I don’t know if you watched 60 minutes this Sunday but it was shown that there were 4 major issues people voted on. Morals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq, in that order. For some reason healthcare didn’t even make the list and morality was considered no. 1 on the list above education, healthcare, jobs, etc.
What saddens me is that the democratic party may now try to become puritan intolerants in order to court the morality vote, leaving those of us who do not support ‘morality’ (those of us who are pro-stem cells, pro seperation of church and state, pro freedom of expression, pro gay marriage, and overall social libertarians) with no one to vote for.
Liberals need to get out of the stigma that their social programs are entrapping and enslaving the people they are trying to help.
Americans express horror at the Europeans who have cushy unemployment which gets taken advantage of. Not only is Europe unnecessarily weak economically, but Americans think those welfare addicts would be happier if they were standing on their own two feet.
The Democrats could probably win, if they kept their current economic policies, but added strong accountability and needs-testing. Democrats would have an easier time implementing such things too… Republicans get labeled “heartless” and “racist” when they try it.
Absolutely agreed. I apologize if my statement came across as “churches and families should do everything” rather than “churches and families should be doing more.” That’s why I supported Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives Act- because it assisted the churches and charities that do this sort of thing, but it wasn’t with the idea of eliminating the government role.
And the thing is- most churches would be willing to help you, no matter your actual religion or morality. I do not know of any Catholic charities, shelters, food banks, etc., that only give charity to Catholics at the exclusion of other religions (or the non-religious).
Oh, man, the list of things poor Christians don’t need just gets bigger and bigger, the more I think about it! Police? Screw that; who’s a bigger cop than God? Fire Departments? Why, I reckon God could put out a fire if we put the job in His hands; he flooded the whole blessed world, did he not? We got food covered (multiplying bread loaves and such). Health care? Faith healers! Education? Y’know, after all this complaining about forcing silly things like Evolution down poor Christians’ God-fearing throats, I’ve seen the error of my ways. Let 'em school themselves at home, and teach their kids how the world really works. Roads? Well now, if I guy can walk on water, who needs a bridge over it?
I mean, all this money we’ve just tossed away in the most profligate manner, when all along God could have picked up the proverbial tab! Talk about Fables of the Reconstruction! Our evil, Godless, extravagant, thoroughly anti-federalist centralized social funding programs for public works and welfare has been an utter atheistic waste of time and cash.
This is great; this is magnificent. All those tax dollars I’ve pissed away, when I could have had a bigger house and a summer home in Maine! All that dough I could have given to my own children instead of doling it out like icing on the Angel-food-cake of God’s benevolence to heal, feed, clothe, educate, and shelter all those poor Christians who never needed my help in the first place!
Yes! I’m gonna vote Republican, or better still, Libertarian, for the rest of my life! I can keep it all! Mine! You? You got God, brother! You don’t need me! Woo-hoo!
What you forget is that from the Christian viewpoint, if someone suffers horribly from starvation and evnetually dies of it, it’s God’s will. God has taken care of them. Who are we to meddle?
You can tolerate one HELL of a lot of human suffering this way.
I never said anything about welfare except that the current system is designed to keep people poor. I daresay most conservatives are not against some kind of safety net, they just believe what we’re doing now isn’t working.
But as usual, the insults start flying the second I mention I’m a Christian and talk about my personal faith. And you wonder why liberals just got their butts stomped, and you wonder why the SDMB boards are getting less and less diverse.
I wish I had your confidence that eliminating the government role wasn’t the intended purpose. But I’ve seen too many examples of Grover Norquist-style “drown the government in the bathtub” rhetoric not to believe that there will be a push to get the government completely out of the charity business now that Bush has his second term. And do you really think they won’t say, “hey, don’t worry, the faith-based guys will do it all”, even if that wasn’t the stated intention of the FBIA?
Just like with the tax cuts. They were implemented with a sunset clause, and sold to the public based on budget numbers that assumed they would expire as planned, then hey whoopsie, Bush is giving a SOTU address and pushing for the cuts to be made permanent. This government, unfortunately, has a history of using compromise as just a way to get in position to further their complete agenda. Why should I have any confidence that it will be different with the FBIA?
No problem with that. But there has to be alternative. If we as a people truly intend to respect the beliefs of our fellow man, if we truly intend to be humble enough not to believe we’re infallible on the subject of religion, then we have to ensure that both now and in the future if a homeless man needs a bowl he doesn’t have to attend a bible study session to get it if he doesn’t want to. No man should have to sell his soul to us for charity.
Suggestion - The Dems push for Federalism and states rights. If the Republicans are hell bent on cutting federal programs, I say that the Dems should let them. What to cut Social Security? Fine. Get rid of Medicare? OK, no problem. Inheritence tax? Gone… Capital gains tax? Bye, bye.
But the Dems should go even further. Push to cut EVERYTHING (except defense spending) to the bone. You want tax cuts - we (the Dems) will give you tax cuts. Once the federal coffers dry up, then there won’t be any more money for pork-barrel projects.
