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.
I'm not as seasoned as OldDocKat, but I was a College Republican who campaigned for Reagan and voted for Bush 41 twice and Bush 43 once. I only regret one of those votes.
I believe in markets, free trade, law and order, a muscular foreign policy and a federal budget that is balanced over the course of a business cycle (counter-cyclical deficits are fine during recessions, but should be balanced by counter-cyclical surpluses during expansions). I also believe that market failure is a thing and I'm for sensible regulation. I have a great career at a big bank but support pragmatic financial regulation (Dodd-Frank has been a net-plus). I prefer low taxes to high taxes, but I also think we need to base tax policy on the public goods and services we want as a nation, rather than wishful thinking. I support universal health care and a social safety net, because I've visited parts of the world where the sick die in the gutters and impoverished grandmothers sell canned goods on the corner to eke out a living, and I don't want to live in a place like that. I believe in the international order and support the coalition-building, multilateralism, diplomacy and soft power than sustains it. I'm fine with killing terrorists but recognize that we can't kill "terrorism." I don't like leftist PC antiliberalism but think most of what the right calls "PC" is just common courtesy. I'm straight, white, male, middle-aged and socially liberal.
It's an interesting time. I find myself in the center-right of the Democratic Party these days, but I don't really expect it to last. I'm way to the left of today's Republicans, but the progressives probably own the future of the Democratic Party. I keep hoping the GOP will get tired of losing national elections and move back to the middle -- I'd be right at home as a Tory in the UK, probably -- but I don't see any signs of this happening. Thing is, it seems reasonable for the ideological left and right to have their own parties, so rather than hoping one or both will move back to the center, maybe we'll eventually get a centrist third party.
Yeah I'm a registered Republican, but most of my positions would be despised by today's Republican Party. The only candidate I like is John Kasich, but he will probably get steamrolled by the likes of Trump and Cruz.
Yeah I'm a registered Republican, but most of my positions would be despised by today's Republican Party. The only candidate I like is John Kasich, but he will probably get steamrolled by the likes of Trump and Cruz.
I like Kasich a lot, except that he remains married to supply-side economics despite its dismal track record over the past 25 years. And hey, I was married to it, too...in the 1980s. But I wish more politicians, including Kasich, were willing to change their ideological commitments when the real world proves them wrong. I'd still likely vote for him this year. He's no further to the right of me than HRC is to the left of me, and I think he's got the edge on character and management competence.
I like Kasich a lot, except that he remains married to supply-side economics despite its dismal track record over the past 25 years. And hey, I was married to it, too...in the 1980s. But I wish more politicians, including Kasich, were willing to change their ideological commitments when the real world proves them wrong. I'd still likely vote for him this year. He's no further to the right of me than HRC is to the left of me, and I think he's got the edge on character and management competence.
Yeah I don't believe in supply-side economics. There is a breaking point with taxes, but overall I think they're more inelastic as far as economic impact goes.
I like Kasich's focus on balancing the budget and he's done an okay job in Ohio as governor. He has a proven record as a congressman and governor.
I never spoke out for gun control before, and know some, like my husband would not like it, yet they will not compromise on issues so far afield form self defense and hunting. Who needs an assault rife for defense, unless one lives in a war zone? Most hunters do not use them!
Why would anyone need more than two automatic pistols?
" Who needs an assault rife for defense ."
Come back after you have done some research and KNOW what you are talking about..
Yeah I don't believe in supply-side economics. There is a breaking point with taxes, but overall I think they're more inelastic as far as economic impact goes.
Exactly. At some level of marginal tax rates, supply-side effects would kick in. Just not at the levels we debate in this country. Clinton and Bush 43 both demonstrated that in different ways.
How about you do gooders stay out of my life? I don't need you or anyone else making decisions for me on how high a wage I should ask for or how many guns I need in order to protect myself from tyranny. Unless I am stepping on the rights of another, how about you pretty much stay out?
