Questions for lurking conservatives and Republicans...

A discussion about my signature line in the Justice forum inspired me to make this post. It's my belief that Democrats and Republicans share far more common ground than most people realize. I'd really like to devote a discussion to examining this theory. So, I'd like to ask those reigstered lurkers a couple of questions. I am also going to ask that anyone who decides to join this discussion do so with the intent to have mature, adult conversation and be open to at least trying to respect and understand any opposing views while sharing your own.

Okay, here are the questions...

1) Is there anything about conservatives or the Republican party that you don't agree with? If so, what is it and why do you disagree?

2) Is there anything about the Democratic party values that you find yourself in agreement with? If so, what is it and why do you agree?

3) What do you like and dislike about Bush?

4) What is more important to you...protecting the 2nd Amendment or preventing homosexuals from having the same legal rights and responsibilities married couples have?

5) Would you be against giving up the Bush tax cuts if you were guaranteed better schools, health coverage, better homeland security and a program that has a proven record of reducing child abuse and neglect by over half?

Feel free to add anything else you want to share or ask.

Are you trying to collect IDs of respondants to whack off the register?

Seriously, this is a great topic. Let's see if we can keep it civil.

1) The abortion issue. Completely nuts. Actually, men arguing about abortion fits right in there with your current signature line.

2) Care for those IN NEED. Drive through southwestern Virginia and tell me some of those folks don't need help.

3) The only dislike is his uncontrollable urge to spend.

4) Kind of a bizzare question - are they really related? I care a great deal about the first, little to none about the second.

5) Again, kind of a bizzare question. Two big stumbling blocks - "guaranteed" and "by over half". I think we'll see the Bush tax cuts help the economy and government revenues as much as the Kennedy tax cuts did. And if anything would guarantee that list, it would get my vote. The problem is the only thing throwing money at a problem guarantees is that more money will be thrown at the problem.

As an editorial comment on the last bullet, running a government budget shouldn't be fundamentally different from running a household budget - you should save like crazy during the good times so you can spend during the bad times. Unfortunately, just like many households, we spend like crazy during the good times, and don't have a thing saved up for when it's needed. Go figure...

It's not just making the tax cuts...it's where the rate was before the cut and after for the rich that is important.

These days, the rich don't pay much of the tax burden compared to Kennedy's times, so his cut made a MAJOR difference. The tax burden on the rich now is at least 15% less than it was during Kennedy's time, so the rich have their money already...giving them more isn't going to make them spend any more.

Not to mention the tax rate on businesses.

It's amazing to me how many (and not you) conservatives yearn for "the better days" and yet refuse to admit that in those better days, companies and the rich paid 70% of the tax burden. In my opinion, THAT'S why those were the golden days - the majority of the population had lower tax ratesm and thus the poor and middle class could get along a lot better than they can now.

to 70%! His main purpose was probably to stem the kind of "rich flight" that some European countries had seen.

(The "rich flight" was silly, since the rich people who fled still lived quite comfortably. One British pop singer who did not flee--Cliff Richard, who had been big in the 1950s in the UK--said that he couldn't understand tax flight, because even paying steep British taxes, he could still buy anything he wanted and indeed had more money than he knew what to do with. In essence, "rich flight" was rich people being greedy. So what else is new? But it was a real phenomenon.)

The top income tax rate is now what? 35% or thereabouts.

By the way, the contention that high corporate taxes "hurt business" and "prevent them from hiring people" is total nonsense. The wages, salaries, and benefits paid to employees (including executives) are subtracted from corporate income, along with all other legitimate business expenses, before taxes are computed, so hiring people, building new plants, conducting R&D, and other productive activities actually REDUCE a company's tax burden.

When long term and short term interest rates go up because of the ballooning deficits?

Why do conservatives identify with and support neo-cons who want to conquer the M.E. for the benefit of cheap oil and Israel's expansionist agenda?

What will conservatives do:

When long term and short term interest rates go up because of the ballooning deficits?

I'm not an economist but it seems clear to me that financially savvy people who have planned for such a cyclic event will switch their investments toward the bond market, trust deeds, and other instruments that benefit from high interest.

Why do conservatives identify with and support neo-cons who want to conquer the M.E. for the benefit of cheap oil and Israel's expansionist agenda?

I think true conservatives are much more interested in exploiting US oil reserves than in conquering the M.E.

In an environment of rising interest rates. If your bond pays 3% today, it will be less valuable in a year if the interest rate is 5%.

I agree with you on point 2 - and on point one, abortion, males are allowed to have an opinion - albeit uninformed by nearness to the choice that must be made - and I come down on Choice side, so on point 1 I also in the end agree.

As to 3 and Bush's urge to spend - I'd add that he spends not on those needs of Americans - but rather so as to fund corporate campaign givers.

I disagree as to the effectiveness of the way the Bush tax cuts were structured - the 300 rebate did indeed help - and when you are blowing a 400 billion deficit it has to provide some stimulus - but these cuts were not designed to stimulate the economy - they were designed to and do make the rich richer. The Kennedy tax cuts were designed to help the economy - the difference in tax cuts - as in many items - between Dem and GOP - is in the details.

