Here are some of the issues that I feel strongly about...and why you won't see me voting for any of the candidates:
Abortion - I think it should be stopped. Immediately.
Death Penalty - I think it should be stopped. Immediately.
Illegal Immigration - I oppose nationalism and racism (which is what I think most of the debate is about) and I think we should relax our laws to the point that anyone who wants to come here, work and live should be welcomed with open arms and and extremely simple citizenship process. I'm more concerned about people in general than I am in helping "Americans" to the exclusion of another human being.
War - I oppose the war now and I opposed it then. BUT...I feel that we owe it to the Iraqi citizens to do our best not to make the problems we've caused worse by pulling out fast and letting chaos and death ensue.
Taxes - I'm in favor of every single tax decrease proposed no matter who it is for and I am against every single tax increase. I think the government should be about making and enforcing laws and providing basic infrastructure and basic defense. Everything else should be dropped.
Healthcare - I think we should ban health insurance except for policies that cover catastrophic conditions and let people pay for most healthcare out of pocket. I think health insurance is one of the biggest scams ever put over on the masses. I think it would only get worse if the government tried to take it over.
Some issues I don't much care about:
Gay Marriage - I don't much care one way of the other, but I do think there's some merit to the argument that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage.
Gun Control - I see both sides of this one, but I do think that the spirit of the 2nd amendment is long since gone. We can't defend ourselves against missiles and tanks with handguns and rifles.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
mattyjoe - how the hell am supposed to know where mcCain stands on people with disabilities? it's not on his website. please show me if i missed it.
Trust me, no one would cut spending for people with disabilities, that would be insanity. Governor Palin remarked in her convention speech how people with disabilities will have "an advocate in the White House," due in large part to her down-syndrome child. Obviously that's not a physical disability, but the same goes for both mental and physical. Disability spending is an important thing, not something that would be cut. When he says he's cutting spending, he's referring to obscure, useless programs which don't benefit anyone.
A good example of one of these programs is that so-called "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, a $398 million, federally-funded bridge that would've connected Ketchikan, Alaska with Gravina Island, in southeastern Alaska. Governor Palin initially supported the effort but came to oppose and, eventually, stop it's construction. Public opinion was that it was unnecessary. This is just one example of hundreds of other projects that Congress funds which are unnecessary. Disability programs are much more important than that bridge, I assure you.
Another example was a project in the Boston area to move one of the interstates underground, something that went on to cost the Federal Government $14.6 billion. It was completed around 2003, but there were many structural problems which actually caused the deaths of some motorists (I think the roof collapsed or something). In addition, there are cracks and leaks all over the tunnel as a result of the use of "sub-standard" materials.
These kinds of projects are funded by Congresspeople usually as a result of lobbying by various "special interest groups." These groups promise campaign donations and support in exchange for their agenda being spearheaded by members of Congress. This is a form of corruption and one which occurs on a daily basis in every level of government.
Every year, Congress dumps billions of our tax dollars into all kinds of these weird projects. This is what both McCain and Obama are promising to cut. However, this is one of those issues that never really seems to be resolved. Politicians promise to cut spending but it never gets done, therefore continuing to increase our budget deficit. However, Governor Palin has a history of battling this corruption and unnecessary spending to great effect, which makes me hopeful that maybe this issue will finally be dealt with. It's certainly an important one, one which could lead to tax cuts and more money for the Federal Government to spend on things which really are important, like helping people with disabilities.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
To be fair, I think McCain and Obama both have something positive in common that the other campaign is not giving them credit for.
I think they're both been bipartisan reformers, and they have crossed the aisle more than either side will give them credit for. Although I think for the past two-three years McCain has harshly drifted towards the social conservative side to get the nom, in his past he has been willing to break with established thought and bring differing factions together. Obama, as well, has many instances in his State Senate as well as U.S. Senate worked on biparisan legislation. I understand it's election season, but they both deserve credit for this.
Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.
Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*
Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.
Examples?
