22
   

What is the Republican vision for this country?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 08:41 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
So because I refuse to compromise my moral convictions, I am a bigot?

So, your moral conviction is that you can force your morals on others?


makes sense. The Republicans continue to be the party of growing government bureacracy as well as the party of increasing government interference in private lives.


This appears to me to be a rather strange conclusion, quite contrary to the readily observable facts. It is progressives and Democrtats who are attempting to extend the reach of government into every aspect of our lives.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 08:43 pm
@FreeDuck,
One in six Americans is receiving help from the government.

More than 50 million people are on Medicaid

42.2 million people are on food stamps

About 8.5 million people are on unemployment and 3.9 million have benefits since last year.

4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase since Obama took office.

47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes and therefore can be considered as citizens who are obtaining most federal governental services for free.

The notion that Clinton was responsible for effective Welfare Reform in the the late 90's is one of the greatest political slight of hand tricks in our history.

He vetoed Welfare Reform twice, before finally bowing to public pressure and signing it into law. It's testimony to his oily skills as a politician and the Left's desire to give credit even when it isn't due to one of their own, that anyone thinks he was the champion of reform.

Why would a Democrat ever want to reduce the citizenry's dependence on governmental assistance? The more people they can hook on government assistance the more reliable Democrat voters they can rely upon.

No one wants a permanent underclass dependent on the government?

Nonsense, Democrats do.

What's more, they don't want to rely solely upon an underclass, they want to expand the dependence which is why so many federal programs don't limit qualification for benefits to the officially designated "poor," but kick in for people as much as 100% or more above the official poverty line.

I've no doubt there are very many deluded liberals who think their heroes in government are just looking out for the disadvantaged and misfortunate, but this isn't the case.

Establishment Liberals consistently grossly exagerate the number of Americans who fall into the category of truly needing help. Witness how the media have blatantly and dishonestly exaggerated the number of homeless in this country.

Witness the widespread canard of a vast swath of American suffering from hunger.

If you get votes by solving problems with governmental expansion and largess it behooves you to exaggerate the problems you are claiming to combat.

Right now these programs are being funded by the 53% of Americans who do pay taxes and the Chinese.

There isn't enough wealth in this country to keep these programs funded, let alone continue to expand them.

Pure and simple, the welfare state is unsustainable as Europe is painfully coming to realize.

Leave it to Democrats who are thinking in terms of time periods as short as two years and, at the longest, six years, and there is no reason to believe that they will ever change their parasitic tune.

We all (except for the truly hopeless koolaid drinkers on the left) know that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as they currently operate are unsustainable, and yet every time there is an attempt to reform these programs so that they can continue in some form and not bankrupt the country, Democrats not only vote against reform, they seek to demonize those who suggest it.

Paul Ryan's budget for example.

Under his plan every major entitlement program grows as compared to current spending, and yet Obama and the Democrats cast it as Social Darwinism. It's more than their depressingly familiar trick of calling any increase that doesn't match what they want a "cut," it's lying for political gain.

Even where the Ryan budget calls for true cuts (in discretionary spending) they are not to be affected evenly across the board, but by insisting they are, Democrats (like thier leader Obama) are able to make baseless charges about widows and orphans getting the shaft.

The liberal Democrat train is riding a very straight track to national disaster and all of you who are on board are doing a great disservice to those who come after us. The **** will hit the fan if something isn't done about it and if you enable it, my hope is that you will experience the penalty when it comes due.\ rather than passing on several years before the whole country tanks and the social safety net ceases to exist.

As for Question 2, I can't speak for all Republicans but here are my thoughts:

History as shown us that no matter what ideology or economic model prevails in a country there will be varying levels of lifestyle among the populace. In communist Russia and China the gap between the elite and the commoners was greater than any ever experienced in the US.

No doubt most members have read Orwell's Animal Farm and are aquainted with the often quoted line: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Pure equality among men is a fantasy, and a harmful one at that. All attempts to force it have proven disasterous.

