posted on December 15, 2000 01:21:51 AM new
Who can fight the tide? Does one stand in the midst of a hurricane and shake their fist at it? Who can stop the temptation to become a brainless zombie and vote republican anymore?
I want to become a republican because I'll get to tell others that my party is more "moral", even though the "liberal media" keeps digging into the private lives of my fellow republicans trying to compoare our dirt with theirs. We're clearly more moral!
As a New Republican, I'll also want women who abort a fetus to be sent to Death Row . . . that is, when they they aren't back in their place in the kitchen fetching me a beer as God intended.
As a New Republican, I'll enjoy continuing to see my leaders in governement block every pice of legislation year in and year out, bringing this country into crisis after crisis. And if all kids can't belive in God just the way that I want them too, then I won't pay for their Godless schooling any longer.
I also want to make the top 1-percent of rich Americans much richer. Thats because, the richer that they become, the less likely they'll be to move out of this country with over half our gross national product as well.
And you may ask Why I want to be a New republican when the party clearly doesn't support my viewpoints, nor will they ever pass any legislation to my benefit. It's because none of the others will do it either.
posted on December 15, 2000 04:33:27 AM new
Yes, I think that is a great idea since I am from S. Fla,and going back to playing BINGO
Being Republican will give me a better chance at winning !
[ edited by zeldas on Dec 15, 2000 04:34 AM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 09:42:03 AM new
Borilar - Don't throw in the towel just yet. When people figure out that tax cut comes at the expense of school lunches. They'll hopefully be smart enough to figure out that the 100.00 annual tax savings means they'll spend $900.00 in school lunches it won't sound like such a great deal.
After they get 1/2 of social security into the market and then the market is tanked beyond the ability of recovering in 2 weeks. They'll wonder how did that happen?
When they realize that the same 100.00 in tax savings means they fall out of the bracket for college financial aid for the kids. They'll either master the art of stretching a dollar or they'll realize that all that glitters isn't gold. Sort of like those tax cuts. I tell people with all this prosperity going around. I don't need what amounts to a measily $100.00 tax break. You want to give me a tax break. Bring back the deductibility of credit card interest, car note interest, and other interest deductions from the pre-Reagan days.
In short they'll realize that they were sold a package of goods that like trickle down doesn't make economic sense. But we'll have morals and integrity in the White House. All the morals in the world mean jack if the economy tanks. Integrity doesn't deals done in Congress to get a budget passed. And if Clinton was a bad guy for doing what 6 out of 10 so called moral men do on a regular basis. Well I guess those people are blind to reality. By the way 50 million for a sleazy sex scandal. Kenneth Star could have called the National Inquirier and got that story and it would have only cost 100 grand or so.
So Republicans don't sell me on that Morals and Integrity bag of goods. A man who just happens to be the President of The United States, took the chance to get what most men approaching 60 want. The affections of a 25 year old to make them feel young again.
Republicans act like that those acts don't happen everyday in some office or work place. Take away that and you have one of the Greatest Presidents of the post modern era. Heck even with it he doesn't come off too badly when I look at a climbing dow consistently over 10,000. Unemployment consistently below 6% nationally. Interest rates for a mortgage consistently below 8%. And the icing on the cake a Federal Surplus to make funding those Democrat and Republican pet (a.k.a. Pork Barrel) projects not even matter to me the Average Joe. He ranks up there with the best of them.
The average Republican voter with a family combined income below $75,000.00. Which unless you have a minimum of that much coming in you have absolutely no business voting Republican based on economics anyway. Seems to not understand the fundamental principle of capitalism in America. The greatest amount of the money will be controlled by the least amount of the people, that least amount is working hard everyday making sure their numbers do not increase. Why do they work like that? Because they are stuck in Classical Economic thinking that one mans gains come at anothers losses. They figure if the economy is booming they have to be losing somewhere.
So enjoy the next four years, I know I will because I managed to enter that elite group during the last eight years. But after getting there I didn't forget that before that I was one of those people that this party has no real solutions for. SO I figured why switch.
posted on December 15, 2000 10:42:15 AM new
I'm liberal socially but I'm fiscally conservative, so here's my Republican-supporting viewpoint (coming from someone who voted for Al Gore):
Tax cuts will benefit most people much more than $100. Elimination of the "marriage penalty" would be a large financial benefit to two-earner couples, and elimination or reduction of estate tax would save those of us with aging parents thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars upon their deaths. (Of course I hope I don't have to worry about that for a very, very long time.)
Although I don't agree with Republican ideas about social restrictions based on their conservative "morality," I do support their ideas that people should be self-sufficient and not dependent on society to support them. I agree with the idea of smaller government and fewer government programs.
