How to kill a Republican

[HYHYBT]

The problem is, that with the two-party system, we're always voting for the lesser of two evils.

That wouldn't be so bad. The trouble is that sometimes we vote for the *greater* of two evils

[Racket_Man]

I'm reserving that for an aunt of mine. Can never be too certain sometimes.

Rapscallion

But would it not be simpler to just mentally inflate her and have her float away???

[Silverharp]

.

I'm just waiting for a time when there is a libertarian that has a snowballs chance in hell... I like the liberal social agenda but the conservative fiscal agenda (mostly, there are parts I disagree with both), and unfortunately, neither party is willing to field a candidate with those qualities (though I imagine that is probable what the largest number of Americans would prefer).

Unfortunately the Libertarians with the loudest mouths have been dominating the news feeds with their talk of deregulating EVERYTHING, making every state its own fiefdom with its own currency, going back to the barter system, etc...

[mikoyan29]

I think the biggest problem is that the Republicans have been courting the Religious Conservatives for some time now. The Religious Conservatives do not have the same goals as the Fiscal Conservatives in many cases. I'm afraid that if Reagan were running today, he'd probably be tarred and feathered by the Tea Party folks as well.

My biggest problem with fiscal conservatives is that they seem to fine with spending money as long as its not on some of the social programs. They also do not want to raise taxes at all. To me that is not the definition of being fiscally conservative....because you cut what you can and if you cn't raise enough revenue, you raise taxes.

And I think that is the fundamental problem with politics in general. People say they are all for balancing the budget (in the macro sense) but when you start getting down to what should get cut, they start having issues.

[Rapscallion]

And I think that is the fundamental problem with politics in general. People say they are all for balancing the budget (in the macro sense) but when you start getting down to what should get cut, they start having issues.

I've often thought that politics can be boiled down to 'what do you want the money coming out of your pocket to be called?' rather than by political definitions.

Rapscallion

[protege]

And I think that is the fundamental problem with politics in general. People say they are all for balancing the budget (in the macro sense) but when you start getting down to what should get cut, they start having issues.

Speaking of balancing the budget...people seem to forget about the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Sure, Bill Clinton did balance the budget...but he cut a crapload of programs and services to do so. One of the things that got cut, was Federal subsidies to hospitals. Once those were cut, many healthcare systems soon found themselves in trouble. Locally, we had one of our largest system (Allegheny General/AHERF) unravel because of it.

Not *all* of AGH's failure was due to that act though. Some of it came from the attention they gained because of bankruptcy. For years, AGH was always making money, and nobody could figure out where it was coming from. Turns out that they were 'cooking the books,' and got caught. There was a *lot* of fraud going on, plenty of wasteful spending (seriously, did they really *need* a dozen private jets?) to go around.

With that said, I'm all for cutting spending, and keeping said spending under control. Unfortunately, once taxpayer funds are involved, nobody seems to give a shit about such things. They only plan for the short term...and then can't understand when there's not enough money to expand their sewer system, and why taxpayers are pissed.

[Tanasi]

I think the biggest problem is that the Republicans have been courting the Religious Conservatives for some time now. The Religious Conservatives do not have the same goals as the Fiscal Conservatives in many cases. I'm afraid that if Reagan were running today, he'd probably be tarred and feathered by the Tea Party folks as well.

My biggest problem with fiscal conservatives is that they seem to fine with spending money as long as its not on some of the social programs. They also do not want to raise taxes at all. To me that is not the definition of being fiscally conservative....because you cut what you can and if you cn't raise enough revenue, you raise taxes.

And I think that is the fundamental problem with politics in general. People say they are all for balancing the budget (in the macro sense) but when you start getting down to what should get cut, they start having issues.

There's also cutting to the bare bones and living with-in what's left (like it or not) that's how all of us live, is it not??? Personally I have less problems with raising current taxes than creating new taxes. Current taxes can always go down, new taxes never go away, they're always re-allocated for other things.

The Algore phone tax on those that have more than one phone line in their homes. It was supposed to toward putting the internet in libraries and schools. The goal was declared achieved a few years ago but the tax is still there. There's also the Rural Electrification Tax and it's nearly 100 years old.

Personally I think needs must be funded first and then if there's anything left over funding wants could be considered providing there's no debt to be paid off.

[AdminAssistant]

How do you determine a 'need'? Some would prioritize military spending - saying safety is the most important need. Some would say education and social services are the most important need. Funding for NASA has been getting a lot of attention lately. Everyone can agree that "Needs should be funded first", but it's deciding what the 'needs' are that is the issue.

[TheHuckster]

How do you determine a 'need'? Some would prioritize military spending - saying safety is the most important need. Some would say education and social services are the most important need. Funding for NASA has been getting a lot of attention lately. Everyone can agree that "Needs should be funded first", but it's deciding what the 'needs' are that is the issue.

Not only that but how much funding is "enough". The military, education systems, civil works, medical care, and all the other needs are bidding to get as much money as possible, plus where does that money go? You can use the funding to buy better textbooks, give each child a laptop or tablet, pay teachers a decent salary, etc., but it all has to make sense and each dollar needs to benefit the system as effectively as possible.

[HYHYBT]

One thing you *don't* do: when the Pentagon, for example, says it only needs a certain amount and wants to dump programs it says are useless, you don't force them to spend extra money in those areas.