If you believe we should "should save like crazy during the good times so you can spend during the bad times." you should be proud of the Clinton tax increase in 93 and the resulting conversion to saving - and be angry with the fake fiscal conservative we have as Pres currently.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The question about civil unions is mostly because I don't think it's a big deal to most people. Democrats really seem to think that the majority of Americans are homophobes. I think a lot of people don't feel comfortable with seeing homosexual intimacy, but I honestly don't think anyone cares what people do in their own bedrooms. I know I don't.

As for the child abuse and neglect, Howard Dean came up with this really great program that is actually very cheap to run. It would be so easy to implement on a national level, and it wouldn't cost much at all. He simply coordinated all the existing services into an organized umbrella of services that really help new parents. Right after you leave the hospital you get a home visit from a nurse (if you want it, it's not forced) and you're given every available resource that new parents normally wouldn't even be aware of existing. You discuss any concerns you have with the nurse and she sets up any other services for you, since new parents are usually overwhelmed. It's not intrusive and is very helpful. This helps address any issues right from the start and gets the information needed to those parents who need the help early on. Since the program started, Vermont's child abuse and neglect and the sexual abuse has dropped by the figures I listed. It's something that would be absolutely wonderful for the country.

It's funny you should say that you believe in saving during the good times so you can spend during the bad. That's exactly what Howard Dean did here. He isn't big on raising taxes, but he's determined to balance the budget and get the fiscal situation in order. If Bush's cuts stand, the states are going to be even worse off each progressive year and we'll all be seeing it in our property taxes and other local taxes.

Thank you for answering the questions so honestly. One more question, if you don't mind. Are you upset enough with Bush for giving us the largest deficit in the history of the world to consider voting for someone else in 2004? This isn't asking a definite, I'm just curious if the thought of supporting someone else has crossed your mind?

Conservatives have no hope (ie. this is as good as it's going to get), therefore the thinking and analytical process is completely different than ours. We do not carry the anger that they do and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

I'm 45 and have never been one to buy into anyone else's laundry list of issues. I choose opinions as if from an allegorical Chinese restaurant menu:

One from Column A, two from Column B, everyone gets hot tea and choice of soup, parties of five or more get egg rolls, for $4 per person extra all get Peking Duck which is exceptionally good today. So sorry but we are out of scallops, but we just got in some good fresh lobster. How about some appetizers?

So, as an oft-abused contributor who has never been a Republican and always thought of himself as a moderate I feel qualified to answer on behalf of myself:

1) Is there anything about conservatives or the Republican party that you don't agree with? If so, what is it and why do you disagree?

I disagree with the official Republican position on most social issues. The Republican agenda tends to put business before families and individuals. They're way too far into the trickle-down concept. Yes, good things trickle down and a rising tide lifts all boats, but shit also slides down and bigger boats enjoy greater potential energy gains when lifted than do small boats.

2) Is there anything about the Democratic party values that you find yourself in agreement with? If so, what is it and why do you agree?

Honestly I'm having a lot of trouble understanding where the Democratic Party stands right now and where it thinks it's going. Core values of equality and justice for all, absolutely. Placing a fair share of the tax burden on the rich, sounds good but the problem comes down to whose perception of "fairness" you want to apply. Good public education for all, a necessity but why are the schools here in California so fucked up when we've had Democrats solidly in charge of the state government for so many years? The schools were excellent in the '60s and '70s. Ronald Reagan was governor from 1967 - 1975, which was the year I graduated from high school. Fees at UCSD were dirt cheap right up through 1980 when I completed my undergraduate work. It's not cheap any more, and our K-12 schools are a disaster area.

3) What do you like and dislike about Bush?

The way he talks, the image he presents to the world, his apparent haste to use military force, and his mispronounciation of the word "nuclear". Also his obvious preference for right-wing religious conservatives as cabinet appointees and federal judges. I could go on but my blood pressure is already high enough.

4) What is more important to you...protecting the 2nd Amendment or preventing homosexuals from having the same legal rights and responsibilities married couples have?

I value the right to keep and bear arms and strongly believe that committed homosexual couples should have exactly the same legal rights and responsibilities as committed heterosexual couples. I see no linkage or conflict whatsoever between the two issues.

If you feel like taking a mud bath some time, go over to the J/PS forum and see how a few shrill gun control zealots insist on demonizing those who support responsible gun ownership by trying to link them with racist hate groups like the KKK. I saddens me deeply to see people who claim to be progressives or social liberals putting on such a blatant display of bigotry and hatred.

5) Would you be against giving up the Bush tax cuts if you were guaranteed better schools, health coverage, better homeland security and a program that has a proven record of reducing child abuse and neglect by over half?

Sure, why not? But I'd rather see tax cuts distributed more equitably among income levels. We have some truly needy people in this country, and I don't believe the founding fathers would have approved of the way class distinctions seem to be widening at this time. We have the resources for everyone to have a good life.

