The GOP and Me

[Samuari]

It seems to me that this may be a good time to examine why we choose to belong to one political party or another. I am a Republican, and sometimes I’m even proud of it.

My republican roots go to the 1968 campaign season. I was a pot smokin’, free loven’ teenager. So of course, I would be a Democrat like the rest of my family, right? Nope, It was the time of LBJ’s Viet Nam adventure and Great Society; The finest flowering of American liberalism, where it seemed that the government was going to be all things for all people. It didn’t work, and couldn’t work.

I wasn’t sure that I wanted to become a Republican, since that party disapproved of all the stuff that was fun. I looked at the libertarians, and really liked the platform. A party that stood for the things that I did! One problem, it would never be able to govern; and in politics like war there are no ‘moral victories’. If you cannot implement your policy with legislation, you haven’t made a difference.

The parents of one of my pot smoking buddies were big shots in the republican party, and convinced me that the way to make a difference was to get inside the party and change it from the inside; which I did, much to the chagrin of the rest of my family, who proudly describe themselves as “yellow dog democrats”.

Republican’s still at least say that they agree with Jefferson: “The government that governs best governs least.” Democrats still want to fix everything by having government do it for us. And still wish we could figure out a way for the Libertarians to be an effective political party. But until then, it’s me and the GOP.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I'm military. I vote with the military. Thats usually republican.

 

[Laurel]

I have the Monica Lewinsky scandal to thank for my interest in politics. Really!

A few years ago, I was a self-absorbed student who barely saw past her own nose. I didn't have time! I worked 40+ hours a week and took 20 units a semester, plus ran a small business on the side. Politics was too dull and boring to be bothered with. I believed all the hype about Republicans as greedy self-centered throwbacks to the 50's and Democrats as free-loving bleeding-heart throwbacks to the 60's. Neither appealed to me. I had other things going on.

Then the Republicans launched a hate campaign against a sitting President.

When it first happened, I thought it was odd. They're going to impeach this guy for getting a BLOWJOB? There must be more to it, I thought. Clinton must just be a bad President, right?

So I started reading up on Bill Clinton. I read about his struggle from poor kid to the Presidency. I read his philosophy. I read how he WORKED TOGETHER with Republican Alan Greenspan to turn around the mess that Reagan left, how he listened to and understood what Greenspan had to say and TRUSTED him to do his job (unlike Bush Sr., with whom Greenspan did not get along). Despite drops in his approval rating, Bill stuck by Alan's policy. And we should all be glad he did.

But instead of thanking Bill, the Republicans launched a barrage of nasty attacks on him.

Yesterday was the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination. It gave me pause for thought...Kennedy slept with every woman he could get his hands on, sometimes three at a time, yet the WHOLE country - Democrats AND Republicans - stood behind him because he was the President.

Where did those times go? What happened to our respect for the office? The Republicans, who preach of traditional values, deliberately and calculatingly sought to discredit and destroy Clinton to suit their own needs, and in the process set a standard by which no future President will ever be safe. And they failed miserably at their goal...Clinton's approval rating soared during the Impeachment trials. Harris and other polls done show that Clinton would have beat both candidates had he run. A few of those directly involved in the Impeachment were voted out of office this last election, and one lost his Senate bid. AND NOT ONE OF THEIR CHARGES STUCK! The only people who still think Clinton's the source of all evil are Republican partisans who will always think anyone on the "other team" is a "threat to the good of America".

Funny thing is, I've since talked with many in my age group who went through the same experience I did. Politically apathetic, saw what happened to Clinton, were turned off to the Republican party.

So this served as a catalyst for me to look more deeply into both parties. The Republican party touted itself as "less government". I'm for that! However, they want to criminalize abortion. They are staunchly anti-porn and pro-prayer in schools. They want an amendment to criminalize flag-burning. Wait minute...that doesn't sound like "less government" to me.

So I thought, well they must spend less money than Democrats. Wrong again! Their budgets are just as large as the Dems. However, their priorities are different. Republicans give tax cuts to those with money (i.e. they want to appeal the estate tax, which affects only like the top 1%) and cash grants to corporations, while Dems give the money to benefit those with less money to whom every dollar counts.

