Another day older and deeper in debt

[TooFarTampa]

I was born into a very political Democratic family. I grew out of it when I first started making good money and really thought about how much money I was sending to Washington. So, I became a Republican. But over time, it was clear to me that Republicans are not really much diferent from Dems on economic/spending/taxing policies. They are clearly more conservative on social issues. Then one day I was dragged kickin' and screamin' to my in-laws. Bored to tears, I started reading a very old Reader's Disgust magazine and in it was a political test. I pegged the needle on Libertarian. 100%. It really made me angry because I knew I was a good Republican. I then read the article and had, as they say, an epiphany. I am conservative on economic and tax policy but quite liberal on social issues. I cannot remember the timing versus my capture by the People's forces but it was close in time. The worse thing about living in the People's Republic was that those folks have convinced themselves that the rest of the country looks to them for guidance and all issues but especially political, social, economic, educational and healthcare. It must have killed them when Ted went to Duke to have his brain surgery.

But, I once read an article by a Northern writer who said that Duke is in the South but not of the South. Okay. By that logic, Harvard is in New England but not of New England since it was started by a Brit. The People's Republic released me from captivity after only two years.

You crack me up.

 

[Matt J]

I was born into a very political Democratic family. I grew out of it when I first started making good money and really thought about how much money I was sending to Washington. So, I became a Republican. But over time, it was clear to me that Republicans are not really much diferent from Dems on economic/spending/taxing policies. They are clearly more conservative on social issues. Then one day I was dragged kickin' and screamin' to my in-laws. Bored to tears, I started reading a very old Reader's Disgust magazine and in it was a political test. I pegged the needle on Libertarian. 100%. It really made me angry because I knew I was a good Republican. I then read the article and had, as they say, an epiphany. I am conservative on economic and tax policy but quite liberal on social issues. I cannot remember the timing versus my capture by the People's forces but it was close in time. The worse thing about living in the People's Republic was that those folks have convinced themselves that the rest of the country looks to them for guidance and all issues but especially political, social, economic, educational and healthcare. It must have killed them when Ted went to Duke to have his brain surgery.

But, I once read an article by a Northern writer who said that Duke is in the South but not of the South. Okay. By that logic, Harvard is in New England but not of New England since it was started by a Brit. The People's Republic released me from captivity after only two years.

Most traditional Republicans are still financially conservative. Most are also still a little miffed about being hi-jacked by religious conservatives. Suddenly the party shifted from don't spend to don't let gays marry, stop abortion, and spend spend spend! I think this is a main reason why a lot of republicans have shifted to Libertarian affiliations.

 

[traderx]

Most traditional Republicans are still financially conservative. Most are also still a little miffed about being hi-jacked by religious conservatives. Suddenly the party shifted from don't spend to don't let gays marry, stop abortion, and spend spend spend! I think this is a main reason why a lot of republicans have shifted to Libertarian affiliations.

I think you are exactly right. Most individual Republicans are financially conservative but the folks they send to DC are not. I get so tired of being lectured to by my Republican friends about the need for school prayer, how they are against gay marriages, etc etc etc.

In my way of thinking, as long as another person's actions do not affect my life, liberty or property, it should not be infringed by the government. It wasn't that long ago that the Blue Laws were in full force and effect on Sundays here in Georgia. Need some t-shirts? You can buy those on Monday. We still cannot buy containers of alcohol on Sunday. Now that is a cryin' shame.

 

[30ashopper]

Thanks. So ... if this is what happens in Massachussetts, where illegal immigration is relatively low compared to many other states, then what happens on a nationwide basis, when a larger number of illegal immigrants are a) not participating in the health care mandate and b) going to emergency rooms anyway?

Immigration is a whole other issue that I have mixed feelings about, but in a practical sense, I have to agree that Romney's plan on a national level seems like a bad idea.

I agree - it shouldn't come into play with healthcare. Healthcare is one initiative, controlling the borders is another. Both need to be addressed in some way that doesn't invole massive increases in government spending and growth. On immigration, myself I'm for open - legal - immigration with Mexico.

 

[Rudyjohn]

Amen, my sister. That was the same year that I just decided not to have a car payment and to pay off my credit card balances (thanks to a little inheritance I received)--I was lucky. I have $0 credit card balances today.

Why should the average American family actually care whether we have a national budget surplus or a balanced budget when they are personally overextended at the family level? I.E., how may people took their $ 600 IRS check and paid of credit card balances VS those who went to the Mall shopping? Which was a better use of the money?

funny you should mention this. Mr. JR always takes ours and puts it toward our credit card (notice it's in the singular form ;-)).

.

 

[30ashopper]

I think you are exactly right. Most individual Republicans are financially conservative but the folks they send to DC are not. I get so tired of being lectured to by my Republican friends about the need for school prayer, how they are against gay marriages, etc etc etc.

