The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

14 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Let's discuss GOP fiscal policy individually, then.

 

Why are you asking me about GOP policies?

[knapplc]

49 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, why isn't it on the weekend?  Why is it only one day?  

 

As I'm sure you suspect, it's because they don't actually want you to vote. The harder it is to vote, the fewer people they have to convince to believe in them/vote for them.  If everyone can vote that means they have a larger audience they need to speak to, more time spent, more money spent. 

 

The old traditions of not voting on Sunday because of the Sabbath or because the farmers were working in their fields haven't been relevant for a century. We could easily have changed this - they just don't want to. 

[zoogs]

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Why are you asking me about GOP policies?

 

Because this thread is "The Republican Utopia" and we are discussing GOP policy here....

[teachercd]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

As I'm sure you suspect, it's because they don't actually want you to vote. The harder it is to vote, the fewer people they have to convince to believe in them/vote for them.  If everyone can vote that means they have a larger audience they need to speak to, more time spent, more money spent. 

 

The old traditions of not voting on Sunday because of the Sabbath or because the farmers were working in their fields haven't been relevant for a century. We could easily have changed this - they just don't want to. 

Yeah, it might be just as simple as that.  

[Danny Bateman]

3 hours ago, zoogs said:

There's a play here on the definition of 'entitlement', which speaks to the power of rhetoric. In the Ryan model of the world, the language is stuff like lazy people on the government dole, e.g, "millenials! They're so entitled." The liberal argument, the one in which single payer is rooted, is that "this is a human right" -- we are entitled insofar as ours is a country where everyone is entitled to what we regard as human rights protected by our government. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, these are all "a bunch of big entitlement" programs. The kind that Democrats support preserving or expanding, and the kind that Republicans have been trying to cut for decades. The current tax cuts are precisely aimed to create a situation where Republican legislators will throw up their hands in a few years and say, "we just don't have the revenue. We must gut SS/etc." This is what I mean by strong alignment. That attitude towards spending is the bedrock of Paul Ryan's dream. And look, Trump is a loon, but Ryan is the distillation of Republican economic agenda for the past however many decades.

 

This is quite wordy but a good post.

 

The word "entitlement" is tossed around, mostly by conservative politicians, in an almost automatic manner. Democrats typically refer to the programs by their names.

 

The subtext is "entitlements" are used by lazy, undeserving, unambitious people who are freeloading off the government instead of working hard to get ahead. Reagan famously used this dogwhistle to get elected governor of CA by railing against the evil of welfare queens driving Cadillacs on the government dime. He wanted to root out waste, fraud & abuse - i.e., take away wasted government spending from people who don't deserve it.

 

The sub-subtext is this appealed to aggrieved white folks who were angry minorities were getting things too easy. 

 

There's a reason Democrats don't typically use such parlance. It's because they reject this premise & they have no one to dogwhistle to about it in the first place.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

Let's discuss GOP fiscal policy individually, then. Why do you find it "disgustingly wrong"? Again -- you added the adjective. I don't. I do think -- emphasize on "think" -- that it is mistaken.

 

We aren't arguing over whether or not you are willing to break from the modern Republican issue, by the way. What I want to talk about here is economic policy. Where we all differ, how far we differ, from whom we differ, for what reasons, and so on. 

 

I don't even really know how to answer this because you keep trying to intertwine my views with the Republican views that you find...as I stated earlier..."disgustingly wrong".

 

So....I will attempt to have a conversation with you to see where it goes in this way:

 

My fiscal conservative views is that government has certain things it needs to accomplish.  That includes, but is not limited to, providing security, providing laws and law enforcement to allow a civilized society to thrive in a manner that everyone has an opportunity to succeed (but it is not their job to guarantee that success).  It should also provide a framework of systems and regulation that allows business to thrive and individuals can start businesses and people can be employed by those businesses.  It should do this in a manner where it accomplishes these goals as efficient as possible with as little influence in people's lives as possible and allowing individuals to keep their own money as much as possible to do with what they want.

 

Now.....what I don't agree with in the Republican Party:

 

Everything the government does is horrible, we need to cut department of education because they are wasting money and turning all our kids into liberals, we need to cut the EPA because they are environmental terrorists, we need to cut OSHA because they're communists ran by unions...bla bla bla.....  I'm so tired of the mantra of everything the government does is socialistic and evil....except of course, the Military.

 

We need a government that accomplishes what is needed and at the same time do it in a manner that people pay their fair share and that fair share is as little as possible.

 

Now, what is needed to be done and what that fair share is....is what needs to be debated....instead of painting the other side like they are some sort of demon because of views of fiscal policy.  There is a place in time for liberal policies and there is a time for more conservative policies.

Edited January 9, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[knapplc]

30 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

This is quite wordy but a good post.

 

From zoogs? NO!

[Danny Bateman]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I don't even really know how to answer this because you keep trying to intertwine my views with the Republican views that you find...as I stated earlier..."disgustingly wrong".

 

So....I will attempt to have a conversation with you to see where it goes in this way:

 

My fiscal conservative views is that government has certain things it needs to accomplish.  That includes, but is not limited to, providing security, providing laws and law enforcement to allow a civilized society to thrive in a manner that everyone has an opportunity to succeed (but it is not their job to guarantee that success).  It should also provide a framework of systems and regulation that allows business to thrive and individuals can start businesses and people can be employed by those businesses.  It should do this in a manner where it accomplishes these goals as efficient as possible with as little influence in people's lives as possible and allowing individuals to keep their own many as much as possible to do with what they want.

 

Now.....what I don't agree with in the Republican Party:

 

Everything the government does is horrible, we need to cut department of education because they are wasting money and turning all our kids into liberals, we need to cut the EPA because they are environmental terrorists, we need to cut OSHA because their communists ran by unions...bla bla bla.....  I'm so tired of the mantra of everything the government does is socialistic and evil.

 

We need a government that accomplishes what is needed and at the same time do it in a manner that people pay their fair share and that fair share is as little as possible.

 

Now, what is needed to be done and what that fair share is....is what needs to be debated....instead of painting the other side like they are some sort of demon because of views of fiscal policy.  There is a place in time for liberal policies and there is a time for more conservative policies.

 

Thank you for a thoughtful response BRB.

 

FWIW, I interpreted your original comment about entitlements to mean you were merely averse to them - I didn't really ascribe motives why that might be or gather it was because you were pro-GOP.

 

This post is fairly enlightening.

 

I think we just view government priorities differently. You seem to value national security, law enforcement & helping cultivate a strong economy. 

I think we should empower small businesses, but I feel like big corporations & big business have had far too much power for far too long. I don't like the way their money (& donor money) corrupts our political process. I think the government should focus on helping people themselves rather than business.

 

We just have different goals & opinions. I think it's a good thing. I certainly don't begrudge you for it. Maybe I can win you over on some things & vice versa.

[Danny Bateman]

14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

From zoogs? NO!

 

I sometimes suffer a similar affliction. 

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

Thank you for a thoughtful response BRB.

 

FWIW, I interpreted your original comment about entitlements to mean you were merely averse to them - I didn't really ascribe motives why that might be or gather it was because you were pro-GOP.

 

This post is fairly enlightening.

 

I think we just view government priorities differently. You seem to value national security, law enforcement & helping cultivate a strong economy. 

I think we should empower small businesses, but I feel like big corporations & big business have had far too much power for far too long. I don't like the way their money (& donor money) corrupts our political process. I think the government should focus on helping people themselves rather than business.

 

We just have different goals & opinions. I think it's a good thing. I certainly don't begrudge you for it. Maybe I can win you over on some things & vice versa.

 

I too have a problem with big money in politics.  I think we need to figure out a way that big corporations and rich people like the Koch brothers or George Soros don't have the influence they do.

 

I also believe a healthy corporate world is good for everyone.  It provides jobs, products and services while creating wealth. 

 

I can easily recognize that corporations do a lot of great things in this world while also recognizing that they have and can do some horrible things that need to be addressed.  However, both the good and bad are really with the people within those organizations and not the organization themselves....for the most part.  Example....'Ol Miss football program is dirty as hell.  Everyone would agree with that.  Well...reality is, the people running the program are dirty as hell.  Just because 'Ol Miss is dirty as hell, also doesn't mean that all college football programs are dirty as hell and should be condemned.  