Surely you'll afford others the same courtesy when they want to get an abortion, marry someone of the same gender, smoke a bit of weed, or practice Islam?
Being a life-long Republican I might go Democrat for the social reasons.
We need to end the ‘war on drugs’, as it is a silly concept and undoable; it only causes nonviolent persons to be criminals.
While I agree in concept, the matter is much more complicated than simply decriminalizing. It's true that prohibitions on anything only creates black markets, however, there is an enormous amount of violence associated with drug trafficking. So it's not at all accurate to label this as non-violent. Gang violence is prevalent nationwide, accounting for a large percentage of the gun violence statistics Democrats use as their prime argument for disarming law abiding citizens!
Also note that Obama, the democrat, has sicked the Justice Department and DEA SWATT teams on LEGAL State licensed marijuana operations in Colorado and California … several times. So I have no idea why you'd expect the democrats to be an ally for such decriminalization. The only mainstream candidate prior to comrade Sanders to talk about that was Ron Paul … republican … who was harshly criticized by both parties for voicing such ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDocKat
We need to allow persons, particularly over age 70, the right to choose to die when they become ill, rather than allow their fortunes to be taken by the healthcare industry, while they live a few more painful years.
Oh yes, medical freedom under democrats? Have you lost your mind? The democrats are doing everything in their power to enable and unleash a virtual medical tyranny upon the populace … for the first time in history, you can't say no to the pharma cartel, thanks to Obama, his band of democrats, and one Benedict Arnold on the supreme court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDocKat
We need to get over the abortion issue, this has been legal since 1973 and we need not go back to what we now have with drugs, making criminals out of people. Also, we need to get beyond what we do with aborted materials, as being discarded is no better, in fact worse, than using the substance for research.
Abortion remains legal, and i'm not going to debate the virtues or lack thereof of abortion here. What I am going to challenge strongly is the selling of aborted baby parts and organs. To support such a thing is, at best, very naive, at worst, psychopathic/satanic in nature. It's inconcievable for anyone to support such an atrocity if you are even marginally familiar with what has transpired with Planned Parenthood regarding the selling of these aborted baby parts and organs. And it's irrefutable proof of how far we've fallen on the morality scale, with almost nothing off limits. Everything is for sale … now, that apparently includes baby organs.
A well grounded person ought to recoil at the very notion of this unseemly behavior, irrespective of any rationalizations. But moreover, wherever you find profits to be made, you find corruption. And whenever you create a market for a product, you will have people seeking that product for no other purpose than to meet that demand. So, what begins as a medical service to women, turns into a baby part manufacturing and distribution business for trafickers in human tissue. Sickening is too mellow of a term to describe this.
This isn't a question of whether or not we should be letting all of those baby parts and organs "go to waist" by tossing them into the dumpster ... the glaring reality is why are we treating human beings and their remains as garbage? I have the answer .. but you probably wouldn't want to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDocKat
We need to be serious about healthcare, as it is, when someone is very sick they receive treatment, and then the hospital chases them around with collection agencies, another corrupt business! They end up avoiding normal health care practices, then become very sick and need more expensive medical care. The private system does not work here, we need government sponsored health care, supplied to all citizens.
Government has long ago proven to be the least competent at delivering anything that works properly, or is cost effective. From education to healthcare, and everything in between, there is only one guarantee … if government runs it, it will be a disaster. Medicare is a disaster … the VA healthcare is an even greater disaster … the FDA is a disaster, and ObamaCare is already a disaster and it's just begun. Have you already forgotten about the One Billion dollar website that didn't work? They couldn't even design a freaking website that worked properly, with $1,000,000,000 to spend.
Now, aside the fact that there is no constitutional authority for this, all we need to look at is the complete failure of government to fulfill the limited responsibilities it actually is authorized and obligated to do, like border security, foreign commerce, and national defense. With virtual open borders, close to a trillion dollar trade deficit with our trading partners, along with now being viewed by much of the world as the biggest threat to world peace, I think we should not be adding anything more to government's plate until it manages to effectively address those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDocKat
I am a fiscal conservative, yet I am also aware we need to get the religion out of public life. Our problem with the Middle-East is over their religious fundamentalism; how can we combat that rationally when we endorse another religious fundamentalism?
