Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?

[Anonymous]

oh no begging forgiveness from the anal retentive spelling and (,) police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about me?

pro-choice
smaller fed govt, less taxes
liberal on social issue like gay marriage
pro-charter schools and things like tuition vouchers

anti-gun control
pro-environment
pro-animal rights
anti-capital punishment

Hmmm, you sound like a disguntled Republican, one who considers herself conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Depending upon the election or your personal levels of disappointment, you may consider yourself Independent and no longer Republican, but then you might swing back sometimes.

Very disgruntled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about me?

pro-choice
smaller fed govt, less taxes
liberal on social issue like gay marriage
pro-charter schools and things like tuition vouchers

anti-gun control
pro-environment
pro-animal rights
anti-capital punishment

You are a Republican.

Not necessarily. It depends on which issue is MOST important. You need to rank them. If choice and the environment are your top two, I don't think you're an R.

[jsteele]

You posters who say that you believe in a smaller Federal government should be specific about what parts you would like to see cut. Are you willing to give up food inspections, approval of medicines, road construction, etc? Or, do you want to defund Medicare and Social Security? I'd like to see significant defense cuts would arguably decrease the size of the Federal government, but nobody would confuse me with those who want to drown the government in a bathtub.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:You posters who say that you believe in a smaller Federal government should be specific about what parts you would like to see cut. Are you willing to give up food inspections, approval of medicines, road construction, etc? Or, do you want to defund Medicare and Social Security? I'd like to see significant defense cuts would arguably decrease the size of the Federal government, but nobody would confuse me with those who want to drown the government in a bathtub.

A very good point. "Smaller government, less taxes" in this context typically means, "make government smaller by reducing services other people get, while not impacting me at all. Also, recognize that my needs will change as I age, so the reduction in services will have to do that as well. Oh, and don't dare touch the DoD budget - taxes have to go down while still supporting significant increases in defense spending."

OP, your smart republican party would have to recognize this is a fantasy along the lines of unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows (and thereby parting company with its current nominee for president, but I digress). Any chance of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You posters who say that you believe in a smaller Federal government should be specific about what parts you would like to see cut. Are you willing to give up food inspections, approval of medicines, road construction, etc? Or, do you want to defund Medicare and Social Security? I'd like to see significant defense cuts would arguably decrease the size of the Federal government, but nobody would confuse me with those who want to drown the government in a bathtub.

A very good point. "Smaller government, less taxes" in this context typically means, "make government smaller by reducing services other people get, while not impacting me at all. Also, recognize that my needs will change as I age, so the reduction in services will have to do that as well. Oh, and don't dare touch the DoD budget - taxes have to go down while still supporting significant increases in defense spending."

OP, your smart republican party would have to recognize this is a fantasy along the lines of unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows (and thereby parting company with its current nominee for president, but I digress). Any chance of that?

WINNING

[Anonymous]

My smaller government gets us out of areas such as:
Housing
Agriculture subsidies
Ethanol
SBA
Finance--eliminate FDIC insurance
and most areas where bureaucrats try to pick winners and losers
I'd make soc sec sustainable with means testing and extending retirement ages
Offer basic (very basic) health insurance to all
Stop spending huge amounts of tax money on Americans' last 90 days of life
Regrettably take over Education so that a kid in Arkansas has the same education as a kid in Bethesda
Pro life
Pro reasonable gun control (hunt away, the rest is stupid. I don't like to kill things but I recognize realities of this country's traditions)
Anti death penalty cuz we can't apply it fairly
Tax fairly and progressively but recognize limits of higher marginal rates
pro immigration and liberal citizenship rights

and finally, recognize that without a sound and fair balance of spending and revenue collection we can't afford much of what both sides want. facts are, indeed, stubborn things and compromise means both sides are roughly equally unhappy.

So..what will each side give on so we can make some progress?

[Anonymous]

pp here..and I'll give on:
mortgage deduction
charitable deduction (why should the govt subsidize me here?)
tax advantaged investment income like munis and retirement savings

I guess I'm an independent, tho remain a registered dem. Flame away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My smaller government gets us out of areas such as:
Housing
Agriculture subsidies
Ethanol
SBA
Finance--eliminate FDIC insurance
and most areas where bureaucrats try to pick winners and losers
I'd make soc sec sustainable with means testing and extending retirement ages
Offer basic (very basic) health insurance to all
Stop spending huge amounts of tax money on Americans' last 90 days of life
Regrettably take over Education so that a kid in Arkansas has the same education as a kid in Bethesda
Pro life
Pro reasonable gun control (hunt away, the rest is stupid. I don't like to kill things but I recognize realities of this country's traditions)
Anti death penalty cuz we can't apply it fairly
Tax fairly and progressively but recognize limits of higher marginal rates
pro immigration and liberal citizenship rights

and finally, recognize that without a sound and fair balance of spending and revenue collection we can't afford much of what both sides want. facts are, indeed, stubborn things and compromise means both sides are roughly equally unhappy.

