I'm a Conservative with a Political Crisis of Identity..Help Requested

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
HMK,
I dug this up from when Gephart was the House Minority Leader:

[ QUOTE ]
But our tax cut, unlike the Bush plan, gives the most help to people in the middle and those trying to get in the middle. Our plan lowers rates for everyone. We bring the 15 percent rate down to 12 percent so that every payer gets this tax cut.

We expand the earned income credit so people of modest means get relief from the payroll tax. We help families unfairly penalized by the marriage penalty, by making the standard deduction for married couples double that for single people. And we provide sensible, reasonable relief on estate taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you'll check a link here, you'll see that among the competing tax cut plans from 2003, the Dems plan was much more bottom heavy than the GOP. And if you think the Dems only offer useless proposals when they are out of power, not so much:

[ QUOTE ]
The key points of Clinton's proposal include:

A $500-per-child tax credit through the year 2002 to families with children 16 and under, and after that, through age 18. It would be available for families making $75,000 a year or less.
A 100 percent credit for the first $1,000 of college costs, and 50 percent for the second $1,000 of college costs.
A $2,500 deduction for interest on student loans.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Look at he Clinton tax hikes and who they affected. Look at the Gore vs Bush tax cut plans.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
I am fiscally conservative.




[/ QUOTE ]

Now, the graph here is very interesting. I think the American public would be quite shock although I'd like to see the amount adjusted for inflation to get an even better view. My fear is that if Dems have control of the Big 3 (House, Senate, Presidency) that this will not be the case.


Taxes

Has there been any study done on both actual taxes paid as well as the marginal rates by income levle under both plans?

I am mostly a theoretical conservative

This is an issue. One of the big problems I have with the Dems is that the answer seems to always be more government. Sometimes the answer is more government, but more often it is less government. My issue with the republicans is that they aren't living up to their "conservative" name. I also hate the liberal precept of equality of outcome. Keep in mind that I am not saying that liberals actually expect equality of outcome and more than conservatives actually expect equality of opportunity. I just don't like the rhetoric that some libs take that says that everyone is entitled to everything everyone else has. I am very much middle class (so I can both look up and feel envious and look down and feel lucky). Do I want to be rich? Damn right! Life in America is basically a contest and there will be winners and losers. To remove this divide would ultimately destroy the motivation for people to "play the game" to the best of their abilities. All would suffer from lack of innovation. I mean, the lower class in America still has it better than the upper class in most third world countries. That's how important innovation is.

[ QUOTE ]


- The primary reason that the establishment clause exists is to protect religion: the Puritans came over because of state sponsorship of religion. The GOP's trampling of this constitutional right is a travesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with this except that I see some supposed liberals make intolerant comments about Christians . This anti-Christian rhetoric (which seeks to incorrectly place all Christians in the same basket) actually drives home a feeling that many liberals are intolerant (of Christians). Tolerance should be for the majority religion, race, etc., just as much as it should be for the minority. Case in point, the ACLU (supposedly a liberal organization) will defend your right to not be persecuted, discriminated against, etc. as long as you're not a white, male, Christian. A couple of months ago, I saw an article about a schoolkid not being able to wear an "I love Jesus and you should too" type of shirt and the ACLU was nowhere to be found. If a Muslim woman has to take off their veil for a picture at the DMV, all hell breaks loose. If you're for tolerance, then the knife cuts both ways.

For this reason, the liberal base has basically alienated white, Christian, middle class men by making us feel like we are all that is wrong with America. I am from the South, so it's even worse. This is the primary reason that the Dems can't win in the South. I'm not a racist, not a sexist, not an intolerant bigot, and not a homophobe just because I'm a white Christian male heterosexual from the South. Many in this country would have you believe differently. None of my close friends are this way, either. We don't feel that we should be elevated to a special status. We just want to play on an equal playing field and not be passed up for college admissions, jobs, etc. by people who are less qualified just because some law says that we must be passed up. We are our own generation and do not wish to be blamed for what previous generations did. I have close friends of different races and of vastly different religions. Yes, there are a few racists remaining but out of the supposedly thousands of people that one person usually knows, I can count the number of racists on one hand. My only point in this long rant was this: Why can't the Democrats figure out why the majority of likely voters in the South feel alienated? If the Democrats would change course in this area alone today, they would win the South back in less than 10 years.


I Believe in Helping those less fortunate

[ QUOTE ]
Definately want the Dems here. The GOP has been cutting social service programs all over the place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm good with this except that some programs need to be more carefully monitored and scaled back. Most of the people on social programs are able-bodied people that could change their outcome drastically with at least some training and yet they have no plan. We need to get away from an entitlement mentality and get back to helping those who really need help. This would save a ton of money for society and it would substantially increase the GDP. (And let's tighten up the border so that the low-skill jobs have a halfway decent pay level instead of diluting the job market with aliens).



I Believe in Personal Freedom

I'm mostly with the Democrats on personal freedoms save the fact that the Dems have been too cowardly to do things like not vote for the Port Security Act because of a rider. I realize that this could have been construed as political suicide. I have long been against riders on legislation because they were usually pork projects and other things that force people to make the choice between riders they don't like and political suicide. I see what happens to people that vote no and it isn't pretty. Usually, a campaign ad comes out to the effect of, "Candidate Johnson voted against making our ports safe from terrorism. Do you want a senator that's soft when it comes to our security?" Of course, I don't take any of those ads from either party at face value because there are usually many reasons for voting against a bill. Do I think that a candidate wants to just let terrorists come in through ports and blow crap up? No. Unfortnately, there are a lot of idiots in the electorate and that's why these ads continue.

