On the other hand, I don't see the unified political ideal that the Democrats are striving for.

It is that government can work for the betterment of all people.

The republican party has some serious demographic issues they need to begin resolving right now or they truly do have things to concern themselves with twenty years from now.

It is that government can work for the betterment of all people.

 

Or is it, we realize that most of you are not smart enough to make good decisions on your own, so give us your money and your vote so we can set up entitlement programs that will keep you under the thumb of the government...

It is that government can work for the betterment of all people.

IMO that isn't a political philosophy as "small government" would be. The idea that government can work for the betterment of all people can be thrown at any proposed policy (rightfully or wrongfully so) where as the litmus test of "limited government" is more clear. Furthermore, even the Republicans think that the government can work for the betterment of all people- except they [claim to] think it works best when its there less.

IMO that isn't a political philosophy as "small government" would be. The idea that government can work for the betterment of all people can be thrown at any proposed policy (rightfully or wrongfully so) where as the litmus test of "limited government" is more clear. Furthermore, even the Republicans think that the government can work for the betterment of all people- except they [claim to] think it works best when its there less.

I would argue that the republican philosophy isn't as simple as limited government, I would argue that it is "personal responsibility".

When I was young, I would have agreed with you.

 

But life has taught me that this country is filled with people that a) fill that they needed to be provided for in many different forms from corporate handouts and individual support through welfare and unneeded disabilities; b) people that fill that everyone is such a victim and we need to take care of them because of ______ and get elected into office by the people in a) and b).

 

The problem with your rhetoric is that there are some people who need to be cared for and that there are some people who are victims. Until the Republicans start to also speak for them I will vote with the other party.

More than 60% of the American public view abortion as acceptable in some circumstances.

 

As long as this is the ONLY plank for some the Republicans will continue to lose. You cannot look only at this personal decision and ignore all of the poverty and hunger and oppression that takes place and expect to have a viable chance of emerging in the political process.

I would argue that the republican philosophy isn't as simple as limited government, I would argue that it is "personal responsibility".

I can't disagree with that, I think the two go hand-in-hand- with a "limited government", it puts more "personal responsbility" on the people.

 

Keep in mind that I am stating values that the Republican party has not been actively advocating for a while, just what they claim to be for.

I can't disagree with that, I think the two go hand-in-hand- with a "limited government", it puts more "personal responsbility" on the people.

 

Keep in mind that I am stating values that the Republican party has not been actively advocating for a while, just what they claim to be for.

 

Can someone list what the Republicans are FOR, I am sure I know what they are AGAINST?

 

 

If we simply go with the 'small government' mantra and personal responsibility does that mean we also reduce the size of the military as well as homeland security - lessening their intrusion into the private lives of individuals? Do we reduce the size of FEMA to make it even more difficult to respond to national, natural catastrophes? Do we reduce the number of oversight people in the SEC so that the corruption that just happened in the market can continue? Do we reduce the number of federal prosecutors so that more criminals go free?

 

Or do we simply cut taxes?

Can someone list what the Republicans are FOR, I am sure I know what they are AGAINST?

 

 

If we simply go with the 'small government' mantra and personal responsibility does that mean we also reduce the size of the military as well as homeland security - lessening their intrusion into the private lives of individuals? Do we reduce the size of FEMA to make it even more difficult to respond to national, natural catastrophes? Do we reduce the number of oversight people in the SEC so that the corruption that just happened in the market can continue? Do we reduce the number of federal prosecutors so that more criminals go free?

 

Or do we simply cut taxes?

 

Answer to bolded- Maybe.

Can someone list what the Republicans are FOR, I am sure I know what they are AGAINST?

I've never really been a Republican so it is hard for me to accurately answer a lot of those questions from there perspective. However, personally:

 

If we simply go with the 'small government' mantra and personal responsibility does that mean we also reduce the size of the military as well as homeland security - lessening their intrusion into the private lives of individuals?

I think that the military nor homeland security need to be lessened (because when I think federal government, the first thing that I think of his national defense). However, I 100% agree about staying out of our private lives- getting rid of many aspects the Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc. are something that a small government should do.

Do we reduce the size of FEMA to make it even more difficult to respond to national, natural catastrophes?

Yes. This agency has proved itself to be ineffective and doing whatever it is supposed to do. Many insurance companies reimburse for the costs are national disasters (and anyone who chooses to live in these disaster prone area should purchase insurance), and many private companies could and should do what FEMA does. Personally, I'd prefer subsidies for this type of work, if needed at all. Either way, it is a waste of tax money.

 

Do we reduce the number of oversight people in the SEC so that the corruption that just happened in the market can continue?

The SEC needs to exist as a regulatory mechanism. However, like most regulations, there are good ones and bad ones. Sorting through them is the hard part......

Do we reduce the number of federal prosecutors so that more criminals go free?

No.

Or do we simply cut taxes?

Of course, that is a part of it. In order for the poor to be at their best (which is a large part of my religion), our economy can't continue to be dragged down by unnecessary, harmful taxation and wasteful spending by the government. Considering that, in some scenarios, cutting taxes leads to higher tax revenue (due to the economic growth that it causes), it is obvious to me that this country has too much taxation.

I just heard that Obama's stimulus plan has 50 million in it for the National Endowment for the Arts as well as several million for coupons for digital TV converters.

 

How will either of those help stimulate the economy?

I just heard that Obama's stimulus plan has 50 million in it for the National Endowment for the Arts as well as several million for coupons for digital TV converters.

 

How will either of those help stimulate the economy?

 

How will people see advertisments and know what to buy if their TV's won't play?

Tangent observation:

 

Does anyone else find it really funny that Obama is considered "left", and that he's left handed? :lol:

 

Garfield, Hoover, Truman, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton were all lefties too. And so is McCain.

What is the Republican platform? I know what the "official" platform is but it is couched in campaign vaguery. What should a Republican believe regarding the government's role in economics, society, and foreign affairs, specifically?