I'm reading a book written by Robert Wright titled "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny". In it, he discusses the evolution of human societies in terms of zero-sum games and nonzero-sum games. A zero-sum game is one in which if one participant wins, the other loses (i.e. chess, boxing, etc.). A nonzero-sum game is one in which the participants all either win or lose depending on how they work together (i.e. any group strategy game). He believes that the evolution of humans toward the creation of increasingly complex societies is caused in great part by nonzero-sum behavior.

In other words, we all benefit when we pull together to make sure we ALL win.

Now, before you dismiss this as commie-socialist crap, I want you to think about the society you live in. Capitalism, though to some extent dog-eat-dog, depends on mutual cooperation. Suppliers must deal with distributors who must deal with the retailer who in turn deals with the customer. If we were constantly competing at every single transaction, this system would break down. But suppliers will give breaks to distributors DISREGARDING a short-term loss to insure that the relationship between them stays amicable.

People help people - not out of some Mother Theresa generosity, but because in the end it benefits THEM.

So when I hear "The Democrats want to give all of our money to crack whores blah blah blah where's my goddamn tax cut", I laugh to myself. We do not live in a bubble. I'd rather pay a few bucks to the government (did I mention we have the lowest tax rate of any civilized country?) so that they can WISELY and EFFICIENTLY (that's a whole nuther debate) take care of the poor (so they don't resort to crime or lie around on the streets, so that they get an education and get jobs and contribute to society in ways that improve my life), the roads (so I can get where I need to go), the military and the police force (to ensure my safety).

Also, as I've mentioned on another thread, anyone who sells anything - be it a service or a product - depends on a consumer base for survival. A huge gap between rich and poor is not a very good market for goods and services. For me to beg for an extra $20 in my paycheck if that means we're headed toward a recession in which I will not get as many freelance opportunities and those around me will LOSE their jobs - that seems a bit short-sighted.

So I think that the Republican's philosophy is all wrong. I don't think it will build America - in many ways, I think it's anti-American. Forcing prayer is exactly the sort of stuff we left England to get away from. How can you chortle on about gun rights yet seek to ban a woman's right to choose? And beyond any philosophical differences, I dislike what the current crop of Republicans is doing to divide this country - violating the privacy of their opponents, using slander and Impeachment to discredit those who they disagree with.

I think the tide is turning. GWB is pro-social security and called himself a "compassionate Conservative". As fallacious a statement as that is, it's a tribute to the fact that our society as a whole IS more concerned with the welfare of others. We realize that poverty and lack of education in the populace benefits no one, and this "mine mine mine!" attitude, though satisfying in the short-term, will be our downfall.

I truly believe in a limited government role. I think the government should take care of the "housekeeping" and allow me the freedom to make personal choices re: drugs, abortion, religion, pornography, etc. So far, no party has offered this exact mix, but the Democrats come close. Industry and Government CAN live in harmony - one providing incentives, the other providing the housekeeping...and NEITHER imposing morals or ethics on me.

 

[Samuari]

I love you, Laurel.

 

[Laurel]

I love you too, Samuari! I love Puddles, too. Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Cyan BloodsBane]

Owwww

My eyes hurt now... so does my poor brain..

 

[KillerMuffin]

How much a polar opposite sometimes we seem to be. I look at Gore and I look at Bush. I look at the various issues as well, but the only thing I can see is that there is not lesser evil between the two. The only thing worse than either of them would be Buchanan. What ended up being the decided factor in how I voted was whether or not I would trust either man with my life. Who would I prefer to decide what my fate would be? Who would see me as more expendable and who was see me as less expendable? Who would choose to go to war more often and who wouldn't? I vote with military, they're the ones who have to pay for the presidency, usually in blood or with their lives.

No, no one made them join, but if they didn't join, then we'd have to have a draft again. However, yes, there is a gun to their heads making them obey orders. Even if those orders will get them killed for no earthly reason.

I think that Gore is more likely to intervene in every civil uprising that comes down the international pike, put us up as police for the world, and Bush is less likely to do so. But it's a crapshoot. You can't tell until the dust has settled.

Historically, the Republican Party has done more for the military than the democrats. When they were in power we didn't need welfare. When Clinton was in power, everyone E5 and below seemed to go on at least Foodstamps.

Narrow view, but everyone narrows their views.

 

[Cyan BloodsBane]

Owww

Now I am going blind....