..."having a lot of trouble understanding where the Democratic Party stands right now and where it thinks it's going. Core values of equality and justice for all, absolutely. Placing a fair share of the tax burden on the rich, sounds good but the problem comes down to whose perception of "fairness" you want to apply. Good public education for all, a necessity but why are the schools here in California so fucked up when we've had Democrats solidly in charge of the state government for so many years? The schools were excellent in the '60s and '70s. Ronald Reagan was governor from 1967 - 1975, which was the year I graduated from high school. Fees at UCSD were dirt cheap right up through 1980 when I completed my undergraduate work. It's not cheap any more, and our K-12 schools are a disaster area."

The funding cut of Prop 13 was never reversed - the State Aid from the Federal was killed by Reagan, and new init's forced money to go to non-education items - so education being screwed is not a "Dem" caused issue. Fair share of the tax burden could be- at a minimum - when the two income taxes - payroll and FIT - take the same percentage of income from all levels of income, where investment income is counted at 100 cents on a dollar relative to wage income.

Then we can add "progressive" taxation ideas. At the moment the rich have won the class wayr on the poor and are taking no prisoners.


I agree that the J/PS forum has a few who are anti-gun zealots - but I submit the Dem Party is not even 5% anti gun Zealot.

That is, to make up for the deficit caused by Prop 13 tax cuts. More than 50% of California's budget goes to schools BTW.

Of course as with most institutionalized gambling the Lottery loses much more of its earnings to overhead than was planned. Some huge percentage of the take was supposed to go to schools, but now the state only claims that a total of $14 billion has gone to schools since the lottery was started in 1985. Sorry, but that is a drop in the bucket.

http://www.calottery.com/heroesineducation/faq.asp#q2

I take serious issue with liberalized gambling laws BTW. The rise of Indian gaming casinos has certainly helped some very poor native Americans finally get the kind of life they deserve, but it also preys upon the addictions of many citizens. I think on the whole that gambling is a negative force on society.

I agree that the J/PS forum has a few who are anti-gun zealots - but I submit the Dem Party is not even 5% anti gun Zealot.

You're probably right, but a few mean-spirited, closed-minded ones do terrible damage to the Democratic Party's reputation. Gun owners, even the large majority who are very reasonable and moderate, don't trust Democrats and won't vote for them because of a few shrill voices within the party.

At least 15% of the Democratic party is gun nuts. Brady Campaign, Million Moms, you name it. I remember hearing once that a Million Mom group upended the table of a gun rights group at an event. So much for opposing violence, huh, or do they only oppose violence with guns? :eyes: :puke:

I don't know why gun control advocates giving you trouble would make you feel like a conservative. I'm pretty firmly on the left and also firmly believe in the second amendment. Why shouldn't we maintain our nation's progressive heritage with free gun ownership?

OK, here are my answers:

1. I don't agree with the "War on Drugs." It seems like a futile, expensive waste of effort. Too many people are in prison instead of treatment.

2. I think both parties share the same core values: equality, justice, individual liberty, etc. It's how we get there where we differ.

3. I like Bush's ability to focus on a few core issues and stay with them, even if they aren't popular. I don't like the unchecked spending he has allowed the Congress to do, racking up huge deficits.

4. I have no interest in owning or firing guns, but I think it's important to protect Constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment. I'm in favor of the latter. I don't see that I have to make a choice between the two positions.

5. Most sane people would give up tax cuts if we could be guaranteed these things. But government expenditure guarantees very little.

I'm puzzled as to why someone said I, as a conservative, have no hope. I'm full of hope for a more peaceful, free, and prosperous future for everyone. And I'm not particularly angry, either. There seems to be enough anger in both parties to go around.

I didn't intend for it to seem like a choice between guns and equal rights for gays. I just wanted to know which of the two issues mattered more to conservatives or moderate Republicans. Basically, I want to know if a Democrat who supports gun ownership AND equal rights for gays could appeal to the more conservative readers of DU. I apologize for any confusion. I probably could have made that question a bit more clear.

Right here on DU. It really is a must-read if you're trying to understand how to appeal to republicans to find common ground with democrats:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/15_country.html

This article didn't sway me at all. First, the bullet points the writer makes are all debatable and have been repeated ad nauseam for months. It might as well have been a stump speech by Dean.

Second, and more troubling to me, is the idea that conservatives are motivated by "self-interest" by which it appears the writer means greed. I'm told that I don't believe in "justice, fairness, compassion, tolerance, equal opportunity" but prefer "a short-sighted and self-defeating view of 'self-interest,' whereby society is a jungle, a frontier, where the ruthless and self-serving individuals are best fit to survive."

How is an attack on my motives and beliefs an attempt to find common ground? Frankly, this kind of rhetoric depresses me because it sees our disagreement as motivated by base and evil desires. Someone once said that conservatives tend to think of liberals as well-intentioned but naive, while liberals see conservatives as evil. I don't agree with the first part, but apparently the writer believes the second.

Jim Robinson seems to be motivated by greed. He thanks you for the RV.

Who is Jim Robinson?

As I said, I think in general, liberals and conservatives share the same core motivations. We just don't agree on the way to achieve our goals.