All of this said, I would certainly vote for a liberal if that is the best choice. I will probably vote in some way that allows for divided government.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO you are closer to being anarcho-capitalist than anything else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Based on his views, he is a moderate libertarian. He believes in governmentally sponsored charity, education, and other social programs. On the whole, his beliefs seem to favor limited government, but he is not a full-fledged libertarian, and he is far from an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have reviewed some libertarian blogs and I would have to conclude that I am most likely libertarian. I just read a bunch of stuff at CATO and Lew Rockwell.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
You sound like a Libertarian. I'm a member of the party myself, so I know the signs. I think many Libertarians started out as Republicans, but grew tired of the direction the party is going. Libertarians have been described as the "true" conservatives, which I think is an apt description. Take a look at the Libertarian platform...I think you'll find a lot of things similar to what you're describing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coffee,

As I stated above, I have come to that conclusion. My new problem, of course, is in deciding how to vote. I could throw all my votes to libertarian candidates but would that only be a protest vote unlikely to enact real change or should I vote in such a way as to cause divided government and (hopefully) gridlock in the current 2-party system.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You sound like a Libertarian. I'm a member of the party myself, so I know the signs. I think many Libertarians started out as Republicans, but grew tired of the direction the party is going. Libertarians have been described as the "true" conservatives, which I think is an apt description. Take a look at the Libertarian platform...I think you'll find a lot of things similar to what you're describing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coffee,

As I stated above, I have come to that conclusion. My new problem, of course, is in deciding how to vote. I could throw all my votes to libertarian candidates but would that only be a protest vote unlikely to enact real change or should I vote in such a way as to cause divided government and (hopefully) gridlock in the current 2-party system.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is what you are choosing between so be it.

For me I see voting for one of the big 2 parties to be a vote for the status quo. If I vote democtrat both democtats and republicans win because they get to keep fighting each other and get to keep power (it will shift back and forth in the presidency, house, and senate over years and decades as it has) and I will be to blame to a small degree for casting my vote within the context of a 2 party system. I think the system is broken. I do not think republicans can or will fix it. I do not think democrats can or will fix it.

So i will not vote that way.

I will vote the way that the founding fathers would vote (IMO), libertarian. I am proud to vote my conscience. I will not be manipulated into casting a vote in support of the infighting and gridlock that is the current system of waste and abuse of the citizens of this country.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

As I stated above, I have come to that conclusion. My new problem, of course, is in deciding how to vote. I could throw all my votes to libertarian candidates but would that only be a protest vote unlikely to enact real change or should I vote in such a way as to cause divided government and (hopefully) gridlock in the current 2-party system.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "throw the bum out" voting mentality is precisely the reason why we have two parties of complete goons today.

[Mempho]

Well, I just took the 10-question "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and I scored definatively in the Libertarian sector of the chart. I was 80% on personal issues and 90% on economic ones. This quiz will tell you if you are a populist (statist), liberal, conservative, or a libertarian. Instead of using a one-dimensional scale of left and right, this uses a four-dimensional scale that balances personal liberties and economic issues. Those of you reading that have not taken it, can take it at:

The World's Smallest Political Quiz

Anyway, I'm considering joining the libertarian party.

[AlexM]

It seems like you're a centrist leaning Libertarian. There are few candidates and no political parties exactly where you are really, but the best thing for getting your ideal government would likely be to get Libertarians elected. This isn't because a Libertarian run government would be ideal for you, but it's because more Libertarian influence would shift things *through* where you are before going on to "pure" Libertarianism. As such, you'd want to stick with the Libs until government gets to where you like it, then maybe switch to a more statist party or try to balance things before it gets to anarchist for your tastes.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you're a centrist leaning Libertarian. There are few candidates and no political parties exactly where you are really, but the best thing for getting your ideal government would likely be to get Libertarians elected. This isn't because a Libertarian run government would be ideal for you, but it's because more Libertarian influence would shift things *through* where you are before going on to "pure" Libertarianism. As such, you'd want to stick with the Libs until government gets to where you like it, then maybe switch to a more statist party or try to balance things before it gets to anarchist for your tastes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, after reading the blogs and the platforms, I highly doubt that Libertarians will get anarchist to the point that social order is greatly compromised. I could be wrong, but most of the stuff I've read seems extremely reasonable. The main thing that I disagree with on their platform is in regards to conscription. The only reason I believe this is that I think that conscription may be necessary to protect our society against a huge foreign invader...someone like China. That may be oxymoronic in the Libertarian Party, but we are going to have to be prepared for protecting against a large invader. Notice I said invader, not some BS conflict like Vietnam. Terrible decision.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt that Libertarians will get anarchist to the point that social order is greatly compromised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchists won't get to the point where the social order is greatly compromised.

The main difference between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists is that the anarchists have a more long-term goal, which is eventual total anarchy. But if you put a libertarian in office vs. an anarchist (irony aside) the policies would not be very different at all, since we both have the same primary objectives/platforms: restore gold/silver as currency, reform taxes, stop attacking foreign countries, privatize social security, cut welfare, school vouchers, etc. The crazy stuff that separates the libertarians from the anarchists (total privatization of security, no government intervention in education, no business regulations) is dependant upon a massive social change to be brought about during the course of the aforementioned deregulations. Libertarians aren't concerned with what happens after those goals are met.