Sorry, I forgot to add that I would certainly be in favor of cutting out silly programs that don’t work (including continuing to fund obsolete and redundant military technology as well as programs that reward poor choices, but that’s a redundant statement) in favor of having more to spend on the basics, i.e. health care, education, and espicially the well-being of children.
Oh, they’re important to me. I think it’s a tremendous imposition of basic human rights.
Inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are unilaterally denied to a child that is a victim of abortion.
My sense of justice does not favor the removal of rights from one innocent individual by another individual or by the state.
It definately is NOT a term of endearment. It is directed at a certain percentage of those receiving assistance that have no intention of ever providing for themselves.
I personally believe that the money wasted on the above would be much better spent for its intended purpose…helping those who can’t (not WON’T) help themselves and to help those TEMPORARILY down on their luck.
Such as:
- Sheltered workshops for the handicapped.
- Retraining for victims of downsizing.
- GED and Adult Continuing Education programs.
As I said in the part of my post you decided wasn’t worth quoting, I believe I am my brother’s keeper. I give freely both in time and money to local food banks, the Salvation Army, the local VA Hospital, Christian Help, the local sheltered workshop and others. Cutting off the leeches would help a hell of a lot more people for the same money.
My #1 concern has always been reproductive issues. High rates of out-of-wedlock and mistimed births–here and abroad–are harmful to the economy, a wellspring of poverty, bad for schools, a tremendous threat to the environment, a source of crime, political instability, and even war and terrorism. Project population growth figures out into the future and you’ve got a force that can destroy the World.
Now I don’t advocate radical population-control scenarios, just vigorous promotion of family planning techniques. But the Republicans are doing everything they can to undermine even that, as part of their Big Government War on Sex and their fanatical opposition to anything remotely associated with abortion. I’m all for personal responsibility, but don’t take away the tools and the training, and don’t cut off your nose to spite your face by doubling the number of fatherless kids inflicted on society.
Balle_M:
Well, I agree with what you just posted. (shocking, I know;)
And I didn’t not quote that part of your post because I didn’t think it was worth posting, I didn’t quote that part because I didn’t really disagree with you on that point. To be fair, I think that bit is commendable.
You seem to be a charitable person, and I respect that. We just disagree about the means of administering it.
But the “cracker brood sow” thing; man, that’s ugly, can’t agree with you on that.
But as I said in a previous post, I would gladly cut bad programs and undeserving recipients off in order to have more money for the deserving.
You mean you’re willing to be reasonable? No wonder you’re not a Republican.
Are those of you pointing to your $300 tax-rebate checks as a reason to support the Republicans saying that your principles and votes are for sale to the highest bidder?
Either that or we’re happy to be with a party that doesn’t force us to pay our hard-earned money for policies that violate our principles. (Those principles being less government intrusion in our lives, fewer hand-outs that we believe cripple the poor rather than help them, etc.)
I understand your position, though I don’t agree with you. Government has now put in place incentives for having children you cannot afford. Cut off the support, and the number of babies drops. It works. You would think by know we would learn that handing out condoms doesn’t work. Planned Parenthood, which I agree with since they are non-governmental, will provide free birth control to any woman who is unable to pay for it. why then are so many pregnant that cannot afford to pay to raise a child? Because they know they have a govt crutch to lean on.
I’m a registered Republican. None of the enumerated reasons of the OP apply to me. Others have already made comments similar to what I would have said (thought it is likely that they’re better written than mine would be).
To elaborate on what Texican said on the first page, I’d say that I feel it is my personal responsibility (oops, wrong thread :)) to help the less fortunate. But it is not the government’s responsibility. Furthermore, as the government increases social programs, I think that not only are people less able to contribute monitarily (as Texican pointed out), they are less inclined to do so, because hey, “that’s the government’s job.” Additionally, we have less time to give, as more and more households have two-income families necessary to pay the large tax burden and the other bills at the same time.
I see the core philosophy of Conservatism to be “free the individual to succeed or fail”, and the core tenet of Modern Liberalism to be “help the little guy, or else.” That said, no success is based entirely on merit–random chance, birth privileges, etc. all play a part–nor is every failure based on lack of merit. However, we can’t reliably judge that and attempt to correct it with government. Practically, there is room in the center to agree on most issues, but the Republican party platform/leadership more often agrees with me than not.
Frankly, I see both extremes as repugnant, though the extreme liberals tend to appear more repugnant than the extreme conservatives.