He's a con-man who squeezes $66,000 out of his flock each quarter and uses any means necessary--including starting wars with competing boards, banning long time posters after their checks clear, making the rest of the flock fear him (sort of like Saddam Hussein), and slowing down or shutting down his site to make it appear like he needs the money to keep it operational. He is a charlatan in a 24k gold plated wheelchair who "runs" (along with his son--nepotism anyone) http://freerepublic.com

It does not cost a quarter of a million dollars annually to run an internet site. If JimRob is as big as he says he is, he should sell some ads. What, he doesn't believe in capitalism?

Thanks for the clarification. I thought maybe you had mistyped because I couldn't figure out who he was and why anyone thought I gave him an RV.
:)

Conservatives may be a tad bit more old fashioned and traditional, which isn't bad. Likewise, being more diverse and new age isn't bad either. That's what makes this country so great...we can all live essentially however we want. Personally, I choose to live by fairly conservative values, but I don't think anyone else should have to. I don't judge anyone for not being like me. I guess you could call it "live and let live", which is pretty big in Vermont.

The author clearly first makes an appeal to conservatives who are motivated by American ideals. He goes on to say that even if those principles are not enough of a motivation THEN think about your self-interest.

If you think GW and the hard-right haven't hijacked your party; if you're willing to gamble that conservatives are going to support extremism, then indeed, this article isn't for you.

Both liberals and conservatives are generally very kind, good and caring people. The main differences I see between the two is that conservatives are really big on responsibility, meaning that people should hold themselves more accountable. Liberals are more forgiving in this respect. Neither group opposes helping people, but I do think conservatives feel much better about helping those who are willing to help themselves and get disgusted about doing more for people who aren't trying to pull themselves up from being down. I can say this is true of all liberals and conservatives, but it's certainly something I've seen in a lot of both.

lurking liberterian

1) Abortion non-voting issue

2) Dislike of the Patriot Act

3) Spending, steel tariffs, farmers welfare, prescription drug benefits, no child left behind, not stating on the record that the AWB will sunset, thats all I can think of right now

4) Second Amendment above all

5) The federal government should not be involved in funding education, health care or your program

...guess I get to come clean now. I'm a conservative. If you want to get into why I'm registered and active here, I can answer that stuff later...provided I'm not banned. So I'm making this post in good faith.

1) Is there anything about conservatives or the Republican party that you don't agree with? If so, what is it and why do you disagree?

I'm not a huge fan of school vouchers, but vouchers are not really high on my list of political priorities. I view vouchers as simply another entitlement that I don't think the government should be handing out. To toot my own horn, I've never met another conservative who doesn't get all rah-rah-rah for vouchers, and it shocks most of them.

2) Is there anything about the Democratic party values that you find yourself in agreement with? If so, what is it and why do you agree?

Not particularly. In fact, I find I agree more with certain people, rather than a party as a whole. I could find all sorts of reasons to agree or disagree with any party if you put it in those terms. It's more about individuals with me. There are plenty of Dems with whom I find common ground. I have a conservative family member who LOVES Al Sharpton. I doubt he would vote for him, but he admitted he thinks that he is a compelling and honest speaker.

3) What do you like and dislike about Bush?

I like Bush's stance on taxes, which is my pet issue. I also think that Bush is generally a good conduit for the kinds of ideas I support, though his spending habits drive me bonkers. And overall, I think Bush has good leadership qualities.

I don't get all rah-rah for Bush though. I think he's a good president, but he's still got a term to finish and re-election after that.

4) What is more important to you...protecting the 2nd Amendment or preventing homosexuals from having the same legal rights and responsibilities married couples have?

Honestly, I rate each of those on completely different playing fields. I'm of the belief that if you want to get rid of things like the 2nd Amendment, you're only setting a precedent to topple the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, all of them. The 2nd Amendment to me is no less and nor more important than any other portion of the Bill of Rights, so to single it out doesn't make sense to me. I don't see much of a point in choosing between amendments but if you think that way, I don't think you have to choose between gay rights and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment isn't standing in the way of anything having to do with gay marriage, is it?

As for gay couples having the same legal rights as straight couples, I believe this question to refer to things like employer coverage, etc. Frankly, I think if a business wants to institute their own policies regarding that, I think that's fine. I';m still not sure whether it should be enumerated into law, and if so, how it should be executed. I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don't get all tied in knots about states recognizing gay marriages. Frankly, I don't really care that much.

5) Would you be against giving up the Bush tax cuts if you were guaranteed better schools, health coverage, better homeland security and a program that has a proven record of reducing child abuse and neglect by over half?

Yes.

For one, nothing is guaranteed, especially when you're talking about the government providing it. And being a conservative, I don't think that some of those tasks should be federal ones, or that simply getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will make any of that happen. Sure, you can say "Well, if we eliminate the Bush tax cuts, the CBO says we'll have $xxx more dollars in the Treasury, and that's enough to fund programs A, B, and C!" Funding and execution are two different things, and the processes Congress goes through are much to muddled and politicized to make anything like that conducive to providing successful programs. Congress does not acquire or appropriate money in anyway similar to just about any other entity in existence, so it's not a matter of simply having the money.

