"dwight" <tfrog93@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:quSdnQrEfch7vTvanZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:lrWdnZmNDf_6jDvanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:zOKdndScRdL3djjanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
>> just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the
>> year and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the
Federal
>> level. I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments
>> are far worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad
>> fact is we just roll over year after year and let them get away with
it.
>> We are on a slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't
want
>> this and if it happens we will all suffer for it.
>
> And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit.
There
> has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for
themselves,
Can't or won't?
> without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason why anyone
should
> sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation in the history of the
Besides them choosing to you mean? There are many quite capable people
who
drop out of society for a whole gamut of reasons, some of them can never
be
"fixed" no matter how much money you throw at them. What component in
your
thought process makes you think it is the Governments "job to worry about
such things? Or worse why do you believe it is the tax payers
responsibility to subsidize these "non-compliant" members of societies own
life's choices?
> planet. Just from a point of national pride, we should take care of the
> weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be
living
> in the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively easy, my
> worries comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a few more dollars
> out of my paycheck and SWORE that it would be used to help the homeless,
> the indigent, the hungry, and the poor, I'd be all for it.
No you wouldn't, Do you suppose you are willing to contribute 75% of your
gross income to care for them? If not do you think you should be forced
to
do so? Do you believe the Social system is administered appropriately?
What makes you think the Government is capable of efficiently and
effectively administering any social programs?
>
> Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and always
> will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need help from
> the rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.
Through history they have been taken care of by their own families,
friends,
churches, and communities, NOT GOVERNMENTS or taxpayers! Socialism and
Communism have proven to be abject failures, period. I am (you are too)
much more capable of directing my own dollars than any giant inefficient
government bureaucracy.
>
> There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it
> means caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you abusing
> this governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of housing and
> three squares a day.)
You wish, that abuse of the system is Status Quo, history has proven over
and over that the government horrendously squanders the taxpayers money,
and
is vastly less efficient than the private sector at all of these social
tasks.
>
>>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem
to
>>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>>> political beliefs?
>>
>> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican.
>> It is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate
>> because they have a great platform to run from.
>
> I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street Journal:
> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119127620102645595.html
> on why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all
> we've been saying here.
>
>>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell
me?
>>>
>>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a
Republican,
>>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>>
>> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
>> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations.
This
>> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>>
>>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>>
>> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
>> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
>> party has become.
>
> If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They
> weren't cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political
> control. They saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and
> today control my party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and
> effective. And may, even now, be backfiring.
>
> When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats, they
> conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the
argument
> that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the Democrats as
> they are of the Republicans.
>
> Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to
> create two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate
> Republicans, leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out amongs
> themselves.
>
> I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also
> gather
No I don't think the Libertarians are these "moderate" Republicans, they
are
not very moderate on many/any of their postions.
> that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate Democrats,
> who still need to strike out on their own to gain their own voice.
>
> Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
>
> Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
>
> Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully watch
> all of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will listen.
>
> I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google that),
and
> I even know who my congressman is, two years after we moved into our new
> locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the political views are of ANY
> of these three, but I do remember that I was disgusted with Rick
Santorum
> and happy to vote him out of office. (Now, who was it that took his
> place?)
>
> When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state
> senator or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
>
> Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh... sorry.
>
> And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
>
> Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I
see
> the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my choice.
The
> rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain looking at it.
>
> And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
>
> Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it a
> point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what it's all
> about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I don't have
any
> right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a little bit about
> the people who work in my government, but not nearly enough to make a
> truly informed decision.
>
> I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming
> ballot in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can know
> about the candidates for each office.
>
> Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the bottom
> up. The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building probably has
> more impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in the Oval Office.
>
> dwight
>
>
>
|