Why is there no third party which is socially liberal but financially conservative? My husband and I can't possibly be the only people who feel this way.
posted on December 15, 2000 10:53:13 AM new
"So Republicans don't sell me on that Morals and Integrity"
Who said GW has morals and integrity. The man is a drug addict and alcoholic and Clinton is a sex monger. One is legal and one is not.
Hmmm.... while I think Clinton is a pig for what he did to his family - it was not illegal nor did it kill brain cells (no comment).
So as far as integrity and morals they are on an even par except Bush purchased illegal drugs.
*********
I cannot wait to see in 4 years who has a better record. In fact as another poster mentioned had Clinton been able to run again and not Gore - I believe we would be looking at a third term.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:11:54 AM new
You can't have social liberalism and financial conservatism because the the money to pay for the socially liberal programs (and/or to pick up the pieces from the fallout) has to come from somewhere.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:16:46 AM new
"elimination or reduction of estate tax would save those of us with aging parents thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars upon their deaths."
Yeah, if your parents are millionaires. Any estate under $675,000 isn't subject to any federal estate tax.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:20:43 AM new
he's got to look out for Daddy's money---doesn't want the 'government' getting their hands on too much of it
posted on December 15, 2000 11:21:08 AM newYou can't have social liberalism and financial conservatism because the the money to pay for the socially liberal programs (and/or to pick up the pieces from the fallout) has to come from somewhere.
You're right... perhaps my use of the term "socially liberal" was incorrect, or open to misinterpretation. (I'm no pro at this politics stuff!) What I meant was that I believe in personal freedoms. I don't believe in the overuse of "socially liberal programs" such as welfare, though the necessity for their existence does exist.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:29:11 AM new
That's right, it requires a live economy and is why Bill Clinton said "It's about the economy stupid".
People without money don't spend money. A guy I know said "I'm tired of paying so much of my money for taxes!" I said "but, Jack, if people didn't have money to spend you wouldn't have the money to pay taxes on in the first place".
Right now the market is slumping at a pretty alarming rate, and it's gotten worse since the supreme court elected us a president. That only happens for one reason--investors are pulling back their at risk funds. The result will be that the various places which had been growing with the capital investments of everyman will cut back, many in drastic ways, and some will fold altogether.
So, there will be lots of new faces in unemployment lines and your neighbors may be forced to move away. When IBM, for example cuts back, they do it in big ways like 3500 people shown the door all on a morning. Is your town that big? Between 1989 and 1992 it was a very common occurance in the Santa Clara, CA area that you know as the fabled "Silicon Valley".
The techs can't be allowed to fail. Bill Clinton realized that because he realized that without them this country doesn't HAVE an economy. Where are US cars made? Where does oil come from? What happened to the steel industry? The only thing we have to sell is military hardware and that is reliant on the tech industry, not to mention that if we sell too much to a place like Iraq, we'll have to forclose the loans at big losses.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:35:25 AM new
Wow, after reading a lot of the threads on politics lately, I was beginning to think know one thought like I did (which is also why I haven't made any comments ). But I'm in RainyBear's court! But I'm even worse at this political talk, so back to you guys!
posted on December 15, 2000 11:41:41 AM new
donny - Thanks for pointing that out about the estate tax. Just goes to show you how those sneaky republicans have you thinking the ordinary joe actually gets any benefit out of what they are selling.
Now about those social programs: I have always viewed Social Programs as a nice way to keep otherwise unproductive people out of the real economy. And some of those social programs as we call them serve a very useful purpose. Let's start with my favorite school lunches. One of my fondest memories of both Elementary and High School, was those lunchroom cookies.
My next favorite social program is college education like Federally Backed student loans and Federal Pell Grants. Where would a lot of us be without those "Social Programs".
Now I don't view medicare as a social program. In fact healthcare is the one place where a healthy dose of socialism is needed. Hey let's accept the facts, Baxter, Abbott, Searele, pfizer, and the rest. All overcharge Americans and sell the same medicines abroad for peanuts. Yep we need national healthcare, but I accept we'll never get it because too much profit is made in the Healthcare Industry.
Let's face it some of us get on that social program banter. But let's accept the facts, America has eroded its manufacturing base so corporations can turn a huge buck on third world labor. So if you want those social programs kicked let's get back to making stuff here. Take TV's for instance, all assembled here but none are actually made here. Steel, are you aware that there isn't a foundry or mill in America that makes railroad tracks. But until somebody reels these big corps in on these little facts. We need some of those social programs to keep families able to survive.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:56:06 AM new
Rainybear, I completely agree with you (and I wasn't trying to nitpick on your choice of words). Despite some characterizations, all Republicans are not heartless. I have no problem with social programs designed as a fail safe. Its the dependency and sense of entitlement that is damaging, to the individuals themselves not just society.
