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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.