You're right, the Republican party has always been aligned with business, and the Democratic party has always been aligned with the common man. It's been that way since their inceptions over 200 years ago. Generally I'm not a big fan of either party. I believe more in the ideology of the Democratic party, but I am strongly against how Democrats throughout the last 15-20 years have been going about it. They are leaning WAY too close to socialism for my taste. It was capitalism that made this country as prosperous and powerful as it is. No matter how much you think Capitalism benefits only the upper class, the lower class STILL have it very good in this country compared to others. They have the ability to climb the social ladder. They have enormous opportunity. Yeah it's still tough, but that's life. My father was way poorer growing up than Obama ever was, so I understand the system. I don't think it's wrong to help the poor. However, I do think it's wrong for the government to take a person's own money and give it to the poor. They may be able to afford it, and, yes, it's regrettable that they don't do more. Certainly, a wealth redistribution program when my father was growing up would've been very beneficial. But he doesn't believe in it, and I don't believe in it, because it's still wrong. That money is that person's property. It is wrong to unjustifiably take it from them.
I'm sorry you think I'm trying to trick you. I'm really not. It's Obama who's trying to trick you into thinking socialist ideals are what's best for this country by using the media to pump himself up into a demigod. Think socialism works? Look at Canada. They have almost no GDP. Growth is negligible. What keeps quality of business up? Competition between businesses to deliver the best possible product. Removing that competition is what makes countries like Canada mediocre, and what would make this country mediocre. Think the economy is bad now? A recession is lack of economic growth for 2 or more economic quarters. Under socialist principles, there would be a permanent lack of growth, so, essentially, a permanent recession. Obama's tax plan and healthcare plan are based on socialist principles. No matter how genuine the intention behind them, they are just not good for the overall well-being of this country.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people.
I'm a pretty much a Republican. I'm not "for" big business. I'm for capitialism. And I'm not "against" the little people. In fact, I'm for creating ways for "little people" to become "big people."
Democrats are for keeping little people little -- making them utterly dependent on the government -- because otherwise they would become "big people" and vote Republican.
You're being silly if you think McCain would cut funding for disabilities just because he doesn't explicity say he won't on his website.
He also didn't write on his website that he wouldn't seize the first-born son of every American couple and sell him to the circus. But that doesn't make McCain a child pornographer.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
You're right, the Republican party has always been aligned with business, and the Democratic party has always been aligned with the common man. It's been that way since their inceptions over 200 years ago.
Not trying to be a dick, but from what I remember reading in US history, it was the other way around until FDR. The Rep. were abolitionist and even placed African Americans with in the government. The Dems where mostly from the conservitive south all through out the civil war and against equal rights, some even up too the 1940's. I'm sure some one with better knowledge of this can back me up here.
Other than that difference, I think you make a good point.
No matter how much you think Capitalism benefits only the upper class, the lower class STILL have it very good in this country compared to others. They have the ability to climb the social ladder. They have enormous opportunity. Yeah it's still tough, but that's life. My father was way poorer growing up than Obama ever was, so I understand the system. I don't think it's wrong to help the poor.
First, Obama's plans are pretty far from socialism, and I think it's a gross distortion to insinuate them as such.
I think this is my central problem with the Republican Party, and although I am a huge fan of fiscal discipline and personal liberty, I was not sure if I could ever be a full-fledged Republican. You said it yourself; "they have the ability to climb the social ladder." You hear it often, the American Dream which is something I believe does exist. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and through hard work, determination and a little luck you can fulfill every dream. Like you, I understand that this dream is achievable; my parents lived in a studio apartment, were both struggling and we had to live on food stamps for a while. Now, we live in Manhattan and I'm a college grad because they sacrificed and made their way up the ladder. I don't say this to gain cred, but I say to show that I do feel I've been able to see both sides.
And this is where I break harshly with Republicans; if everyone has the ability to move up the ladder, if you do not do so then it must be your own fault. It's the legislative equivalent of walking by a panhandler and telling him to take a hike and get a job. I consider it naive and dangerous to assume that since someone is struggling that it's because the effort is not there. "Yeah, it's tough, but that's life" doesn't cut it for me when there are fifty million people, most through no fault of their own, without health insurance, when people have to work three jobs and cannot break even.
This idea that slightofjeff proposed that Republicans recently are really "for the little people" (at least Republican administrations of the past 20 years) is not supported by the facts. Under the two eight-year Republican administrations (and during both those administrations the President served with a Republican-controlled Congress for over half the time), by the end of the eight years unemployment had gone up, wage increases had decreased, national deficits have increased (by record heights) and social programs have been cut. So I say to sleightofjeff's claim, not a chance. I think it's also pretty offensive to think that low-income voters primarily vote Democratic because they're all mindless minions who vote Democratic cause they're told to. Maybe they have a mind of their own and see nothing to like in the Republican Party.