 

[Silverlily]

Now I am going blind....

Don't even try to blame that on the board.

 

[Cheri]

Confession time...

Other than reading the occasional political page in the paper, I ignore politics as a whole. I do drop letters or email to my Congressman and Senator, but that would hardly be showing interest. I also did as little in the high school and college level government classes to meet my requirements and do well, without actually learning much. I know as a member of a democracy, I have an obligation to be informed and involved, but have been lazy in following through.
Since I try to be a conscientious person, I will learn more about both parties so that I can make more informed decisions in the future.
There that feels better.

 

[Samuari]

Sorta kinda wish that there was a way to make it simple again. But if I could, would they let me keep it that way, or do they want it all screwed up?

 

[Ambrosious]

Oh, here we go again! lol

Once again I MUST state my position as one of the top 10% of all wage earners, who pay 90% of ALL income taxes in this country. (Those numbers don't really sound fair, do they?)

Ya'll know that I am in favor of a tax cut for the "wealthy" and have recently determined that this will never happen. Why? Vote buying by both parties. If you, as a politician, promise 90% of the people that you will take care of them, give them a tax cut, tax the "more fortunate", pay for their meds, etc, you WILL get elected. Don't concern yourself with fairness, work ethic, or the choices one makes to achieve a certain level of success. You don't NEED their votes. You need the votes of the non-producing members of society. (Say bread and circuses)

Should the poor be taken care of? Of course. Through churches and other charities designed to handle it. NOT Imperial Federal Government of the United States of America. For those of you that want to start in on how the churches can't handle the task of taking care of the needy, let my tell you what the bishop of our church said. "We spend a lot of time LOOKING for places to donate money to. NO ONE asks us for help anymore!"

I also feel that certain programs that the federal government has control over should be turned back to the control of the states. Isn't that what the founding of our country tried to accomplish with that whole messy "Bill of Rights"?

Let those of us who contribute have our money back. Or let me vote according to how much income tax I pay. For example, if you pay 5,000 in taxes this year, you get one vote. I pay 25,000 and get 5 votes. That way, I would have more control over who gets my money, and how it might get spent.

I've spent too much time on this for now, I'm supposed to be writing, but that is the way I see it.

 

[Guest]

I agree with you Ambrosious that people who contribute more to society should have a greater say as to how the society they live in is run, than those who live off that society and don't contribute. But I don't agree that contribution to society can be measured by the amount of money that person makes. Say I invest a few measly dollars in stock of an equally measly company that later on becomes incredibly wealthy and profitable. I have done jack-all to earn the money I have made and have done equally jack-all to benefit society, but should I still have a greater say than others who have ben of great use and benefit to society yet don't earn even anywhere near what I do? Hell no.

The system sucks, no doubt about it. But I can't see your suggestion making it any fairer. Perhaps when someone invents a system which focuses on the person rather than mathematics, then it'll be fair.

Ah, fuck it. It's late and I'm tired and am probably not making any sense at all. As I see it, I'd rather gain respect and admiration from my contributions, not tax cuts. But that's just me...

 

[teresafannin]

If I understand Ambrosius right, he makes more money than I do & pays more taxes than I do, so he is more worthy than I am? I make an okay living, pay all my bills on time & do different kinds of community service work. I raised my child by myself with no child support, no welfare, just my paycheck.The monetary contributions I give to charity are not deductible, no write-offs for me, but that isn't why I do it. One of my best friends is very wealthy & when it comes to percentage of taxes paid, I pay more than she does. Fair, probably not, but no one ever said life is fair.

 

[Ambrosious]

If I understand Ambrosius right, he makes more money than I do & pays more taxes than I do, so he is more worthy than I am?

I never said THAT. I said that if a person pays more in taxes, they should get more say in how that money is spent. Period. The way to do that ensure this is to make votes dependent on total money paid to the government in the form of taxes. If I pay more, I should get a bigger say, in the form of votes.

So it goes to reason that if you pay more in taxes than your rich friend, you would get a bigger say in how that money is spent.

Thank you for your social work. It's that kind of charity I was talking about earlier.

One other thing. You pay your bills on time? And this enters into this discussion, how? You lost me on that one. down here in GA, we only have two choices, pay on time, or sit in the dark. lol