Comments on a recent post gave me an idea for an interesting exercise for Democrats and Republicans of all ages (even Unpartisans like me can play):
Put together a list of EVERYTHING that you see as being included in the category "what the Democratic Party stands for." Then do the same for the Republican Party.
Mind you, don’t just put in the stuff that attracts you or repels you about each. Think outside yourself and your likes and dislikes, and include everything that any fair-minded person might see as identified with those parties.
And use neutral language, the kind that someone on the other side would say, "Yes, that’s what my party embraces."
We really need participation from all points on the spectrum. Our goal: to arrive at a generally agreed-upon list. I mean, if you write, "We believe in honest government, and they’re a bunch of lying bastards," you’re simply stating an area of agreement, because they’d say the same about you.
I’m thinking, to use one big litmus test, "Democratic: favor legal abortion; Republican: oppose legal abortion." Simple. Matter-of-fact. No emotional posturing about "pro-choice" or "pro-life." Just state the case.
Then, when we truly have complete, comprehensive, generally-agreed upon lists, I will still have this question: How can a thinking person completely embrace virtually everything on one list, and completely reject virtually everything on the other?
That’s what comes to mind when people say, "Maybe this person NEVER found a Republican (or Democrat) with whom he agreed on enough issues," or "Why is it that you think someone has to vote for a party that they fundamentally disagree with on almost everything…?"
I’m not saying anybody has to do anything. I am saying we have an obligation as citizens to approach every electoral decision with an open mind.
Related Posts
Of course, this is a useless exercise. By setting a condition that there has to be general agreement, Warthen allows people who are lying about their intentions to dominate the discourse.
For example, it is a fact that one of the most important aspects of the modern Republican party is an appeal to racial hatred. This is the foundation of their appeal to Warthen. Warthen trusts the Republicans to keep black people in their “place”; this is why he is a relentless Republican partisan, in spite of his constant and risible proclamations of his own nonpartisanship.
But Republicans will not admit that they stand for racial hatred, so Warthen would allow them to close off this area of analysis.
The problems that the Republican party suffers in the illegal immigration issue arise from the fact that they mainly consist of two categories of people:
1. Those who seek to use influence over governmental institutions to transfer wealth to themselves.
2. Racists.
The persons who control the actions of the Republican party have a strong desire to depress wages. A continuing flood of illegal immigrants is instrumental in depressing wages, because employers of illegal immigrants have enormous power over their workers. Illegal immigrants are terrified not simply of losing their jobs, but of being deported. Therefore, they are afraid to demand better wages and working conditions, for fear that their employers will use the instruments of government to punish them with deportation for “excessive” demands. In addition, they consume a disproportionate share of public resources in the form of welfare and health care subsidies, that vastly exceed any taxes they pay. Their employers, therefore, have their labor costs subsidized by taxpayers.
On the other hand, an important Rebublican constituency consists of white racists. These people resent anyone different from themselves, and they also happen to be affected by direct competition from the low wage illegal immigrants. The South, home to many, many white racists, has an economy based on “right-to-work”: namely, on offering employers a low-skilled, frightened, compliant work force, willing to work for low wages and under poor working conditions. Of course, such an economy cannot be supported without outside intervention, which is why the South basically depends on welfare from the states outside the South to keep its economy from collapsing.
But anyway, the Republican Party is severely conflicted between their two consituencies. They want to continue to allow illegal immigrants into the country, in order to depress wages and to use illegal immigrants as a way to perform an indirect transfer of taxpayer money to their campaign contributors. At the same time, they are terrified of alienating the white racists on whom they depend for votes.
This analysis perfectly explains the Republican posturing on the immigration issue. They are trying to chart a course between two constituencies with radically different interests, both of whom have disgraceful motivations that they will not admit to.
Now, the Republican Party will not admit that they are motivated either by a desire to countenance lawbreaking, or by racism. Under Warthen’s “rules” of analysis, therefore, my analysis is impermissible, because it conflicts with the desire of the Republicans to present themselves in a particular way.
Warthen once again demonstrates the stupidity and laziness that has led to his failure as a journalist. You don’t tell what people stand for by focusing exclusively on what they claim to stand for. You also look at WHAT THEY DO. by creating rules of analysis that require acceptance of what people SAY they stand for, rather than an analysis of WHAT THEY DO, Warthen insures that any analysis performed under these rules will be worthless.
Hey, I’m glad everybody understands the objects of the game: fairness, objectivity, intellectual honesty, an ability to step outside one’s narrow viewpoint.
We’re off to a roaring start.
Anyone else want to play?
Ok Brad, for what it’s worth I’ll play along.
Mary, I haven’t heard from you in a while. I thought maybe you moved to Holland.
Democrats – Believe workers should be empowered to have broad rights in work related issues otherwise business owners will exploit workers out of greed.
Repugs – Believe unfettered free enterprise is the only way to prosperity for all.
Democrats – Believe in Universal Health Care with large government intervention to ensure this happens.
Repugs – Believe free market is the best way to deliver all goods and services including health care and that government can only make things worse.
Democrats – Although most dems voted in favor of Iraq war initially a growing coalition is emerging that want rapid withdrawl. I think we’ve covered at great lengths the reasons for this position.
Repugs – Believe continued occupation of Iraq is the best way to protect the US from terrorists. Again, reasons have been provided at length.
Brad, I’m not sure most people can put aside their partisan thinking long enough to participate in this excercise but it’s a nice try anyway.
The Republican Party stands for:
1 – smaller government
2 – less entitlements
3 – ending legal abortion
4 – lower taxes
5 – less gun control
6 – maintaining traditional social values
7 – ending the reverse racism of affirmative action
8 – an agressive war on terror and a strong military
9 – letting capitalism work by limiting gov’t intervention in private businesses
10- using the death penalty
The Democrats stand for:
1 – bigger government
2 – more entitlements, paid for by….
3 – higher taxes on the “so-called” rich through a more progressive tax system (Robin Hood taxes – take from rich, give to poor)
4 – legal abortion up until the moment before the birth of a child
5 – unconstitutional gun control
6 – “progressive” social norms (say goodbye to values) like gay marriage
7 – marginalizing religious expression to the extent that people actually mean something by it (Howard Dean can still say that Job is his favorite person in the New Testament)
8 – a war on terror only fought through the UN with the permission of the French (very loose definition of “fought”)
9 – economy run by the government
10- light sentencing on criminals because they all have “diseases”
Not all politicians follow these platforms, but I think this pretty well sums the parties up.
Bud, I love how you “worry” about the “partisans” while referring to the GOP as “repugs”. What is it they say about glass houses?
Democrats:
Support affirmative action and
racial quotas
Republicans:
Oppose affirmative action and quotas.
Democrats:
Support a social security system that
covers people from cradle to grave and
propagates a reliance on the government
versus self responsibility
Republicans:
Favor (mostly) privatization of social
security and increased support of faith
based programs to deal with social issues
Democrats:
Support condom distribution, AIDS and
stem cell research, needle exchange programs, medical marijuana, and same-sex marriage
Republicans:
Support fiream distribution, sanctity of
marriage between man and woman, harsh
penalties for casual drug users
Democrats:
Think Howard Stern is funny
Republicans:
Think Howard Stern is responsible for
the decline of modern civilization
Democrats:
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Phil Donahue,
Al Franken
Republicans:
Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity
Democrats:
Support partial birth abortion and
paying welfare to unwed mothers with
multiple children by different fathers
Republicans:
Care more about an embryo or fetus than they do about an unwanted child living in poverty.
I’m telling you guys.. the Libertarian
party is the way to go. You can follow
common sense instead of group-think.
My beliefs fall all over the map with
one overriding principle: LESS GOVERNMENT
Government is inefficient and rife with opportunities for corruption.
I’m pro-choice (to a degree); anti-gun; anti-war;
pro free speech (to the extreme); pro-medical marijuana and compassionate end-of-life decisions; pro privatization of social security; pro drilling in ANWR; pro school vouchers;
pro flat tax; pro abolition of the IRS and Dept. of Education; anti sprawl and pro slow growth; against No Child Left Behind
and the scam it has perpetrated on this country; and I support 100% The State newspapers attempts to get local governments to open up ALL of their activities to the public.
And, if elected, as your write-in Governor, I promise to make Brad Warthen and Mary Rosh my co-chiefs of staff. 🙂
Brad,
In case you missed it, Joe Biden, the moderate that he is, voted with the far left to NOT make English the official language of the USA. I guess we should add that to the democrats platform.
I’ll add a few more:
Dems – Believe death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment that fails to deter crime and probably even glorifies killing, thus leading to an increase in capital crimes.
Repugs – Believe death penalty deters criminals and brings closure for the families of victims.
Dems – Believe in progressive tax system that provides hope for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Repugs – Believe wealthiest individuals are the engine of economic prosperity and that any attempt at progressivity will hinder economic advancement for all – The trinkle down effect.
Dems – Favor increased dialog with all nations and a respect for human rights as a means of bringing peace and prosperity to all people. This in turn will provide security for America.
Repugs – Believe that only through enormous expenditures for the military can security be maintained. Attempts at diplomacy are doomed to failure.
This is excruciating trying to be Bradically correct. I’m ready to get back to partisan bickering.
Democrats:
Favor preventing cervical cancer.
Republicans:
Oppose preventing cervical cancer.
From “New Scientist”:
********************************************
n the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. “Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
“Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,” Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.
********************************************
Doug,
I was libertarian years ago and still believe in much of what they try to do. But I came around later on to the belief that sometimes government actually can, on occassion, do some things right. FEMA for instance under Bill Clinton was terrific in handling disaster relief. Social Security, despite it’s many detractors, really has worked reasonably well for 70+ years. What turned me around was reading a libertarian paper arguing for the elimination of the department of treasury. They suggested private companies could do a better job controlling the money supply through free enterprise techniques. Why get rid of stuff that works. Let’s not throw away the baby with the bath water and get rid of all government programs. (Worse, lets not do what the republicans want and throw away the baby and keep the bath water!)
As an evangelical, I’ve tended to support the Republican side more all my life. The issue of abortion is a heavy one. Like I’ve written before, the booster generation had 80 million babies. Those babies grew up, my generation of boomers, and also had 80 million, but killed 30 million of them.
That being said, I’ll put in (grossly oversimplified, I realize):
Republicans tend to support selfishness.
Democrats tend to counter that attitude, perhaps sensing that unbridled selfishness will eventually destroy the fabric of a nation. The above sin of abortion is heavy. The sin of greed, fostered by libertarianism, is also heavy. I’m glad that some of my fellow evangelicals are calling for evangelicals to think differently, but unfortunately, we tend to be allied with the Republican party.
I like that about Herb. He’s conflicted.
As Yossarian said, regarding his conscience, to the chaplain at the end of Catch-22, “God bless it. I wouldn’t want to live without strong misgivings.”
Herb, you have been conditioned by your schooling (by liberals mostly) and by most of the mass media to believe that people who are successful are by nature greedy and selfish. So, when you see someone in a nice car or nice house, you make a subtle assumption that these are greedy Republicans. God wants us to be successful, and without posting scripture, enjoy the fruits of our harvest. Envy is also a sin, and most leftists are filled with envy. That is what all this nonsense is about two Americas from John Edwards for example. And Warren Bolton most recently. By the way, for the Edwards lovers out there, evidence is coming out that friendly law firms to him had low paid clerks contributing $2000 each to his last campaign. It wasn’t their own money but instead was passed to them to circumvent campaign giving limits. Yes Herb, democrats like “don’t leave a tip for the little people” Teresa Heinz aren’t greedy just because they are Dems. And yes, there are greedy Republicans too, but stereotyping the GOP as greedy is laughable. By the way, other than in cases of rape and incest, which represent less than a small fraction of 1% of all pregnancies, NOTHING is more selfish than an abortion. Think about that.
I would ditto Nathan’s list but stress that Republicans believe strongly in personal self sufficiency, rewarding success, punishing criminals, strict interpretation of the Constitution, states rights, and Judeo-Christian values with tolerance for other “real” faiths, and thinking positive about today and the future.
Democrats take the converse of nearly every item on the list.
Republicans come in several flavors. Northeastern GOPers are more liberal than southern democrats so they call themselves Republicans but hardly qualify, hence the term RINO, Repub. in Name Only.
Dave, Republicans don’t believe in personal self-sufficiency. They believe in talking about personal self-sufficiency, while living off of handouts financed by the tax money of Democrats. What would happen if South Carolina were forced to get by without federal handouts? What if South Carolinians were suddenly obliged to support themselves with only the product of their own industry and intiative? The horror beggars human powers of description; one can only echo Herb Morrison’s cri de coeur:
“Oh, the humanity!”
Herb,
Let me go ahead and put to rest this silly notion that the left loves to tout (don’t know how you came to buy into it) that Republicans are greedy. First of all, in recent study on charitable giving, the study found that “red” states are much more charitable than “blue” states. This reflects a conservative view of the place of charity and the place of the gov’t. In the mind of a conservative, the Church and charitable organizations exist to feed the hungry, help the poor and addicted, teach, and provide a light on the hill to society. In a liberal mind, the gov’t is to take care of all of that. As such, a conservative will give freely of thier income to the poor (through a church or other organization). A liberal will see that as a gov’t problem and complain that the gov’t needs to do something. If the gov’t doesn’t have the money, they will complain that taxes should be higher and propose taxing the “rich”. And while we are on that, why do all of the Hollywood types have concerts and telethons when the poor need money? These people are millionnairres but they rely on poor, stupid saps like me to funnel money to thier pet cause so that I can enjoy thier presence for a short period of time. Next time Clooney, just give some of your dough!
Thanks, Brad. Yes, I am conflicted.
And Dave, how do you know I am affected by my schooling? If I told you where I went to school, everyone would laugh about your reference to “liberals.”
I think I am affected by Scripture a lot, and by Christians who seek to apply Scripture, and probably by different places it has been my privilege to live and visit. You are an evangelical, I believe Dave. Go read the epistle of James, my friend, particularly the part about the “go weep and howl you rich . . .” Read the book of Acts, how the early Christian community had all things in common, and called nothing their own. The New Testament itself is “conflicted,” in a way, because God leaves mankind a choice, a person’s eternal destiny is to some extent decided by what she/he decides to do with material wealth. To those whom much is given, much will be required.
I am not trying to take away people’s “right” to make choices, but I sense a moral responsibility not to support policies that dominate the poor, or better said, those who have had no chance. I have seen their faces, Dave. I have seen the kids in Africa, India, Central Asia. I have seen starvation, and I have seen them in the poor communities in this country. And their faces will not let me go. To laugh it off, or to say, “it is their own fault, or their country’s fault, or bad policies’ fault” to me is a cheap joke.
No, I don’t think I am naive. Helping the destitute is a hard job. People are incredibly selfish, generally speaking. Handouts are no answer. Personal involvement and hard decision making is.
There are people on this blog who seem to say that every person should only get what he has earned. Responsibility, they call it. Not surprising, through whatever circumstances, they have had a lot of privileges. The New Testament reminds us that we don’t have anything that wasn’t given to us by God. So why do we think we are something special that God should respect? God loves Americans more than anyone else? I don’t think so.
I remember well a Christmas when my parents invited an illegal immigrant family to spend the day with us. It was excruciating for me — I didn’t want to spend the day with a bunch of smelly Hispanics. Or so I thought. What I discovered was a teenage boy who was very much like me, hoping to make something of his life. I didn’t really enjoy that day with him, because I would have rather been with my Goldwater supporter friends who lived in the rich houses on the other side of town (my parents didn’t want to live in slick, gated communities, so we didn’t, though we could have).
What if someone has never had a chance to earn anything? What if, just if, life were a gift of God, instead of something we earned by virtue of our merits and wonderful credentials? Maybe then we would cease to stand in judgment over everybody else. Maybe.
Oops, no gated communities, not back then. Some anachronism there.
It isn’t just about envy, Dave. Building community needs more than just the attitude, “lets see what I can keep for myself.”
I need to explain more what I wrote above late last night, but no time. Maybe it makes sense to somebody.
Oh, and Nathan, it sounds good, what you are saying. But the reality is a bit different. All I am asking for is some balance.
It would be nice if we could just rely on humanity’s goodness to share and stop taxing anybody in the certain knowledge that everyone’s good will would see to it that the roads were built and maintained, the justice system adequately funded, etc. But I don’t believe in man’s inherent goodness.
Interesting: to those of you who say they respect the Bible. Did you ever notice that, in the Old Testament, in God’s ideal state (as Israel was intended to be), there was to have been a lot of income redistribution? If someone became poor and had to give up their family land or sell themselves as a slave, they were to get it all back, land and freedom, at the Jubilee year (every 50 years). Accumulation of wealth was to be limited by law. Think of that!
I wonder if Grover Nyquist has ever read Leviticus 25 to 27? I don’t know. I just find it interesting that when we talk about “Judaeo-Christian values,” we seem to read selectively.
Herb, that 50 year provision struck me as really funny. In Biblical times, life expectancy was probably 49 years. It is like the cars I buy, if I get a 36 month warranty, the air conditioner and transmission always wait till month 37.
Also, early America prospered without the onerous taxation that we live with now. As a result, people who needed help usually had the common sense to bond with some church or community. The proponents of big government have as their agenda the marginalization if not elimination of church while expansion of the nanny state takes its place. That is one of the most serious problems this nation faces. Along with that agenda comes the “new” moral code where nothing is ever really wrong. So we have seen relaxation of broadcast codes relative to nudity and immorality in the media, removal of God from the public spaces, promotion of gay marriages, and so on. It all ties together.
The democrats just gave us another differentiation.
Republicans – English is the national language.
Democrats – English is actually racist so everyone who speaks English as your primary language, to a Dem, you are a racist.
Note to Rove – This absurdity of the Dems needs to get big play this fall.