In my way of thinking, as long as another person's actions do not affect my life, liberty or property, it should not be infringed by the government. It wasn't that long ago that the Blue Laws were in full force and effect on Sundays here in Georgia. Need some t-shirts? You can buy those on Monday. We still cannot buy containers of alcohol on Sunday. Now that is a cryin' shame.

So so completely agree.

 

[Matt J]

I agree - it shouldn't come into play with healthcare. Healthcare is one initiative, controlling the borders is another. Both need to be addressed in some way that doesn't invole massive increases in government spending and growth. On immigration, myself I'm for open - legal - immigration with Mexico.

We already have that, but anytime that you have an impoverished nation next to a wealthy nation you will have illegal immigration. I'm not saying it's the only reason for illegal immigration, but money is a factor.

In other words why pay to come here if you can just sneak over the border. Like sneaking into the movies, the reward out weighs the consequences.

 

[6thGen]

For religious conservatives, I wouldn?t argue that they?ve taken over, but there positions are not well grounded, or at least not reported as such. Most can agree that the media is liberal, so they?ll go to the same place for a quote on gay marriage that they would on a local tornado. I personally oppose the legalization of gay marriage beyond the point that it is nowhere near financially feasible given the current tax structure. I oppose it because it is part of a continued slump towards Gomorrah ($1 to Judge Bork). Society long since moved from an ideational culture towards a sensate culture, in other words from a culture that perceives truth through objective norms, the moral standing of religion, to subjective norms, truth perceived through the senses, or a truth however one sees fit. It would follow that we?ll end up moving towards idealistic culture, a blend of the two, pretty much where this country, leaning ideational, started as transcendentalists. However, at the forced retreat of the ideationalists, especially since the 60s, it?s far from soon and the further retreat, the more danger we are of failing, (see pagan, Rome). Even the most liberal of philosophers agrees that societies do not survive without durable moral norms. Capitalist critic and open Marxist Alasdair MacIntyre believes we?ve lost the core convictions required for the common good, and that today?s politics are civil war by other means. Intellectual religious conservatives recognize this, and retreat to a defensible position, that if we are slumping towards Gomorrah, we ought to at least do it through the legislative branch, rather than the judicial, which is what the Constitution called for. DoMA was a stop-gap. Bottom line is we need to agree to a common truth, rather than one perceived selfishly and individually, otherwise we have firefighters who intentionally set fire to occupied structures suing for wrongful termination. Stepping on someone else?s rights, as they are spelled out in the Constitution, is far from my position. I am simply against courts creating rights out of thin air.

 

[TooFarTampa]

For religious conservatives, I wouldn’t argue that they’ve taken over, but there positions are not well grounded, or at least not reported as such. Most can agree that the media is liberal, so they’ll go to the same place for a quote on gay marriage that they would on a local tornado. I personally oppose the legalization of gay marriage beyond the point that it is nowhere near financially feasible given the current tax structure. I oppose it because it is part of a continued slump towards Gomorrah ($1 to Judge Bork). Society long since moved from an ideational culture towards a sensate culture, in other words from a culture that perceives truth through objective norms, the moral standing of religion, to subjective norms, truth perceived through the senses, or a truth however one sees fit. It would follow that we’ll end up moving towards idealistic culture, a blend of the two, pretty much where this country, leaning ideational, started as transcendentalists. However, at the forced retreat of the ideationalists, especially since the 60s, it’s far from soon and the further retreat, the more danger we are of failing, (see pagan, Rome). Even the most liberal of philosophers agrees that societies do not survive without durable moral norms. Capitalist critic and open Marxist Alasdair MacIntyre believes we’ve lost the core convictions required for the common good, and that today’s politics are civil war by other means. Intellectual religious conservatives recognize this, and retreat to a defensible position, that if we are slumping towards Gomorrah, we ought to at least do it through the legislative branch, rather than the judicial, which is what the Constitution called for. DoMA was a stop-gap. Bottom line is we need to agree to a common truth, rather than one perceived selfishly and individually, otherwise we have firefighters who intentionally set fire to occupied structures suing for wrongful termination. Stepping on someone else’s rights, as they are spelled out in the Constitution, is far from my position. I am simply against courts creating rights out of thin air.

I believe there is a small distinction between morals and ethics, and while I consider myself a practicing Christian I don't believe that religious morals should dictate entirely how a society is run. However, I am a firm believer in strict ethics and have no problem applying ethics to society. I don't see how gay marriage can be seen as unethical, therefore I support it fully, but that is another discussion entirely.

Anyone want to talk about Obama's doughnut hole? Ooops ... that did not come out right exactly.

 

[6thGen]

(I didn't bring it up. )

That's my point that some find it morally wrong while others do not. Until we agree on some sort of universal truth, or that truth, right and wrong, morality, etc even have grounding, we move from Scholasticism to nominalism. DoMA was put in place to fend off the next move by the courts, that gay marriage is an inalienable right and that it must be honored by all states.

Again, the court doesn't let voters decide for themselves. That's all I'm asking. That's my defensible position.