Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine What Will Conservatives Do?

I am not posting this to start a flame war. I have a real interest in generating discussion and would love specific answers.

My bias is clear. I’m a confirmed, lifelong Democrat. I fully expect that the Republicans will pick up seats in both the House and Senate this November, and perhaps even gain control of both chambers. What can we expect if they do?

I’ve been paying attention to politics since President Reagan was in office. He campaigned on smaller government, tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, traditional family values, and a strong defense. Those values have remained part of the conservative agenda my entire adult life. They seem to be at the core of the relatively energized Tea Party movement. About the only thing new are the increased “demands” to enforce the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration.

During my adult lifetime, I have seen Republicans control the Presidency and both chambers of congress on several occasions. When given the chance to govern, debt and deficits grew while they were in power. At times, they’ve delivered a bit of tax relief, but government continued to grow.

The traditional family values agenda seems to have amounted to nothing more than attacking gay people and blocking our attempts to gain civil rights. Abortion remains legal, and it still appears as if the majority prefers it that way. I can’t name any policy or legislative accomplishment that has really strengthened two parent families, promoted the concept of a traditional family, or resulted in fewer out-of-wedlock births.

The military budget is at historically high levels, even though much of it is not funded. We’ve fought two very expensive wars with mixed to poor results. These occurred while taxes were at historical lows, so deficits grew. They still need to be paid for. It seems like the only way to satisfy the rights desire to enforce the border would be with a full militarization of the border, which could be as expensive as our current wars. I’ve seen no proposals on how this would be paid for.

Meanwhile, Democrats have become less and less effective. They’ve become less ambitious, moved further to the middle, and have failed to mount the steam to overcome criticisms from the right on most major issues.

So, when the conservatives gain some power this fall, will anything change? Will specific programs be cut? If so, which ones? What exactly will be done to generate jobs and improve the economy? How will health care be improved? How will traditional families be helped? What’s the plan for reducing deficit spending and national debt?

So conservatives, it looks like you’ve once again managed to mount effective political attacks on the left and energize your base. Your time in the sun may be coming soon. What’s going to be different?

(Again, no flame wars or personal attacks just some good old fashioned heated political debate, please.)

to me, the two party system is like a train rambling without brakes toward a bridge that has been destroyed. They are outdated and in shambles. Their spokes people are jokes. They both cry foul against the other side, yet produce no answers when given the chance.

The sad thing to me is that they are going to destroy the country as they fly off the tracks.

If the Republicans (of which I used to align myself with) gain power, we will get much more of the same...nothing.

I tend to agree with Dev. Both parties are mirror images of each other; they just suck up to different bases. What really changes from admin to admin, majority to majority? Almost nothing. A few bones to supporters, a few things that annoy the 'other' side, but by and large, just continuations of the exact same things.

Yeah, pretty much the same for me, Kent.

Sound and fury, signifying next to nothing.

I could care less if Obama and his friends find themselves out in the cold, which they won't in any case. Most of these people have far more lucrative careers out of office than they do in.

One thing that is clear from the Republican side of the aisle, unemployment will be cut down back to bare bones.

While I know that sooner or later the extensions will end for people,, this will all but decimate Michigan, among other states hardest hit by the current economic downturn.

They have shown twice already that they are willing to leave millions of people without any help.

Jerry:

[snip]

Quote

... Abortion remains legal, and it still appears as if the majority prefers it that way...

Incidentally, it's generally a bad idea to judge progress based only on whether or not a practice is legal or not. Abortion access, for instance, dwindled steadily on Clinton's watch.

Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, allowed the Hyde Amendment to happen on his own watch, saddling working and/or poor women with restrictions on access when the ink on the Roe ruling was barely dry. So convenient for Democratic tastemakers that so many of the faithful have forgotten that-- if they ever knew it.

Under Obama, it's pretty much been made clear that pro-choice organizations will sit mutely by, collecting money on the backs of the fearful while the supposed champion of reproductive choice spits in the face of rank-and-file pro-choicers: because he can.

A plague on all of them. If they vanished from the landscape en masse tomorrow, I for one wouldn't shed any damn tears.

how do we save the sanctity of marriage?

don't ban gay people from marrying, just ban divorce.

Yep, so people in abusive relationships can be legally stuck.

Sorry if that came off a bit harsher than intended...it's just that there is a reason that both sides can use in most arguements.

Rick, most things usually identified as "traditional family values" never were very widespread. They've pretty much always been with us, in one form or another.

Our past was never Little House on the Prairie. It was full of addicts, criminals, drunks, physical assaults/abuses and yes, even abortion (just less technically advanced). There were plenty of abandoned kids, bad parents, and many lived in squalor.

I'm gonna' go out on a limb and guess that Jab was being sarcastic.

In all seriousness, I've never understood the vehemence with which some people oppose same-sex marriage. To me, it's pretty straightforward. If you're a taxpayer and a citizen, you get the rights of other citizens. End of story.