Off topic on this thread but more BAD news for leftist liberals. Iraq has their first official government. They already announced that security and stability will be their first priority. This is a huge milestone that Zarqawi and Al Qaeda threw everything they had to stop it. Now a National Iraqi military and police have the full authority and will of the people to exterminate the terrorists. I bet the buses to Sudan are packed full this morning. In the US Senate on the Democrats side, and at John Murtha’s office, there is great dissapointment. Iraq is actually a functioning democracy now. Hoorah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nathan, the study you refer to does not suggest that red states are “much” more charitable than blue states, because it does not measure the actual proportion of charitable giving, but only rankings. Look at it this way. Suppose people in California have a per capita income of $150,000 and people in Alabama have a per capita income of $15,000. Suppose further that people from Alabama donate $500 per year to charity and people from California donate $4999 per year to charity. Alabama comes out ahead, because they donate 3.33333% of their income, while people from California donate 3.33327% of their income. In fact, however, the difference is negligible – although, one might point out that by superior iniatitive and industry, people in California have much more money available to donate than do people in Alabama.
So first, a study that purports to show that people in the “red” states do more charitable giving is meaningless if the data consists merely of relative rankings. Second, isn’t it true that the absolute amount of charitable giving by people in “blue” states is much higher than that of people in “red” states because the people in “blue” states have higher incomes? Couldn’t we say, then, that the people in “red” states, through their shiftlessness and lack of education, deprive potential charitable recipients of the higher donations that would be available if “red” state citizens showed the same initiative and industry as do “blue” state citizens?
Finally, how can we say that “red” state citizens are really generous when it isn’t really their money that they’re donating? As you know from personal experience, “red” state citzens typically don’t pay anywhere near the amount in federal taxes that they receive in federal subsidies and services. “Red” state citizens are supported primarily by handouts financed by the federal taxes collected from “blue” state citizens.
So how can we say that “red” state citizens are more generous than are “blue” state citizens? Can we even say that “red” state citizens actually make any charitable donations at all? If you yourself live on handouts, rather than the product of your own initiative and industry, can any charitable donations you make actually be said to come from you? Or do they come from the people on whose charity you depend for your survival?
Dave, great news about the Iraqi government. So, they signed a paper did they?
Anyone blown up this morning?
“Do you believe in fairies? Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!”
–J.M. Barrie
Dave,
Why would an official government in Iraq be BAD news for leftist liberals. The Bush lemmings are so confused by what liberals really want. We want out of Iraq, period. If a stable Iraqi government hastens the day when that happens I say Hoorah too. But we’ve heard this all before. Over and over again the right gloats over some type of political event that in the end leads nowhere. I say why wait? Let’s pull out now regardless of Iraqi politics. Besides if you want a tit for tat battle of the good vs bad news in Iraq the “stay the course” crowd loses. Just check out the latest coalition casualty figures.
As for Nathan’s list of 10 repug/dem items (fourth thread down) it looks good on paper but the reality is far different. Let’s look at each one individually:
1. Smaller Government. Budget deficits are at record levels following surpluses during the Clinton years. Once military spending is included the size of government is far larger under repug leadership.
2. Less entitlements. Please. The oil companies, Halliburton and big business of all types are the champions of entitlement receipts.
3. Ending legal abortion. Most on the right favor ending most, but not all, legal abortions. The exceptions include rape, incest and threat to the mothers life. Why have these exceptions? A life is a life isn’t it? If it came about as the result of rape it’s still a human life.
4. Lower taxes. This is my favorite. The repugs are for raising taxes. Yes, that’s right, raising taxes, especially for the poor and middle class. A good name for the type of tax the repugs like to raise is the tax on future income, or tax on future generations. Or perhaps the Chinese social security fund. However you put it the so-called tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are really nothing but a transfer payment to the wealthiest of Americans from future generations.
5. Less gun control. This is true, but it’s come at a great cost. The U.S. leads the world in gun-related murders.
6. Maintaining traditional values. Like the fourth amendment? Come on, the repugs are doing their best to destroy what’s good about America. This is a favorite strawman of the right. Liberals are far more family friendly than the far right. Take the family leave act. Repugs fought that one tooth and nail. Oh how it would hurt big business. Please, repugs destroy family values not enhance them.
7. Ending reverse discrimination. This is one where I mostly agree with the right. It’s time to end affirmative action programs.
8. An aggressive war on terror and a strong military. Where? We’re not fighting terrorists in Iraq. The terrorists are re-forming in Afghansistan while we twiddle our thumbs in Iraq. And our military grows weaker by the day because of the incompetence of Bush/Rumsfeld. And where is Osama and the Anthrax killer?
9. Letting capitalism work by reducing government interference in the market. I only wish this was true. The last five years have been nothing but government interference in the market. From huge subsidies to the oil companies, sale of federal lands to developers for far less than market value, to no-bid contracts in Iraq and other places. Anyone that buys this “republicans want capitalism to work” nonsense are listening way too much to talk radio. It simply isn’t true.
10. Using the death penalty. True, repugs and most dems favor this. I personally believe it leads to more, not fewer murders.
Nice try, Dave. Actually, a person could become poor any time during that 50 year period. The value of property was to be made on the basis of the proximity of the Jubilee year.
I found a nice quote in a commentary on the Old Testament book of Nehemiah while I was preparing a series of sermons this morning:
Herb. You say:
“Responsibility, they call it. Not surprising, through whatever circumstances, they have had a lot of privileges.”
I’m one of those people who is big on personal responsibility. My parents are children of the Depression and I’d love to hear your rationalization for the supposed privileges they had (no heat, no food, etc.) My grandmother had a 5th grade education. My grandfather died while my grandmother was pregnant with their first child (in 1933). Their parents were immigrants from Finland who worked their fingers to the bone on a family farm only to see the government seize their land in for never explained reasons.
My father worked three jobs to buy a small house in 1961. My brother and I are the first descendants to attend college. Everything I have, I have worked for. And I give back — my church offerings would pay for a new car that would sure be nicer than the seven year old one I drive now.
The people I see in my church would probably fall into your categorization of “privileged”. They are also the same people who NEVER hesitate to give to charities and mission work. I believe God WANTS people to depend on Him, not the government. Our government’s power comes from controlling the re-distribution of wealth to people who have not earned it or else use political connections to steal it.
To continue addressing Nathans’s points;. Now for the Democrats:
1. Larger Government. How I long for the Clinton years when the size of the federal government actually was declining. This is one of the great urban legends of our time that Republicans want smaller government. Why people still believe it is a mystery. What has happened over the years is that right wing talk shows, web-sites, newspapers and all the rest of the spin machine has been very effective promoting this point. The facts are just exactly 180 degrees the opposite. The repugs are actually the party of big government. Part of the problem is that the right simply ignores military spending as part of the government. This large, bloated government thing is true now (Bush has not vetoed one spending bill) And it was true during the Reagan years. The size of government exploded during the 80s. Give me a Democrat in the White House and I’ll show you a real leader that will make the Federal Government lean and efficient.
2. Greater Entitlements. For the poor and middle class this is probably true. But the benefit to society is large. If everyone has the opportunity to earn a living, feed their children and gain an education we all benefit. As for corporate entitlements the democrats simply cannot keep up, although they do try.
3. Higher taxes. Democrats believe in an equitable distribution of wealth. If you believe that most of the wealth accumulated by the super wealthy is not really earned at all this really does make sense. If we are going to spend the exhorbitant amounts of money that we have over the past 5 years the rich really can and should pay more.
4. Legal abortion. Democrats want most if not all abortions legal but rare. The rare part is what is so often forgotten.
5. Unconstitutional gun control. The second amendment is not very clear on this issue. I’m not sure the founding fathers would be comfortable with private citizens owning machine guns. Virtually all democrats favor private citizens rights to own hand guns for protection in their home and hunting guns. After all hunting accidents are extremely rare. (Unless you’re a republican vice president)
6. Progressive social norms. Now thats a mouthful. Democrats really favor personal rights with dignity.
7. Marginilizing religous expression. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this. Is this the so-called “War on Christmas”. If there ever was a war, Christmas won.
8. A war on terror only fought through the UN with permission from the French. This is one of the rights favorite talking points. It’s complete nonsense of course. No one on the left has ever suggested we get permission from the French to fight the war on terror. But perhaps the Bush administration should get permission since he’s doing such a lousy job of it. He has our troops in Iraq where they aren’t fighting terrorists.
9. Economy run by government. What the democrats want is a responsible private sector. Fair wages, safety (especially in mines), safe products, limited spillover costs (pollution for example). Within this framework the democrats strongly support personal initiative with market forces working to make products better and cheaper. It’s only when the free market fails that the democrats want government to step in. No one in the democratic party has ever advocated a state run economy. That’s another phoney right wing talking point.
10. Light sentencing. Democrats favor fair sentencing. Does it make sense to put a marijuana smoker in jail?
Anon,
I applaud your generosity, and that of your church. I know many Christians who would think and practice the same generosity. I seek to myself.
My parents were in a similar situation to yours, from the sounds of it. The interesting thing about that though was that my dad was always a supporter of FDR, and called himself a “Democrat” his life long, even though he did not always vote for the Democrat, in fact, he very often didn’t. As a high school kid and young Republican, I couldn’t figure that out. Now I understand it better. Having lived through the Depression, he had experienced what the New Deal meant on a practical level. He knew that Roosevelt had started some programs that had given him and others a chance. Would you have left that up to the J.P. Morgans of American history? What would have happened in that case?
Your statement:
Sorry, but this is simply overstating the case. I understand your context, with your parents’ land being siezed. But the Bible (assuming that you respect Biblical authority) won’t support your statement above. It is like saying, “God expects us to pray, not to work.” It is too one-sided.
God instituted human government. In fact, he often institutes, according to Scripture, very harsh and demanding human government, and expects people to submit to it. We are told to pay taxes, and there is no qualification as to whether we think the government is fair or not.
Of course, to leave the above sentence as is would be going too far on the other side of the situation. I’m not saying there aren’t situations that we shouldn’t work toward change of government. But all I am trying to do is to bring some balance into some of these posts. By and large, there needs to be a some redistribution of income. As I pointed out in posts above, God’s ideal state in the Old Testament times provided for that. It instituted government; it even gave safety regulations and told people to build a wall around the top of their houses so people wouldn’t fall off and get injured. Talk about a seat-belt law! You’ll find lots of them in the Old Testament.
Judging by what some people post on this blog, anytime the government tells them to do anything, it is evil. Paying taxes of any kind is evil. Just let the free market reign, everything will take care of itself. But sorry, that attitude is just way over the top. It is also naive about human nature.
I refuse to accept the wedding of evangelical Christianity with right-wing politics, as is often done. It is a modern form of idolatry, pure and simple. The same is true, of course, on the other side of the equation. Evangelical Christians should critique both sides.
Well I ramble, and don’t say very well what I am trying to say. Sorry about that.
Herb, You posted – heartless Judean nobles and officials who were making money by exploiting the poor, causing widespread poverty, hunger, family disruption and slavery (5:1-5)
That describes the regime of Saddam Hussein perfectly. That is why the American led regime change in Iraq proves to me that George Bush will be remembered in history as one of the most un-selfish, Christian, freedom spreading Presidents of all time. Thanks to his admin. and the bravery of US soldiers, we have gone to the other side of the world and freed 50 million enslaved humans. The left needs to think about the big picture in that accomplishment instead of focusing on this nonsense of WMD all the time.
Right wing politicians have NOT controlled evangelicals or vice versa. One cannot deny that people who favor protecting the innocent unborn would lean to Republican goals and objectives. God’s greatest gift is life and that trumps ALL other issues.
As far as the implication that right wingers are selfish, that is pure babble. Scripture tells us to “teach a man to fish” and he will eat forever. You focus on giving the fish from what I read from you. However, I am not stupid enough to debate scripture with a guy with a PH.D. in ????? (Theology) so I am sure you have an explanation for that.
Bud, you have so many innacurracies in your response to Nathan that I dont have time to respond to them all. You think that the left didnt say we should get the French to agree before we fight terrorism or respond to terrorist acts. You have already forgotten about John Kerry’s answer to the debate question: What would you need to do to invoke military action in response to terrorism. His answer: We would need to pass a “Global Test” when we responded. That global test meant getting French and other surrender experts approval to pass the test.
Dave,
As usual you have it wrong. Decorated war veteran John Kerry never said or implied in any way that “getting the French and other surrender experts approval to pass the test”
Here’s the transcript of the global test comments.
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: “The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons”.
It’s clear to me that Kerry is getting tough on Bush’s incompetent handling of the war in Iraq. Why? Because we went in for the wrong reasons. And the American people don’t understand why we’re doing what we’re doing. Approval is down in the low 30s. Only in the twisted mind of a right wing lemming could these comments be construed as requiring French permission to go after terrorists. No American could possibly want such a thing. In short, Kerry was right.
But perhaps I’m a bit hasty. Maybe there was someone in that debate who would require French permission for foreign intervention.
This is from George W. Bush (discussing Iran) during the same debate:
“We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs”.
Hmmm. Could it be our own tough president is seeking permission from the “surrender expert” French to deal with Iran? Who would have thunk it.
Bud, Kerry is more of a Western Euro sophisticate than he is a patriotic American citizen. That one line probably cost him the election. You can spin it all you want, but that line, and the ” I voted for the war before I voted against it” were the two beauts, along with the truthful questions of the SBVFT tipped the election to W. And, Bush made the mistake of listening to Colin Powell, who I respect very much but think he is an indecisive leader, and waiting 6 months to go in and remove Saddam gave him time to remove the WMD to Syria and/or Russia. So W did make a mistake postponing Iraqi operations and I was not happy with it.
Bud,
You counterpoints are pretty weak or misleading for the most part, and let me tell you why. Take your Dem counterpoint on the size of gov’t. While the federal gov’t may have shrunk under Clinton (I haven’t seen the stats), the Republicans were in control of Congress during that time. And that was when the GOP actually had the cojones to cut programs and shrink gov’t. The current GOP Congress has been an utter failure on spending. As for military spending, I’ll take a bloated military budget over the alternative, a war fought on our homeland leading dead Americans in the streets. As for entitlments, let us talk about that a moment. I am so sick of hearing people say that tax cuts are corporate welfare or entitlements for the rich. The oil companies, for instance, get tax breaks for developing new sources of fuel. Why? Because the left doesn’t want us to use nuclear energy or drill in ANWR. Second, everyone in this country has opportunity. Many CHOOSE not to accept thier opportunities and then expect everyone else to take care of them. I think that the gov’t should provide a safety net to those who make mistakes, but it shouldn’t be a lifestyle. You say, “if you believe that most of the wealth accumulated by the super wealthy is not really earned at all this really does make sense,” when talking about taxes. Okay, so the wealthy don’t earn thier money? Did Bill Gates not earn his money by being innovative? Didn’t Jack Welch earn his money by working 18 hour days for years? Sure, some inherit wealth, but someone earned that to pass it on to them. Lord willing, I hope that one day I pass on something to my children. Dems want abortion “legal but rare”. Nice Hillary line. What is the Dem plan to make it rare? Handing out condoms to my first grader? Lower standards for sex on tv? The Democratic frontrunner for president voted in favor of partial birth abortion (Hillary). Even Brad’s favorite “moderate” senator wouldn’t vote (senator’s often do this to avoid going on the record with a controversial issue). Speaking of the war on terror, you say that the left hasn’t requested that we get permission from the French. Okay, if you say so. There is just one little problem that I can’t get over though. The left didn’t like the Iraq war from day one because we didn’t get UN approval. We didn’t get UN approval because France and Germany were stopping it at the Security Council. So, I assume that you are just parsing your words. We have to get UN approval, not French approval. Okay, thanks. Finally, lets talk about light sentencing. There have been two highly publicized cases in the past year of child rapists let off with disgraceful sentences. One was 90 days and the other was house arrest, I believe. This is unacceptable. Bill O’Reilly started pushing to get strict minimums put in place in those states so this wouldn’t happen again. The Jessica’s Law thing. Guess who keeps holing up Jessica’s Law in each state? The Dems! EVERYTIME! They are worried about “treatment” for the “sick” child molester/rapist. This is an outrage. I can’t imagine them reacting the same way over the rape of an adult woman, but the women can vote, so they need them. The children can’t vote. It is Republicans who are having to stand up for them. I am proud that our state is pushing for the strictest laws in the country against those who hurt children. But, how can I vote for a party that wants to give some crazy liberal judge a chance to let someone walk?
Dave,
I didn’t spin the Kerry quote, I posted it verbatim. You’re the one spinning with that nonsense about the French. Nice Bill Oliely impression. Accuse the other guy of spinning then proceed to spin like a top. Kerry lost because far too many people bought into the whole fear and smear campaign. (Perhaps with a bit of help from Diebold). Now we’re all paying for it.
Nathan,
The Clinton years saw a spectacular turn around in the federal budget deficit. It’s true most of the time Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress. It seems to me a split government was not such a bad thing. Both sides were able to keep the others spending habits in check to some extent. Now that we have everything controlled by the repugs the whole budget process is out of control. There is simply no discipline at all. If the president is so concerned with pork barrel spending he could at least veto a spending bill every now and then. But to date, zero vetos.
Nathan, this says a lot about you:
“Take your Dem counterpoint on the size of gov’t. While the federal gov’t may have shrunk under Clinton (I haven’t seen the stats),”
In other words, you don’t know anything about the issue – you are too stupid and lazy to find out about it – yet you talk about the issue as if you knew something about it, and attack them when their position on the issue differs from yours.
Now, let’s talk about the “entitlements” and “personal responsibility” and “supporting oneself” you are constantly on about.
If you’re going to complain about entitlements, it would seem to me that the least you could do would be to support yourself and your children through your own efforts without depending on charity from others. However, you, like other residents of conservative states, depend on handouts from citizens of liberal states to survive. Citizens of South Carolina receive $1.36 in federal subsidies and services for every $1.00 they pay in federal taxes. Citizens of New Jersey (the state that contributes the most) pay $1.00 in federal taxes for every 57 cents of federal services they receive. The remaining taxes paid by citizens of New Jersey, California, and other liberal states go to support you and your children, and other conservatives and their children, because if you had to depend on your own initiative and industry to earn enough to pay for the federal services you receive, you would starve.
You want to talk about “entitlements”? OK, let’s talk about it. What enitles you to $1.36 worth of services for every $1.00 you pay in federal taxes? Basically, the fact that you are an American citizen, and therefore entitled to the charitable support of other Americans if you are unable to support yourself through your own efforts. I don’t begrudge you the extra tax dollars that I have to pay to keep you and your children from starving. If you aren’t able to support your children without my help, and I’m able to help you, I don’t begrudge you that.