I don't think Republicans are against the little people, but I think the Republican party establishment have made it clear they have different priorities.
Not trying to be a dick, but from what I remember reading in US history, it was the other way around until FDR. The Rep. were abolitionist and even placed African Americans with in the government. The Dems where mostly from the conservitive south all through out the civil war and against equal rights, some even up too the 1940's. I'm sure some one with better knowledge of this can back me up here.
Other than that difference, I think you make a good point.
Socially, yes the Dems were more conservative back then. But that's because that's what the common man of the South wanted. They still had the same ideology, it was just implemented differently. They mainly supported the South, however, because they supported more independent States, not because of slavery. They were against a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson essentially founded the party, although it was not called the Democratic party until Andrew Jackson. But it had the same ideology from the very beginning.
And the Repubs were anti-slavery, but that's because businessmen in the North didn't rely on slavery to earn a living, like farmers in the South did. They didn't care if slavery was abolished because it wouldn't have affected them. Since slavery was thought of as barbaric anyway, why not support its abolition and, therefore, improve your image? Repubs were still aligned with businesses.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
First, Obama's plans are pretty far from socialism, and I think it's a gross distortion to insinuate them as such.
Redistribution of wealth.
From Wikipedia:
"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor. Critics of state-managed economies, notably Milton Friedman, point out that the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." turns ability into a liability and need into an asset. They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly. However, such arguments are straw man arguments based upon misrepresenting the goals and nature of the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."
Higher taxes on the rich, and "tax credits" for the poor.
From his site:
"Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families."
"Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year."
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Illegal Immigration - I oppose nationalism and racism (which is what I think most of the debate is about) and I think we should relax our laws to the point that anyone who wants to come here, work and live should be welcomed with open arms and and extremely simple citizenship process. I'm more concerned about people in general than I am in helping "Americans" to the exclusion of another human being.
.
bullshit. you know all anti-illegal immigration people arent racist, and your only concern is fattening your wallet.
"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor. Critics of state-managed economies, notably Milton Friedman, point out that the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." turns ability into a liability and need into an asset. They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly. However, such arguments are straw man arguments based upon misrepresenting the goals and nature of the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."
Higher taxes on the rich, and "tax credits" for the poor.
From his site:
"Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families."
"Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year."
Socialism is leftist, and Obama is a liberal, so his policies as you stated them were, and I quote; "It's Obama who's trying to trick you into thinking socialist ideals are what's best for this country by using the media to pump himself up into a demigod." If you consider a progressive income tax stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, I cannot say anything to dissuade you. Such inflammatory language takes away from the debate; you cite Obama's elmination of taxes for seniors making under 50,000 a year, and you consider it communist in nature. These plans and policies are not socialist in nature, they are liberal in nature. Such liberal thinking in the United States involves a consideration and affirmation that "promoting the general Welfare" as stated in the Constitution applies to more than just protecting our shores and citizens from foreign invasion.
Also, per wikipedia:
"Socialism advocates complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange" - a key tenet of socialist thinking (not just Communist thinking, as you cited, which is a form of socialism and not socialism itself). Where is a 'complete nationalization' under Obama's proposed policies? I would not say that Obama is nowhere near socialism. Obama is liberal, and socialism is liberalism played out to its extreme. McCain is a conservative, and you do not hear me calling him a fascist because he adheres to the social right-wing, or calling him an anarchist because he believes in as smaller government. Socialism, fascism and anarchism are the extremes of the political spectrum, and Obama and McCain and his policies sit far from those intense and inflammatory extreme. So therefore I still think it's ridiculous to call his plans 'socialist.'
I also wish you'd respond to the rest of my earlier post, since that was at the meat of what I was trying to say.
Socially, yes the Dems were more conservative back then. But that's because that's what the common man of the South wanted. They still had the same ideology, it was just implemented differently. They mainly supported the South, however, because they supported more independent States, not because of slavery. They were against a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson essentially founded the party, although it was not called the Democratic party until Andrew Jackson. But it had the same ideology from the very beginning.
