bush and Kerry's platform, but those radically polarized differences have emerged under George "Dubya" Bush's administration. "There's no real difference between the parties" is leftover campaign rhetoric from the elections in 2000. Campaign rhetoric uttered by a growing number of people disenchanted with the direction that Republicans and Democrats have been taking this country. While they may be voicing it in the wrong way, their sentiment is noteworthy. Historically third parties have been the catalyst for change in American goverment. Often in the form of the two major parties adopting popular third party ideas. It's definitely time for a change, but I'm not so sure that Kerry is enough of a change.