Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
No need for sarcasm. I'm simply saying you can't conclude "the bailouts have proven to have failed" just as someone can't conclude "they surely succeeded". The argument is mostly in the thoeretical domain so it is disengenuous to speak on such issues as if they are a matter of fact and that you know the truth while those who disagree with you are ignorant or dishonest.
Going by Obama's own words it was a failure. Remember when he said that passing it would keep unemployment below 8%? Yea, we havent even seen below 9% yet and have been close to 10%. Georgia is still above 10% and rising.

Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
I'm noticing the same pattern in almost all the arguments on this forum. Take the OWS protestors. The detractors on here won't even recognize that the protesters have even the slightest hint of a legitimate greivance. So much energy is poured into discredting their motives and perceived demands (there aren't any official demands) and absolutely no energy is put into identifying areas where we might actually be able to improve our financial and political system.
I posted a list of greivences already. Remember the one that says all people should make a living wage, whether they work or not?

As far as getting the money out of politics, I agree 100%. I am a firm believer in 100% govt financed federal elections. I would even agree to an additional 1% tax on ALL forms of income to pay for it. The breakdown I would like would be simple. 47.5% goes to the RNC, 47.5% goes to the DNC, and 5% goes to independent candidates. Incumbent independents would get their money from the side of the aisle they caucus with.

This wont completely take th money out of elections because there will still be unions, trade groups, and the like that will spend money, but it would remove the direct line.