And the Repubs were anti-slavery, but that's because businessmen in the North didn't rely on slavery to earn a living, like farmers in the South did. They didn't care if slavery was abolished because it wouldn't have affected them. Since slavery was thought of as barbaric anyway, why not support its abolition and, therefore, improve your image? Repubs were still aligned with businesses.
I didn't know that. I guess I need to do some more reading.
bullshit. you know all anti-illegal immigration people arent racist, and your only concern is fattening your wallet.
i love sweeping generalizations too.
I can honestly say that my stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with fattening my wallet and has everything to do with caring about people who are trying to better themselves.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.
Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents
So 1 in 7 people in the United States qualifies as disabled? That seems pretty high...
I can honestly say that my stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with fattening my wallet and has everything to do with caring about people who are trying to better themselves.
ok, but i have a hard time believing Mr. "Bush has been good to me the last 8 years so forget about all the bad shit" suddenly gets all altruistic when it comes to immigrants.
and i can honestly say that stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with racism. its scientifically impossible for me to be less racist heheh.
Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents
No apologies necessary... you're making a case for what's important to you. That's what this thread is about.
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
So 1 in 7 people in the United States qualifies as disabled? That seems pretty high...
.....that's what the stats say. i did a search on google. a number of sites say it's around 50mil. maybe they're counting elderly too.
it's a slap in the face they ignore us in speeches etc.
Did the Sarah Palin interview on ABC help anyone at all in deciding their vote?
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
Comments
Abortion - I think it should be stopped. Immediately.
Death Penalty - I think it should be stopped. Immediately.
Illegal Immigration - I oppose nationalism and racism (which is what I think most of the debate is about) and I think we should relax our laws to the point that anyone who wants to come here, work and live should be welcomed with open arms and and extremely simple citizenship process. I'm more concerned about people in general than I am in helping "Americans" to the exclusion of another human being.
War - I oppose the war now and I opposed it then. BUT...I feel that we owe it to the Iraqi citizens to do our best not to make the problems we've caused worse by pulling out fast and letting chaos and death ensue.
Taxes - I'm in favor of every single tax decrease proposed no matter who it is for and I am against every single tax increase. I think the government should be about making and enforcing laws and providing basic infrastructure and basic defense. Everything else should be dropped.
Healthcare - I think we should ban health insurance except for policies that cover catastrophic conditions and let people pay for most healthcare out of pocket. I think health insurance is one of the biggest scams ever put over on the masses. I think it would only get worse if the government tried to take it over.
Some issues I don't much care about:
Gay Marriage - I don't much care one way of the other, but I do think there's some merit to the argument that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage.
Gun Control - I see both sides of this one, but I do think that the spirit of the 2nd amendment is long since gone. We can't defend ourselves against missiles and tanks with handguns and rifles.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Trust me, no one would cut spending for people with disabilities, that would be insanity. Governor Palin remarked in her convention speech how people with disabilities will have "an advocate in the White House," due in large part to her down-syndrome child. Obviously that's not a physical disability, but the same goes for both mental and physical. Disability spending is an important thing, not something that would be cut. When he says he's cutting spending, he's referring to obscure, useless programs which don't benefit anyone.
A good example of one of these programs is that so-called "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, a $398 million, federally-funded bridge that would've connected Ketchikan, Alaska with Gravina Island, in southeastern Alaska. Governor Palin initially supported the effort but came to oppose and, eventually, stop it's construction. Public opinion was that it was unnecessary. This is just one example of hundreds of other projects that Congress funds which are unnecessary. Disability programs are much more important than that bridge, I assure you.
Another example was a project in the Boston area to move one of the interstates underground, something that went on to cost the Federal Government $14.6 billion. It was completed around 2003, but there were many structural problems which actually caused the deaths of some motorists (I think the roof collapsed or something). In addition, there are cracks and leaks all over the tunnel as a result of the use of "sub-standard" materials.
These kinds of projects are funded by Congresspeople usually as a result of lobbying by various "special interest groups." These groups promise campaign donations and support in exchange for their agenda being spearheaded by members of Congress. This is a form of corruption and one which occurs on a daily basis in every level of government.