[mikoyan29]

One thing you *don't* do: when the Pentagon, for example, says it only needs a certain amount and wants to dump programs it says are useless, you don't force them to spend extra money in those areas.

Or maybe we start holding some of those defense companies to task. Take for instance the F-22, when it was originally quoted, we were supposed to get close to 1000. Now we are getting maybe 200. But I guess since Lockheed aren't "welfare queens", no REpublican will dare go up against them.

[Jester]

Being kind of a hippie guy with hippie-ish values, when I turned 18, I immediately registered as a Democrat, the "liberal" party.

By the time I was 22, I was completely disillusioned with the Democrats AND the Republicans, and withdrew from the Democratic Party in disgust, re-registering as an independent, which is what I have remained the last 20 years. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, and will continue to vote for the best candidate available, even if it's a write-in or non-candidate (see below), or even not voting if I think that is the best course of action.

To quote Jello Biafra, "The Democrats are on the inside what the Republicans are on the outside, both with almost identical financial backers."

The problem is, that with the two-party system, we're always voting for the lesser of two evils.

And sometimes the only options we have are simply all evil.

Example: In the 2000 Presidential election, I viewed George W. Bush as a lying corrupt bottom-feeding scumsucker, and knew without question that if I voted for him I could not possibly look myself in the mirror the next day with a clear conscience. As for his opponent, I viewed Al Gore as a lying corrupt bottom-feeding scumsucker, and knew without question that if I voted for him I could not possibly look myself in the mirror the nxt day with a clear conscience.

Presented with two candidates that I clearly viewed as pathetic jokers, I did the only thing my mind and conscience would allow me to do: I voted for a PROFESIONAL joker. I voted for George Carlin, the comedian. And hoped for some chaos. And my prayers were answered, in that ridiculous five weeks we all went through.

And while many of my friends and families told me I "threw away" my vote, I was one of the only people I knew of with a completely clear conscience, as I had voted for a man I absolutely believed in, and didn't have to hold my nose to do so. And, unlike the vast majority of Americans, I thoroughly enjoyed that five weeks of chaos, as it showed so vividly many of the inherent flaws in our system. None of which, sadly, have been corrected since then.

I'm afraid that if Reagan were running today, he'd probably be tarred and feathered by the Tea Party folks as well.

Near the end of his life, retired Senator Barry Goldwater, the "father of conservatism" in this country, was reviled and rebuked by the majority of the Republican Party in his and my home state of Arizona, as they viewed him as "too liberal." Had Goldwater changed his views and softened in his old age? Not at all. His views had remained constant: keep the government out of our personal lives. And thus he was in favor of allowing gays in the military, and other similar issues. Naturally, the ever-more-conservative Republican Party in Arizona found this unacceptable, as their version of "keeping the government out of our lives" didn't extend to such things as allowing people of varying sexual orientations to serve their country in the military, or to marry if they were not of the same orientation as the majority, or to have an abortion without government laws dictating otherwise, etc., etc. In other words, Goldwater stuck to what conservatism was founded on, while these neo-conservatives had redefined the term and had become much of what Goldwater hated. Very ironic, and rather distressing to me personally.

Because, while I did not always agree with Goldwater's views on things. I respected him for having his OWN views, and not kowtowing to what he thought the polls told him he should believe, even if that caused dissension in his own party. I found him consistent in his political career, for the most part, and consistent in those views even later in retired life, when I had the pleasure of meeting him in person during one of my broadcast newswriting classes.

Would Reagan, the demi-god of the Republican Party today, pass muster with the current Tea Party movement? No more than the founder of the conservative movement in the Sixties could pass muster with members of his own party and allegedly of his own ideology in his own home state in the Nineties.

[TheHuckster]

I voted for George Carlin, the comedian. And hoped for some chaos. And my prayers were answered, in that ridiculous five weeks we all went through.

Were you in Florida at that time? If so, you might have at least made one of those recounters' day.

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.

[protege]

One thing you *don't* do: when the Pentagon, for example, says it only needs a certain amount and wants to dump programs it says are useless, you don't force them to spend extra money in those areas.

However, you never see things like that. Most departments, seem to develop a fear of *losing* funding if they choose to claim less for their programs. They'll pad their budgets, even if they don't need it.

Then there are "temporary" programs or departments...that usually end up being "permanent." These things are so part of the local scene, that they never go away. Right now, we're dealing with some of that locally. We have the "row offices" downtown. Every election cycle, candidates go on about how they plan to eliminate or combine these jobs...because very few people even know what they do, or even if they're still necessary. Plans will be made to cut costs, but there are always excuses made.

All because too many idiots fear losing taxpayer-backed funding

[Andara Bledin]

However, you never see things like that.

Except we currently have that very thing happening right now.

Here's a Huffington Post article from May that starts out with, "A House panel has unveiled a $608 billion defense spending bill that restores some of the programs the Pentagon wanted to cut next year..."

An article at The Atlantic Wire, also from May, where Panetta, our Defense Secretary, was upset over Republicans being unwilling to allow for negotiated budget cuts which will end up leading to much harsher automatic budget cuts. Basically, he's pissed at the GOP for refusing to compromise on anything at all, just like they've been doing since the moment "that man" took office.

^-.-^