.jpg)
There has been much talk lately about the Republican Party splitting if certain individuals gain the nomination. There has also been grumblings of the old guard retiring and fresh blood moving the party in a more modern, progressive direction. This will not happen no matter who is the nominee and shouldn't happen no matter the age of the Republican leaders. I am a conservative first and a Republican second in my political mind. The conservative movement has always stood for certain ideas that were not to be compromised. Following are few of those.
A strong national defense - peace through strength. This does not mean being policeman of the world. It does mean standing up for freedom and democracy in the world.
Smaller government through less taxes - The main purpose of the government is to provide for the national defense (see the first point). This nation has slowly evolved into a nanny state that resembles a socialist government in eastern Europe. We fund departments, employ special prosecutors by the hundreds, redistribute wealth and waste money like we actually have it in government.
Grow the economy with real incentives - When businesses retain more of their funds, they can actually hire more people and grow the business, thus spurring the economy into real long term growth (see the second point). Tax rebates in an election year? Who would have ever guessed it? We all know that businesses don't really pay taxes, they simply pass them on to the consumer. This point brings me to the next.
Implement a fair tax - Now it doesn't have to be a flat tax or a national sales tax, but it has to be a simpler, more fair tax. The tax code in America is impractical and outdated. It's bad enough that we pay so much in taxes. Add to it a couple hundred dollars to prepare them and you have insult to injury.
Strong commitment to the Second Amendment - It's not about hunting or target practice. It is a freedom that our founding fathers knew must be kept alive for the democracy to survive. We need to reaffirm our stance that gun control laws only hurt law abiding citizens.
The most important conviction is our stance on Life - We must make it known that over 40 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade and we are still fighting for the innocent. We believe in the right to life from conception to natural death, period. We value life as a gift from God, whether there are disabilities or nursing home stays. We will not settle for the situation as it is or turn our backs and say we have done all we can do.
The Conservative movement is alive and well in the real America. An America where people get up and go to work and take responsibility for ourselves and our families. We don't expect or need government to interfere with our lives because we can do it better ourselves, thank you very much. Let's return to our grassroots and remember what got us where we are today. I don't like talk of a remodeled Republican party and with courage we can restore our conservative values to it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Just a few brief counterpoints.
1. & 2. Defense--could not the meaning of defense of the Country, hence the people, also include such things no children dying from hunger, cancer cures, protection from a city upstream, in another state, pouring raw sewage into your water supply, etc.? Seems like defense to me. Which of these are unimportant in your definition of defense?
3. Incentives--You have a lot more faith in corporations and the people who run them, than I do. And I help run a small one. Ever hear of Enron? Predatory lending practices, now surely you have read about that recently.(I will give you that the borrower also shares blame in this)
4. Fair tax--no disagreement in needing overhaul. We may disagree on how.
5. 2nd Amendment--Did you forget the part about a "well regulated militia"? How about requiring all gun owners to be registered with the Armed Forces? I mean, if you want to be strict in your interpretation... (for the record, I do NOT support banning guns)
Mark
Sorry, I also meant to thank you for allowing comments on your blog--THANKS.
Among current Republican views, I'm particularly fond of Indiana Senator Richard Lugar's view of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels as a matter of national security.
CAFE standards have proven to be very successful at such weaning. If the standards put in place during the Carter administration hadn't been repealed under Reagan, we'd have rid ourselves of foreign oil interests with no additional domestic drilling twenty years ago. That would've made the country more autonomous, allowing for stronger negotiating power.
And yet, you trash them as damaging government intervention when the general public has proven unwilling to self regulate in favor of national security.
If national security is a major concern, why aren't individual Republican citizens leading a public drive for more less wasteful transportation?
"This nation has slowly evolved into a nanny state that resembles a socialist government in eastern Europe."
Er, these disappeared almost 20 years ago. Most are now integrated into the EU.
I think you are intending to say that Western European states are social democracies.
"If national security is a major concern, why aren't individual Republican citizens leading a public drive for more less wasteful transportation?"
(crickets chirping, pins dropping)
Because personal responsibility only sells as a political ploy when the person in question is someone else.