So there you have it, a conservative among your ranks whose managed to get away with 600+ posts. I guess we'll see if it lasts.

We are not FreiRepublik. We don't force you to march lockstep with anyone. Heil Bush! BTW, how much has that huckster Jim Robinson stolen from all you lurkers over the years?

It doesn't cost a quarter of a million dollars a year to run a website.

..at FR, but I have never donated. I do post there too, though not nearly as much as I used to. In fact, my FR and DU monikers are nearly identical.

:puke:

I answered.

and I f***ing responded
:puke:

Way back at the top I said I hoped we could keep it civil. I went away for awhile & KNEW the discussion would head straight for the bottom. Maybe it's unfair to point out, but I couldn't help but notice where the first shot came from. Doesn't do much to change what many consider to be the stereotypical member of this forum. Just a thought.

Everyone else was keeping it civil.

But like a freeper, you had to generalize and stereotype and say the entire thread went straight to the bottom. You won't have any type of frei debate at FreiRepublik. Anybody who doesn't suck RimJob's and Bush's little members gets axed. Now, speaking of stereotypes, go back to FreiRepublik and blame Rush's six year illegal drug problem on Bill Clinton's evil penis.

We can get back on track easy enough, and that's what I think we should do. One bad skittle doesn't have to ruin the whole bag of candy does it? :D

with f***ing greedy-ass conseratives who think TAXES is something that override every other issue this country faces. DONE.

there would be no America. Taxes were the core principle behind the Revolution. Interestingly, people are taxed more today than they were pre-revolution, and more than they were under the medieval system of lord / serf where the lord was expected to receive a total of 25% of the serf's produce.

I admire your concern for "other matters" that you feel are more important than taxation, but when you strip away all the layers of the various programs, entitlements and governmental mandates, rules, regulations, etc- it boils finally down to one thing:

money and taxes.

...taxes (and I guess generally, the economy) are my issue. And frankly, I see just as many Dems out there who place the same amount of importance I place on it. We have different ideas about what should happen with the tax code, but it's an important subject nonetheless.

because of Bush's reckless spending, taxes are not high enough to cover last year's, this year's or next year's budget---and Bush is unwilling to cut any programs to pay for his tax cuts or pay for his dirty, oily war in Iraq. Reagan and Bush aren't supply-siders, they are "socialist" FDR Keynesians.

.

Honestly, if you are unable to engage in civil discourse in the manner fitting an adult I really wish you would refrain from posting. The reason I requested that no one do what you are doing is because that kind of behavior will RUIN what could be a very good discussion. If you can't be part of the plan, please don't try to be part of the problem.

Thank you.

You do? What percentage of taxes will your children have to pay in twenty years so that Bill Gates could get an extra billion back from the gov't this year?

As for what my children will pay, I really don't know. Who knows what the levels of bracket graduation will be?

Bush isn't a true conservative. And neither are you, if you think borrowing billions to give billions in tax cuts is a great idea. Bush is fond of saying, "It is the people's money." But he forgets to add, "It is the people's debt." Borrow and spend is worse than tax and spend. At least the tax and spenders pay their bills.

I commend your abilities of deduction after a few posts on a generally anonymous Internet message board. To think this whole time I've been in the dark about where I stand politically.

As for whether I care about what my childrens' tax rates will be, I do. I differ from you in that it's not my belief todays debt will necessarily affect what they pay tomorrow. There are many more ingredients that go into tax rates than simply what the debt happens to be.

The people holding the debt of the US, including me, expect your children to pay their obligations. According to Bush, it will total $10 trillion by the end of his second term.

I have children who are going to have to face the burden of paying for what Bush is doing now. As parents, we work really hard so that our kids can have a better life than we did, and this credit card fiscal policy really isn't making it easy to leave our kids better off than we were left. Does that cross your mind at all? I've heard a lot of Republicans complain about this issue. And I think it's probably something damn near everyone can agree isn't something we ought to feel very good about.

There are plenty of other threads where people can insult each other if they so choose and partake in flame wars. That wasn't the vision I had for this thread. Kindly respect what the rest of us are trying to do here.

:)

I concur. BTW, Yankees suck. If baseball teams were political families, the Yankees would be the Bush Family Evil Empire.

Please keep with the intention of this thread if you're going to post. We all know there are plenty of areas to disagree on, but this is supposed to be a search for common ground and a mature attempt to understand each other's views. This has the potential to be a damn great thread and we should all make the effort to let it be.

that things get funded. I also think that really would depend on who was running things. I do think there needs to be an overhaul of the tax system so that the average Americans don't end up bearing the brunt of the burden. But that's not going to happen unless we get a doer instead of a talker at the helm of the country. I think Bush is really reckless fiscally, and there's no denying there are some serious problems.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but a lot of those tax cuts Bush gave will start to be phased out in 2005, conveniently after the election. More get phased out in 2008. I'm not sure of exactly which ones will be going, but if taxes are your pet issue, you should check into it and be informed. Personally, I don't view the cuts Bush gave as much of a cut. I see it more as a tax shift, and I'm really concerned the property taxes and state taxes are going to continue to go up for some time for two reasons. The first are those damn unfunded mandates Bush seems partial to. NH is one of the more conservative states in the nation, and they are vehemently against taxes. The politicians cringe if they even have to entertain the idea of raising them. Property taxes in NH went up $100 million this year alone because of the state being in such a bind over No Child Left Behind's unfunded mandates. This was not a good idea at all.