It's not just a religious thing, either. I've been on a board where the regulars prided themselves on being free-thinking, non-religious, all the rest. Some of them still didn't think that a legally-recognized partnership between two men or two women should ever be classed officially as marriage. So ridiculous, to me. (One guy who was most vehement about the whole thing was online constantly talking about how much trouble his own marriage was in. If I had a dime for every time I almost gave him a piece of my mind, and then thought better of it... )

Not all same-sex couples will rush off to marry if it becomes legal, any more than all hetero couples do now. But at least people should be able to reject the idea of marriage for themselves; not to have others make the decision for them.

More than likely Jab was...but I've heard weirder arguments for things before.

I've never personally ubderstood the "Christian" thinking of conspiracies in everything.

Okay, it looks like there is a healthy amount of cynicism toward both of the major political parties.

Specifically, regarding fiscal policy, what do we think should happen to address deficits and debt?

President Reagan and President Bush (2) both argued in favor of supply side economics, and that cutting taxes would spur economic growth and actually increase revenues. That's not an argument that most Democrats ever accepted. Some conservatives will argue that revenues actually did go up after the Bush tax cuts, but that we failed to get a handle on spending.

The Bush tax cuts will expire next year. President Obama and the Democrats are arguing that they should be allowed to expire for the highest 20% of earners. Republicans argue that would actually be a tax increase which is a bad idea during a recession.

Regardless of whether we believe in supply side economics or not, nobody is seriously proposing that tax cuts would be enough to impact the debt because it is currently so big.

So, regardless of your party affiliation, what is your position on this?

1) Should we let the tax cuts expire?
2) Should we keep them in place for some, but end them for the highest earners?
3) Should we increase taxes?
4) Should we not worry about debt and deficits for now, until we are out of the recession?

Eventually, to address the debt there will have to be some cuts in federal programs. What specific programs do you think should be cut?

1) MIlitary
2) Social Programs
3) Social Security Payments
4) Medicare and Medicaid
5) Education
6) Foreign assistance programs
7) Disaster relief
8) Other programs (what specifically?)

Should there be across the board cuts in administrative costs, salaries and benefits for federal employees (including military service members)?

Okay, think I got my wires crossed on this one. They were never widespread, but they were always with us?

Look, the only thing I said I agreed with was requiring people to enter the country legally. No, I dont' think I should have to support people that broke the law to get here, break the law by staying here, and draw heavily on the limited resources of the average working person that is taxed every which way, daily.

As to the "traditional family values", i merely posted what people on the right think and feel. Ya know what, i kinda agree with them. I'd like people to be better to each other. I'd like mothers and fathers to be there for their kids the way they are supposed to be and needed to be. You aren't seriously disagreeing with that, are you?

That wasn't being smart assed, that was asking due to my confusion above.

My answers, btw, would be:

1) Let the tax cuts expire on the wealthiest 20%.
2) Implement pay as you go for all future legislation and stick to it. If new spending is passed, there should be a requirement that the legislation detail where the money will come from (either new taxes or cuts from existing programs - no exception for military).
3) Across the board cuts for a limited period of time, then let the administrators of those programs decide how to implement the cuts. Example: Take three % out of the budgets for all of the above categories for three years). Share the pain for the good of us all, then trust your program managers to manage.

I know that the deficit rose under Reagan and Bush. But not all of that was their direct fault, nor was it solely Clinton that got rid of the debt. Bush (2) is not to blame (solely) for the recession that we are currently in. It started under Clinton, he just got out in time.

I'm not well versed enough to know what exactly needs to be done with taxes...all I know is that raising them on the average citizen will destroy areas of this country that are barely holding on...or just starting to show some early signs on beginning a recovery.


My personal take on the possibilities to be cut...

The military needs to be cut back. We are currently funding two wars, plus countless other endeavors.

Social programs are a slippey slope. They actually need more funding to have them staffed well enough to have them properly utilized and not abused by those that have figured out the loopholes.

Cutting Social Security and/or Medicaid would, I feel, lead this country into a deep dark hole that we might never fully recover. Cutting Social Security would cripple those who have no type of pension, or those who had their's cut out from under them.

Education should never be touched. There is enough problems in the school systems that cutting them will only deprive the poorer communities the worst. This, to me, is the one time where we need to invest in our future.

I realize that cutting federal aid to foriegncountries would destroy a lot of lives...but the spending there needs to be cut back for a few years. Not stopped, but frozen at the very least...or at least gone over with a fine toothed comb and see on a case by case basis where them money is actually still needed.

Disaster relief should be fine. It's needed, as nobody can predict when disasters can occur.

I feel that programs such as NASA, and the like need to be looked at carefully. Should we, at this point continue to build a tin can in space when so many on the ground need help?

