Printable View
Most of the government "stuff" I would qualify for are 30 years down the road. It's not that I don't care if Social Security will be there for me someday, clearly I do. It's just that .... a lot can happen in 30 years. In a 3 decade timespan there's a heck of a lot of things I should be worried about, and only some of them having anything to do with "stuff". That seems plainly obvious to me.
According to the OECD rankings, NZ has the 4th best educational system in the world (link). The US comes in beyond the 34th in this article. So the standard of education here is high overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
Most people are happy with the system overall, but as ever, concerned about the needs of Maori and poor populations (poor populations being diverse in ethnicity and background).
Iris Lily,
In terms of the "free" physicals and mammograms, I think that this is people not understanding some basics of how insurance works and why we utilize it as a system. I think there is definite ignorance.
It's not 'free' -- it's simply that it's going to be covered under the insurance without a co-pay. This is effectively "getting what you pay for" and the insurance company can move funds into different directions. It won't necessarily increase costs.
In our case, our original insurance through DH's work was a normal plan with a small deductable and then a lot of co-pays for everything. Ok, fine. It's what we had (no choice in the matter). Then, the insurance changed to another company, wherein there weren't copays for preventative care, and there was a long list around that. The insurance costs didn't go up, it was literally just switching plans.
the next year, we had an option between a high deductable or the full coverage plan. We would still get "free" preventative coverage, and catastrophic coverage after the deductible, which was no greater than $10k for the both of us (which was about what we had in savings at the time). So, being young and healthy, we went with this option. It cost the same as the prior plan, and anyone choosing "full coverage" would pay slightly more. At the time, we were told that if we wanted to go back to full coverage at any time, we could. When I got pregnant, I wanted that insurance in case anything was wrong with DS (since the high deductable meant that NICU stays would not be 100% covered and we'd have our up-to $15k deductable because the kid adds a $5k to it), and when we went to switch at the normal time of year when they go over this, they said that we couldn't -- that you could only go form full to high deductable, but not the other way around.
So, we were on the high deductible plan, and htank goodness DS was healthy as could be!
What we were getting in those "free" physicals, well babies, etc was what we were paying for -- under that insurance plan.
All this Obamacare statement says (similar to the birth control one) is that this will be covered under your health care insurance plan without a co-pay. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cost of the health care goes up per se.
Yes, ours went up every second year anyway (I believe due to inflation, etc -- not to mention, in my observation, the nation getting sicker and sicker and sicker, and since insurance is meant to cover us all or off set the sick and the well so to speak -- more people were needing insurance and therefore the overall burden on everyone was greater).
The real problem that I have with these mandates is that they mandate and dictate choice/options for people. I don't believe in having a gyn exam every year (there are studies that pap smears cause cervical damage that can lead to unusual cell growth), and believe that everyth 5th year for low-risk women is more appropriate. I act accordingly, but because I get a 'free' gyn exam each year (or did), I'm effectively "throwing away that money."
If insurance companies could offer a range of products that an individual can choose and, the programs and options would be more financially competitive, then peopel would understand that none of this is "free" -- that you are getting what you pay for.
For low income people, the opportunity to have good health care, particularly good preventative care, is important, too. To have an option where a single-payer, low income person can get "free" physicals are part of their care would take off a huge emotional load. For a poor person, a $25 copay could mean the difference between seeing the doctor or feeding their kids for the rest of the week. ANd most will choose to feed their kids, and this means that things "sneak by." They know they need to visit the doctor, but honestly can't find the co-pay to do it.
For them, "free" (or rahter, it's already covered in the insurance that you pay which you receive through your employment) makes a huge difference in terms of being able -- emotionally and financially -- to take care of their health early without worrying if they are going to "blow" their budget.
To be sure, when DH and I first started out, he was earning $35k (take home). This was 1999. His parents would chastize us for "not saving enough" and comparing DH's $35k in 1999 to FIL's $35k in 1968 (when he started teaching). It was actually a lot less money in 1999 than 1968, is it not?
After our housing, transportation, power, student loans and groceries -- and trust me, we were frugal! -- we didn't have any money to bank. This is why -- against my parents wishes -- I worked during law school. It was part time, but it brought in a little extra money to help defray educational costs on my end, as well as fill in the gaps of our food budget.
We did go for our physicals and dental cleanings every year because we were paying for it in our insurance premiums. They didn't have a co-pay. If they had, we may nto have been able to afford it. Or, we would have had to borrow from friends/family or credit to do so. And that's not a really nice road, to be honest.