I have no idea why you'd conflate fiscal conservatism and religion, as they are totally unrelated. Maybe, based on your previous dialog about government run healthcare, you are a bit confused about the meaning of fiscal conservatism?
Be that as it may, it isn't government's job to "get religion out of public life". In fact, the constitution requires that government stay out of religion. You know … the 1st Amendment and all … that separation of church and state thingy? Furthermore, the middle east issues have nothing to do with western religion (Christianity), from our perspective … it's about natural resources … OIL specifically, but includes gas, minerals as well, along with geopolitical control and western hegemony . Their never ending wars among themselves is religion based, which is why our founding fathers put the first amendment first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDocKat
As to gun ownership, we need to be more responsible, we need to have better laws, more background checks, better mental health analysis, and let’s get real about assault weapons; those who want them might join the National Guard.
I suspect you have never been a conservative, but a tried and true liberal all along. I say this because it is impossible to "un-know" something. Once you know something, you know it, and you can't un-know it. Conservatives understand a very basic fact that seems to escape the more intellectually gifted liberal. That is, NO LAW HAS EVER PREVENTED A CRIME. And the reason for that is simple … criminals DON'T OBEY THE LAW, which is why they are called criminals. Now maybe it's easier to grasp such simple concepts because we conservatives are so simple minded? Nevertheless, we recognize the simple fact that a criminal with intention to murder people is unlikely to give a second thought to gun laws. Can you see a criminal plotting to murder a bunch of people, saying .."oh gosh, I guess I better not do that because it's against the law for me to carry this gun"? This isn't a tuffie … everyone should get this, no matter how brilliant you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDocKat
We need to offer workers a fair wage and stop farming out all the jobs to other, cheaper countries. At some point we need to care about our fellow citizens!
Sanders scares me a little on fiscal issues, yet he is for decriminalizing drugs and most understanding of right to die issues. Clinton and Sanders would appeal to me more than any of the Republicans. For as long as Republicans hold on to pro-war, anti-women, religious values, I will not support them!
So, to hear you tell it, this is a brand new set of revelations for you? Wow, are you liberals dishonest.
Ooooh yeah … I've been a conservative all my life, but now I'm a socialist democrat.
Any politician who promises to fix a fraction of the problems we have and DOESN'T admit it will require some tax increases is lying. How can anyone be a "fiscal conservative" and vote for any in the GOP? It cost a lot more to wage wars, keep tens of thousands in prison, and pay higher rates on healthcare because we won't allow a functioning system.
Democrats tax and spend
Republicans don't tax and spend more
Which is more fiscally irresponsible?
Typically, Democrats spend more than Republicans. They approve more spending (usually with lots of pork included) bills.
A single payer medicare-for-all health care system is the fiscally conservative approach. It is far cheaper than the massively bloated and inefficient system we have in America. The only reason we still have the current system is because the big pharma drug cartels and the private insurance industry buy politicians to keep the current system in place. We are spending twice as much on health care than any other country in the world, with worse outcomes. It continues to increase and if we dont move to a single payer system soon, these vested special interests will bankrupt the country soon. It's not sustainable at all. Sanders represents no one but the people. He is not a representative of big pharma, big oil or big banks. He is his own man. A straight shooter running on the same political platform as all-time greats like FDR, Truman and JFK.
Stop. Please. There is nothing fiscally conservative about a medicare for all program. Jesus, it can't even cost effectively handle what it does now.
Do you want to know why we spend more than anyone else in the world, while suffering worse outcomes? GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT. The same reason our VA system is a disgrace … the same reason our education system is producing the same poor return on investment as is the healthcare system.