The biggest problem I have is that both sides of the aisle use bills that they know have to be passed (for whatever reason) and put riders on them to get their pet money dump projects puched through without much argument. This is one of the first things that need to be stopped. Another is term limits for both the House and the Senate. These people should not be "elected" until they are in their 90's. They loose enough touch with reality and their voters just by being in Washington and trying to stay in power...allowing them to have a lifelong career out of it has corrupted some of them to the nth degree. When senetors and reps start dying of old age while in officce...I say it is time for change.

i was...kind of...being sarcastic. i hear a lot of 'gay marriage is wrong because it is sacrilegious/gross/immoral/unnatural etc' blah blah stuff (not here but in the scary outside world). i think if these people are against two people...god forbid...loving each other, and remember, these relationships are about love, not *just* sex, then they should really commit to the vows they make, tough it out like the know it alls that they are, and show some stick-to-it-tivness.

One of the big reasons so much money gets spent on "pet projects" is that state governments are typically required to have balanced budgets, while the federal government isn't, so the local governments effectively end up using the federal government to avoid actually having to raise the money themselves. Requiring a balanced budget at the federal level would hopefully help alleviate this. I also think we need to move away as much as possible from having any sort of blanket "general purposes taxation" (whether in the form of an income tax, consumption tax, whatever) and tie the funding of a program as much as possible to the program itself, thus making it more transparent.

I agree completely about term limits. That's an idea that's massively overdue in being implemented.

I do not have a problem in general with states getting federal money to do projects...just not as riders. I personally believe that every thing needs to be accounted for and voted on seperately. I know it would be near impossible, but the way things are right now drive me nuts.

But is the problem really with career politicians or a convoluted budget process? We live in a democracy. Our elected officials are supposed to listen to the public, and they are. The American public doesn't want tax increases and doesn't support most budget cuts.

As Fareed Zakaria put it recently, "In one sense, Washington is delivering to the American people exactly what they seem to want. In poll after poll, we find that the public is generally opposed to any new taxes, but we also discover that the public will immediately punish anyone who proposes spending cuts in any middle class program which are the ones where the money is in the federal budget. Now, there is only one way to square this circle short of magic, and that is to borrow money, and that is what we have done for decades now at the local, state and federal level...So, the next time you accuse Washington of being irresponsible, save some of that blame for yourself and your friends."

Ultimately, we're going to have to make the tough choices. Most likely, the solution will involve both tax increases and cuts in programs. We're caught in this endless cycle of switching between parties while nobody makes the tough choices. At some point, there is going to have to be compromise between the parties. What will it take to make that happen? Term limits? I guess one could argue that would make some politicians less accountable to the fickle public. They wouldn't have to worry about the next election, so they would have more freedom to make responsible choices instead of popular choices. On the other hand, term limits would mean that we would have fewer leaders with experience. Younger and newly elected politicians tend to be more idealistic and closely aligned with the extreme base of their party. Seasoned politicians may be more concerned with their legacies. I'm torn on the idea.

Not that your quiz is uninteresting, Jerry. But honestly: I don't see the point when the military budget is the huge immovable core at the center of everything. Nobody in either [sic] party is gonna' touch it. Which means my opinion as to where all these mythical funds could/should go isn't all that important.

I also remain as perplexed as I was two-odd decades ago regarding the worshipful praise over a balanced Federal budget. We live in a debt-based society at even a personal level, despite all those heartwarming homilies about if I can balance my checkbook, why can't Uncle Sam. Or the tired old saw about "running Government like a business."

I apparently missed the bulletin about how the primary purpose of Government was to turn a monetary profit and sell stocks to its wealthy shareholders. I always thought that the primary purpose of Government was to serve its citizenry. All of its citizenry, not just the well-heeled, single-digit percentage at the top. Silly me.

BTW, Oregon voted by a fairly comfortable margin to up its corporate minimum tax earlier this year-- for the first time since the 1930s. So Zakaria doesn't speak for everyone in the country. Just felt like pointing that out.

1) Let the Bush Tax cuts expire.

2) It would not be bad if they were kept in place for low and middle income taxpayers.

3) We do have one of the lowest tax rate for the industrialized nations. Increasing taxes would not be so terrible. However, before that, I suggest cleaning up government waste and pork. I would also get rid of corporate welfare. I would also get rid of the loophole in which corporations can register overseas and say that they are a foreign corporation not subject to US taxes.

4) I would say that it is always good to worry about the deficit and debt. However, we may need to increase both at this time to help correct the economy.

I would definitely want the Military budget cut. The military takes more than half the federal budget. In today's world having the biggest army or the most weapons doesn't makes a country safe. Rethinking how to best defend our country and making such defenses more efficient would help bring down the debt/deficit.

Agreed. Balancing the budget isn't the end all and be all in politics. However, the debt is frighteningly high and needs to come down at some point. If it doesn't we risk greater economic instability because the cost of borrowing (interest) will continue to grow, or lender countries won't lend to us anymore out of fear that we will default. When we get to the point where we can't tax and we can't borrow, then we won't be able to sustain the programs that are supposedly there to benefit us.

Oh, I agree that it needs to come down. I just have my doubts that anyone in charge wants it to. In that sense, the deficit is much like the constant emphasis on what color "alert" we're at in terms of national security. It keeps people scared, and scared people are malleable.