What I do object to, however, is the fact that you take MY charity, and the charity of others like me, and constantly rail against us, accusing US – the people who pay the taxes that finance the subisidies without which YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WOULD STARVE – of being unproductive.
We produce enough to support ourselves AND YOU. WE pay for the Iraq war. You don’t. WE pay for the military. You don’t. Every cent you pay in taxes goes right back to you. And that isn’t enough, so a substantial portion of our taxes has to go to support you as well.
Now, we don’t begrudge you that. I say again, that if my fellow Americans can’t support themselves and their children without my help, I’m glad to help them. But please, is a little gratitude too much to ask for?
And no, France and Germany didn’t block Security Council approval. Bush couldn’t get a majority at all, there was never an issue of anybody vetoing it. Germany doesn’t HAVE a veto on the security council. Do you know why? The same ignorance that led you to claim that Germany was stopping anything is the same ignorance, I guess, that causes your children to depend on my tax dollars for a portion of their support.
And no, we didn’t object to the Iraq war because the UN wouldn’t go along. We objected to the Iraq war then – and we object to it now – because we felt that it was bad for America. And events have shown that we were right and you were wrong. To the extent that France, Germany, and others, tried to stop the war, I would point out that someone who tries to hide a drunk’s car keys to keep him from driving is his friend, not his enemy.
War has costs. Costs in blood – none of it your own, of course. Costs in money – again, none of it your own. In order to determine whether or not a war is justified, it isn’t enough to say something like “it would be bad for an enemy to attack America.” You also have to ask “is there any chance of such-and-such enemy attacking America?” It isn’t enough to say “democracy is good.” You have to say “What is the likelihood of achieving democracy through war, and what are the costs and risks involved for us and for those to whom it is proposed that we should bring democracy?”
You have to think it through.
But I guess, if you had what it takes to think these things through, you would have what it takes to support your children without any help, instead of depending on my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of others like me, to do it.
Long live Diebold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mary,
Not that your post is really worth responding to, but I will respond nonetheless. Mary, I worked hard in school to educate myself and now have a professional license. I have worked very hard and make a very good salary. That is what everyone should do. Work hard, you will succeed. As for SC getting more federal dollars than we send in, I have no control over state spending. I think that our gov’t is infected with this virus of thinking that federal money is “free” money and they will come up with ways to use it. I don’t think we should be getting more than we put into the federal gov’t. I don’t think we should get anything from NJ or CA or NY. We should have a federal gov’t that only does those things that must be done by it (defense, currency, international relations, etc.) and then the state can sort out the rest. By the way, don’t call people stupid and lazy, it just makes you look like a moron.
The Lemming Game
This is for all the thinking people in blog land. This is how it works. Some thinking person will post a fact concerning the world we live in under the governance of republicans. This can be any fact but it must be a fact. Opinion, conjecture, speculation are not allowed in this game. Then everyone writes down how many of what type of irrelevant excuses the right-wing lemmings will respond with in order to try and make the nasty fact go away. The categories will be as follows:
1. Blame Clinton
2. Blame the liberal media
3. Blame the French
4. Call the person posting the fact a name
5. Other
Who ever comes closest to the correct number of responses wins. See how much fun this is! I’ll start. Here’s my “lemming” fact for the day.
From 1998 to 2001, the last four years Bill Clinton was in the white house, the federal budget was in the black for four straight years. During the last 5 years, while the white house and congress (for the most part) were controlled by republicans the budget deficit has run continuously in the red.
Does everybody have their predictions written down? Good. Now let the game begin.
Nathan, you say that you don’t think you get anything fron New Jersey, California, or New York. All I have to say is that New Yorkers pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal services. You pay less. Californians pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal services. You pay less. People from New Jersey pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal services. You pay less. Where do you think the excess money comes from to pay for the services and subsidies that go to support you and your children, if not from the people whose taxes contribute that excess?
if you don’t think that South Carolinians should receive more in subsidies and services from the federal government than they pay in taxes, when may I expect that you will be taking an amount equal to the 36% excess value of the federal services you received over the amount you paid in federal taxes last year and refunding it either to the federal government, or, perhaps better symbolically, to randomly chosen families in states like New York, New Jersey, and California?
Never?
That’s what I thought.
Until you do that, please quit complaining about entitlements. It doesn’t matter whether or not you have some alternative vision of what the federal government should spend money on; the fact is, that you are receiving more in handouts than you pay out in federal taxes. Until you are willing to disgorge the excess, why can’t you just be grateful that the taxes of liberals keep shoes on your children’s feet and a roof over their head, rather than making us listen to your constant complaints that the federal government isn’t spending money in exactly the way that it would be spent in this fantasy country you have invented in your head?
Okay Mary, I’ll give back 36% of the federal services that I personally received. Since I am stupid and lazy, would you mind telling me what 36% of $0 is?
Bud, to respond to your fact, there are three factors to explain what you brought up. One, the tech bubble of the 90’s left the feds flush with cash. The bubble burst in ’01 along with the fall of Enron and Worldcom, etc. Second, September 11th worsened stock market conditions and lead to increased military spending. Third, the Republican Congress and President have spent like drunken sailors (with my apologies to the sailors) on new entitlements, pork barrel projects, and illegal immigrants. I do not include in that explanation “spending” on tax cuts, which are only considered spending by those that believe that it is the government’s money, not ours. I believe that the tax cuts helped to boost the economy and are partly responsible for the economic recovery.
So, Bud, here is a fact for you, and we will see if you can explain it without saying “Bush is a liar”, complaining about “repugs” or just making stuff up.
Democrats are holding up laws in numerous states imposing mandatory minimums on child rapists. These people are the worst scum of the earth. Why are the Dems holding this stuff up?
Nathan,
I have several questions about the mandatory sentencing for child rapist issue. First, what states are we talking about? Second, what are the names of the dems holding up the legislation? Third, what reason do they give for holding up the legislation? Fourth, what studies and/or research is used to suggest the legislation in question will reduce the problem? Fifth, is there a distinction made in the proposed law between a 30 year old forcibly raping a 6 year old and a statutory rape issue involving an 18 year old and a 16 year old? As a pragmatist I could support tougher penalties against child rapists, if it is documented that such laws would reduce the number of rapes. It’s not enough to just say “it’s common sense”. Many violent criminals are motivated by attention and are not detered by tough sentencing. On the other hand, if they’re locked away they can’t commit the crime. I just don’t know enough about this issue.
Fact: Ted Kennedy, a US Senator, was drunk driving and drove a car off of a tidal creek bridge. In the car was a young innocent Senate intern girl who he was giving a ride home. The girl drowned and Teddy went home to sleep it off and called a lawyer before he ever called police or rescue agencies. Question: Why was he not prosecuted for at least manslaughter or more?
Bud,
The law in question is focused on children under 13. It wouldn’t be used against guys who just didn’t check her drivers license first. The leaders of the legislatures in NY and CA and a few other states had a hard time getting it through. In nearly every state that has passed it, nearly all of the dissenting votes were Dems. Ted Kennedy actually blocked a federal bill to create a federal child sex offender registry because he wanted to attach some controversial hate crimes legislation. As for the argument that tough sentences are not a deterrent, you may be right. However, deterring crime is just part of the justice system. Punishment is part of it as well. Can you tell the parents of a raped twelve year old that thier daughter’s rapist got 6 months in prison because tough sentences aren’t a deterrent? They want justice, and mandatory minimums will give that to them.
OK, Nathan, I think we know everything we need to know about you and the extent of your loyalty to America. It saddens me, but it doesn’t surprise me. You don’t think you have received any federal services. Defense, roads, the air traffic system, ports, none of that provides services to you, in your mind; paying for all that is the responsibility of others.
Fortunately, those of us in liberal states have a more expansive view of the benefits we receive from this country, and we also have sufficient initiative and industry to allow us to earn the money to pay the excess taxes needed to make up for your deficiency. So we’ll continue to pay for the services and subsidies that go to support you and your children, since you aren’t able to do it yourself.
But can you at least quit complaining about how the federal government spends money? You don’t make any net contribution to it, so what do you care?
Mary,
Okay Mary, you got me on that. I will send 36% of the road that I drove on this morning back. Look Mary, the reason that SC gets more money than it pays in is because the state has a high rate of poverty. SC has a lot of poor people because they are caught up in the cycle of poverty perpetuated by the left where people are paid to have more kids they can’t afford, told they don’t have to take care of themselves, and generally held back. Don’t blame me. Blame your friends. And if you are upset about the money coming out of your pocket to SC, just remember that it is the politicians that you elect that are sending it here.
I don’t know if it’s still true but for many years SC was actually a net donor state for federal highway money. We actually recieved about 80% of the money back that we collected in gasoline taxes. The formula changed a few years back but I still think we only recieved about 97% back.
I posted a site at least a month ago showing the states receiving the highest per capita of federal money down to the lowest. Virginia was highest, with Massachussets, NY, NJ, and other NE states being the greediest. SC was way down the list. I guess I have to post it again to shut Mary up about how much SC gets. Its a lie.
