posted
Interesting, but I disagree with much of what he says.
First of all, he talks about the Strict Father and the Nurturing Parent models. I prefer a balance. A parent who is over-protective and spoils thier kids does as much damage if not more than an overly strict father.
Second, I get tired of people saying that conservatives don't care about the environment and want the rich to be richer. Some may feel that way, but characterizing most that way just rings hollow.
quote: For example, they really do believe in “tax relief.” They really do believe that taxation is an affliction.
How about, they believe that excessive tax is an affliction? He also says that the tax relief only benefitted the rich. It benefitted me, and I am not rich. The only people it didn't benefit are those who pay no taxes. That it favored the rich--perhaps. I don't know enough about it. I do, however, remember getting tax relief based on the number of dependants I have. That was very compassionate, I think, considering the drain that children are to ones funds.
His whole theme here is that conservatives do a better job of selling their policy than liberals. I have never perceived that to be the case. He uses the concepts of trust and honesty as though they only apply to liberals. I think they don't necessarily apply to either. I would like to see them apply more!
But--wow. This is a very biased article.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a Republican or a conservative, but I do hate taxes and would abolish the income tax if it were up to me. I am not rich, but I may become rich someday. As for the environment, it should be protected much more than it is currently. People should be free to do most things, although not all.
What family model do I fall under?
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a Strict Father family, there’s a background assumption that the world is a dangerous and difficult place; that there is competition; that there always will be winners and losers, and that this is a good thing; and that children are born bad and have to be made good. “Bad” meaning that they will just do what feels good rather than what’s right. The assumption is that the only way this situation can be dealt with is through a Strict Father who protects the family in the dangerous world, supports it in the difficult world, wins the competitions, and teaches his kids right from wrong.
I may go back and try to finish this thing later, but this doesn't describe any of the conservatives/republicans I hang out with regularly.
quote:The very term environmental protection is a kind of progressive term. It has to do with the notion of protection that comes up in a Nurturant model. However, the way that, say, the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is used by conservatives is very different. They see nature as a resource, a resource for people who want to succeed and make money. They believe that resources should be exploited fully. And therefore, any attempt to stop them from doing so is interference in business. [From the conservative perspective] it’s going against human values and placing other values above people values, where people values are mainly about making money and becoming powerful. That is seen by conservatives as a moral view.
OK, I had to stop reading again at this one. Does this guy even pretend to be objective?
posted
I liked most of his points. Society needs a balance of sorts, a balance between "traditional" society and the modern. It needs room to grow, but it needs enough structure to not turn it into something hedonistic. To me the concervative side of the coin tends to view things in terms of black and white, good and evil too much. I lean more to the liberal side because, say, if a murder is commited, they are more likely to say, perhaps the murderer had a rough family life, maybe we should find more ways to prevent crime instead of just punishing it. I like the progressive model better. Society needs to be more like a community, everyone taking an interest in raising each other's children, not allowing even one to sink through the cracks.
In my opinion more tax breaks should go to people who make 30,000 dollars a year or less, maybe even 50,000, a credit for each child. I don't believe in corporate welfare or letting corporations get out of taxes by moving to Barbados or nonsense like that. Businesses should have fair regulations, like checking meat for bacterial infection or making sure workers have plenty of breaks and help when it comes to erganomics. It is not a mark of laziness, no one is asking for handouts, these are things that would improve the lives of millions of Americans on the bottom.
A lot of conservatives and businesses ARE against environmental protection. Maybe this is the environmentalists fault for focusing more on species of animals then, say, people. They should emphasize how environmental protection benifits people and keeps dangerous chemicals out of drinking water, or has regulations to keep companies from dumping toxic wastes and building housing developments over them (Suddenly hopes that that isn't the case with the one I'm living in!) It's common sense that if the environment isn't protected better, we're screwed. Things like toxic wastes causing babies to be born without brains really happens and needs to stop somehow.
And, I agree with what he has to say about Bush. Bush has betrayed this country. Bush has made a lot of promises and broke them. He has been, in my eyes, a week, half-assed inefficient president that tries to bloat himself up with patrotic speech to hide how inefficient he really is. I have tried to give him a chance. I'm not one of those people who just insist that he is bad blindly. But all the research, reading, articles I've read, observations, watching his state of the union address back in 2001.. all of this has led me to believe he is not good for this country. And here's a recent article from the times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/politics/campaign/01speech.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=822bfc8c6ecb62f8&ex=1251777600&partner=rssuserlandPosts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
About Bush breaking promises, answer me this. Could I make up a similar list of betrayals for any president who has served? Or is this unique to Bush? I have not followed politics very closely, so I don't know. But when someone is so obviously biased, it is hard to trust anything they say.
The second article you linked to is *far* more balanced and objective. Thanks for that.