 

A corporation is nothing more than a legal entity where economic activity happens.

 

There are times when there should be more regulation on certain corporations.  There are also times when regulation is over burdening and should be scrutinized to see if it's accomplishing what is intended....or, more specifically, are the regulations being enforced in a manner that is fair?

 

On the flip side, I don't have a problem with unions in general as it pertains to the basic idea behind them.  When they were created, there was a huge need for them and I can see in the future and in certain situations, them being useful and necessary.  I also recognize that, like many other reasons, they were a reason why some jobs left the US and a very big reason why the city of Detroit is in the shape it's in.  I also realize there was wide spread corruption within unions that didn't have the worker's best interest at heart.  They were just as power hungry as the corporate execs they opposed.  

 

These are just a couple examples of how I don't feel I fit into a neat little box and how these issues are way too complicated to claim they should go one way or the other.

 

 

And...PS.....I can claim I have NEVER written too wordy of a post.  You should be hanging on every single word I write.

Edited January 9, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[zoogs]

Thanks for the response, BRB. 

 

First, you are adding "disgusting" here! The views that you describe in the first paragraph I have been calling "traditionally Republican". I understand you are really averse to any association with the GOP term, but the past can't be erased -- fiscal conservatives were Republican for a reason. These normal GOP views are not what makes the party revolting today. They are consistent with "don't let the Democrats take over and give handouts".

 

The second paragraph is interesting. There are different reasons why Republicans think schools should be privatized, that regulations are bad, that labor must be opposed. Some of these reasons are ugly and cultural, but a lot of it is just look, this is not the role of government. But the EPA, OSHA, and DOE are not big federal government expenditures. The tax bill is where policy gets consequential. There, it lets people keep more of their earnings, theoretically offers growth, and any spending that is threatened is just entitlement spending.

 

So that's my point. If your opposition to Republican priorities is that wholesale, it's "fiscal conservatism" itself that comes under scrutiny. OTOH, a perfectly valid position to hold is that they're cutting a little too much, they're a little too reflexively opposed to Democratic ideas, but the principles are sound on economic policy. I feel like you're somewhere in this area as long as neither you or anyone else brings up the term "Democrat". At that point, they and their inveigling agenda must be condemned.

 

Perhaps this goes to show the power of partisanship, and how we mold our political rhetoric to fit axioms of "X Party Is Bad". I mean, what kinds of positions do you think Evan McMullin has on healthcare? The tax bill? Single payer? I feel like he'd be too hardcore for you. But then again, he's not a Republican. 

 

P.S. in the interests of eschewing "both sides", can we not treat the Koch brothers and George Soros as equal but opposite bogeymen?

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, zoogs said:

P.S. in the interests of eschewing "both sides", can we not treat the Koch brothers and George Soros as equal but opposite bogeymen?

 

 

I view them as very very similar...so....no, I won't agree to that.

[zoogs]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I view them as very very similar...so....no, I won't agree to that.

What's "very very similar" mean?

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, zoogs said:

What's "very very similar" mean?

 

 

They are extremely wealthy people who use their money to influence elections and people's views on issues, many times by not being totally truthful and clouding the ability for the average American to make wise decision as to who to vote for.

 

If you even try to say that Soros is some squeaky clean man who simply wants what's best for the down trodden in America...well.....you lose credibility.  

[zoogs]

They're both wealthy donors with different and opposing views, but...

 

Surely you can appreciate there's no comparison in the way they are talked about. The Koch brothers are demonized by the left for things like promoting climate denialism and using dark money organizations (which you could argue is not a big deal). They're regarded as libertarians and opposed for bad policies they believe in as well as their use of money to influence (which is a broader problem). From the right, Soros is a socialist wacko who buses people to fake protests and stirs dissent via Antifa and BLM in order to destabilize America.

 

Remember when we had actual alt-right trolls here during the election? Every other word out of their mouth was "SOROS!" This needs to be paid as much lip service as "let me tell you, if you believe Big Pharma isn't behind vaccines, you have a credibility issue."