Mary,
I have another question for you, something that just occurred to me. You left-wingers want redistribution of wealth, so why are you concerned that all of the taxes paid by rich taxpayers in NY and CA are being given to poor people in SC? Shouldn’t you like that?
Dave, how is it “greedy” for citizens of New Jersey to receive federal services, when they pay taxes amounting to nearly twice the value of those services? Citizens of New Jersey pay $1.75 for every $1.00 of federal services they receive, while citizens of South Carolina pay only 73 cents for every $1.00 they receive in federal services.
Citzens of New Jersey pay $1.00 in taxes for every $1.00 they get in federal services, and they pay another 75 cents on top of that to subidize conservatives like Dave and Nathan, whose own initiative and industry is not sufficent to provide for their own support.
Dave begrudges New Jersey citizens every dollar they earn that is spent on them and not him. It’s interesting how a life spent taking handouts distorts one’s perspective.
Nathan, the answer to your question is that I don’t want redistribution of wealth. It wouldn’t bother me at all if all federal dollars were spent in the states from whose citizens they were collected.
Now, I have a question for you. You blame the fact that you and your fellow South Carolinians are freeloaders dependent on handouts from the federal government on some sort of culture among the poor, that is somehow the fault of liberals. What I want to know is, if this problem is the fault of liberals, why does it manifest itself in conservative states, but not in liberal states?
The influx of federal dollars doesn’t distribute equally to ALL citizens of SC. Welfare, Medicaid, AFDC, WIC and those monies are heavily skewed in distribution to the urban poor of Cola., N. Charleston, Greenville, and the rural poor of the low country and Pee Dee. Very little of it is sent to Pickens or Oconee upstate. Guess what Mary, the receivers are the liberal poor in SC, living in a conservative state. So you are calling your comrades in like mind the freeloaders and parasites.
Okay Mary, so you don’t want high taxes on the rich and handouts to the poor. That seems a step in the right direction for you.
To answer your question, poverty is not caused by the ideology of each state. In states with high poverty, mostly in the southeast, religious values are also very important. Studies have shown that poor people tend to be more religious. So, those states tend to vote conservative. People in the richer states tend to only worship themselves, and that is sad. Unfortunately, local and statewide ideology cannot combat the large federal entitlement apparatus. By the way, you keep personally attacking me as not being industrious because the state I live it gets more money than it puts into the federal government. Am I to assume then that Bill Clinton isn’t industrious because his home state of Arkansas is a donee-state. Or perhaps the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett is worthless because his home state of Nebraska is a donee state. After all, I’m sure if SC could get rid of me and Dave, the economy would skyrocket.
Quote from Dennis Hastert –
The speaker explained on the House floor that “well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don’t pay any taxes. So you probably if you don’t pay any taxes, you are not going to get a big tax cut. Now, if you earn $1 million a year, you are going to pay about $400,000 of taxes. Maybe you’ll get a $40,000 tax cut …”
Why would anyone making less than $200,000/year vote for the repugs? What family of 2 (or even 4) making 40,000/year does not pay taxes? Show me just one. These rich republican theives are trying to steal all the wealth of this nation and transfer it to a tiny percentage of the population. They use all sorts of fear tactics, distortions, lies, smears, whatever it takes. It’s insane. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Vote for the democrats if only to slow down this reverse robin hood mentality. You don’t have to agree with every issue they stand for. I don’t. But if I had my way taxes on the very rich would double!!
Bud,
Hastert was talking about income taxes. Now, I am a CPA, so let me explain this for you. A family of four making $40,000 would start with a standard deduction of $10,000. Then, they would have personal exemptions of $12,800 (3,200/person). This would leave them with taxable income of $17,200. That leaves them with taxes of $1,854. But, since those tax cuts raised the child tax credit to $1,000 dollars for all of those rich parents, they would then have no income tax liability. In fact, they would probably get a payment from the IRS for excess child tax credits.
As for this transfer of wealth garbage, I love how liberals have turned this around. If the government doesn’t take my money and give it to the poor, then they are taking money from the poor and giving it to me. What twisted logic! And I suppose that if I don’t steal your car, that means that I have given you a car.
Bud, all we have belongs to God, not the government.
Nathan, to the liberal mind, the government is the God. It is the God that knows all, gives all, owns all, controls all, and plans all. That is one reason why they want any reference to the Holy God removed such as Ten Commandments, In God We Trust, etc. so there can be no confusion that ONLY the government is really God.
Federal tax revenue is UP 13.5% due mainly to the Bush tax cuts which proves once again. Lower taxes cause expansion of the economy thus bringing in more taxes. When will the political left ever catch on to that axiom?
Nathan,
Here’s the quote (again) from Hastert for you conservatives that don’t or won’t read:
“well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don’t pay any taxes.”
Nothing about INCOME taxes. Don’t make stuff up. What we have had for the past five years is class warfare. The only problem is only one class, the wealthy, have been waging the war. I say it’s time for the rest of us to fight back. When a CEO makes 1,000 times as much as a line worker there’s a serious problem. The comparable ratio 40 years ago was 50 times. You can’t tell me CEO productivity has increased 20 times faster than line workers. Let’s triple taxes on the super rich!!! They won’t miss it a bit.
By the way Dave, most studies indicate that federal receipts generated as a result of spending and investment due to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are up about 50% of what would have been recieved without the tax cuts. So for every $1 lost due to the tax cuts about 50 cents was returned to the treasury (as a result of additional private sector spending and investment). Therefore tax revenues would have increased sustantially more than 13.5% without the tax cuts.
And Nathan, who exactly is in charge of the government now? It’s none other than George W. Bush and companty. And while he sometimes considers himself God’s representative I don’t think liberals feel that way.
This whole nonsense about increasing receipts when taxes are cut goes back to an economist named Laffer. What Laffer said is nothing but a truism. If the tax rate is zero the government will generate zero revenue. At the other end of the spectrum if tax rates are 100% the government will also recieve zero revenue because no one will be willing to work for nothing. The point at which government revenue is maximized is somewhere in the middle. It does not follow that cutting taxes will alway lead to greater government revenue. If so, government revenue would be maximized at a rate of zero! And that’s just plain reeeediculous.
Hastert just gave the dems a wonderful gift if they’ll just take advantage of it. Every dem running for congress should use that stupid comment in their campaign advertising.
Your thoughts are well expressed Bud,
Let me add something that I became aware of a few years ago: egregious levels of wealth inequality are statistically built into capitalism, even among statistically equal people. If we were all equal in every respect, then we would have the same skewed long term distribution of wealth given the same tax structure. Incidentally, market capitalization follows the same distribution as does personal wealth. Please check out my anti-State Newspaper website at the following page web page:
To my knowledge, the model economy program that I originally wrote back in the summer of 2003 produces the best wealth distributions available. The program uses statistically equal investors, producers, and consumers who perform their functions within capitalism. By using this and other programs, I eventually found the real name of the distribution and I found that both market cap and personal wealth follow a shell structure similar to nucleon shell structure (of all things!). The wealth distribution (log of wealth vs. number of entities ranked in order of wealth –from richest to poorest) follows the same curve as does the Woods-Saxon potential in nuclear physics.
Dave, so what you’re saying is that South Carolinians receive 2.38 times as much in federal services and subsidies per tax dollar contributed as do citizens of New Jersey, and this entire discrepancy can be attributed to an excess in federal payments to and on behalf of poor people in South Carolina, compared to those made to poor people in New Jersey? Yeah, tell me another one.
Mary, New Jersey grabs way more in federal funds than does SC. And they also elected a governor who admitted meeting with strangers at rest stops and sleazy motels for gay sex (while he was governor). So not only are they very greedy, but perverted also. I know a few people who live in NJ and it is the cesspool of the East Coast, and loaded with liberal, perverted Democrats. What else does one need to know. I lived there while at Ft. Dix Army boot camp and the place was a hole then. Are you from there? Figures!!!!!!!!!!
Wow! I feel like a kid in candy store. Dave says: “I know a few people who live in NJ and it is the cesspool of the East Coast, and loaded with liberal, perverted Democrats,” Of course this is utter nonsense but apparently the mindless lock-step with Rush conservatives don’t know how to use facts to make any kind of case. Just throw out some name calling, blame Bill Clinton or the Liberal MSM and everything is ok.
But it only takes a minute to completely undermine the conservative cause for what it is: a fear and smear campaign that offers nothing for working class Americans. Here’s how liberal, blue-state NJ compares to conservative red-state SC:
Life Expectancy: NJ – 77.5 SC – 74.9
% High School or higher: NJ – 82.1 SC – 76.3
Unemployment Rate (4/06) NJ – 5.1% SC 6.6%
Median Income (2000): NJ – 55,146 SC – 37,082
% below poverty line (1999): NJ – 6.3 SC – 10.7
Murder Rate (per 10,000 pop): NJ – 4.5 SC – 6.9
Traffic Deaths (per 100m miles driven): NJ – 1.0 SC – 2.1
Occupational fatality rate (per 100k workers): NJ – 3.6 SC – 5.8
Smoking Rate: NJ – 19.4% SC – 25.5%
Infant Mortality (deaths per 1000 births): NJ – 5.6 SC – 8.8
Wheeew. I’ve got typers crap. As you can see progressive, blue state New Jersey does better in every single statistical measure than red SC. I don’t think that’s a coincidence either. Liberal policies just plain work better than the fear driven, self-serving policies of the right. And the statistics bare that out.
