PDA

View Full Version : A Conservative Case for Voting Democratic



LordNeon
04-20-2004, 09:36 AM
from a former Reagan aide ...

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html?cnn=yes

Bionik
04-20-2004, 06:46 PM
I think that's more of a case for not voting, period.

irpker
04-20-2004, 09:37 PM
Spending will always be out of control as long as the combination of social programs and the dollar not being linked to Gold, exists.

Then again, the whole world could lose confidence in the American dollar, but then, everyone is fukked, especially the elite and wealthy.

Ruhanv
04-21-2004, 04:07 AM
The whole world has already lost faith in the US dollar but that is another thread all together.

There is a very strong conservative case for voting Democratic. This is something that a lot of serious Christians have never answered. I take the point about abortion as well as gay marriage but the overwhelming amount of policies within the Republican party's manifesto are completely opposed to Christian values.

When it comes to aiding the poor and other social programs, the Democrats are much stronger historically. The GOP are much closer alligned to large corporates, often to the detriment of low level employees as well as health and safety. Biblically we have been entrusted with the welfare of the environment and we all know who owns that policy. In regards to scandals, the Dems did have Clinton but morality also extends into the boardroom not just the bedroom. Scandals involving Enron and Haliburton have hardly had the same impact on voters as the Lewinsky scandal even though it harmed more people in the process.

There is actually very little basis for any Chrisitian with a conscience to vote for Bush this year.

BigKazWSM747
04-21-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Spending will always be out of control as long as the combination of social programs and the dollar not being linked to Gold, exists.

Then again, the whole world could lose confidence in the American dollar, but then, everyone is fukked, especially the elite and wealthy.

You support the gold standard?

Bionik
04-21-2004, 04:39 PM
The deficit continued to rise during Clinton's term as well... it doesn't matter who you vote for. You know why? As inflation goes up, the numerical value of the national debt has to. The only solution to the debt problem would be to inflate the active economy at a rate much faster than the deficit while cutting social security and many other social programs. A good way to inflate the economy and keep the money from government debt spending? Lower taxes and abolish income taxes =)

Have a nice day~

LordNeon
04-21-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Bionik
The deficit continued to rise during Clinton's term as well... it doesn't matter who you vote for.

Huh? We ran surpluses through much of Clinton's terms. Part of that can probably be attributed to the existence of opposing forces in the government. One of the main reasons I'm more strongly pro-Democrat these days than I might otherwise be is that the Republicans hold too much power in government right now and are practically never willing to say no to each other, as this article points out. If you're a fiscal conservative, you might actually prefer a deadlocked government.


You know why? As inflation goes up, the numerical value of the national debt has to. The only solution to the debt problem would be to inflate the active economy at a rate much faster than the deficit while cutting social security and many other social programs. A good way to inflate the economy and keep the money from government debt spending? Lower taxes and abolish income taxes =)

Have a nice day~

Lowering taxes definitely does NOT guarantee that spending will be reigned in. If nothing else, that should by obvious by now. And lowering taxes by itself doesn't guarantee growth, either - both taxes and growth were higher in the roaring 90's.

Bionik
04-21-2004, 06:21 PM
Huh? We ran surpluses through much of Clinton's terms.

I'm sorry to inform you that the United States has not seen a surplus since 1960. It was extremely shortlived and didn't even last until the end of the year.

Anyway, the Clinton term ran the debt up over 1.2 trillion dollars (facts below)...

National Debt History: http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm


One of the main reasons I'm more strongly pro-Democrat these days than I might otherwise be is that the Republicans hold too much power in government right now and are practically never willing to say no to each other

And you don't think the Democrats coalesce to the whims of the others? I smell partisanship.

The only difference I see between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats want to grow the federal government a bit more.


If you're a fiscal conservative, you might actually prefer a deadlocked government.

You use the term "fiscal conservative" loosly and somewhat incorrectly, I might add. A fiscal conservative favors the minimization of government in economic affairs. Fiscal conservatives will **usually** be in favor of less government spending. However, a fiscal conservative can favor large amounts of spending in terms of defense (as opposed to socialized programs).

President Bush is somewhat liberal -- too liberal actually -- since he actually supports a substantial amount of social programs such as Medicare/Medicaid/subsidies to the arts.

However, John Kerry is far MORE liberal than Bush, since he supports almost every social program, wants to abolish the Bush tax cuts, and desires to grow the federal government at a relatively quicker rate.


Lowering taxes definitely does NOT guarantee that spending will be reigned in. If nothing else, that should by obvious by now. And lowering taxes by itself doesn't guarantee growth, either - both taxes and growth were higher in the roaring 90's.

