What "people " issues does the Republican Party stand for?

They will say they are for lower taxes, but they are really for lower taxes on their class, even though they will sometimes wipe a few crumbs off the table for the piss-ants on the floor...They will speak in vague generalities about "strong on defense" and "family values' but they have never stood up for the people. Can you think of one issue that they took the side of the people over the powerful????

not much else

i dunno!

I know a lot of "common people" voted for Bush because they - despite his Ivy League education, privilaged background, and hefty income - believe he's somehow representative of the "common man."

There's a lot of talk of this "good wholesome Christian America." The sort of white bread routine. Then again, it's all talk. I can't actually think of any specific issues where there's actual Republican support for the people. Sorry.

A ready supply of gardners, housekeepers and nannies does concern them.

where he sez some mega rich want POOR PEOPLE to exist for those very reasons.... someone to change the diaper, clean the pool, etc.

TRhose in charge are the RICH, or, led by the RICH, and so all laws and decisions protect the rich and favor their GAIN.

Us Poor suckas...we get those crumbs mentioned earlier. The Pubs don do squat for the PEOPLE.

Also, women from the affluent class of other countries are very upset that our household help isn't as cheap as they could get in their countries. I have a gut feeling that a lot of the breaking our working middle class has to do with making sure that our new investors' wives from overseas have a ready supply of cheap servants after they gobble up all the prime real estate and move here.

2.Myself
3.I

They are the party of the no-call list. I figure that by the end of 2005, we'll be charged to be on the list.

And in all fairness, Colin Powell has championed against the child sex trade in Asia.

... Published on Thursday, November 4, 2004 by

The Democrats Need a Spiritual Left
by Rabbi Michael Lerner



<snip>

Imagine if John Kerry had been able to counter George Bush by insisting that a serious religious person would never turn his back on the suffering of the poor, that the bible's injunction to love one's neighbor required us to provide health care for all, and that the New Testament's command to "turn the other cheek" should give us a predisposition against responding to violence with violence.

Imagine a Democratic Party that could talk about the strength that comes from love and generosity and applied that to foreign policy and homeland security.

Imagine a Democratic Party that could talk of a New Bottom Line, so that American institutions get judged efficient, rational and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize people's capacities to be loving and caring, ethically and ecologically sensitive, and capable of responding to the universe with awe and wonder.

Imagine a Democratic Party that could call for schools to teach gratitude, generosity, caring for others, and celebration of the wonders that daily surround us! Such a Democratic Party, continuing to embrace its agenda for economic fairness and multi-cultural inclusiveness, would have won in 2004 and can win in the future. (Please don't tell me that this is happening outside the Democratic Party in the Greens or in other leftie groups --- because except for a few tiny exceptions it is not! I remember how hard I tried to get Ralph Nader to think and talk in these terms in 2000, and how little response I got substantively from the Green Party when I suggested reformulating their excessively politically correct policy orientation in ways that would speak to this spiritual consciousness. The hostility of the Left to spirituality is so deep, in fact, that when they hear us in Tikkun talking this way they often can't even hear what we are saying ---- so they systematically mis-hear it and say that we are calling for the Left to take up the politics of the Right, which is exactly the opposite of our point --- speaking to spiritual needs actually leads to a more radical critique of the dynamics of corporate capitalism and corporate globalization, not to a mimicking of right-wing policies). <more>

<link> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-01.htm

Some of us remember the "Jesus freaks" fondly even though they lacked a firm sense of direction. What on earth prevents the Dems from promoting the true meaning of Jesus and religion - that Jesus and his philosophy in it's purest form IS liberalism. Only people who are truly free from the bonds of Republican greed can even begin to understand what it means to have a soul.

What people issues is the government supposed to stand for, and how do they implement them and how did we derive them from the law/constitution/charters/et al (which leads to - once defined in a way we can express them logically, how has an administration (in this case the current one) failed to properly do the job so ascribed to them by said documents and laws?)

It comes to - is the federal government's job to take care of people at all levels (fed/state/local) or is it their job to provide some basic services and frameworks and delegate the power down to more local levels where we as a people have a more direct voice which allows variances based on the needs of those in that area?

Maybe sometimes we expect too much from government - and in so doing we give them more power than they should have, which makes us more dependent on them for things whereas we should take away their power and vest it in more local bodies (in other words, break up the federal monopoly).

who wishes he could kill people that disagree with him.

Let's see: lower federal income taxes would be good except for the 30% increase in property taxes, 50% increase in oil bills, less safe due to "bring it on" attitude of the killer in chief and higher inflation and interest rates. They used to be for fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, but that is a Democratic issue now.

Now that they are the "one religion" party they have shunned all us liberal libertarians.

I can't think of one issue the Retransigent Party (that I'm not invited to) stands for that isn't for bigotry and killing...

School choice can be considered taking the side of the "little guy". Allowing a family who's child attends school that is literally unsafe to attend to spend their money on a school of their choosing the average person over the institution... in this case, government-run k-12 education.

The same could be said for Social Security reform... again, allowing someone to decide where their money saved takes the side of the little guy over the government.

Both of these issues, as with all issues, have two sides to the argument, and their are strong cases that can be built against both of them. But nevertheless, I think they count.

Talk about seeing only very narrow focus as we are destroyed by our own greed and lack of morals and ethics (a Republican mainstay). All Republicans would murder a family member for a dollar.

They are not doing it for the people - they want to bust school unions because they are for the other side. Same goes for Social Security, they want to funnel money to their friends on Wall St, who are not going to handle those funds for free, but under the guise of giving the small guy more bang for his buck. In the process, they will cause hardship to millions of elderly because of those policies. With that end result, it cannot be legitimately argued that it is a policyfor the people, in my opinion.

Like I said, both of these issues have serious flaws, but they both have merit as well. I would caution against automatically calling into the question the motive behind their support for these issues. The fact is, a signifcant majority of African Americans support School Choice for their kids. I think it can be reasoned that support for School Choice is the more natural position for the Democrats to be in, but school unions in this country are a prime interest group for Democrats, and as long as they are aginst School Choice, the Democrats will be as well.

It's at a time like this, when your side has suffered an election defeat (even one that might very well be tainted) when a healthy re-evaluation of your issues should occur. I believe School Choice is a great issue for Democrats to take as their own, and make in-roads into "Red State" strongholds.

It's a sham. Minorities are not all at once going to be going to private schools with vouchers etc. If they did, the other children they leave behind in the inner city schools will have even less than they have now. And schools vary by the neighborhoods. It's not about "school choice". That's simply a Repulican red herring.

The fact remains that a dollar value exists per pupil, and that value ranges between 4,000 to well over 12,000 dollars depending on the area (for example, Wash. DC schools are the highest in the country at over 12,000). For every student who is taken from one school and placed in another, that money is allocated as needed. This money comes from you and me. It's your money, and an argument can be made that your are entitled to choose how your child is educated, and where.

A case can be made against Choice, and you are sort of doing that here. But again, I would advise against automatically assuming that somehow the motive is nefarious in nature. At least respect the other side, even if you don't agree.

And I never said minorities would run out and put their kids in private school. But it's true that a majority of them support the issue, and if your child was forced to go to a rundown, dangerous school, you, too, might feel compelled to support this issue.

job of it to

they have no family values - look at the bush family - drugs, alcohol and abuse - same dsyfunctional family as most of usa - probably worse