Not too much I can disagree with here. But, I think, the great thing about hindsight is that it is 20/20 and we can evaluate and re-evaluate what worked and what didn't. The economists that I've read, seemingly regardless of the side they come down on, don't come down very far apart. I think...no, I know that most people listen to politicians and pundits (who don't even hide their agendas, they're flaunted) when we want to learn about how the economy works and that's a huge mistake.

My argument IS for less government spending and IS for less government intrusion in our personal lives, but, I think, when people see that the plan DOES require government to do something, they tune out or slap the big government tag on it. It's disappointing.

I guess the thing I'm most disappointed about, is that Gov. Buddy Roemer was completely shut out of the Republican debates despite polling as well as some of the candidates that made the cut. His main focus is Lessig-style campaign finance reform. A Republican I could vote for, despite many disagreements, and someone, I think, we could have been proud of.

Lawrence Lessig, who I mention frequently, wrote "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It." It's incredible (incredible meaning it's awesome and not meaning it lacks credibility)! If Lawrence Lessig were to run for president in 2016, which is less than likely, it would prove the existence of a higher power. I don't trust most politicians, and he isn't a politician, but I'd trust him completely. If it turned out that he disagreed with me on something, I guess I'd just have to assume I was wrong. He's like a balding half-human half-angel hybrid with glasses.

Thanks for the response.

Why our politicians can't interact with one another similarly hacks me off. I mean, I know why. I get the reasoning behind why they do what they do. The ONE thing I'd like from my government is to regulate the politicians, because if you do that, 70 percent of your problems go away overnight.

This is the crux of everything that is wrong with our current government.

Once elected they look at opposing party members as lepers. No bi-partisan work gets done, and if a bill does get through to a vote, it rarely passes unless there is a true majority, or there is some compromise where the other party adds two three items in exchange for the vote.

Sad that the 11th hours negotiations are as close to compromise and unity that our can accomplish. Can you imagine a Fortune 500 company being successful if everyone only agreed on their individual ideas?

It's truly scary, what things in Washington have become. Our nation is more diverse than ever, and that is a contributing factor, but those politicians aren't there to serve anything other than their own backsides. It's maddening.

We need a leader. Not a good marketer. Not a good speech writer. Not a guy that looks good on TV. We are desperate for one. Where is he/she?

That is a very good question. Where is he/she.

Colin Powell could have been such a leader, he would have made an awesome president IMHO, but he got thrown under the bus by the Republicans with the "aluminum tubes" business and then the Tea Party reviled him further, for speaking common sense instead of towing the party line of Tea Party dogma. Numerous "Blue Dog" Democrats had a shot at being bi-partisan, and were primary-challenged by their own party and then nuked by the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, making them a dwindling and largely irrelevant group today. John McCain in 2000 was very well respected and was not hated by Democrats at the time (and still is respected by many today as a voice of reason) and would very likely have defeated Al Gore in 2000. But Karl Rove and the religious right destroyed McCain with negative attack ads in the 2000 primary season, in favor of the less experienced, more hard-right George W. Bush... McCain in 2000 was an extremely viable candidate, and would have made for a VERY different decade in America IMHO, but by the time McCain ran again in 2008 it was too late, the damage had already been done.

Many on the right side hate and revile her, but in her actual track record Hillary is actually a pragmatic moderate and a decent statesperson...But of course the Democrats dumped her in favor of an unproven candidate with whom the Republicans (driven by the Tea Party) have openly declared they will choose not to work with him at all. In 2004 Howard Dean had a track record of being socially liberal, while fiscally conservative, which is in line with what polling data suggests that "average Americans" have said they want, or what works best with leading a divided country such as ours. If the country is evenly split, then socially liberal, fiscally conservative policies are the historically proven way to go, at least based on the past. Dean's actual track record as governor was moderate and implemented many Republican fiscal ideas...he had endorsements from elements of the left (Al Gore) and elements of the right (NRA)....but then he kind of imploded with The Scream, and the media on both sides absolutely torched him, instead of saying, hey, well at least the guy is human.

So it seems to me, the potential for real leaders are there. It's just not being implemented on either side.

Why our politicians can't interact with one another similarly hacks me off. I mean, I know why. I get the reasoning behind why they do what they do. The ONE thing I'd like from my government is to regulate the politicians, because if you do that, 70 percent of your problems go away overnight.

... that pretty much sums it up for me & I especially like the 'regulate politicians' viewpoint ... some kind of term-limits would work wonders at unclogging the log jam you see daily in Congress ... serve your country to the best of your ability, then go home! ... they make the military retire after 20yrs, why not Senators or Representatives?