Remember the old cold war adage, better dead than red. I think we can update that to say better not be red or you’ll end up dead.
Bud, The “blue” areas of SC are what drag the SC state numbers down. Not surprising, these are all Democrat and leftist socialist strongholds in SC. The real interesting factor about all of this is that it’s the Republican conservatives who have ideas to foster improvements in the areas of SC that are really hurting. The ideas involve school vouchers, crime prevention, and business growth. What ideas has the left promoted to improve the state of SC.
Dave, you say that the Republican conservatives have ideas about how to improve South Carolina. Why aren’t any of these ideas working?
Dave, what a great spin job! The “blue” areas are dragging SC down. But the “blue” areas don’t control anything. SC is controlled overwhelmingly by conservative republicans. They set our tax policy. They pass criminal laws. They control how tax money is spent on. All major decisions within the government are controlled by republicans. And the results are lower life expectancy (less money spent on health care), lower income (poor education system), a higher murder rate (fewer cops and, yes the death penalty) and more dangerous roads (again fewer cops and less money spent on the roads). Let’s face it Dave, you offer no facts, only the same old tired rhetoric we’ve heard for years, in a lame attempt to continue with the failed policies of the conservative right.
Bud,
You are right that SC politics is controlled by Republicans, but you are wrong that they are conservative. This state is full of former dems who switched to the GOP to get elected. We need more conservatives in Columbia, and less RINOs. (For those of you who don’t know – Repub. In Name Only.)
As for the stats above, you can cherry-pick stats from the millions that exist to prove your point, but they don’t mean anything.
And Dave is right, it is the largely Democratic counties in this state that have poor citizens, bad schools, high crime rates, etc. I would live in Greenville over any city in NJ.
Bud, First, I thought this was the Brad “No Spin” Zone here. haahahahahaha
You show yourself as a typical liberal in your belief that politicians in Columbia can have such influence to:
Keep a young black girl from getting knocked up
Keep an 8th grader from dropping out to hang in the hood instead of reading Peter Pan
Make that 14 year old properly feed and medicate that delicate newborn
Make that dropout go get some kind of work instead of committing enough crimes enough times to get a prison record.
Bud, you need to get out of your fantasy world and go see that parentless homes is what this is all about, motivated by welfare laws started way back with LBJ that have enslaved the black population to this day. But I know you won’t. Liberals like to hear that Columbia pols are passing more laws to give more freebies to these unfortunate, as that makes them all feel better while they have their kids in Irmo, Spring Valley, Riverview and the like, segregated from these crime-ridden, disease ridden, illiterates right in Eau Claire.
Then the liberals sit back, point fingers at the governor, and people from all over the state, and whine and moan about how our state is so horrible. Our state isnt horrible, instead it is the systemic trapping and enslavement of this huge minority population into multi-generational poverty that is horrible. But, should we let them have vouchers, so they can come to Irmo or Spring Valley. Do that, and you will see all hell break loose.
Dave, we’re just trying to understand the reasons for the differences between New Jersey and South Carolina. If I remember, both South Carolina and New Jersey were in the United States when LBJ was president, so why didn’t New Jersey suffer the same horrors that South Carolina did, if all these things were caused by LBJ? If all of South Carolina’s problems are caused by liberal initiatives, why are people in New Jersey, a much more liberal state with many more liberal initiatives, in so much better shape than South Carolina?
Mary, the right doesn’t believe in facts. They would prefer to just sit back and listen to Rush or Bill O’Reilly tell them what to think. It’s simply impossible to pursuade any of them with facts.
Speaking of “Peabody” award winning Bill, did you see where he accused young, undeducated people of getting too much of their information from Jon Stewart’s show on Comedy Central. Turns out that viewers of Commedy Central are far more educated than viewers of the “O’Reilly Factor”. This from Media Matters:
During the May 23 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly asserted that “[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what’s going on,” stating that they “get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.” In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are considerably better educated than viewers of The O’Reilly Factor.
Bud, the last remark of Nathan highlights a fairly widespread pathology among conservatives. Conservatism is never allowed to fail. If any conservative, or conservative initiative, fails, the reason for the failure is not any fault of conservatism, it is a lack of ideological purity. So the conservative South Carolina is backward, compared to the liberal New Jersey, not because New Jersey’s liberalism is better than South Carolina’s conservatism, but because South Carolina is insufficiently conservative.
This line of reasoning supports a good argument for abandoning conservatism. Conservatism, it appears, is a hothouse flower, incapable of being properly executed. Any deviation from the most rigid ideological purity inevitably leads to failure. And if any conservative initiative is, by some miracle, properly conducted, it is subject to failure if somewhere in the world someone fails to believe hard enough in the possibility of success.
Bud, nice try with the media matters story. Unlike you, I actually looked at the survey. Now, MM always twists things, so maybe I should give you a pass if that is where you get your information. I’ll let you know now though, they are a radical left-wing defamation outfit that twists people’s words and studies to suit thier policies. Now, the study in question basically says that those who watch Stewart are more informed than those who watch Leno or Letterman. The press release even says that the findings don’t show that the show is responsible. Stewart allows people to tell outright lies on his show (like when Dean said that the President was going to round up illegals and through them out of the country a couple hours after the President said he didn’t want to do that). Without question, studies have shown that most young people are clueless. O’Reilly is right about that. As for the fact that viewers are better educated, I don’t see that it proves anything that Stewart viewers spent more time in school. The average individual, with a college degree or not, is poorly informed about world events. Just give up on that.
And to get back to NJ, it is great till you remember that thier system has bankrupted the state, just like CA. I really don’t understand it with you guys. Your socialist policies have ruined the economies of nearly every country in Europe. They aren’t working for Canada (and they don’t even worry about having a military, expecting us to take care of them). Yet, you think that they are swell. Small government policies made this country great, and yet you want more government so we can be like France. Why?
Mary, you haven’t been to Camden NJ lately if you think for one minute NJ is better off than SC in general. NJ incomes and education are higher because there are more industries situated near there. The affluent areas around Princeton, Annandale, etc are bedroom communities for the corporations clustered around NYC. But at the same time, yes, LBJ’s legacy has failed in NJ just like it did in SC and elsewhere. ARe you trying to tell us that the US has won the WOP War on Poverty. Or is this the real quagmire. $7 trillion dollars spent on welfare and giveaway programs and what do we have, more people on welfare. Those are the kinds of policies liberals support. So I can point out that Hilton Head is a wealthy area, and it is, and it isnt filled with liberal democrats either. So what does all of this prove? It says that the democrats ran Congress for over 40 years and failed, and that is why Dems are in the minority now. American people do not identify with losers.
Dave, your argument still makes no sense because it doesn’t explain why the liberal New Jersey is more advanced in every respect relating to human decency, productiveness, and happiness than the conservative South Carolina. If all these horrible problems are the result of liberal initiatives, why do they beset only conservative states and not liberal states?
Nathan, Liberal does not equal big government. Most liberals want to reduce the size of the military budget and handouts to the big corporations. It was during the Reagan and Bush, Jr. years that government expenditures went throught the roof.
Most young people are pretty much clueless. I was when I was young. That was before I became enlightened and learned to think on my own. When facts indicate something I have to accept it. As a lifetime South Carolinian it’s painful, but I accept the fact that New Jersey performs better in virtually every important quality of life measure.
“And to get back to NJ, it is great till you remember that thier system has bankrupted the state, just like CA.”
???
How can low unemployment and high personal incomes have bankrupted the state? How can a low rate of traffic deaths, a low murder rate, and a low rate of infant mortality have bankrupted the state? Wouldn’t all these factors tend to increase state revenue, decrease state expenses, or both? What is more expensive, car wrecks or preventing car wrecks? What is more expensive, occupational injuries or preventing occupational injuries?
And anyway, doesn’t basic human decency demand that we do everything within our power to accomplish all these things?
What evidence do you have that NJ and CA are bankrupt? The last time I was in CA they seemed to be doing OK.
“I really don’t understand it with you guys. Your socialist policies have ruined the economies of nearly every country in Europe.”
Really??? They seem to be managing. Why is the Euro $1.27 against the dollar?
“They aren’t working for Canada”
I don’t know, whenever I go to Canada, they seem to be muddling along somehow. If Canada’s policies aren’t working for them, why has the Canadian dollar gone from $1.35 to $1.10 against the US dollar in the past 3 years???
Your problem is, that compared to South Carolina, every place you mentioned is an earthly paradise. If conservatism works better than liberalism, why do all the liberal states and countries do better in every measure of human achievement, happiness, and welfare, than the conservative states and countries?
Mary, you are bypassing the most obvious and telling indicator. People from NJ and Canadiens “tolerate” their places of residence 51 weeks out of the year. That is when they are dreaming of coming to a place they really know is better, SC. People dont vacation in NJ, we know that. Also, when they retire, guess where they come. Yes, here, to get away from the mess in NJ. Same goes for NY, Mass., Pa., and much of the northeast. Think about that. Where do you vacation? Cuba?