It's not for people who want to be financially independent of their family ("silver has strings" -- a line from the film Looper) and not get into credit card/consumer debt.
5 years later, we were doing *much* better, to be honest. . . able to bank a lot, pay off a lot of debt, etc. Paying a copay at that point would not have been a big issue. But at that time, in 1999, the copay meant the difference between staying afloat and independence or debt.
And that's just an average, two-person middle class family.
ANM:
As far as I can tell, internationally, economists are asserting that there's really no way to save these programs. They'll likely all be gone in 30 years (bankrupt), and we'll have to discover along the way another method of reaching to the philosophical underpinnings (social need) of these programs.
And, as you say, a lot can happen in 30 years.
The Social Security administration itself says payouts can continue more than 30 years into the future, just they will be 75% of what they were promised to be. That sounds ok to me.
Sounds good to me! I have often thought the same thing, IL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
By the way, I don't believe I've thanked everyone here, recently, for your passion, insights, willingness to jump in with an opinion, and for keeping it civil and respectful. I know we can flare with each other every so often, but by & large, we don't. I really appreciate everyone's contributions. So, thank you!
ANM:
I am probably reading far more doomsday predictions than I should. A recent criticism of the Australian system was realy interesting. :) My friend (south african immigrant to Oz) says she isn't counting on it at all. Both of us work like crazy. LOL And complain about other yoga teachers who refuse to. Anyway. . . it's al ong story. LOL
Letter to a future Republican strategist...
http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09...-white-people/
Republicans and Corporate American GET A TON OF STUFF!!!!!!!!
They get a highly educated work force for one!
We all do better when we all do better. Why a us versus them all the time?
They get an infastructure allowing them to move goods and services.
They get a country protected by a huge military.
Tax breaks and incentives. Don't they get corporate jets deducted as well as SUVs for pete sake.
We are all in this together. Obama wants a "balanced" approach that includes government cuts and tax increases for the very wealthy.
The republicans only want themselves to benefit. Democrats want EVERYONE to benefit and EVERYONE to lose something. We all need to make adjustments - but not just some of us (like the republicans want).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't spend much time with any actual people who are republicans. Do you really believe half the population of the US is that caricature who is short sighted, greedy and unconcerned with anything in life beyond their own bank balance? I don't. I also don't think promoting stereotypes is particularly helpful, but YMMV.Quote:
Originally Posted by heydude
Gregg,
In my personal experience knowing a lot of republicans, I think that a lot of them got caught in the bread and circus.
I think that as human beings, most of them are truly intelligent and honestly want what they feel is best for the nation, and they have good ideas. The problem is that these ideas then get muddled with other, bad ideas that come out of that conservative media or just really bad statements that some folks made in the party, including Romney himself (particularly in the infamous 47% speech), or even worse, just bizarro conspiracy theories and claims.
I had one particularly mind-numbing conversation with an old jr highschool friend and her mother on FB. Romney said some zinger,a and she replied "lets hear the kenyan respond to that!" and I said "please tell me that you are not one of those birthers!? I'm shocked that you would feel at all comfortable aligning with such an idea!'
She then asserted that I should look at incredibly biased web site X. I posted citizenship and naturalization law for the US, Kenya, and Indonesia, all of which clearly spell out how one acquires citizenship. That was it. Not even a position paper -- quite literally just the laws themselves. I then asked: was Obama's mother a natural citizen of the US?
She answered yes. Then said "but he was also a natural citizen of Kenya through his father." And I said, "true, but according to kenyan law (link), he has to claim that at age 18 to maintain dual citizenship, and there's no evidence that he claimed it. And the same is also true for indonesia (link)." Therefore, is Obama -- by dint of his mother's natural citizenship as well as his active rejection of either two other dual citizenships he could have had -- a natural american citizen who then qualifies for the presidency?
And she said "yes, but I read his book, and he seems so interested in his kenyan heritage as to be. . . well, not very american in my book." And I said "didn't you spend a lot of time studying your german heritage, taking german language lessons (along with french, like me), as well as studying up on your family history and culture both in Germany as well as their journey of immigration? Does studying your history as a German make you less american? Or does it just make you interested in the culture of your heritage, a normal study for a person of that age? It is ok to study European heritage, but not african or central american or asian?"
I also pointed out that she travelled internationally a lot, and yet hadn't visited all 50 states, and that she also loved to study all kinds of languages and cultures -- does that make her less american?
