I'd consider myself a social-conservative. I'm against most government regulation of business, but I also feel that we have an obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Based on the first post, I guess that would make me a Republicrat.

I have no problem with that, it's just helping those that won't help themselves that drives me nuts.

On the other hand, Democrats regulate, legislate and tax the crap out of businesses and then are surprised when they move beyond their grasp.

 

Ah yes, but isn't that because, if left to self-regulate and police themselves, big business would soil the air, water and land an cause the cancer rate to multiply ten-fold? Not to mention paying an army of accountants a fortune to find every single tax loophole possible to avoid paying their share?

 

It's a two-way street. I've never understood why there can't be a happy medium.

This is an interesting comment it that I find it ironic you would say this, yet Republicans consider themselves to be the standard-bearer in terms of patriotism. Kind of a contradiction, yes?

 

Here's one we can add: Republicans love to wave the flag and talk about their dedication to the USA, but see no problem when one of their compatriots decides to take his business out of the country to save a few bucks, rather than doing what's right for the country as a whole and sticking it out in the US.

 

While most Americans would probably consider themselves patriots, I feel that most would put their families in front of the country. I may be wrong on this though.

 

If you had a business would your main goal be to make money or do "what's right for the country"? While saving a few bucks may not mean much to you, someone who owns a business it is the most important thing.

Ah yes, but isn't that because, if left to self-regulate and police themselves, big business would soil the air, water and land an cause the cancer rate to multiply ten-fold? Not to mention paying an army of accountants a fortune to find every single tax loophole possible to avoid paying their share?

 

It's a two-way street. I've never understood why there can't be a happy medium.

I think we would be at that happy medium if not for the extremists on both sides. You're always going to have businesses who do wrong for the sake of profits. You're also always going to have the tree-huggers who think that humanity is dangerous to the planet; unions who preach businesses are evil; socialists who believe that profit motive is wrong. No one wants to stop and figure out what would be best for everybody.

I think we would be at that happy medium if not for the extremists on both sides. You're always going to have businesses who do wrong for the sake of profits. You're also always going to have the tree-huggers who think that humanity is dangerous to the planet; unions who preach businesses are evil; socialists who believe that profit motive is wrong. No one wants to stop and figure out what would be best for everybody.

 

And yet, in an earlier post you implied that Democrats are all socialists. Does that make you part of the problem? I am a proud Democrat and capitalist that finds the implication highly offensive and much more importantly, not even close to accurate. Read the Federalist Papers, especially Hamilton. The proper balance between government regulation and anarchy has been a topic of discussion and tension from the beginning. As our technology expands, so does the ability of that technology to be used for good (our standard of living, communication) or harm (pollution, computer theft etc.). That power to perform good or ill requires a greater degree of regulation than that required for an isolated agrarian society.

I think we would be at that happy medium if not for the extremists on both sides. You're always going to have businesses who do wrong for the sake of profits. You're also always going to have the tree-huggers who think that humanity is dangerous to the planet; unions who preach businesses are evil; socialists who believe that profit motive is wrong. No one wants to stop and figure out what would be best for everybody.

 

I'd be willing to work on this with anyone else — I consider myself a good diplomat and mediator who is willing to tell both sides what they don't want to hear. Anybody with me?