Every year, Congress dumps billions of our tax dollars into all kinds of these weird projects. This is what both McCain and Obama are promising to cut. However, this is one of those issues that never really seems to be resolved. Politicians promise to cut spending but it never gets done, therefore continuing to increase our budget deficit. However, Governor Palin has a history of battling this corruption and unnecessary spending to great effect, which makes me hopeful that maybe this issue will finally be dealt with. It's certainly an important one, one which could lead to tax cuts and more money for the Federal Government to spend on things which really are important, like helping people with disabilities.
-Reagan
I think they're both been bipartisan reformers, and they have crossed the aisle more than either side will give them credit for. Although I think for the past two-three years McCain has harshly drifted towards the social conservative side to get the nom, in his past he has been willing to break with established thought and bring differing factions together. Obama, as well, has many instances in his State Senate as well as U.S. Senate worked on biparisan legislation. I understand it's election season, but they both deserve credit for this.
Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.
Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents
Examples?
You're right, the Republican party has always been aligned with business, and the Democratic party has always been aligned with the common man. It's been that way since their inceptions over 200 years ago. Generally I'm not a big fan of either party. I believe more in the ideology of the Democratic party, but I am strongly against how Democrats throughout the last 15-20 years have been going about it. They are leaning WAY too close to socialism for my taste. It was capitalism that made this country as prosperous and powerful as it is. No matter how much you think Capitalism benefits only the upper class, the lower class STILL have it very good in this country compared to others. They have the ability to climb the social ladder. They have enormous opportunity. Yeah it's still tough, but that's life. My father was way poorer growing up than Obama ever was, so I understand the system. I don't think it's wrong to help the poor. However, I do think it's wrong for the government to take a person's own money and give it to the poor. They may be able to afford it, and, yes, it's regrettable that they don't do more. Certainly, a wealth redistribution program when my father was growing up would've been very beneficial. But he doesn't believe in it, and I don't believe in it, because it's still wrong. That money is that person's property. It is wrong to unjustifiably take it from them.
I'm sorry you think I'm trying to trick you. I'm really not. It's Obama who's trying to trick you into thinking socialist ideals are what's best for this country by using the media to pump himself up into a demigod. Think socialism works? Look at Canada. They have almost no GDP. Growth is negligible. What keeps quality of business up? Competition between businesses to deliver the best possible product. Removing that competition is what makes countries like Canada mediocre, and what would make this country mediocre. Think the economy is bad now? A recession is lack of economic growth for 2 or more economic quarters. Under socialist principles, there would be a permanent lack of growth, so, essentially, a permanent recession. Obama's tax plan and healthcare plan are based on socialist principles. No matter how genuine the intention behind them, they are just not good for the overall well-being of this country.
-Reagan
I'm a pretty much a Republican. I'm not "for" big business. I'm for capitialism. And I'm not "against" the little people. In fact, I'm for creating ways for "little people" to become "big people."
Democrats are for keeping little people little -- making them utterly dependent on the government -- because otherwise they would become "big people" and vote Republican.
You're being silly if you think McCain would cut funding for disabilities just because he doesn't explicity say he won't on his website.
He also didn't write on his website that he wouldn't seize the first-born son of every American couple and sell him to the circus. But that doesn't make McCain a child pornographer.
for the least they could possibly do
Not trying to be a dick, but from what I remember reading in US history, it was the other way around until FDR. The Rep. were abolitionist and even placed African Americans with in the government. The Dems where mostly from the conservitive south all through out the civil war and against equal rights, some even up too the 1940's. I'm sure some one with better knowledge of this can back me up here.
Other than that difference, I think you make a good point.
First, Obama's plans are pretty far from socialism, and I think it's a gross distortion to insinuate them as such.
I think this is my central problem with the Republican Party, and although I am a huge fan of fiscal discipline and personal liberty, I was not sure if I could ever be a full-fledged Republican. You said it yourself; "they have the ability to climb the social ladder." You hear it often, the American Dream which is something I believe does exist. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and through hard work, determination and a little luck you can fulfill every dream. Like you, I understand that this dream is achievable; my parents lived in a studio apartment, were both struggling and we had to live on food stamps for a while. Now, we live in Manhattan and I'm a college grad because they sacrificed and made their way up the ladder. I don't say this to gain cred, but I say to show that I do feel I've been able to see both sides.