I have a question about deficit spending because I don't understand it very well. Haven't we been in debt for decades? Are we ever going to pay it off? I know debt is bad, and it freaks me out how much there is. But when Presidents past (excepting Clinton, since there was a surplus with him) have done little, if anything, to alieviate it and have only run it up further, why are we so upset about Bush running it up? How does this "burden" actually effect us? If this deficit is so bad, why haven't we done something about it before? It is understandable that we would spend more during times of war, and a lot of people disagree with the war. I just don't understand this particular issue very well.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synth, if you're interested in learning how people whom you largely disagree with think, the best way is not to read an obviously highly biased and just plain wrong description of those thought processes by someone with a dozen axes to grind.
I can tell you absolutely that the descriptions I quoted are flat out wrong for a LOT of conservatives/Republicans. It's just not true.
If you're interested in hearing a story that helps you solidify your existing beliefs but utterly fails to explain the reasoning of the other side, then this guy is the one to see.
posted
You liked most of his points because he agreed with you, Synth. This does not mean he is unbiased, it means that you share the bias.
More tax breaks to people who make 30,000 or less? People pay very few taxes at that level. Have enough kids and they pay no taxes. We ALREADY get a tax credit for each child, 600 dollars a child. This is a tax credit, not an exemption. There are also exemptions for your children, where they deduct over 3000 dollars for each person in your household from your taxable income if you make less than 105,000. Think 105,000 is a lot? Think again. This is comfortable, can have a savings, a house, a decent car, and a good vacation range. At our income, 70,000, we cannot afford a new car or a good vacation. Paying mortgage on a house is cheaper than paying rent on a house that would meet our requirements. We have health insurance, but paying the deductible for any major medical problem (or non-problem as the case may be) would be difficult for us (though not impossible) and the amount we can put in savings will never pay for retirement or the education of our children. We have debt, but we have not be irresponsible. A fridge, a fence, fixing the car, buying a car.... all these things are not considered luxury items (in the US)
%5 of Americans pay %95 of our taxes. Are these our poor? No. They are the rich.
There is not a lot wrong with that, it seems fairly reasonable. But being rich is not an evil to be punished. Remember what most of those rich do with most of their money: invest it in companies that create jobs. Give it to charity rather than to government. That is the only reason radio programs like "All Things Considered" exist. When Reagan cut taxes, tax revenue actually went up. How did that happen?
Edit: I agree very much with what Dagonee said. Most of those descriptions are very wrong.
posted
Then tell me, how do you think conservative republicans think? I have a negative opinion of conservatives, mostly of politicians because their policies do not benefit people on my spectrum. If the manage to pass that anti-gay marriage amendment, for one thing, it could effect me 10 years down the line... Maybe 20.... or even 30 considering how things are going. Biased articles can be useful in a way, at least for forming a framework of thoughts...But, of course this one will be a bit biased because this is how he sees things. I have tried to read some conservative books such as the ones by Hannity and Coulter and couldn't get through them... Especially Hannity. Every five seconds he kept talking about evil or saying things that were obviously wrong. Now, even if I disagree with him, I can concede and yeild to him being right if he wasn't just... Do you have any recommendations that sound more like average conservatives?
Most politicians do break their promises and they should be called on it. Plain and simple. I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat. You do not make promises without keeping them. For example, you do not promise to improve education or the environment or any of these things to get votes and not follow through!
The annoying thing about Bush's economic policies to me, seems like he's claiming to be a fiscal conservative, yet he cut taxes during a war that cost billions of dollars a month. I'm ignorant, but that doesn't seem logical to me!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Bush promised to cut taxes, and that is why he did so. His idea was also to stimulate the economy, because that would be more effective in raising tax revenue in the long run than raising taxes would.
And guess what? The economy is recovering from the recession that was very much on its way in when Clinton left office. But blaming economic problems on presidents is very silly. Can we blame Clinton or Bush for the dot com crash that was so largely responsible for the economic downturn? No.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most politicians do break their promises and they should be called on it. Plain and simple. I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat.
Amen.
But keep in mind it is not always possible to keep one's promise. I try very hard to keep every promise I make to my children. They see that I do. So on the occasion when something comes up and I just can't, they understand that it is the exception rather than the rule and they can still trust me.
Has there ever been a president that you truly trusted? I always turn a skeptical eye on them. I think they all have had problems. So while I have high expectations, I also am forced to vote for the less-than-perfect choices offered me. None of you are going to hear me say, "Bush is great! He's awesome! He's the best thing that ever happened to this country!" but I do wonder about some of the criticism at the same time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many times, the promises made during campaigns are not held because it isn't within the president's power to make them happen. Congress has to pass them. Take health care reform for example, it ticks me off every time i hear a candidate promise universal health care, because it can't come through. The president can't make that happen. Silly politicians, read the constitution.
posted
I tend to wonder why people praise him so much... But then again, I never really trusted Clinton that much either even in jr high school and I'm registered as a Democrat. Clinton always seemed... Too slimy and smooth to me. But, I liked him better than Gingrich and people like that... Gah. I am so disillusioned with politics. These are the people who are supposed to lead this country. Who are supposed to be responsible for its well-being... And all I get out of them is empty promises and meaningless statements. It's making me positively crazy.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, though, Synth, that basing your position on an important issue like gay marriage is pretty common.