At this point, her mother pipes in some nonsense about how smart my friend is and how I'm completely "swayed by liberal professors" and "unable to think clearly" because of it. I tell her to not be so patronizing. I'm 15 years post college and those "liberal professors" and managed to get through a relatively conservative law school (since coproprate law tends to the conservative) well enough to ascertain whether or not this "birther argument" has any validity, TYVM.
She then gives me the "when you're my age, you'll understand" argument, and I said "I would hope that when i age I continue to grow in enough wisdom to continue to respect people regardless of their perceived political leanings. I have no issue with Friend being republican, but I feel that this particular argument is a waste of her time, effort, and thought-energy. I'm simply asserting my own shock at her participation in this ideology, because she's the last person that I would consider a racist, or who would entertain such a ridiculous idea.
At whihc point my friend suggests separating us, and I assert that I doubt such is necessary, but would she answer the question? She concedes that Obama -- as the laws of all three countries are written, just facts, no partisan or biased websites, but literally the straight up laws as they are written -- is in fact a natural american citizen. She also then admits that studying a person's heritage doesn't make them less american, and therefore, it stands to reason that just because obama happened to think about kenya and she happened to think about germany (and I interjected, and I think about the british isles and scandinavia) does not make any of us less American.
I even asserted that, living in a foreign country by choice also makes one no less american, and it is -- in my experience -- the experience with other cultures that helps us discover just how American we truly are!
I told her that I would expect no less from her, and was really, truly shocked by the idea that she would hold tightly to this (racist in origin) idea.
To me, she's a smart girl who got caught in some bread and circus.
If we can dialogue about it (as we did), then we usually discover that she doesn't actually stand by that ridiculous idea when provided with *facts*. And I think most people are like this.
For me, the Romney 47% speech was really no big deal. I think that it was an idiotic communication of a standard idea of business: go for the new market, rather than trying to draw the current market away from your competitors. It's the reason my business is growing. I focus on getting people who work a lot and are busy and in this particular area of town and brand new to yoga into yoga classes. Brand new to yoga is 96% of the population! Yoga population is 4%. Do I want to fight over 4% with other yoga studios/teachers, or do I want to expand into a new market (draw in some of the 96%)?
I got what he ws saying, which is why I didn't rail against it too much. I think he said it stupidly (not as stupidly as O'Reilly, btu still), but I think sometimes we all do that anyway. And, I suppose he figured he was among friends, where our stupid stuff is sort of glossed over because we all get the general idea and know that the other one isn't really a dumbass (i'm not saying Romney is a dumbass, just that sometimes I say things not-gracefully, but my husband knows I'm not mean, you know? that i'm not a dumbass.).
So, I don't really cotton to anyone on either side getting all circus-y. It's why I asked about O'Reilly. If he is a voice for the party, then all they have to blame is themselves (and read that last blog that Red Fox posted, because it does sum it up nicely). But, if he's just an idiot, and most people view him as that, then no harm done, he's bread and circus.
And there's no need for me -- or anyone else -- to get too caught in bread and circus.
On stuff...
Most people want and expect stuff from the government. Most of us want free public education, libraries, roads, police protection, etc. If their kids are in public schools, they very much expect text books to be free. We are all just so used to these things that we take them so for granted that they do not seem like stuff, but they very much are. And there are many one the dole who voted and supported the Republican ticket in this last election. Corporate farms want their subsidies, and corporations want their corporate welfare.
That was the first thing that struck me when O'Reilly made his really stupid comment. That Republicans benefit from and want stuff no less than Democrats do.
And Zoe, I think the 47% comment WAS a big deal. It really is how many of the people on the right think. They think that Democrats are users and takers. That thinking has been expressed numerous times since the video was leaked, even by people in this forum. It is sad, condescending, and just plain wrong.
I also don't think promoting such stereotypes is particularly helpful, but YMMV.
Well, I wasn't mimicking anyone. It is what I called it while I was watching it live, only it was more like a meltdown of the entire Fox news fabrication machine. But in retrospect, collapse or unraveling are probably better adjectives. They lied to their viewers for weeks, but first they lied to themselves. They just did not believe it could be happening, just as it is obvious the Romney campaign and indeed the candidate himself could not believe it was happening. It turns out the polls were right all along, and all of the rationalizing of the right wing infotainment establishment couldn't make that fact go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I will admit I am gloating just a bit, not at your loss (I remember how I felt after 2004), but at truth's gain. And I really enjoyed watching Rove's fantasy world go down in flames. To see it play out live on international television was just too beautiful to describe.