No matter who is in power in America there will be "poverty," which is to say there will be people at the bottom of the economic totem pole.

Even if we rid our society of all manner of illegal and immoral discrimination, there will be people at the bottom.

Our goal should be to ensure that no one who who has talent and is willing to work hard is forced to reside in the bottom because of entirely meaningless characteristics.

This doesn't mean that we should stack the cards for anyone who might fit this description.

The goal of achieving a society in which no one is denied opportunity because of immaterial characteristics is far more achievable than the goal of pure equality among us all.

I would rather bet on the inate value of each and every individual than assume we need some monolithic power, controlled by a very few elitists, to make things right.

I truly am amazed that those of you who consider yourselves liberal buy into the Progressive bullshit that we are all such idiots we need a conclave of elitists to tell us how to live.





DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:24 pm
@georgeob1,
Right. Because Democrats are the ones trying to stick ultrasound wands up inside of women.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 01:40 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
I think I'm feeling a little bit overwhelmed by all of the bad legislation that's been introduced in several states by Republicans -- most of which coming from various lobbying groups through ALEC. When I put it all together I see a place where women can't decide whether or not to have children, where we would rather shoot each other than invest in a police force (presumably this would balance the population explosion resulting from the former), where we would rather incarcerate people than educate them, and where money buys freedom, but most of us won't have any. Next to this, I can't even seriously get on board with any of the more reasonable parts to the Republican platform, namely balanced budgets and reduced debt.

I'm not thrilled with the Democrats or even Obama (that jobs bill that is actually more deregulation) but it's nothing compared to the backward walk it feels like the Republicans are taking us on. So if someone would like to speak for Republican constituents, not politicians, and tell me what the vision for this country is that the Republicans will bring us, I'd love to hear it.
The idea, simply put, is to restore Original Americanism of the 17OOs -- the spirit of Liberty
(subject to subsequent Constitutional Amendments) as well as possible, thereby to EXALT personal freedom,
at the expense of government jurisdiction.
The Founders were NOT theocrats; therefore, theocratic law
is deviant = liberal distortion.

The Founders enacted the Bill of Rights in the knowledge
that personal freedom and government jurisdiction are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

It behooves each citizen to defend himself from the power
of his employee, government.


I am a deeply conservative Republican,
having worked for and voted for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.





David
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, At first I started to go through your diatribe and counter almost every 'fact'. Some simply wrong, some overstated. The fact is that you have taken sides and very much see the world as us vs. them. I don't fault you for that, it's normal human behavior. It's mostly bullshit, and your motivation is just competitive juices. Democrats don't want a permanent underclass. We want the opportunity for everyone you so eloquently promote. We also want the government out of our lives, including imposing your morality on others. We want limits on the abuses those in power so easily wield. 'More equal that others' translates into 'I've got the power and you can't have it'.

I think we should all just divide into blue vs. red, right vs. left, Repubs vs. dems, and beat the **** out of each other. We've been doing it for years and no doubt will continue to do just that. Resulting in decreasing the quality of life for all of us.

gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:44 am
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
What is the Republican vision for this country?


A rising economic tide which lifts all boats; energy self-sufficiency; the US govt. under adult supervision...
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:48 am
snaKKKe says
Quote:


A rising economic tide which lifts all boats; energy self-sufficiency; the US govt. under adult supervision


Fortunately you don't have to wait for a Republican administration, gunga. Just re-elect Obama, and we'll have four more years of them.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 08:38 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

This appears to me to be a rather strange conclusion, quite contrary to the readily observable facts. It is progressives and Democrtats who are attempting to extend the reach of government into every aspect of our lives.


you must never leave your gated community if those are the facts you see.

Republican governments consistently grow the U.S. federal bureaucracy, and Republicans consistently believe they have a place in others bedrooms.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 08:54 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
and Republicans consistently believe they have a place in others bedrooms.