I remember vividly a scene on the news during the LA riots. The postal service did not want to deliver mail in the neighborhoods that were the hotbed, and there were people screaming about not being able to get their "paychecks". Maybe this is just semantics, but the idea that there was no distinquishment between a welfare check and a paycheck was mindboggling to me.
The government wants to get involved because then it has control. A recent case-a private school for ballerinas accepted a government grant. Now they are not allowed to reject candidates based on their body structure-a major requirement for a successful ballerina.
If someone wants an abortion, I don't think I should have to pay for it. If some artist thinks he is the next Van Gogh, let his work speak for itself. If a football team wants to come to town, fine, they can build their own stadium. (I know, Bush and the Texas Rangers-I didn't like that either).
posted on December 15, 2000 12:04:17 PM new
How many of you that think that the death tax (i.e. estate tax) only benefits the rich have 401K plans? Anyone that starts investing in a 401K and/or IRA in their 20's or 30's has a very good chance of amassing an estate that will surpass the non-taxible limit.
Methinks that a lot of tail end baby boomers and generation X'ers will have an unpleasent awakening about who benefits from a reform of the death tax when they see how much their portfolios have grown as they near retirement.
Many of these folks will be buying a house and many of them will see the prices of real estate substantially increase over their lifetimes. When you add retirement investments and the value of a home together it will not be the minority of middle class people that will have estates taxable upon their deaths.
If you have a choice between your Uncle Sam or your children getting your estate which would you choose?
posted on December 15, 2000 12:27:40 PM new
hopefelli - Are you sure the people said "paychecks" or "checks". And keep in mind this little fact, at the time of the Rodney King riots, California had already shifted to the "Direct Delivery", method of delivery welfare benefits. And also remember that many of those undelivered checks were "pension checks", "unemployment checks", "veterans checks", and temporary agency "paychecks".
Your recent private school, if they are turning out such great ballerinas then why did they need a "Grant". That artist and your school both get their money from the same National Art Foundation. So Federal Rules are Federal Rules. And as far as that certain body structure to be a Ballerina goes, I will assume you have never seen the Alvin Ailey Dance Troop. All ballerinas, very few with that certain body structure you alluded too.
Now on paying for abortions, you can't scream cut welfare benefits for single mothers with multiple children. And not have a means for that same mother to avoid the multiple birth in the first place. Besides from an economics perspective the government abortion is cheaper than the government feeding, clothing, and overall medical expense for the same child. With the abortion one time $500.00 government payment. With the birth, 18 years at a national minÏ À˜üL
posted on December 15, 2000 12:27:41 PM new
hopefelli - Are you sure the people said "paychecks" or "checks". And keep in mind this little fact, at the time of the Rodney King riots, California had already shifted to the "Direct Delivery", method of delivery welfare benefits. And also remember that many of those undelivered checks were "pension checks", "unemployment checks", "veterans checks", and temporary agency "paychecks".
Your recent private school, if they are turning out such great ballerinas then why did they need a "Grant". That artist and your school both get their money from the same National Art Foundation. So Federal Rules are Federal Rules. And as far as that certain body structure to be a Ballerina goes, I will assume you have never seen the Alvin Ailey Dance Troop. All ballerinas, very few with that certain body structure you alluded too.
Now on paying for abortions, you can't scream cut welfare benefits for single mothers with multiple children. And not have a means for that same mother to avoid the multiple birth in the first place. Besides from an economics perspective the government abortion is cheaper than the government feeding, clothing, and overall medical expense for the same child. With the abortion one time $500.00 government payment. With the birth, 18 years at a national minimum welfare payment of $225.00 a month you get $48,600.00 in government payments. We haven't figured in the medical and dental for the child. We didn't figure in the education or school lunches. So pick your poison, pay for the abortion or raise the child. Both ways its your tax dollars.
Now on those Stadiums, that's welfare for the Rich. Its just they use the statement "Overall Economic Impact" to receive the welfare. And let's address that overall economic impact. The average sports team, employees about 450 people directly. And indirectly about 2000. That same welfare for the rich could build 6 schools which would directly employee 1000. And indirectly employ another 2000. I said it earlier pick your poison its your tax dollars.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:32:53 PM new
Especially in a state like California, it is not much of stretch to see assets appreciate past the limit. But there are also many priviately held businesses whose owners will fall victim to the estate tax and, if I could use the dreaded "trickle down" theory, decisions based on estate tax can effect the community.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the decision to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers was based on an eventual estate tax. Since corporate management came into the picture, the team has gone to hell. Higher player contracts=higher ticker prices=lower attendance=lower personnel employment=lower disposable income in the community etc. Not to mention the team can't win a pennant to save its life. Oops, sorry, I got off track.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:40:34 PM new
Networker, I appreciate your agrument on the stadiums and the ballerina school, but my point was that I am not in favor of either. The school had no business accepting a grant, but one shouldn't have been available. Yes, if the school was that good, it didn't need a grant. If it wasn't, then tough.