The question about equal rights and responsibilities for gays was basically to try to prove to the Democrats here that Republicans really don't much care about this for the most part, unless they are very, very religious, and those folks already tend to view Democrats as touting evil for supporting abortion. Just like the radical anti gun lefties mislead a lot of people about where the bulk of Democrats stand on guns, the radical right pro lifers have the same impact on Democrats regarding the image they have of Republicans. Frankly, we all should know better.

I don't see why the admins would ban admitted conservatives as long as they aren't disruptors. If you're here to have discussions like this one and are respectful of others I don't see why you wouldn't be welcome. Conversations like this are GOOD, in my opinion.

What is exactly is conservative about the Republican party and Herr Bush?

Is borrowing $400 billion a year from taxpayers to waste lives and $150 billion in Iraq and borrowing from the middle class to give billions in tax cuts to the rich a conservative ideal?

Is giving welfare to corporations conservative? I thought you conservatives believed in Adam Smith's economics.

A lot of longtime freepers have been banned because they aren't Jesus freaks and they don't worship da Führer Herr Bush. These people are conservatives.

Has Bush really done anything to further the social concerns of the Christian Right? Isn't abortion still the law of the land? Do you think maybe the Republicans need to keep abortion legal so that they have a major fundraising tool and "one issue" cause to get the poor sheeple to keep voting Republican?

Is nation building a conservative tenet? How about the "New World Order?"

I have no problem with true (paleo)conservatives, but these neo-con, tax and spend nation building pricks make me sick.

If Bush isn't conservative, what is he?

As for paleo vs. neo, I suspect that there are a fair numbers of paleo characteristics you wouldn't find all that agreeable.

Bush certainly doesn't spend like a conservative.

You are correct about me not liking many paleo characteristics, however, at least the paleos like Pat Buchanan are consistent. I don't know what the Republican party stands for these days, other than for big business and millionaires. They mostly pay lip service to the concerns of the sheeple "Christians."

I can understand why a millionaire would be a conservative. I cannot understand why a guy who makes $22,000 a year and who drives around a 1984 Ford Escort listening to Rush has a Bush/Cheney 2000 bumper sticker.

...at least to the degree that it's perceived. There are plenty of millionaire Democrats, too. Some people simply come from "party households" other develop their beliefs at some point in their lives. It all gets down to what you consider important.

Yet Republicans worship that golden calf more than worship Yahweh.

If you post on freerepublic, can you tell me why all the "pray from Rush" folks seemed like they wanted to murder Bill Clinton? I guess they were doing God's will and were going to abort Bill in his 163rd tri-mester before he "killed again." I don't post over there, other than to get a laugh and get immediately banned.

Republicans have sold the American public a lie. Hey, you too can be a millionaire. Not true. Why is it that 19% of Americans think they are in the top 1% income bracket? Because they are fools.

Republicans don't want to end abortion. They'd lose 8 million votes if they did. So the one-issue Republicans keep voting Republican and keep getting screwed over. After all, there are only so many rich, white, Republican males in the country, and these most important constituents of the Republican party can only vote tens of thousands of times, not tens of millions of times.

anymore than you can paint all Democrats with the same brush.

and he's an unelected piece of shit to boot

I choose to live my life more conservatively, but my political views are middle of the road and "live and let live". I posed the questions that I did simply because I am able to communicate with both liberals and conservatives and respect opposing views.

A point to ponder...how on earth will Democrats ever be able to clear up the misconceptions about their party if they aren't willing to have these kinds of discussions with people who have opposing views? The same can be said of Republicans. There are a great many misconceptions about the opposing party and those who belong to them. What a great opportunity this could be to educate each other and find some commone ground. We're all in this country together, and we all want things to get better than they are now. It's not going to happen if no one takes the time to listen to what each other has to say.

I don't like the lables we use, therefore the caveat. I am a libertarian, if anything, which shares some concepts with republicans as well as democrats and then a healthy amount of ideas that niether share. But, compared to most people here, I am probably what most of you would like to call a conservative, so I will share my thoughts with you on these questions:



1) Is there anything about conservatives or the Republican party that you don't agree with? If so, what is it and why do you disagree?

Yes. I strongly object to social conservatism and religious conservatism when it comes to pushing an agenda that will get codified into law. I believe in maximum freedom. Some republicans are intent on reducing freedom. But this goes for some democrats as well. Freedom is freedom, rights are rights. What you as a democrat may be at peace with when it comes to losing certain rights (think 2nd Ammendment) are as important to me as all other rights.

I somewhat strongly object to the PATRIOT act- it seems that it is possible that rights have been or could be violated under this act. However, it appears that there are some provisions to safeguard the public from PATRIOT act abuses, such as obtaining consent from judges before the use of the powers, etc.

