Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2013, 09:51 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,440,325 times
Reputation: 3141

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Maurio View Post
Fiscal issues are worse with Republicans. They have wanted for decades to destroy unions, Social Security, Medicare and a host of other things good for working people.
Yes, we want to destroy unions. But we want to reform social security and medicare, not destroy them. It's spin by people like you that we want to destroy them. You will only ever see Democrats demagoguing about Republicans wanting to destroy them. You don't actually see Republicans wanting to destroy them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2013, 09:54 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,576,683 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.

Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?

I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
I used to be middle and could have gone left or right depending on the policies of the current administration. Because I am fiscally conservative and don't like any president that tries to increase taxes on anyone Obama has pushed me right. We are expected to be financially responsible why do we give our president a pass when he is always trying to get more money from us. This sequester and Obama running around like an idiot acting like it was going to be the end of the world was shameful on his part.

Our taxes went up amongst other things and we are expected to cut back all the time. Why does he think I am going to understand that he doesn't have to cut back and suffer the same as we are forced to do.

I also believe in budgets and Obama missed his budget deadline again. How in the world can you know the income and expenses and be financially responsible without one. It is required by law, why does he continue to get a pass for 4 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 09:56 PM
 
24,325 posts, read 26,716,110 times
Reputation: 19745
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
I used to be middle and could have gone left or right depending on the policies of the current administration. Because I am fiscally conservative and don't like any president that tries to increase taxes on anyone Obama has pushed me right. We are expected to be financially responsible why do we give our president a pass.
Bush pushed me further left because he was anything but fiscally responsible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 09:58 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,440,325 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldous9 View Post
Republican members of congress believe it should be the right of an employer to remove contraception coverage from a woman's insurance policy.

Do you deny this?
No, but I deny that this constitutes a "war on women"

Go to walmart and buy some prophylactics. It's not a big deal.

The alternative to allowing employers to remove contraception coverage is to mandate that they don't. What gives government the right to do that?

I do not personally agree with dropping coverage of contraception from insurance. But I also do not drink. That doesn't mean I support banning alcohol. Insurance companies can cover what they want. If their coverage doesn't meet the needs of employers, then employers won't carry their insurance. If the coverage employers carry doesn't meet the needs of employees than employees will go to a company that offers better benefits.

So there is no need for government to micromanage insurance plans. The desire of insurance companies to get people to sign up to pay premiums on those plans will determine what people want in their plans.

And in addition to all that, and the most important point, is that the federal government does not have the right to mandate what products private companies sell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 10:02 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,576,683 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
Bush pushed me further left because he was anything but fiscally responsible.
Yep and of course we do not expect better from a democrat we expect more of the same. So we give Obama a pass too. Hold on to your wallets because it will not stop until neither gets a pass.

This democratic president is no better than Bush
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 10:03 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,440,325 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
^^^ I like the way you think.
And, as phil said, you can't be socially liberal and fiscally responsible, that is an oxymoron.
Doesn't anybody care about peace anymore? Where did the anti-war crowd go?
As regards "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" it usually means a different definition of what qualifies as social:

Socially liberal these days usually translates to "let gay people get married, let women get abortions, don't let churches run things any differently than non-churches, and don't allow public expression of religion" Basically keep religion in the home or church, and don't legislate any morality

While all the social programs that liberals usually support that would usually also count as socially liberal in other contexts get counted as fiscal issues here because they require money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 10:05 PM
 
Location: US
742 posts, read 676,235 times
Reputation: 213
Your problem lies hat you are voting either of the more of the worst. There's no least here, each are corrupted and run by the same.

"socially liberal and fiscally conservative." Sounds like you should go with what you preach. Close to Libertarian. Or even Independent. Maybe if more people did, Dem/Repub will be less of the only options for you guys. Just a thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 10:06 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,576,683 times
Reputation: 13868
I don't care what the hell people do with their lives just as long as they don't hurt anyone, as long as they can support what they do and as long as they keep their damn hands out of my wallet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 10:09 PM
 
24,325 posts, read 26,716,110 times
Reputation: 19745
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Yep and of course we do not expect better from a democrat we expect more of the same. So we give Obama a pass too. Hold on to your wallets because it will not stop until neither gets a pass.

This democratic president is no better than Bush

I agree when it comes to spending Obama is no better. However, I wasn't expecting him to be better. That's why I'm voting based on my positions on social issues. If I see the current Republican Party being more Libertarian on social issues, I'll be willing to give them another try to see if they will be fiscally responsible like they claim.

I'm not even asking for them to support gay rights, abortion etc... just don't give your opinion. I just want them to say, when it comes to social issues, I'll leave it up to states to decide, I'm concerned about our economy and security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 10:20 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,440,325 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
Bush pushed me further left because he was anything but fiscally responsible.
I've heard this before and I get suspicious about these claims. If it was someone being fiscally irresponsible that made you upset with them, then why did you into the arms of people who are even more fiscally irresponsible than the original one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top