Here is Jon Stewart's take on it...
http://youtu.be/e1chQEFIPtk
Fox News called two states for Obama before other stations did. Did anyone see that? I did. I got that from a tweet from Jonah Goldberg who chastised Fox for calling them so early. Point being: analysts for each station are going to call them the way they see them, and in this case having a Right viewpoint didn't change their call.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
As far a "lies" in conjunction with polls: when polls deliver the same results as the elections, let me know. Then I won't bother to watch election returns, we will already know.
Look, no one I know including Jonah Goldberg who I saw a week before the election was very optimistic for our side about the Presidential election. More so with the Senate, but not the Presidential election. In the last three weeks of the election Romney's numbers came up and "cautiously optimistic" was the phrase people I know used.
I will admit I am gloating just a bit, not at your loss (I remember how I felt after 2004), but at truth's gain. And I really enjoyed watching Rove's fantasy world go down in flames. To see it play out live on international television was just too beautiful to describe.
Here is Jon Stewart's take on it...
http://youtu.be/e1chQEFIPtk[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your story Zoebird, but it does relate an encounter with a single individual rather than a whole group. I freely admit it is not hard to find people like that if you want to, but they are not in the majority. Anything can happen locally, but in national elections the GOP has never put a birther or any other kind of fanatic out front. The moderates keep rising to the top and its precisely because there is not a broad enough base within the party to support the more radical factions. People focus on the Tea Party or the birthers or the abortion clinic bombers or whatever and somehow decide that is who the party is. I'm not a republican, but from what I see those folks are a very small part of a very large party. I think Mitt Romney is a pretty good example. He basically created Obamacare for heavens sake. How moderate can a GOP candidate be? Ideologically I think Mr. Romney and the President were fighting over a lot of the same ground to stand on.
My view of the Tea Partiers is that they are for fiscal conservatism. Ergo--I am a Tea Party sympathizer if not entirely a Tea Partier.
Exactly. And if that was all that was involved in the Tea Party platform I would probably be a Tea Partier myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
The poll aggregators (prognosticators in another thread) used the polls and predicted the presidential election dead on. In fact, Sam Wang not only got the presidential race exactly right state by state, he called 10 out of 10 close senate races correctly, including North Dakota and Montana, which Nate Silver got wrong. Nate added weighting and layers to his models. Wang used only the polls. When take together, the polls were dead on, with an error rate of less than 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I knew exactly who was going to win election day. I merely tuned in to see who was most right and to (yes, I will confess) gloat.
But everyone else on the media right, your Goldberg friend aside perhaps, was certain of a Romney win. All you have to do to know the right wing spin machine's position is to read Alan's posts, which regurgitated the nonsense of polls being weighted "Dems +10".
Edited to add...
But to be fair, it wasn't just the right who was wrong. Seems most of the mainstream media were bad predictors, with most of them calling it a razor thin tossup. It was close, but it was never a tossup.
Was there actually a posted, credible, Tea Party platform? By who? The Tea Partiers were only loosely organized. Anyone who claimed that they had The platform I would look upon with skepticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
For instance, one of our acquaintances who is conservative is a Tea Partier and kept DH updated on Tea Partier doings around here. But when time came to caucus, he went for Rick Santorum. Ummm, who decided that Santorum was the Tea Party candidate? In my mind it would have been Ron Paul.
Polls weighted D+10 is nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt...id=db_articles
Quote:
Most of the previous Washington Post/ABC News polls analyzed earlier this year have been skewed and showed a small lead for Obama. The July 10 Washington Post/ABC News poll was skewed by 11 percent and showed the race tied at 47 percent. The August 27 Washington Post/ABC News poll was skewed by 10 percent and showed Obama leading 47 percent to 46 percent. The September 11 Washington Post/ABC News poll was skewed by 10 percent and showed Obama leading 49 percent to 48 percent. The October 1 Washington Post/ABC News poll was skewed by three percent and showed Obama leading 49 percent to 47 percent.
I've said before media doesn't want accuracy, they are a business, they want to make money. And a close race, regardless of whether it's actually close or not works best for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
And it also says...
"Unskewed, the data indicates that Mitt Romney would lead 52 percent to 46 percent using more balanced weighting of the sample."
So based on the results, was it skewed? Or not?