I am against the war on drugs. I am against the imprisonment of non-violent drug offenders.

I am against all forms of welfare- most especially corporate welfare. I hate the idea of lobbies and PACs that contribute money to a politician and expect something in return. I'd like to see all politicians lose a substantial amount of their power so that such lobbies and PACs will lose their influence.




2) Is there anything about the Democratic party values that you find yourself in agreement with? If so, what is it and why do you agree?

Yes. General core values such as liberty, equality and upholding of rights, especially as they pertain to the "little guy," and others that may not be able to defend themselves against government. I like the tolerance and inclusion that most democrats feel toward people of other races, ethnicities and sexual / religious preferences. But I honestly feel that republicans and conservatives are beginning to adopt this point of view as well. Credit the dems for getting it going though. However, once democrats start advocating "extra" rights and privelages to the "disenfranchised," ala Affirmative Action, reparations or other little goodies like drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, that is when I part company.




3) What do you like and dislike about Bush?

I like the tax-cut. I like his vigorous prosecution of the war against the terrorists. I like the fact that he seems to have very personal convictions about this war, in spite of some very heavy opposition. I think in general, he believes in what he's doing. I think Bush is a plain-spoken sort and doesn't attempt to intentionally deceive.

What I don't like: I don't like the steel tariffs. I don't like that he has not reduced spending on any programs and that the budget and deficit are ballooning. I don't like his prescription drug benefit plan. I don't like his concept of the "compassionate conservative." Try as any republican might, he is not going to win many of the hearts and minds of democrats by acting like a lighter version of one, he's only going to lose favor within his own party.




4) What is more important to you...protecting the 2nd Amendment or preventing homosexuals from having the same legal rights and responsibilities married couples have?

These two concepts are not mutually exclusive- and I happen to believe in both "rights." I am ardently pro 2nd and I am ardently pro rights to those that have a civil union that is legally recognized. I would toss a bone to the conservatives and not call this union a "marriage" but I would give the exact same benefits and rights that married couples enjoy.



5) Would you be against giving up the Bush tax cuts if you were guaranteed better schools, health coverage, better homeland security and a program that has a proven record of reducing child abuse and neglect by over half?

In theory Yes- but there are no guarantees in government, so, in reality No. No one could ever convince me that throwing the equivalent amount of money into the education system will improve it substantially. In our beloved LAUSD (which my wife belongs to, she is a public school teacher) we have fat-assed (sorry, you can feel the venom) administrators and beaurocrats making over 100k a year, doing nothing, or worse, interfering in the process, or EVEN worse making huge blunders such as the Belmont Learning Complex- while teachers slave for far less money. I am not necessarily saying that teachers should be paid more. I am saying that LAUSD has stupid priorities and I would not trust them to use any additional funds wisely.

I hope we can respond reasonably to an asked question without getting the boot, so here goes.

1) Is there anything about conservatives or the Republican party that you don't agree with? If so, what is it and why do you disagree?
Cutting taxes is fine, but they don't want to cut any spending. I am against waste. The Republicans are as big pork barrelers as the Dems. Privatization is fine for some areas of the economy but I believe there are some agencies that should be left public. I also believe that the free market is fine, but the people in charge of companies are human, therefore flawed, so they need watching. I also believe in the de-criminalization of some drugs.

2) Is there anything about the Democratic party values that you find yourself in agreement with? If so, what is it and why do you agree?
I believe the environment should be protected. We have to compromise in the interest of our country's economic needs, but we have to make an effort. I also believe in workers rights. Unions can be just as corrupt as corporations, but they've been necessary. I believe in the seperation of Church and State but not to the point where I'd try to discredit religion or limit it's practice.

3) What do you like and dislike about Bush?
I like that he's serious about our security. I think that before Bush, there was a real feeling in the minds of terrorists that we would cut and run as soon as things got bloody, or that we would'nt risk unpopular actions. I don't like that fact that he's not really a conservative, he's increasing spending and the size of the government and I believe he did mislead the public about the real reasons for going to war in Iraq.

4) What is more important to you...protecting the 2nd Amendment or preventing homosexuals from having the same legal rights and responsibilities married couples have?
I am all for homosexuals having the same legal rights. However I do believe that the legal sanctity of marriage be reserved for men and women. I am not very religious so my reasoning is not based on faith.
I believe the second amendment is what it is, It shouldn't need protecting except against those who may want to repeal it and I would hope there's not many who support that action.

5) Would you be against giving up the Bush tax cuts if you were guaranteed better schools, health coverage, better homeland security and a program that has a proven record of reducing child abuse and neglect by over half?
I'd be for cutting as much unneccesary spending from the budget as possible. Putting it to a popular vote of what programs or entitlements we want government to support and at what level of support. Doling out pork to each member of Congress's respective state in equal rations, so that they could all bring something back to make their constituents happy. Then, if we needed to make fair and equitable adjustment's to the tax code, so be it.