Hey, Republicans need love, too!
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 09:01 am
@ehBeth,
republicans DO have a place in the bedroom! i got my bedroom republican from Target. it's kinda like a garden gnome with a gun and a bible
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 09:10 am
@ehBeth,

georgeob1 wrote:
This appears to me to be a rather strange conclusion, quite contrary to the readily observable facts. It is progressives [toward WHAT??] and Democrtats who are attempting to extend the reach of government into every aspect of our lives.
ehBeth wrote:
you must never leave your gated community if those are the facts you see.

Republican governments consistently grow the U.S. federal bureaucracy,
The Democrats in Congress have forced that on us.


ehBeth wrote:
and Republicans consistently believe they have a place in others bedrooms.
I have never believed that, nor desired it.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 09:51 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
Finn, At first I started to go through your diatribe and counter almost every 'fact'.


Funny, you don't strike me as bright enough to do that...
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 10:02 am
@gungasnake,
Since you go through life with blinders on, I wouldn't expect you to be able to see anything.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:48 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

One in six Americans is receiving help from the government.

More than 50 million people are on Medicaid

42.2 million people are on food stamps

About 8.5 million people are on unemployment and 3.9 million have benefits since last year.

4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase since Obama took office.

47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes and therefore can be considered as citizens who are obtaining most federal governental services for free.

How do you know this isn't just a result of the recession?

Quote:
The notion that Clinton was responsible for effective Welfare Reform in the the late 90's is one of the greatest political slight of hand tricks in our history.

He vetoed Welfare Reform twice, before finally bowing to public pressure and signing it into law. It's testimony to his oily skills as a politician and the Left's desire to give credit even when it isn't due to one of their own, that anyone thinks he was the champion of reform.

I'm not really interested in the left/right aspect of this and didn't mention Clinton at all. You were saying that people are on public assistance long term. The reforms of the 90s made that largely impossible so I wondered what made you think that. Your statistics show something, but they don't show that we have people who are permanently on public assistance.

Quote:
Witness how the media have blatantly and dishonestly exaggerated the number of homeless in this country.

Witness the widespread canard of a vast swath of American suffering from hunger.


I'd like to "witness" them but I've never seen them. Any old link would do.

Quote:
Pure equality among men is a fantasy, and a harmful one at that. All attempts to force it have proven disasterous.

...

The goal of achieving a society in which no one is denied opportunity because of immaterial characteristics is far more achievable than the goal of pure equality among us all.


This is a strawman, Finn. I don't know anyone who wants pure equality for all. I've not heard a Democrat argue that everybody should get the same thing no matter how hard they work. The argument that I've heard and that I agree with is that when the game gets too tilted in one direction or the other (meaning the gap is too wide) it's bad for everyone and it prevents equal opportunity of the kind you favor. I am in favor of policies that would narrow it to something sustainable in order to ease movement between income groups and provide more opportunity for upward mobility.

Quote:
I truly am amazed that those of you who consider yourselves liberal buy into the Progressive bullshit that we are all such idiots we need a conclave of elitists to tell us how to live.

I am truly amazed that you would believe that this is what progressives believe. Maybe you should start a "what is the Democratic vision for this country" thread and see for yourself.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:56 am
I am always amused when conservatives rant about "welfare." They don't mention military procurement contracting, they don't mention Haliburton and unbid contracts, they don't mention Blackwater, they don't mention corporate loans and bailouts. They don't mention interest free loans to corporations. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, estimated that in 2006, coroporations in the United States received $92 billion, not including military procurement contracting.

I suspect corporate America gets a hulluva bigger share of the taxpayer's dollar than individual's . . .
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:57 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

A rising economic tide which lifts all boats; energy self-sufficiency; the US govt. under adult supervision...


This is more or less in line with what Finn and Silk have to say.

