• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The True Republican™

 
 
 
Rhea

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
15,413
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. I had written in a fb reply that he was a registered republican who had not voted for the Repub nominee in the last three elections, which I knew. But I asked him later, "who was the last Republican presidential candidate that you _did_ vote for?"

:humph: "I haven't," he says.
:confused: "You mean, not Dole? Or Bush the Wiser? Not Reagan?"
:humph: "Nope"
:confused: "Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
:humph: "Because I believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism. I just haven't yet seen a candidate who actually embraces them and intends to put them into action."
:confused: "In 36 years?"
:humph: "That's right."

Apparently the Dems are doing a better job of fiscal conservatism. Which is actually true, but, LOL for the diehard Republican (The "True Republican™"?) to observe that... it's telling.
 
It's true. Google.
Since WWII, for all their preaching about fiscal constraint and small government, both government size and expenditures have increased during Republican administrations and stabilized or decreased during Democratic presidencies.
 
No matter how you cut it, taxes are still only half the equation. Spending is the other half. In my lifetime every time tax revenues have gone up so has spending, which is especially sad considering that those rising revenues should be used to try to shrink the gap between income and spending.

There's a reason I don't trust our elected crooks with more money - they have a record of not using it to shrink the deficit.
 
Fiscal conservatism is a political construction designed to cut wages and social spending.

The deficit is not a problem.
 
So the point of this thread is that if I don't want the evil austerians in power I should vote for Republicans.

Got it.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Except Eisenhower. For a few years he actually ran a surplus. A real surplus, not a funny-math Clinton surplus.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower was clearly a radical, left wing liberal.
The Republican party's moved pretty far to the right in the intervening years, it seems.
The US is beginning to resemble 1930's Germany.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
Click to expand...
 
Rhea said:
:confused: "Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
Click to expand...
Seems like an odd question. Since you don't have to vote a party line, why should how you register have anything to do with who you vote for? In the first place, the rational party to register with is the one holding the primary you'd rather influence. For example, if you think Trump is the worst thing on the planet then register Republican so you can vote against him twice. And in the second place, if like most people you're registering based on feelings of identification rather than strategy, there are a lot more candidates on the ballot than presidential ones. For example, if he's been more satisfied with the fiscal conservatism of Republican governors and congressthings and state legislators than Democratic ones, why wouldn't your husband go right on feeling the Republican Party is the one he belongs in? A presidential election is anomalous in many ways that make it an outlier. (Electoral college, New Hampshire's lock on having the first primary, endless news coverage, yada yada.)
 
Bomb#20 said:
Rhea said:
:confused: "Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
Click to expand...
Seems like an odd question. Since you don't have to vote a party line, why should how you register have anything to do with who you vote for? In the first place, the rational party to register with is the one holding the primary you'd rather influence. For example, if you think Trump is the worst thing on the planet then register Republican so you can vote against him twice. And in the second place, if like most people you're registering based on feelings of identification rather than strategy, there are a lot more candidates on the ballot than presidential ones. For example, if he's been more satisfied with the fiscal conservatism of Republican governors and congressthings and state legislators than Democratic ones, why wouldn't your husband go right on feeling the Republican Party is the one he belongs in? A presidential election is anomalous in many ways that make it an outlier. (Electoral college, New Hampshire's lock on having the first primary, endless news coverage, yada yada.)
Click to expand...

Mostly for voting in primaries. I don't think he's voted for the republican congresscrittur, either, and most of the other offices are uncontested, so there's only an R to vote for anyway, most days.
 
Up here in Canada we had a prime minister get elected on an election promise that he would incur MORE national debt. People love him for it. Yes, this is bizzaro world.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Up here in Canada we had a prime minister get elected on an election promise that he would incur MORE national debt. People love him for it. Yes, this is bizzaro world.
Click to expand...

There's nothing bizarre about it. Our debt levels are relatively low and interest rates are cheap. Borrowing money now in order to invest in infrastructure programs which the country needs is a good investment. It was a well reasoned plan that made sense to the country because it's good economic sense. Being against debt and government spending simply because it's debt and government spending without considering the rationale behind why it's being incurred would be the bizarre thing.
 
I'm not sure that "fiscal conservatism" and "austerity" are the same thing.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
Up here in Canada we had a prime minister get elected on an election promise that he would incur MORE national debt. People love him for it. Yes, this is bizzaro world.
Click to expand...

There's nothing bizarre about it. Our debt levels are relatively low and interest rates are cheap. Borrowing money now in order to invest in infrastructure programs which the country needs is a good investment. It was a well reasoned plan that made sense to the country because it's good economic sense. Being against debt and government spending simply because it's debt and government spending without considering the rationale behind why it's being incurred would be the bizarre thing.
Click to expand...

Its truly the opposite of the USA. In Canada it is the liberals who spend big and the conservatives who penny pinch. In the USA it is the opposite. Probably because Canada has such a small and inexpensive military in comparison.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Tom Sawyer said:
There's nothing bizarre about it. Our debt levels are relatively low and interest rates are cheap. Borrowing money now in order to invest in infrastructure programs which the country needs is a good investment. It was a well reasoned plan that made sense to the country because it's good economic sense. Being against debt and government spending simply because it's debt and government spending without considering the rationale behind why it's being incurred would be the bizarre thing.
Click to expand...

Its truly the opposite of the USA. In Canada it is the liberals who spend big and the conservatives who penny pinch. In the USA it is the opposite. Probably because Canada has such a small and inexpensive military in comparison.
Click to expand...

Ya, but we have Wolverine. The Yanks only have Captain America, so they need to make up for the lack with a few trillion in extra hardware which our army doesn't require.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
Up here in Canada we had a prime minister get elected on an election promise that he would incur MORE national debt. People love him for it. Yes, this is bizzaro world.
Click to expand...

There's nothing bizarre about it. Our debt levels are relatively low and interest rates are cheap. Borrowing money now in order to invest in infrastructure programs which the country needs is a good investment. It was a well reasoned plan that made sense to the country because it's good economic sense. Being against debt and government spending simply because it's debt and government spending without considering the rationale behind why it's being incurred would be the bizarre thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of black-and-white rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom