64%...

I wonder why the American media is not telling us about this poll ad nauseum like they would if an R were president.

Rhetorical!

Well clearly 64% of America is RACIST!!!

Every good Progressive knows all disagreements with Obama are racially motivated... Just ask a Progressive, they'll tell ya!

Argumentum ad numerum... Forget the numbers is it off track? If so why?

hmm and they also want to cut Deffence not SS and Medicare...

also note that under Bush that number hit...82% said wrong track...

"wrong track" poll questions are stupid - nobody can possibly ascribe any definite meaning to them.

The US has been on the wrong track since 2001.

blame bush!!

I agree with much of that, but I must take exception to your point on health care.

What is eating us alive is entitlement spending, which I suppose includes healthcare costs in Medicare and Medicaid.

Everyone knows controlling entitlement spending is the answer to the budget problem, but the Ds and their media have no intention of controlling spending of any kind. Once the Rs come up with a plan to limit this spending, they will be demonized by the Ds and the media and many will believe them.

I think that the left would probably control spending when it has reached the maximum amount that can be extorted from taxpayers. If 90% of money in the country could be extracted from the citizens then spending would equal that 90% and usually not more.

At that point the left would stop caring if the spending were on military or given to corporations as long as they were the party in control.

The Pubs are both worse and better at the same time. They would claim to want to cut spending but then go ahead and spend it anyway. They might cap spending at 60% of all money in the economy and would spend it on a lot of the same projects. The slide into tyranny would be less pronounced but just as precariously balanced on the edge of a cliff.

Once gov grows large enough it makes no difference who is in control and how much money they collect and spend because we would be only one misfortunate election away from a tyranny.

We must reduce the scope and size of government now before it is too late.

Short of civil war or total financial collapse, I don't see that happening.

The definition of tyranny is when one ruler has all the power, especially when that ruler is cruel. It is often synonymous with dictator.

Look at the list of dictators below:

http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators

Did they all seize power in military coups? No, many were elected and still hold elections. Often the countries move from a country not ruled by a tyrant to one that is in a very short amount of time and it comes as a surprise to many.

Is the standard of living so horrible as a result of their cruelty? No, cruelty is not a necessary aspect of their rule and many of the countries on the list have pretty good standards of living.

I the leader cruel despite his giving the people relative freedom? Maybe, again cruelty is not a necessary aspect to the title. Some dictators are considered allies or friends of the US and they rule "benevolently."

Do the people have no freedoms? No, their freedoms are restricted but sometimes not even so much that we recognize the restrictions as bad enough for us to say that the country is not free, i.e. Egypt.

Are there zero other branches of government or zero other leaders in the country? No, the word "all" above in the definition must not be taken too absolutely. There are plenty of examples of tyrants who share their power yet are still classified as dictators.

What is the difference between a king (or president) and a tyrant or dictator? Is it who writes the history books? Is it too subtle to clarify?

Just about every country in the world was once ruled by a dictator and just about every country in the world was not ruled by a dictator before he rose to power. It happens all the time.

Consider the growth of power of the government in the US compared to 200 years ago. Each branch has grown astronomically. Will the competing branches save us? Does it look to you more like they cooperate with each other or more like they check each other? Consider that the political parties influence all three branches of government greatly.

Consider the freedoms that Americans once had that they do not have now (unless one was a slave) in light of the fact that every single law on the books is a restriction of freedom (sometimes justified).

If the tax rate in the US were 85% (it is about 60% now), and the government were able to regulate almost all aspects of living (the cards are on the table today, food and health laws) (name an aspect of life that the someone in government has not proposed regulating) then the government would have the economic means to control 85% of the economy and the social means to control almost all of the culture. The overlap would mean that the government controlled almost every aspect of American life.

Has it ever happened in the US? The constitution grans some pretty broad powers to a president during war. Was Lincoln a dictator (albeit one who intended to step down and did it for the good of the country). Once a leader assumes war powers just what is it that impels him to give them up?

What is the shortest amount of time that it took for a country to move from a free democracy to a dictatorship? The shortest I can think of was all through elections from March of 32 to March of '33. And no war was declared until 1939.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

odd you leave out Defense....a huge part of our Budget out of SS Medicare and Defense...the only one that polls show a majority think we should spend less on.

The Ds and Rs are both willing to cut defense. So, there is agreement on that part of the budget.

There is no agreement to cut entitlements because your beloved Dems are intending to demigod the issue in the hopes of damaging the Rs with the American public.

No doubt that is leadership in your book.