Just to point this out, the rebate checks everyone is so enthralled with were a Democratic idea to ameliorate the huge tilt towards the upper classes in Bush’s original tax bill. See the two stories on this web page, the second one down and then the fourth one down. Republican policymakers were and still mostly are, if you ask them, lukewarm about rebates at best.
http://www.salestax.org/news/thisweeksnews_3-30-01.html
I also find the idea that Republicans are for more freedom weird. Last I checked the ACLU was an organization almost exclusively supported by liberals. Freedom of speech and the separation of church and state that preserves freedom of religion are not real high up on the list of priorities of most conservatives, IMO. Conservatives are also constantly objecting to cases based on the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process has been seriously compromised by Bush & Ashcroft’s novel invocation of “enemy combatant”, under which they get to hold someone indefinitely pretty much as they see fit, which goes mostly unremarked by these friends of freedom (my impression is that Bob Barr and a few others are exceptions to this rule, but overall the right has not been real loud in objecting to this stuff).
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wasn’t talking about the rebate. I was talking about the three thousand dollar tax return I received this year. I didn’t even get one of the rebates, because I didn’t work that year.
I have no idea what your three thousand dollar tax return was due to, nor would anyone else without you revealing every last little detail of your finances. Without looking, I can guarantee you it wasn’t due to Bush’s tax cut, though. No way it would have had that kind of effect, not unless you have a truly huge income. (in which case, congrats!)
Actually, as I said earlier, I have a truly SMALL income (under $20,000 a year). All I know is that it’s three times what I got last year, and my tax guy told me it was because of recent changes Bush made. Since he’s my husband, I trust him. 
(Actually, to be fair, not ALL of it was from tax changes. Part of it was that I had a baby last year.)
Hmm. Too bad I don’t live anywhere near you. Sounds like a tax man I’d like to have.
Actually, the Democrats seem to have a reduced unterest in Freedom of Speech, as is shown by their support for Campaign Finance Reform. (Note that McCain Feingold was properly opposed by the ACLU). Freedom of religion has two pieces. The 1st Amendment bans “establisment of religion” and it bans “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The ACLU is very strong on the former, but weak on the latter.
I agree. However, the Democrats support many regulatory agencies which have also nibbled away at due process, particularly as applied to businesses. Also, Democrats pretty much oppose the 10th Amendment, while Republicans tend to give it some degree of support. Obvioiusly the Republicans give greater support to the 2nd Amendment.
Overall, I’d call it 50-50. The Democrats support certain freedoms more than the Republicans do, and vice versa.
Unfortunately one person’s simple question is easily seen as self-righteous by others. That’s why I don’t start OPs that are like this:
How can anyone be a democrat? I honestly can’t figure it out. The only reasons I can think of that would make a person decide to be a democrat would be:
-
I believe that certain people should not have to work for a living. We should foster a culture of entitlement because it’s easier than teaching people to be self-reliant.
-
I enjoy giving the government money so they can make Band-Aid efforts that stay in place for decades without making a lot of change, which necessitates the programs continuing indefinitely.
-
It’s better to put the innocent to death, rather than the guilty, which is why I support abortion and rally against the death penalty.
-
Rather than give many issues an equal weight, I pick only one thing as most important to me politically. I vote for the candidate who embraces that issue, even if I think differently about the others.
-
I believe that it should be up to the schools to teach the facts of life and morals to my children, so I don’t have to deal with it, and can blame someone when things don’t go well.
My list sounds sounds rather self-righteous to Democrats, doesn’t it? It’s hard not to ask a question like yours without offending someone, though you did make a good effort to sound as diplomatic as possible. I wouldn’t feel too badly about ticking some posters off, it’s bound to happen whenever politics come up.
In truth, my #4 is why I usually vote Republican. While I’m not very religous nor wealthy, and I do support equal rights for gay people, and (somewhat) stricter gun control, there is no one issue that I care the most about. It just turns out that there are more things I agree with in the Republican platform; more from column A than B, you understand. If another platform forms, and it seems to have a shot at changing things, I would consider changing parties, just as I now vote for the occasional democrat who appeals to my beliefs.
I’m a Republican and a conservative because I cannot fool myself into believing luxurious and self-gratifying untruths about human nature.
When it comes down to it, I think that if you’re not a pragmatist, it doesn’t matter how lofty your ideas are or how good your intentions are.
I personally think liberal and democratic ideas are much better than conservative/Republican ones, if they worked. Unfortunately I’m pretty sure they don’t.
Scylla: “When it comes down to it, I think that if you’re not a pragmatist…”
What makes you think that Republicans have a monopoly on pragmatism? Right off the top of my head I can think of about 10 philosophers who have devoted their careers to pragmatism, none of whom is likely to be a Republican.
Wasn’t Al Gore’s slogan in 2000 something to do with pragmatism?