The Obama Budget.

[Wickabee]

Your point is invalid. I am not arguing that wealthy should pay less or get tax cuts. The Obama tax increases will not affect the wealthy that much because there aren't that many wealthy people. There are 5.1 million millionaires in a country of 314 million and most of those people are millionaires because they own nice homes, businesses and real estate that makes them worth $1 million, not because they have big stacks of cash just sitting around. I repeat, there aren't that many wealthy people. It will affect the "nobody making under $250k" that he promised he would not raise taxes on back in 2008.

Using some more simple math. In 2010 the IRS collected $1.163 trillion in taxes. $60 billion a year in increased tax revenue represents a 5.1% increase over that. There is no way that it is coming from just the wealthy. The middle class will cover that.

Those were your two choices in the last two elections, so it is valid, no matter who you personally voted for. Your choices have been give the money of hard working Americans such as yourself to either the poor or the rich. With a two party system and an extreme-minded general population, there's no one to fight for the middle. This is why the middle class is shrinking, the working poor and poverty stricken are growing and the wealthy are acquiring more money. As such, until your political landscape changes drastically, your choice will continue to be the same, just with different names and faces. Good luck with that.
The thing is, there are moderates who can discuss, debate and decide with each other on both sides. The problem is everyone else within the party needs to shut up for it to happen. That will never happen.
The best thing that can happen for the middle class is for the Republican party to split. Hear me out:
The Reps are split within their party between the moderates and tea baggers already. Let the split happen and let the tea bagger form their own conservative party, leaving moderate conservatives to the Republican party. As the extreme left smells blood on a split right, moderate liberals will be left with the choice of following the extreme left (who is just as nuts as the tea baggers) or join going moderate conservatives in a unified party.
If that were to happen, I think there's enough extreme left to still win some elections, and enough tea bagger support to keep them alive. I think middle America, the honest working man who just wants to live his life but know his government is there for him if he truly needs it, would be able to support a unified party of moderate cons and libs. A party running on little government involvment with the people and real economic responsibility could run very well in the US. Unfortunately, the only way I see it happening is with a split on either the left or right. The right just looks closer at the moment.
If there were a spilt and three parties were able to legitimately run, it might also encourage more grassroots type stuff and the creation/evolution of more legitimate parties; Libertarian, Green, etc. I think that would be good for you too.

[duane1969]

Dude you are singing my song. I crave a true moderate option instead of the poor choices we have had of late. Problem is that we have too many on both sides of the aisle who sing the moderate song, but dance the far left/right dance.

[MadMan1978]

hmmm wonder if the 150 billion a year for cooperate welfare will/should be cut....

[Wickabee]

Dude you are singing my song. I crave a true moderate option instead of the poor choices we have had of late. Problem is that we have too many on both sides of the aisle who sing the moderate song, but dance the far left/right dance.

The truth is what needs to be cut is corporate entitlements and tax breaks until the business owners prove they're just as in it for the good of the nation as they are for themselves. Any business whose profits depend solely on tax breaks is not a good business.
At the same time, you can't tax business to death. As with everything in life, a balance has to be found, met and maintained.
The same is true on the other end. While I don't necessarily agree with cuts to entitlement systems, restructuring is needed and if you can cut some cost through said restructuring, all the better. The problem with simply cutting costs in entitlements is the nature in which it's done. Cuts to programs before restructuring ends with people losing their jobs before entitlements are actually cut from the people. This adds to the individual workload of the people charged with finding and ending waste and fraud, not to mentions sets loose a group of people with full knowledge of how to work the system. There becomes more drain and it becomes more expensive.