[ edited by hopefulli on Dec 15, 2000 12:43 PM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 01:11:20 PM new
hopefelli - That's were we strongly disagree. It is humanities responsibility to preserve the arts. It is my opinion that the arts serve as a visual reminder of where we have been. A ballet school helps youngsters learn grace and balance. If you want to scrap the arts then next we have to scrap football, baseball, basketball, volleyball, swimming, and the rest from schools. Heck beats we are scrapping those let's move on to home economics, drivers education, and sex ed.
I don't find it insulting that supporting the arts means that I also support some otherwise distasteful art. I do find that a world with no arts is a bland one. I view government support of such programs as a place that I can see the tax dollars at work. The person running the ballet school is teaching ballet. The contractor who happens to be a friend of a supported of the mayor, congressman, etc, who just got the 30 million dollar highway grant. Has successfully, overspent 12 million and will ask for another 10 million to finish the project. Five years later the road will be finished only for a friend of a friend of a supporter of the new person in office to award yet another 30 million to undo what was done previously.
At least that ballet school will teach something and maybe start some youngster on a life long journey somewhere. The road contractor just lined his pockets.
posted on December 15, 2000 01:18:41 PM new
"How many of you that think that the death tax (i.e. estate tax) only benefits the rich have 401K plans? Anyone that starts investing in a 401K and/or IRA in their 20's or 30's has a very good chance of amassing an estate that will surpass the non-taxible limit."
I do!
Estate tax only kicks in when an inheritance is over $675,000, and, when it does kick in, that first $675,000 isn't taxed at all, there's only tax on anything over that.
Also, each member of a married couple is entitled to the $675,000 exemption each. So, a married couple, right now, can inherit 1.35 million dollars and pay no estate tax.
Further, estate tax exemption was already going to rise to 1 million by 2006. That would mean a married couple could inherit 2 million and pay no estate tax.
And you expect to inherit this much from your aging parents? Would they be interested in adopting me?
posted on December 15, 2000 01:32:36 PM newnetworker67: You brought up a good point about health care and the pharmaceutical industry. I used to drive over the Mexican border to get my grandparents meds - at a fifth of the US price. When I lived in Brownsville, I always went to Matamoros for medical care, because of the huge difference in cost.
I watched access to health care for poor and lower middle class women dwindle over the last 2 decades to unacceptable care. Yes, Medicaid patients have access - if you call high risk pregnant diabetic teenagers having less than 1 minute with a health care worker - NEXT! having access.
posted on December 15, 2000 01:35:31 PM new
The estate tax fallacy isn't the only myth when it comes to Republicans and money. While the GOP gives great lip service to their favorite topic, "small government," they sure do their share of the spending.
The national debt quadrupled during the Reagan/Bush years -- to $4 trillion. When Bush was prez, the annual federal deficit was $290 billion, a record high.
Today, under Clinton, there is a budget surplus. If the current pay-down of the debt could be continued, it would be gone in 12 years.
Dubya offers us peons tax cuts, our slice of which amounts to little more than crumbs. Have you planned how you're going to spend your huge 66 cents a day? If we were among the richest 1%, it'd be lots more fun to consider that question -- they'll get an extra $126/day.
BTW, tax cuts affect the budget just like expenditures, and can have the same effects if spending isn't curtailed. Let's hope Dubya doesn't repeat his dismal record in Texas. He inherited the largest surplus in Texas history and ended up blowing it all, plus some.
posted on December 15, 2000 01:39:43 PM new
Off topic for a sec, here...
networker I've seen the Alvin Ailey Dance Troupe twice here in my city. All I can say is marvelous, MARVELOUS!
hopefulli, are you sure you're talking about the Dodgers and not the Padres?
posted on December 15, 2000 01:40:48 PM new
donny - I didn't know about the $675,000 exemption. Thanks for pointing that out.
A million dollars isn't a huge amount of money these days, though, relatively speaking. And what about someone who inherits a business?
krs - you're right, estate tax can be avoided with good planning. Taking care of such things before death is one thing, and a trust can be set up to avoid estate tax, but if death happens suddenly and no planning has been done then the person who inherits the business or the estate could be in hot water, especially if the assets inherited aren't easily liquidated when tax is due.
Then again, I'm far from being an expert at this so perhaps there are laws I don't know about that deal with inheriting a business or other non-liquid assets.
posted on December 15, 2000 02:04:00 PM new
Some more shrub-isms (from "Is Our Children Learning" ) that give us some insight into Dubya's thinking (if you want to call it that) when it comes to spending our tax dollars:
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." (Reuters, 5/5/00)
"We ought to make the pie higher." (S. Carolina Republican debate, 2/15/00)
ubb
[ edited by fountainhouse on Dec 15, 2000 02:04 PM ]