So..what will each side give on so we can make some progress?

Except for the incredibly intrusive 'pro life' thing (I prefer gubment stay outta my vagina) and the FDIC (which protects real people's money), I tend to agree with you. And I'm a hard-core Dem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you. I lean more Republican than Democrat but issue by issue I'm split.

Abortion and Gay marriage, I'm a republican
Gun control, environment and general energy issues, I'm a democrat

The big budget, defense and entitlement spending issues I'm generally more republican but even then believe that there's lots of room for compromise.

Despite a PP claiming I'm a redneck essentially, I'll try to answer Jeff's question.

To me, less federal spending means cuts across the board. I'm a defense contractor and I see kajillions of dollars in wasteful defense spending. Same goes for just about any earmarked or pork barrel project across all government agencies. Military family but I believe that Tricare premiums should be raised and retired military and civilians shouldn't be able to double-dip by earning a pension while returning to government service in a different role.

Attacking these issues absolutely needs to also be balanced by the ridiculous amounts of spending on entitlement programs and other wasteful spending. Subsidies to oil companies making billions in profit? No. Continuing to fund Medicare and Social Security in ways that are unsustainable? No.

As an aside, I'm also of the party that wishes we could have a recall vote on Congress, that we could scale back or eliminate the ridiculous life-long benefits that Presidents and members of Congress receive.

[Anonymous]

p.s. And I think the 2nd Amendment is out of control. Hunt? Fine. Assault rifles? No. Limits on the number of guns any one individual can one, background checks, purchase wait periods? Hell, yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you. I lean more Republican than Democrat but issue by issue I'm split.

Abortion and Gay marriage, I'm a republican
Gun control, environment and general energy issues, I'm a democrat

The big budget, defense and entitlement spending issues I'm generally more republican but even then believe that there's lots of room for compromise.

Despite a PP claiming I'm a redneck essentially, I'll try to answer Jeff's question.

To me, less federal spending means cuts across the board. I'm a defense contractor and I see kajillions of dollars in wasteful defense spending. Same goes for just about any earmarked or pork barrel project across all government agencies. Military family but I believe that Tricare premiums should be raised and retired military and civilians shouldn't be able to double-dip by earning a pension while returning to government service in a different role.

Attacking these issues absolutely needs to also be balanced by the ridiculous amounts of spending on entitlement programs and other wasteful spending. Subsidies to oil companies making billions in profit? No. Continuing to fund Medicare and Social Security in ways that are unsustainable? No.

As an aside, I'm also of the party that wishes we could have a recall vote on Congress, that we could scale back or eliminate the ridiculous life-long benefits that Presidents and members of Congress receive.

Would you be willing to reduce the role of the United States in world affairs in order to make more drastic cuts to defense? Personally I don't think going after waste is enough. I think we need to focus on our own security and let other countries spend more to take care of themselves.

[Anonymous]

this has the potential to be a snark-free and interesting thread. i will suggest, tho, that while the reasonable right-ish among us seem willing to accept some more taxation and some cuts to sacred cows, i don't often see the reasonable left offer up too much. with most of the budget going to entitlements and defense, we just can't get there off "big oil" and "tax the rich" the money is in the middle, and that's where the entitlements are as well.

on defense, I saw an interview w buffet/simpson/bowles the other day (saved on cnbc) and one pointed out we spend on defense more than the next 10 or so nations combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this has the potential to be a snark-free and interesting thread. i will suggest, tho, that while the reasonable right-ish among us seem willing to accept some more taxation and some cuts to sacred cows, i don't often see the reasonable left offer up too much. with most of the budget going to entitlements and defense, we just can't get there off "big oil" and "tax the rich" the money is in the middle, and that's where the entitlements are as well.

on defense, I saw an interview w buffet/simpson/bowles the other day (saved on cnbc) and one pointed out we spend on defense more than the next 10 or so nations combined.

I am a die-hard liberal, and I am willing to forego my social security payments based on a means test of my wealth at retirement age. I am willing to have medicare provided on a sliding scale based on income as well. To me they should be insurance against being left poor and in the cold during my old age. They are not necessary to pad my golden years if I am already rich.

As for your comment on what liberals are willing to give up, I think you should take a look at who is screaming over the automatic spending cuts. Each side had an equal dollar amount put at stake from their sacred cows. I will suggest to you that the side that is screaming most is willing to sacrifice the least. And that would be the conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Get out of the welfare/ food stamp business make private charities and churches handle it. They are better at separating deadbeats from truly needy/handicapped.