It seems to me that rank and file Republicans have a vision, and a reasonable one, which doesn't seem to be a high priority for their elected officials, at least on the state level. When you look at the kinds of (often identical) legislation showing up in the state legislatures, their priorities appear to be preventing women from getting reproductive health care, expanding the rights of gun owners, and privatizing as many government functions as possible (schools, prisons, etc...) in order to transfer tax payer dollars to private corporations. I may have left something out, but they don't appear to be focused on their constituents' priorities. That's not to say their constituents won't still support efforts, but their actions don't seem to be driven by their voters or their communities' interests.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:21 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

I am truly amazed that you would believe that this is what progressives believe. Maybe you should start a "what is the Democratic vision for this country" thread and see for yourself.

Actually, it's a very conservative way to think. Studies have shown that conservatives don't deal as well with ambiguity as well as liberals do.

It's much easier for him to despise a fantasy-version, "idealized" liberal than it is to investigate why some people come to different conclusions than he does. It's simultaneously ad hominem and strawman fallacies.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 01:59 pm
@gungasnake,
that won't work
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 02:08 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
It's much easier for him to despise a fantasy-version, "idealized" liberal than it is to investigate why some people come to different conclusions than he does. It's simultaneously ad hominem and strawman fallacies.


It's much easier to identify your enemy if you have him pigeonholed.

That's the problem with the arguments in this thread and many others. We take positions first and see who can beat up the other side the best. Politics has become the same and we see the result. It rapidly increased when Lee Atwater realized it was much more productive, as far as getting elected, to beat up your opponent than it was to promote useful ideas. It works because we readily identify with a 'winner'. The guy beating up the opponent.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 05:00 pm
@IRFRANK,
I was not clear Frank (thought I was until I reread what I wrote) by Democrats I usually mean Democrat office holders, officials and politicians. I should be more clear. When I criticize "Democrats."

I don't believe that the vast majority of ordinary citizens who self-identify as Democrats wish for a permanent underclass. In fact, I'm sure they don't.

I don't suppose that any of the Democrat politicians really want a permanent underclass, but they do want permanent power and establishing and growing a class of dependent inhabitants (it doesn't matter if they are citizens or not, they have plans to work out that wrinkle) of this country is a a great strategy for achieving their goal.

My problem with most Democrat citizens is that they are, at best naive and gullible, and at worst more concerned with maintaining a sanctimonious self-image than actually helping people rise above misfortune and achieve self-reliance.

The War on Poverty was declared at the same time as the programs under the umbrella of The Great Society were set in motion. Some 50 years, and billions, if not trillions of dollars later, poverty remains with it's eradication no where in sight.

I doubt the Liberal Establishment set out to create a permanent underclass that would always vote for Democrats, but somewhere along the line they realized what they had set in motion and how they could exploit it to their personal ends.

With so much invested in their self-image of enlightened social responsibility I don't expect very many Democrat citizens to realize, let alone admit that they have been duped.

I don't post these "diatribes" with any expectation that they will change the minds of anyone in this forum. I suppose that a small number of people may have come to A2k with a capability of having their opinions influence, but if they did, they soon fled.

All of the regulars have their minds made up, which is perfectly fine by me since I'm not seeking to change them. As a result, I don't really care much when folks like you (no offense intended) and FreeDuck tell me I am off the mark, tilting at straw men, or simply full of it.

You can scold me or anyone else in this forum for adversarial attitudes but, without them, these forums would be limited to the exchange of recipes, and silly word games. There is certainly an A2K "community" that enjoys using the forum for trading puns and quips, congratulating and commiserating with each other, and even engaging in the occasional political circle jerk, but what keeps a large number of members coming back are the adversarial posts of folks like me. If only two or three conservative members depart without being replaced, it won't be long before three to four times that number of liberal members depart as well, and you might be one.

All of this is to say, climb down off your high horse and don't try to substitute fluff that you think demonstrates your superiority with trying to pick apart what I have written.



 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 05:28:17