You must be a Rockefeller Republican. ;)

1) I dislike the attachment to guns, government assistance of big corporations, and the christian coalition (I am devoutly christian, but I believe in moral freedom)

2) Attention to fair wages and working conditions, attempts to represent minority groups (though I don't feel its always done in the right way)

3) I admire Bush's ability to act without riding the polls, his conviction, and leadership. I dislike his communication skills, family ties, diplomatic weakness, and spending habits.

4)Neither one of these is a priority for me. I feel the 2nd amendment should be protected, but we can still limit the availability of various weapons, and I'm not against gay unions, just would like to keep "marriage" a seperate term. I don't think the government needs to make moral judgements.

5) Well, duh, yes. I don't think that's possible, though with just the money from the tax cuts.

How can a true conservative "cut taxes" when the result of three massive tax cuts has been to add about another trillion dollars to the national debt?

You cut taxes when you have a surplus and can afford it. You don't cut taxes and cause a deficit. You don't invade a country which poses no threat to you or its neighbors and increase the deficit by $150 billion (so far).

I don't think the onus is on the people to make sure the government is recording surpluses. I think the onus is on the appropriators. For that reason I think spending is what should be curbed, not tax cutting. Of course, I think this way because I find merits in things like the Laffer Curve, as well as how graduated tax scales affect the number of taxpayers (flame away). Tax cuts are not the only causes of deficits, just as tax rates are not the only cause of surpluses.

You cut taxes when you have a surplus and can afford it.

The argument that you should only cut taxes during a surplus typically runs into a big problem: no one wants to do it because they fear endangering the surplus that higher rates are supposed to have caused. It's supposedly the tax rate that has made the surplus possible....why cut taxes and lose it? In fact, I think the cornerstone of many attacks on the Bush tax cut is that it's what demolished the surplus in the first place. So it's interesting you brought that thought up.

Do you see them curbing spending? No. They have increased spending more than "Slick Willy" ever did.

Bush destroyed the surplus with three tax cuts and gave us a record deficit and debt. The economy was already sucking before 9/11 - and Bush's buddy Ken Lay helped destroy investor confidence.

Bush's answer to everything has been to cut taxes, with most of the money going to the very rich. He cut taxes when he had a Clinton surplus (saying if not now, when), and he cut taxes when he had a Bush deficit, (saying he was trying to spark the sagging economy and create jobs). His reasons for tax cuts are as irrational and sporadic as his reasons to invade Iraq.

Do you see them curbing spending? No. They have increased spending more than "Slick Willy" ever did.

Umm, what the judicial branch has to do with that is beyond me. But I've already expressed here that I'm certainly not in favor of all the spending that has taken place.

Bush destroyed the surplus with three tax cuts and gave us a record deficit and debt. The economy was already sucking before 9/11 - and Bush's buddy Ken Lay helped destroy investor confidence.

Bush's answer to everything has been to cut taxes, with most of the money going to the very rich. He cut taxes when he had a Clinton surplus (saying if not now, when), and he cut taxes when he had a Bush deficit, (saying he was trying to spark the sagging economy and create jobs). His reasons for tax cuts are as irrational and sporadic as his reasons to invade Iraq.

The "multiple" cuts you cite is the same cut. The cut was accelerated from it's initial effective date.

As for what has happened within the economy since those cuts have taken place....I will invite you to do your own research.

No way!! That's when all the pork flies off the shelves!! That's when they know they haven't been spending enough, and they start the Department of Self Esteem and such...

Unfortunately there's a balance, and sometimes cutting taxes INCREASES revenue, which is what the goal is, right?

Reagan cut taxes (once) and then raised them SIX times. If you are getting your info from Rush's ghostwritten books or from that college dropout Hannity's book, they failed to mention this.

If cutting taxes sometimes increases revenues, why did "Read My Lips" Bush break his word (lie) and raise taxes to cover what was then a record deficit. Only the DimSon Bush has topped dear old dad in the deficit department. Well, he topped dad in the lost jobs and dead Americans in Iraq departments as well.

that the reason for tax cuts is economic stimulus. Stimulating the economy creates an (albeit lagging) increase in GDP, which in turn leads to increased revenues.

I'm just saying typically Democrat representatives never consider cutting taxes to be worthwhile, just as Republican representatives seem to always think its the perfect time for a tax cut. They're both constantly pushing in the opposite direction, and the result is zero impact. No I'm not quoting limbaugh or hannity or anyone, just stating the basic economic fact that SOMETIMES tax cuts can conceivably create more revenue...

"typically Democrat representatives never consider cutting taxes to be worthwhile"

This is not true. Perhaps you mispoke, perhaps you have been misinformed, perhaps you were being mendacious. I have no idea, but that statement is untrue.

:puke:

Tax Cut Monkeys fling feces at everything and gleefully assist in the rape of their children and grandchildren provided they are told that they are getting a tax cut. Grover Norquist is the Alpha Tax Cut Monkey but Stephen Moore is a close second. A significant part of the republican base are Tax Cut Monkeys.

DU isn't a discussion board for dialogue with conservatives. There exists thousands upon thousands of discussion boards on the web for that purpose. DU is a conservative-free zone.