And here is the page for the author of that article...
http://www.examiner.com/conservative.../dean-chambers
You really shouldn't let yourself be taken in by these people, Alan.
I'll admit that the oversampling involved seems to achieve the desired result, without being at all accurate. In retrospect, I'm not sure how anyone could conduct a poll with weighting several points over actual turnout in 2008 and be considered accurate. Actual voter turnout proves that they weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
The thing I'm at a loss to explain is voter enthusiasm levels. It surprises me to see that Republican turnout was lower than expected and that Democratic turnout was higher. These are not facts which could have been anticipated in the months leading up to the election.
Regardless, enjoy your gloat while you can. Remember a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
Alan, a poll here or there was definitely wrong (Rsmussin and Gallup, for example), but overall and taken as an aggregate, they were right, all the way through. Especially on the state level. As I mentioned, the polls when taken together were wrong by less than 1%.
So, the whole weighting and oversampling thing was a myth, cooked up by those who did not want to believe what they were hearing and seeing. It is what brought us a shocked campaign and a stunned right wing media.
And a very self satisfied Oklahoma Democrat.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-politics.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Some of them saw Repubs the same as Dems. We shouldn't be surprised.
No, oversampling was a fact. A win does not change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
If you discount the power of the etch-a-sketch, the Republican candidates really slammed each other during the primaries - and there seemed to be a fairly large "anyone but Romney" contingent early on. Add to that how far to the left Romney slid toward the end going for the moderate vote and I could see how they could have been less energized to get out and vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
No. Not that I know of. I just had to call it something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
It wasn't just a win. Once again, the polls were state by state within less than one percentage point of perfect. That means there WAS no oversampling. The sampling was dead on balls accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Sheesh, Alan. No wonder you believe everything those people at Fox tell you.
;)
I can see that whatever gas you're using to inflate yourself is having a predictable effect. :~)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Tea Partiers were about taxation and small government. I think it dilutes their message to ascribe other positions to them. Gregg, come 'n join us in the Tea Party world, don't let Univision define who the Tea Partiers are! haha. Labels I don't mind, but I won't let the dominent mainstream liberal media define the political platform of the Tea Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
I found this website with may or may not capture the ideas of most Tea Partiers. It's hard for me to believe that you wouldn't agree with these:
This is long so I'll just list the main points:
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
Ten Core Beliefs of the Modern-Day Tea Party Movement
“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”
Abraham Lincoln
Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence
Guess this guy is, too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
http://www.examiner.com/article/do-y...ls-were-skewed
"Likewise, the polling numbers they produced going on that assumption turned out to be right and my “unskewed” numbers were off the mark."
interesting article about Newt Gingrich
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-election.html
"Gingrich admitted, "I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst. And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America.'"
The Tea Party originated in the socially progressive libertarian movement, was then co-opted by theocons (which is why it gets confused that direction). Here's a paper on it by the Cato Institute (link). *hammer meet nail*
THe only problem is that while they do push libertarian interests in the party, they are both A. not traditional republicanism (so one wonders how long it will last), and 2. it has been largely picked up by socially conservative (theocon) people in the party (I cannot consider Palin a "moderate" no matter how hard she's cast that way).
Most libertarians whom I know who were involved in the pre-GOP tea-party movement are no longer aligned because of it's new alignment with the theocon agenda. They cannot abide by that ideology, so as far as they are concerned, their activity is dead, even though the basic ideas from libertarian were carried over. Once you then divorce it from the socially progressive (liberal) stance, it's no longer fully libertarian.
In terms of republicans in person, my example is not an isolated incident.
You see, the discussion here is about why Republicans have a bad wrap. They have it for a lot of reasons. One is the problem of their media. Guys like Rush and O'Reilly do not help their image of hateful, wealthy white guys.
Another problem is many of the leaders whom they put forward. Palin is not a moderate. She is a theocon who now also adopts libertarian fiscal ideology. Many of the senators and representatives own statements were not "moderate" -- they are very clear that they want to inhibit access to birth control, abortion, and other elements that affect women (such as equal pay for equal work legislation). They are also very clear at their very un-moderate stances on civil rights for all citizens, particularly homosexual ones.
Finally, a lot of problem are people my friend. I cannot extrapolate her out to the whole party, no. But, my family is republican (including my extended family), and most of my friends from highschool and below and their families are republican, while my friends from university and beyond are mostly liberal (some are libertarians). Like bae desccribed (around here somewhere), i got involved in the local party in PA, and was systematically marginalized through really bad behavior (same happened over at the dems, btw).