Actually, there is a correlation between Reagan's minimization of taxes and the economic boom of 1983 -- you should read up on that. Tax cuts don't guarantee growth, but growth is highly probable. Also, the question of immediate growth is irrelevant in terms of the debt, since the primary cause to that end would be to inflate the economy by having a larger amount of dollars in circulation, minimizing their value, thus helping the debtor.

Consider this: The federal government owes everyone approximately 22,000 dollars in debt money each. How much is 22,000 dollars when almost everyone is a millionare? How's that for a change in perspective? ;)

The economy of the 90's was bound to be expansive since the "technological age" had recently dawned. The question is, how much was this expansion curtailed by confiscatory taxing policies?

axiombiological
04-22-2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
The whole world has already lost faith in the US dollar but that is another thread all together.

There is a very strong conservative case for voting Democratic. This is something that a lot of serious Christians have never answered. I take the point about abortion as well as gay marriage but the overwhelming amount of policies within the Republican party's manifesto are completely opposed to Christian values.

When it comes to aiding the poor and other social programs, the Democrats are much stronger historically.

Tell us where in the Bible it says that "government" should provide for the poor? The Bible advocates PERSONAL generosity, not authoritarian. Don't insinuate that confiscating the efforts of one, against his will, to give to another is Christian. Forcing one to do something against their will, even if the ends are good, is not morally acceptable.

Democrats have historically perpetuated the social problems of poverty by increasing the dependancy on government.


The GOP are much closer alligned to large corporates, often to the detriment of low level employees as well as health and safety.

Examples? To make this statement, I hope you have some support.


Biblically we have been entrusted with the welfare of the environment and we all know who owns that policy.

And how is our environment? Please tell us what about our environment is "bad".


In regards to scandals, the Dems did have Clinton but morality also extends into the boardroom not just the bedroom. Scandals involving Enron and Haliburton have hardly had the same impact on voters as the Lewinsky scandal even though it harmed more people in the process.

Morality extends to all corners of life, but the Republicans, nor the Democrats are responsible for Enron. The burden is totally on the men who commited the actions, not those whom they associated with.


There is actually very little basis for any Chrisitian with a conscience to vote for Bush this year.

That is why I don't vote based on Christianity, but on reason. And why neither Republican nor Democrat will ever get my vote.

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Bionik
I'm sorry to inform you that the United States has not seen a surplus since 1960. It was extremely shortlived and didn't even last until the end of the year.


It sounds like you're confusing the debt and the deficit. Although we've run more deficits than surpluses, we've had budget surpluses a few times in the 1960's and a handful in Clinton's term.



And you don't think the Democrats coalesce to the whims of the others? I smell partisanship.


Indeed they do. But the point is that if your desire is to curtail government spending, an all-Republican government isn't necessarily what you want, since they will tend to value party unity over the principles they claim to espouse, and all of them will want money for their districts/constituencies.



However, John Kerry is far MORE liberal than Bush, since he supports almost every social program, wants to abolish the Bush tax cuts, and desires to grow the federal government at a relatively quicker rate.


To nitpick, he doesn't want to abolish all of the Bush tax cuts, just the ones on the higher tax brackets. He also proposed a reduction in corporate taxes.

And even if you oppose tax increases and excessive government spending, one could point out that at least the Democrats are proposing to pay for the programs that are there, rather than to maintain or enlarge them and postpone the payment for later with interest as Republicans are currently doing.

irpker
04-22-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
You support the gold standard?

Do you support a ten-trillion dollar deficit?

I don't see the federal government ever contracting, simply because they have an unlimited money supply.

irpker
04-22-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Bionik
The deficit continued to rise during Clinton's term as well... it doesn't matter who you vote for. You know why? As inflation goes up, the numerical value of the national debt has to. The only solution to the debt problem would be to inflate the active economy at a rate much faster than the deficit while cutting social security and many other social programs. A good way to inflate the economy and keep the money from government debt spending? Lower taxes and abolish income taxes =)

Have a nice day~

Inflation is an enormous BOON to any debtor, including the US federal government. You don't even know what inflation is.

It's actually interest rates which might be the problem, but from an economic view point, it's zero-sum game. Interest is simply the cost of buying a product or service now, instead of six months from now.

Starsky
04-22-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
from a former Reagan aide ...

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html?cnn=yes


You could always vote Libertarian. That wouldn't fit in with liberal propaganda though.

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
You could always vote Libertarian.

Go ahead. I encourage you, as a Democrat, to do so.

kmac12
04-23-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Go ahead. I encourage you, as a Democrat, to do so.

Yipee!!! Nader in 2004!!!

I am gonna tell all my democrat friends to vote for him in 2004.