[Budqweiser]

Since people always seem to elect whomever gives them more stuff, why don’t more conservative candidates just act like that to get elected and then start slashing? Get in there and get busy. Drug test welfare recipients for starters. No freebies for illegals. So on.

 

[Z71bill]

Since people always seem to elect whomever gives them more stuff, why don’t more conservative candidates just act like that to get elected and then start slashing? Get in there and get busy. Drug test welfare recipients for starters. No freebies for illegals. So on.

Because once they get in their whole world becomes getting reelected.

 

[Budqweiser]

Because once they get in their whole world become getting reelected.

That obviously couldn’t be part of the plan. If half of all candidates did this we could get this thing turned around in maybe 35-40 years.

 

[AK_Stick]

That obviously couldn’t be part of the plan. If half of all candidates did this we could get this thing turned around in maybe 35-40 years.

Historically voters have not supported those candidates.

 

[Budqweiser]

Historically voters have not supported those candidates.

Uh, yes they do. Everyone that gets free stuff votes for more free stuff.

 

[AK_Stick]

Uh, yes they do. Everyone that gets free stuff votes for more free stuff.

I was talking about candidates who are serious about slashing budgets and programs.

 

[Budqweiser]

I was talking about candidates who are serious about slashing budgets and programs.

Oh. Yeah my plan is based on people running that don’t want second terms and just want to get things done. They would use every tool available to ensure the next guy was also sneaking in to make real changes. Like I said it would take a long time.

 

[Budqweiser]

Obviously this is theoretical and will probably never happen, but it could be done. With our modern systems of communication it would easily be possible. We just need a few thousand patriots willing to tarnish a political career. After a few years any honest man wants out of politics anyway.

 

[reniram]

I started college in 1976 - both parties have been in charge back and forth - since then -

You must be thinking there is a big difference between D & R on spending money and increasing the debt - you would be wrong -

The only time any of them complain about deficits is when the other party is in charge.

Pay attention -

When GOP is in charge they cut taxes and increase spending which increases the debt

When the Dems are in charge they raise tax rates (but collect very little revenue) and increase spending a little more than the GOP but still keep the debt growing

Not relevant to my response to your post on excess inflation in higher education costs. I've offered no opinion here or elsewhere on which party is more to blame for higher debts and deficits.

 

[evlbruce]

Historically voters have not supported those candidates.

Ergo Social Democracy is a self-destructive system.

 

[Z71bill]

Not relevant to my response to your post on excess inflation in higher education costs. I've offered no opinion here or elsewhere on which party is more to blame for higher debts and deficits.

I guess when you ask about how most people in education vote I figured you were talking about politics -

You were asking if they vote D or R weren't you?

Why else would that matter unless you think one party is more willing to allow college costs to skyrocket?

I don't see where you are trying to go -