Farm subsudies? So sorry, no money. Money for improving infrastructure? Oops, again, no money.
The rationale for this? Blue states disproportionately pay out more federal tax dollars than red states. And it’s the red states that benefit disproportionately by taking in more federal tax dollars than they pay out. By emphasizing federalism and states rights, you are essentially devolving many of the funding responsibilites back to the states.
If the Red states want a cultural war, the Dems should comply with the Republicans by saying “OK - but we want to hold you your agenda of cutting taxes and reducing/eliminating Federal programs.” The Red states can be happy with their cultural victory while the blue states get to keep all their money.
In short, the Blue states cede to the cultural war to the red states (“you win!!”), but fight an economic war based on federalism and states rights. Make the red states pay economically for their cultural war victory.
Well, in order for either the Pubbie or Democrat system to work, there need to be available jobs… seems that most corporations are downsizing and outsourcing.
But I’m sure everyone appreciates the $350 tax cut they got so they can buy an X-Box and Halo 2. :rolleyes:
Side note, saw a poll in Readers’ Digest (so you know how ultra accurate it is) that said something like “65% of Americans would change political parties for $600”, and I think that is largely what happened. My own grandmother voted for Bush because of the tax cut, and when asked about the war said that it didn’t matter.
I feel an iota of sympathy for you there.
If you consider the election “getting their butts stomped”, there are no terms in any language that can describe the unholy infernal desctruction of and in Iraq. Let’s not toot our own horns too loudly.
Makes me wonder if the lawnchair-juggling people will be back for Bush’s ceremony.
At this point, I’m thinking, “screw the Federal gov’t bullcrap, let my state do its thing”… especially considering how many states passed anti-gay marriage legislation.
High time to bring states’ rights back into the political picture :-p
I don’t see the Dems EVER getting behind something like this, but I agree it would be a viable direction for them to take. Become the party of fiscal sanity, the party of the balanced budget. Leverage the perception that Clinton was a fiscal conservative and appeal to golden years memories of folks that lived through the 90’s, but take it a step further. Remove social spending programs from the federal level and put them on the states level…cut federal spending to the bone. Folks like me (not that I voted for Bush or am a Republican) would stream to the Democrats in droves because of our unease with the quasi-religious aspects of the Republican party.
Its a good dream, but I think the Dems will do just the opposite. I think they got the wrong message from this election…and learned absolutely nothing from Clinton’s presidency. They will militantly run to the left and their platform will be even more highly charged with liberal ideals, shrill language and ranting, social spending, etc. The only hope they have is that Bush makes a total hash of things this term and that they don’t further alienate the center with this tired meme they have going about THIS election being stolen (if I hear ‘Diebold’ tossed around one more time with zero proof I think I’ll puke), or that the only reason Bush was elected is because the folks who voted for him (over half the country) are plain stupid or deceived. THATS not going to win them any new votes IMO.
-XT
Abbie, there’s a thread that Sam Stone started, “social conservatism explained”, which you haven’t posted to. You could teach us from your experience and perspective in that thread.
You aren’t specifically unwelcome in this thread, in my opinion, but the intended purpose of this thread was to discuss what liberals/Democrats can do to win over the allegiance of voters in the heartland states. You enter a reply that basically reads as “Well, your main problem is that your social politics sucks to the point that Godly folks like me would sooner vote our religious conscience against our pocketbooks and besides your economic politics sucks too, God will provide”.
I’m under the impression that you seldom participate in theological debates here in GD, and search seems to support that impression. It is certainly within your right to enter into any debate or discussion and say “I believe this because this is the way God wants it” without developing examining or questioning that assumption in these forums, but why would you do that in a thread like this and then complain when we hoot and ridicule? With rare exceptions, we aren’t social conservatives. Saying that something offends the religious conscience or that it is or is not as God would want it without explaining or defending why you think so, — i.e., “anyone who is “right with God” just knows this is so” — comes across as arrogant.
I’m with you. I’m serious. This baloney about how the Dems need to reach out to people who vote with their souls rather than their brains so we can win the next election is insanity, if you ask me. Can’t win without the South? Fine! Don’t! It would appear they don’t want Washington to tell them how to live their lives and raise their kids, etc., and all of the sudden, I sure as Hell don’t either. So, here’s the plan: Gut the Feds. Starve the Beast. That’s what the pubbies want? For the first time in my life, I’m exceedingly happy to oblige. Really, I’m quite serious. Don’t want my tax dollars? COOL! I mean, really, conservative America does not want my help? Awesome. I promise I will take every dollar I don’t give to the Feds, and instead turn it over to the State of MA.
On one condition:
If you also voted to shrink the Federal Govt., cut centralised social welfare, education, public works, etc. programs, STAY WHEREVER YOU ARE. Don’t come North expecting me to be happy when you need to suckle off the welfare tit, got it? Can we all make that promise like good Christians or whatever? I mean, you wouldn’t lie to me, right? 'Cause lyin’s a sin. Are we cool with that arrangement? Mi casa…mi casa? usted permanece en su propia casa? That is they way you all want it, correct?