Many conservatives do this with issues like abortion. If the person is pro-choice, we are likely to condemn them no matter their other political stances.
I'm of a strange variety.
On the environment: We are stewards for the earth and must take care of it.
On taxation and government programs: The government is representative of society as a whole, and so is a very valid vehicle through which to enact our desires such as making sure no child goes hungry or uneducated, or gets abused. But that takes money. I'm willing to be taxed for that. But I think there is also a lot of government programs that are bloated and ineffectual. I'm not opposed to tax money going to community run charities.
On capitalism: I think that healthy competition is what improves products and service so that our overall lifestyle is improved. Customers make choices with their money and will not stand for poor quality (for the most part) or dishonesty (towards them). I think our American lifestyle compared to the Soviet lifestyle would hold up this argument.
On healthcare: putting the government in charge is rather scary. Note our education system. But we do need a way to ensure everyone gets medical care. And reduce fraud and irresponsible lawsuits. It is a sticky problem.
But I believe abortion is wrong. So am I conservative or not?
posted
They should just abandon the gay marriage issue... Leave it up to the states, that's what I think As for abortion, I'm partially against it, but banning it won't stop it. But, I do agree with much of what you said. There needs to be reforms in a lot of areas, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I tend to wonder why people praise him so much...
Do they? Maybe its because I don't watch TV or listen to the radio much. But when I come here, there is always this or that thread criticizing him. Who is doing the praising?
I understand you feeling disillusioned. I feel the same way. The fact is, the people who are willing to work hard at campaigning are quite often not the sort of people you want running the country. It is a sad reality.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: They should just abandon the gay marriage issue... Leave it up to the states, that's what I think
Syn, do you believe that that constitutional amendment will be passed? Even if Bush does stay for another round of 4? I think the odds are against it, but it is so hard to tell.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are cutting down on all of our debt, a lot. But Vladimir wouldn't have the job he has now if it weren't for credit cards. We bought our first computer with a credit card. He practiced and taught himself so that his knowledge and skills he learned in Russia matched what employers here required. How is buying a computer with a credit card in our case different from student loans? What do you do if you MUST fix the car to go to work, and you simply don't have 1000 lying around? Credit cards are not bad. Unwise use of them is, though. And I must say that we include our car in our debt burden. Until 2 years ago, we didn't have car payments.
posted
My personal opinion is that Bush is focusing on gay marriage to cover up the fact that he hasn't done anything at all about abortion and is pretty powerless to do anything. Unfortuantly, it's working.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds about right. I hope that amendment doesn't pass. It's unnessasary. It's about as effective as prohibition. Plus, amendments limiting people's rights just seem wrong to me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: They should just abandon the gay marriage issue... Leave it up to the states, that's what I think
A same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts not being valid if the couple moves to Arkansas? Or better yet, make it *forced* to be made valid in Arkansas? I strongly disagree. Make it legal, make it illegal, but make it the same for the whole nation. Otherwise it's as effective as seperate currency for each state.
posted
You may very well be right about the focus on gay marriage. I increasingly suspect that the Republicans have no intention of giving social conservatives like myself any real support--they just say things to get our votes. But if they won't, then there isn't anyone who will--certainly not the Democrats.
I could live with gay marriage. I consider the idea both absurd and despicable, but it would have little effect on my life, and on the lives of most people. But when it comes to abortion, I really truly think of it as murder, even if every other pro-lifer out there is a hypocrite. I associate it with cutthroat competition that ignores the rules protecting society ("If I have a baby, I can't get that juicy promotion") and with callousness toward the rights of the disabled ("No one with a birth defect will ever be happy" ). It sounds to me like a civil rights issue too, and it baffles me that the Democrats are on the other side of it from me--unless they too are hypocrites.
I don't want to start an abortion debate here--my point is that I don't see any politicians left I can trust about many of the things I value. The Republicans talk the talk but don't walk the walk, while the Democrats don't even talk the talk.
Regarding amendments and limits on rights: no society gives people the right to do whatever they want. We all have restrictions. I don't think the amendment is a great idea, or that it will be passed, but all it is doing is holding the same line that has existed all along. Moreover, every time that a liberal group gets the Supreme Court to overturn some law that conservatives think is necessary, they reinforce the perception (and the reality!) that an amendment is the only option left, as well as the perception that liberals are trying to do an end run around democracy. Is that how you really want to be seen?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