Nearly all of them pick up on one or more theocon or neocon agenda and mix it with a (very basic) tea party approach. I notice, for example, that none of them even know of the tea party's libertarian roots, that they reject Ron/Rand Paul (who are clearly libertarian), and they even reject (in the case of my sister and BIL, who say that they are "squarely in the tea party") the papers of the Cato instistute as "too extreme" when they hold to the very ideas of the tea party!
Likewise, to a one of them, they picked up on and held to positions of extremists -- theocon agendas in terms of rape/abortion and birth control; neocon agendas around military interventionism, and of course, extreme positions on Obamacare, not to mention the whole "ruining America" memes that were out there.
Then, when you quite literally just post facts -- i'm not talking opinion papers from liberal organizations but *facts* such as relevant laws, the original research papers providing the statistics that they are using (and often misconstruing), then you get attacked as "ultra liberal" and "ruining America" and so on.
In my experience, the party is in a state of crisis. This added layer now of "delusional math" or whatever you might want to call it (or how they got snookered by consultants?) certainly shows a further disregard for reality, which is not a moderate position.
I truly believe that in order for the republican party to have any forward momentum, they're going to have to jettison the theocons, identify what i the libertarian movement actually speaks to them, re-adopt traditional republicanism, and -- if they are truly smart and want to rescue this country from the financial cliff -- let go of military interventionism as a policy.
They need to step back into their (relatively) socially progressive ideologies of traditional republicanism, return to isolationist and fiscal responsibility values and actions, and return to the dialogue about what the federal government should be and what also the state governments should be.
Unfortunately, you bring up that the party should return to being it's normal, moderate self, and people say that you don't understand what a republican is.
Oh, i'm sorry, I was just reading about the history and origins of the party, the various social movements involved, and how it all fits together. my bad.
by the by, traditional republicanism really is truly moderate, with just a different POV of how governance should run. likewise, traditional democrats are moderate with a different POV than republicans of how governance should be run.
libertarianism is -- while liberal -- a relatively extreme position, which is why i'm surprised it has any voice within the republican party. back in 2000 and 2008 when Paul was running, I remember telling my dad "Paul's ideas are interesting." My dad, a solid neocon (every once in a while getting caught in theocon flap), looked at me straight and said "Paul is an extemist, right-wing nut."
Now, my dad, like my BIL and sister, are all "tea party supporting republicans" but they still tell me that Paul is an extremist nut. I point out the origins of the tea party is libertarianism (and thereby most closely aligned with Paul's politics, and if they were truly into those ideas, then they would support Paul).
I don't really understand how this shakes out in practice. My family *adores* palin (and also mccain, who is a moderate), is so-so on romney (felt he was better than the others, but liked santorum), and hates paul.
Yet, paul is the most consistent politician for his constituency, consistently voting exactly as he says he is, direct and honest about his positions on these matters, and clearly aligns with libertarianism without apology or hiding it in any way, shape or form.
So why is he this bad guy that so many tea-party folks consider a "nut?" It makes no sense to me.
I think you either like these ideas or you don't. I feel that most of the GOP just gives lip service to these ideas, or they would have nominated Paul.
Well at least the leaders see it. Perhaps the followers will follow in due time.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
Here's a great article. Tea Partiers believe Romney lost because he was "too moderate."
These tea partiers are the theocon kind, not the libertarian kind.
Yea, that's kind of what I've run across, too. If they would stick to Iris' list I'd bring cookies to their bake sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
I would completely agree with all of that in general and probably in most supportive details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
As an aside I certainly don't consider Sarah Palin moderate and am not sure who you think is pushing that label on her. It's news to me that Sarah Palin now wants to be considered moderate, I would think she'd find that a negative label. But then, I have a hard time speaking for other people although most of those who participate on this politics board do not.
Oh yay, I like that too!Quote:
They need to step back into their (relatively) socially progressive ideologies of traditional republicanism, return to isolationist and fiscal responsibility values and actions, and return to the dialogue about what the federal government should be and what also the state governments should be.
I was responding to Gregg's statement that it is moderate candidates who come to the fore in the party, but there are several candidates (most of whom were removed in this current congressional election) who were actually not at all moderate. So, just asserting that several -- even if not a majority -- of high-profile republicans are not moderates. And, i don't think they want to be considered moderates either. :)