Dave, what about Americans trying to score prescription drugs in Canada because they are far, far too expensive here in the states?
Bud, the issue with the Canadian drugs is pure economics. The Natl Health System buys massive volumes of drugs in one transaction and the drug companies can sell like that as admin costs, handling, shipping, are all lower. So ” some” drugs are cheaper in CN but not all. The CN govt is starting to crack down on out of country sales because they realize the CN govt is subsidizing drugs being shipped into the US. It wont last long, just an aberration. You can order drugs from Thailand over the net pretty cheap but can you trust what you get….
Dave, this is the classic right wing non-sequetor. We’re talking about the lower cost of drugs from Canada then you immediately switched gears and brought up Thailand. The right does this nonsense all the time. It’s so infuriating. Americans are going to Canada to buy drugs because they are cheaper and safe. That’s the issue here, not whether the Canadian government is going to crack down or whether Thailand has dangerous drugs. Don’t try to change the subject, it doesn’t work. We could have lower drug prices too if our government would use a bit of economic leverage to force the pharmacutical companies to lower their prices. Let’s face our health care distribution system is a huge, complicated, expensive mess. And thousands of people are paying with their lives.
If the Canadian health care system is so bad why do they have a 2.3 year better life expectancy than the U.S.? (79.6 vs 77.3)They must be doing something right.
Bud, populate Canada with millions of welfare queens, gangsta hoods, and illiterate Mexican migrants and their health rate would immediately equal ours. You are comparing apples to bananas on that one.
Dave, first you say that America is a better place to live than Canada, and South Carolina is a better place to live than New Jersey. Then, when asked about the lower life expectancy in the United States versus Canada, you make a point about the populations of each country; I gather your point is that the population of Canada includes fewer undesirable elements than does the population of the United States.
If the population of the United States is full of undesirables, how, then, is it better to live in the United States than in Canada?
Also, the life expectancy of New Jersey is about average for the United States, while the life expectancy of South Carolina is significantly lower. So are we to understand that South Carolina includes more undesirables than does New Jersey? I’m more than willing to concede that point, but I am at a loss to understand South Carolina can house so many undesirables and still be better than New Jersey.
Why do all these undesirables flock to conservative states, while the more educated, healthy, productive citizens populate liberal countries?
The US Census rankings on states by life expectancy have Utah first, then N. and S. Dakota, and Minnesota. These states are nearly devoid of minority poor. NJ is 16th by the way. Facts are facts and these facts are as simple as black and white. When liberals are shown facts that are black and white, they usually pull out the race card. I know you will. But you contend that the impoverished undesirables are heading to conservative states and they sure aren’t heading to the top 4. So your theory is wrong.
The bottom line is that liberals have had their chance to improve the life of minority poor since the days of LBJ. Massive failure by government and a huge waste of money and resources. Now the conservatives deserve the opportunity to show the unfortunate how to succeed. That is the important point in all of this. That is the only chance the poor will have.
Dave, since when was Minnesota a conservative state?
And I never defined undesirables as “minority poor”. If you include minority status as a criterion of undesirability, well, that tells us just a little more about you, doesn’t it?
I’m just trying to understand why liberal states do so much better than conservative states, and, particularly, how conservative states can be better than liberal states if liberal states experience greater income, life expectancy, education, productiveness, initiative, and any of a plethora of other factors contributing to human welfare and happiness.
Why do conservative states appear to be such failures in promoting the welfare of their citizens? And if conservatism doesn’t contribute to human productivity, happiness, and welfare, why is it to be preferred over liberalism? Shouldn’t conservatism and liberalism be viewed, not as ends in themselves, but as means of achieving human welfare? And, as appears to be the case in South Carolina, conservatism contributes to high infant mortality, ignorance, shiftlessness, murder, and dependence on handouts, why can’t we say that conservatism and conservatives are failures?
Mary, Europe is very very liberal and they have the highest unhappiness surveys of any developed countries. Germans, French, Belgians, all very unhappy. It is going to get worse for them too, as they become Eurabia. We can see what liberal policies have done to Europe and if applied here will do the same. That is not an experiment, but actual proof of how to stagnate economies, limit growth, and make most people miserable.
I guess the thought of living a long, long life (much longer than an SC citizen) in a world dominated by U.S. imperialism is too much to bare.
No problem, they will get used to it.
Bud, a world dominated by WHAT? In order for a state to dominate the world with its imperialism, it has to:
a) have imperialistic desires
b) be able to ACT ON THOSE DESIRES
Explain to me how backing down to Iran like Bush is doing right now is dominating anybody.
It’s hard to keep up with Dave, isn’t it. First he talks about how much better South Carolina is than New Jersey, then when you point out the long, long list of factors in which New Jersey is superior to South Carolina, he blames the presence of undesirables for the deficiencies of South Carolina and the U.S. Now, he refers to spurious “happiness surveys”, supposedly proving that Europeans aren’t happy with their long lives, low infant mortality, better educations, and higher incomes. Maybe they just have higher expectations? I wonder how the average South Carolinian would feel if you magically transported him out of his trailer park and shoved him into the life of the average European. I expect he’d find he could stand it OK.
I guess tomorrow, though, we’ll be back to hearing the song about how “our shortcomings are the fault of undesirables”.
Then, the day after tomorrow, maybe the song will be that South Carolina isn’t really conservative, because its conservatism isn’t ideologically pure enough.
I guess the whole point of it is, though, that conservatism never fails, even though it never seems to provide results as good as those provided by liberalism. Conservatism always labors under some handicap. You never – never – will hear a conservative apologist admit that any of the manifest and numerous (might I even go so far as to say universal?) failures of conservatism to produce human happiness and welfare are the fault of conservatism.
It’s a good thing we liberals are around, though, isn’t it. Remember, South Carolina produces all these terrible statistics with a flood of federal dollars being pumped into it every second of every day. Imagine the squalor and misery if the federal subsidies (funded by the taxes of liberals) weren’t there!
Backing down to Iran? Mary, your liberal heroes in France and Germany want to back down, but the US isn’t backing down at all. Bush is giving diplomacy a chance to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That likely will not work because the Chinese and Russians are set to sabotage any sanctions against Iran. We can thank our appeasing liberal Jimmy Carter for the mess in Iran. He sat on his thumbs while radicals took over that nation and we are still paying for his weakness.
This country was begun on conservative ideals and the trend is to return to those roots. The policies of FDR and LBJ and other liberals failed and the public understands that now. If not, how can you explain a GOP Congress, Presidency, majority of governorships, etc.? No wonder liberals are miserable..
We liberals may be miserable but we live a heckuva lot longer (and in better health too).
The republicans control everything because they are master politicians. Carl Rove and Lee Atwater before him were brilliant political strategists. Of course it helps when you have no conscience and can lie with impunity. Unfortunatally campaign skills do not translate into postive governing results. Prediction: Osama will be captured just in time to turn the tide in the November elections.
Bud, I hope you are right about Osama. We can all celebrate if that happens. Karl Rove has never lied because if he did Bush would bounce him immediately. Honor and integrity rule the White House and its occupants.
See, Dave, it’s statements like this that make me think you’re a self-parody. On the off chance that you mean what you’re saying, let me just explain that the way to determine if someone is lying is not to presume that they never lie and then change the facts around to fit with that presumption. The way to tell if someone is lying is to examine whether or not what they say fits in with the facts.
Oh, as to whether or not liberal regions are better or worse to live in than conservative regions, I notice that you don’t actually make any comparisons of the situation as it is in each of the places. You just make vague, conclusory claims that FDR, for example, “failed.” Well, if winning World War II is a failure, I guess he did fail.
I guess that if you think conquering a mortal threat to civilization is a failure, FDR failed, and if you think that picking a fight with a country that wasn’t a threat to us, AND THEN LOSING, is a success, than Bush is a success.
But just let me ask you this:
Which is better, a high rate of infant mortality, like South Carolina has, or a lower rate, like New Jersey has?
Which is better, a lower household income, like South Carolina has, or a higher household income, like New Jersey has?
Which is better, a higher rate of poverty, like South Carolina has, or a lower rate, like New Jersey has?
Which is better, a higher murder rate, like South Carolina has, or a lower rate, like New Jersey has?
Which is better, a higher rate of traffic deaths, like South Carolina has, or a lower rate, like New Jersey has?
And remember, South Carolina achieves these dismal results in spite of receiving 2.39 times as much in federal handouts for every dollar they pay in federal taxes as citizens of New Jersey receive in federal services for every dollar they pay in federal taxes.
You can call conservatism a success if you want. But if you have to depend on handouts from liberals to survive, and even then can’t make a decent life for yourself, I call that a failure.
Mary, you are hung up on the comparisons of entire states and I have noted that you need to compare Camden NJ with N. Charleston, SC for example. Then you will see that there is not much of any difference in these metrics other than weather. You will also notice the demographics are uneducated, unemployed whites and minorities who are guaranteed votes for liberal democrat politicians. What have these pols ever offered to these people other than handouts which incent them to stay poor, stupid, and dependent? And, by the way, it is tax money from people like me that is so liberally handed out.