And this is where I break harshly with Republicans; if everyone has the ability to move up the ladder, if you do not do so then it must be your own fault. It's the legislative equivalent of walking by a panhandler and telling him to take a hike and get a job. I consider it naive and dangerous to assume that since someone is struggling that it's because the effort is not there. "Yeah, it's tough, but that's life" doesn't cut it for me when there are fifty million people, most through no fault of their own, without health insurance, when people have to work three jobs and cannot break even.
This idea that slightofjeff proposed that Republicans recently are really "for the little people" (at least Republican administrations of the past 20 years) is not supported by the facts. Under the two eight-year Republican administrations (and during both those administrations the President served with a Republican-controlled Congress for over half the time), by the end of the eight years unemployment had gone up, wage increases had decreased, national deficits have increased (by record heights) and social programs have been cut. So I say to sleightofjeff's claim, not a chance. I think it's also pretty offensive to think that low-income voters primarily vote Democratic because they're all mindless minions who vote Democratic cause they're told to. Maybe they have a mind of their own and see nothing to like in the Republican Party.
I don't think Republicans are against the little people, but I think the Republican party establishment have made it clear they have different priorities.
Socially, yes the Dems were more conservative back then. But that's because that's what the common man of the South wanted. They still had the same ideology, it was just implemented differently. They mainly supported the South, however, because they supported more independent States, not because of slavery. They were against a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson essentially founded the party, although it was not called the Democratic party until Andrew Jackson. But it had the same ideology from the very beginning.
And the Repubs were anti-slavery, but that's because businessmen in the North didn't rely on slavery to earn a living, like farmers in the South did. They didn't care if slavery was abolished because it wouldn't have affected them. Since slavery was thought of as barbaric anyway, why not support its abolition and, therefore, improve your image? Repubs were still aligned with businesses.
-Reagan
Redistribution of wealth.
From Wikipedia:
"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor. Critics of state-managed economies, notably Milton Friedman, point out that the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." turns ability into a liability and need into an asset. They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly. However, such arguments are straw man arguments based upon misrepresenting the goals and nature of the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribute_wealth#Redistribution_of_wealth_and_public_policy
Socialism is a form of Communism, by the way.
Barack's policy:
Higher taxes on the rich, and "tax credits" for the poor.
From his site:
"Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families."
"Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
-Reagan
i love sweeping generalizations too.
Socialism is leftist, and Obama is a liberal, so his policies as you stated them were, and I quote; "It's Obama who's trying to trick you into thinking socialist ideals are what's best for this country by using the media to pump himself up into a demigod." If you consider a progressive income tax stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, I cannot say anything to dissuade you. Such inflammatory language takes away from the debate; you cite Obama's elmination of taxes for seniors making under 50,000 a year, and you consider it communist in nature. These plans and policies are not socialist in nature, they are liberal in nature. Such liberal thinking in the United States involves a consideration and affirmation that "promoting the general Welfare" as stated in the Constitution applies to more than just protecting our shores and citizens from foreign invasion.
Also, per wikipedia:
"Socialism advocates complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange" - a key tenet of socialist thinking (not just Communist thinking, as you cited, which is a form of socialism and not socialism itself). Where is a 'complete nationalization' under Obama's proposed policies? I would not say that Obama is nowhere near socialism. Obama is liberal, and socialism is liberalism played out to its extreme. McCain is a conservative, and you do not hear me calling him a fascist because he adheres to the social right-wing, or calling him an anarchist because he believes in as smaller government. Socialism, fascism and anarchism are the extremes of the political spectrum, and Obama and McCain and his policies sit far from those intense and inflammatory extreme. So therefore I still think it's ridiculous to call his plans 'socialist.'
I also wish you'd respond to the rest of my earlier post, since that was at the meat of what I was trying to say.
I didn't know that. I guess I need to do some more reading.
I can honestly say that my stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with fattening my wallet and has everything to do with caring about people who are trying to better themselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So 1 in 7 people in the United States qualifies as disabled? That seems pretty high...
and i can honestly say that stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with racism. its scientifically impossible for me to be less racist heheh.
No apologies necessary... you're making a case for what's important to you. That's what this thread is about.
i guess since i live in Texas and my vote is pretty meaningless, i'm leaning towards voting for myself.
who wants to be my VP?
.....that's what the stats say. i did a search on google. a number of sites say it's around 50mil. maybe they're counting elderly too.
it's a slap in the face they ignore us in speeches etc.
thank you.