But, to be fair Romney said the same thing.

I think there's a misconception out there. A misconception about what liberals "want." There's a narrative that going back to a 39.6% tax rate for income over $250K (from 35%) is somehow a step down the slippery slope to socialism and then fascism is bogus. When Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (I almost put Howard) maintained a 90%+ tax rate for the highest earners because he thought the debt was important. He's the last Republican president to have balanced budget also. All, I think, liberals want right now is an acknowledgement that our nearly $16,000,000,000,000 is a problem and we can't JUST cut our way to fiscal sanity. What liberals want is a government that is, at least, top 5 in the world in education. An EPA that has the tools to actually protects the environment and an MMS that isn't in the pocket of the oil industry.

I think I'll be branded "a liberal" for wanting those things, but how do they differ from conservatism? An efficient, effective government that is responsible to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of the wealthiest of the wealthy, sounds like conservatism to me and I doubt any of you disagree with it. A balanced budget, or even a budget surplus, if it goes to paying down the debt. Real Liberty for everyone, in the sense that the the government can't tell you who you can/can't marry. If we ban same-sex marriage...or even polygamy for that matter, it IS on religious grounds and IS religious persecution. Any disagreement there?

If anyone remembers my posts from a different thread, you know I know you know I know we can fix this. And we don't need solutions that fit neatly under the umbrella of big government and we do not need solutions that jive completely with the mantra of slash and burn. Effective. Efficient. Responsive.

I share a number of views with my liberal friends. We disagree on plenty though. Remember I'm not a card-carrying member of either party. I used to be. Then I got wise. Here's a sample of a conversation I had recently:

Me: Section 8 is being abused and that abuse should stop.
Friend: How are you going to stop it?
Mr: If you're on the dole, you are responsible to the people paying your way. If, for example, you're benefiting from section 8, you have no business with 52" 3000 dollar televisions, cell phones (the expensive 'smart' ones), fancy Rims on your BMW and stereos that cost more than my mortgage.
Friend: Hey, that's wrong. You can't judge people like that.
Me: The hell I can't. Why can't I?
Friend: Because you don't know where they got that stuff. Maybe their Uncle bought those things for them.
Me: Cool. Then they can go live with their Uncle and get off my taxes.

I have a neighbor who's section 8. Consider too that my electric bill is 350 dollars a month. I keep the thermostat on 78 or above to keep the damn thing from running all the time. My neighbor's system NEVER...STOPS...RUNNING. And when you stand on their porch and someone opens the door, the polar bears come out and start grazing. That's how cold it is in there. They are all obese too, not that it matters. But here's the rub. I am subsidizing that for them. PG&E charges me more as I cross usage thresholds through the month. They do this so my neighbors can get their electricity at a cheaper rate.

My liberal friend thinks I have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, think that if a customer is on a reduced rate they should install 'smart' thermostats that can be locked in at a given temperature. This will force them to use less, which will (maybe) ease my bill because I won't have to fund quite so much of theirs.

Friend: You can't do that. That just isn't right.
Me: The hell it isn't. I don't mind helping those who help themselves, but if I'm paying for your electricity, I have every damn right to enforce policies that control how much of it you use.

Now, to me, that's the biggest difference between me and liberals. To me, what I'm saying makes perfect sense. In my opinion, the only reason things aren't right is because, in my opinion, the politicians market hard, and I mean HARD for the 'poor' vote.

No. I don't mind helping. I don't think most people mind. We have a generation of people who have grown up satisfied to milk the program for all they can. If Obama truly want's to fix the budget, I can give him a thousand places to start that don't have a damn thing to do with placing an even heavier burden on people who in many cases risked everything they had to succeed.

I don't have any problem with "smart thermostats" for people getting government assistance, but doesn't that sound like the government control and infringements on liberty that republicans are afraid of?

No, because in my perfect world such a device is implemented or imposed on people receiving government assistance or are being subsidized on my dime.

Now, If I'm paying my bill straight up and big brother wants to impose some limit on where I set my thermostat because the global warming people think I'm killing seals at 75 degrees versus 78, then yeah, I have a problem with that.

But those two things are clearly separate. My liberal buddies disagree.

Where's the line, though? We bailed out banks and Wall Street, so what kind of limits can we impose on them? So far, none that I see. What about farm subsidies, public schools, and student loans? If you get insurance through you employer, it is subsidized. It seems like the only time we can attach strings to public funds is when it goes to poor people. That might not be the case, but it does look that way.

I agree with conservatives that it is a slippery slope, but where does it start sloping?

I know what you mean. I truly do. Common sense goes a long way. We'll never get there when special interests and lobbying interfere with the political agendas of our elected officials. Those things dictate nearly every aspect or action of the men and women in Washington. That has to stop. Being a Congressman (or Woman) or a Senator should NOT be a profession.

I think it's less about being professional politicians, because I think there is something to be said for experience, and more about who funds the campaigns. As long as it is special interests, big business, and the financial industry and not ALL OF THE PEOPLE, things won't change.