Look, I'm going to spell it out for you right here and now. We not only don't need a universal healthcare system for all, but we need to totally tear down the system as it exists now, and re-invent the entire approach.
These astronomical costs are because of the system, because the industry designed system to do exactly that … drive up costs (profits for the industry). God damn it, this isn't rocket science, so why doesn't everyone see this? It's so obvious, Stevie Wonder could see it.
Now let me use an analogy … let's say that the government made a law requiring everyone of driving age to buy a Chevrolet. What do you think would happen to Ford, Chrysler, and the other manufacturers? They'd all die a painful, but fairly rapid death. And what do you think would happen to the cost and quality of Chevrolets? The cost would skyrocket, and the quality would drop like a stone, because quality and costs are the two main factors consumers evaluate in a competitive market. But if everyone is required to buy a Chevrolet, GM doesn't have to worry about either costs or quality, so prices wil go up and quality will go down. It's as simple as that.
Ok, back to medicne … 40 years ago, healthcare insurance was known as "Hospitalization", and as the name implies, that's what the insurance covered, emergencies and major illness requiring a trip to the hospital. This didn't cover doctors office visits, prescriptions, abortions, and all of the other hundreds of things now included in healthcare insurance. Consequently, the cost of that insurance was very low, and most people that had it got it free as an employment benefit. So the average person or family paid out of pocket for visits to the doctor, and back then, it might cost $10 for an office visit, $3 for a prescription. So a family of 4, each visiting the doctor once a year resulted in an annual cost of $50.
At some point, the industry got a great idea. Let's have health insurance plans that cover everything … hospital visits, doctors office visits, prescription medications, etc. And what this did was create a large pool of money, for which the medical industry could tap, allowing higher prices than would otherwise be feasible in a consumer out of pocket scenario. The patients didn't care because most of this insurance was provided by employers as a benefit, at no cost. But, with such a large pool of money sitting there to be used, prices for medical services continued increasing at two to three times the rate of inflation, but the people receiving the medical services didn't care about the price, because to them it was free. Why would they care how much the insurance company got billed? So, the charges kept increasing and increasing. This led to the inevitable increases in insurance premiums, and eventually, employers started to require that employees pick up some of these increases, until things got to where they are today, and many people have to foot the entire premium themselves, or most of it, with a modest contribution from their employer. Had these insurance plans NOT been created, those large pools of money wouldn't have been there, so costs would have had to remain affordable for the average person. Now you can bet that if a doctor wanted to charge $200 for a 10 minute exam, people would have screamed bloody murder and refused to pay. When people pay out of pocket, they do care about the price, and consequently, the price must be kept to what the consumer would be willing and ABLE to pay.
Now, prior to this anti-American anti-Constitution ObamaCare forced healthcare insurance mandate, people were checking out of this over priced and under delivering system, and gravitating toward alternative medicine, which offered better, more effective, less toxic and more affordable solutions. Of course, the mainstream medical establishment have worked long and hard to create and maintain their medical monopoly, to include using their strong-armed monopoly enforcement agency, the FDA, who conveniently made it illegal for anything other than an FDA approved pharmaceutical drug to claim any treatment or curative powers. But in spite of that, alternative medicine has been steadily gaining popularity over the past dozen years and longer. Monopolies do not like competition, yet how do they defeat this wave of exiting patients?
How do you defeat competition and make a faltering monopoly invincible again? Simple .. pass a fraudulent, unconstitutional law making it mandatory for every person to participate in that faltering system, whether they want to or not. If there is no choice, there is no competition.
So, ladies and gentlemen, big news flash … the government doesn't give a rats azz about you or your health. What they do care about is having you in this sick care system of theirs, whether you want to or not. Too many of you decided to make other choices, so something had to be done. And there you have the sole reason for the Affordable Healthcare Act. You thought it was to make your healthcare cost more affordable? hahaha! No, the law is there because they can't afford to allow you to choose.
God Bless Amerika, and we the sheeple.
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.
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.