That's when you switch to the personal choice argument to distract attention from one's inability to answer.
Why won't more Democrat citizens push for using the oil in our own soil? That would sure help the poor with the fuel bill. How about "more less wasteful" spending? You gentleman know that I don't shy away from questions and I sure have the ability to answer. More less wasteful transportation will appear when the market needs it. Innovators will develop it when the cry gets loud enough. I'm all for it. Give me a 60mpg car - can't wait.
"Why won't more Democrat citizens push for using the oil in our own soil?"
Because it's not necessary. The success of the former bare minimum CAFE standards showed that. If a majority of people would take relatively minor steps to conserve, we wouldn't need foreign oil or additional drilling. It would also lower the price of fuel by decreasing demand.
It's worth noting here that when an individual chooses to drive a gas guzzler, they're not only choosing to pay increased costs themselves, but unnecessarily increasing demand and driving the price up for everyone.
Encouraging additional drilling, road construction, and national security expenditures to support expensive, inefficient, and unnecessary individual vehicle usage is the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism. By advocating for more responsible transportation, I AM calling for less wasteful spending, both publicly and privately.
"Innovators will develop it when the cry gets loud enough."
It was developed more than a century ago. Our transportation system is less sophisticated now than it was then, before "the market" scrapped it in favor of a more expensive, less efficient dependence on single occupancy vehicles and the massive tax funded infrastructure to make them workable. Time and again, experience has shown that increasing the size of that infrastructure just leads to increased usage of the least efficient means of transportation we have.
The public spends far more in taxes supporting that system than what is actually needed in order to provide efficient transportation. The return on that investment is that a small percentage of the population makes even more money while a majority is required to spend ever increasing portions of their income on taxes, vehicles, insurance and fuel just to get to work.
And you didn't answer my question: If national security is such a Republican concern and government intervention is bad, why aren't individual Republican citizens leading a public drive for the use of more efficient transportation?
Is there a large, grassroots Republican conservation movement of which I'm unaware?
Conservatives believe in being able to choose the transportation you desire. I believe the new CAFE standards passed with some Republican help, although I did not support it. The OPEC would be illegal in America and to make ourselves more secure we should use the resources we have. Mass transit does not work in America, unless you consider subsidies for Amtrak to be a success. Why do we have to change who we are as Americans? And yes there is a movement that you are unaware of, but you will be soon.
"Mass transit does not work in America, unless you consider subsidies for Amtrak to be a success. Why do we have to change who we are as Americans?"
Mass transit works in many areas in America and used to work in many more, including Louisville Metro, before we "changed who we are as Americans" to become a car centric culture.
Speaking of subsidy, outside of the military, there is no larger single tax dollar recipient in the entire country than our roads and highways. Why is it that Amtrak, which self-funds to a much higher degree than our auto roadways do, is always the target of criticism but the same principles never seem to apply to the interstate system?
Therein lies the rub: A lot of choices conservatives make lead directly to the situations they claim to abhor, not the least of which is higher taxes.
Their response all too often, rather than modifying those choices, is to expect the rest of the world to change to accommodate them. Everyone else should give up services or subsidy except for them. They take on an entitlement attitude that's often worse than the welfare mothers at whom they point fingers.
That's why the whole personal responsibility argument coming from some conservatives is so hypocritical.
Why is your comfort more important than someone else's comfort? How do you reconcile that with the teachings of Jesus, which espouse a philosophy 180 degrees opposite?
Besides, I always thought the promise of America had to do with seeking betterment. Your arguing for your own complacency as an ideal.
This is interesting reading...well almost. I'm a bit disgusted with all of this so Danny please excuse my random rants here.
I'm a conservative and I'd be interested in knowing how many of you use mass transit...or ride bicycles to work/shopping...or walk to work/shopping...or make/model of vehicle?
"If national security is a major concern, why aren't individual Republican citizens leading a public drive for more less wasteful transportation?"
Danny...I'm with you...I think we should be drilling in America. We would be if it weren't for the oil companies not wanting it. You see...if we drill for oil in the USA then this drives the price of oil down...and we can't have that, now can we.
Clean out those ears, guys! Have you not heard people complain about the concerns of the price of fuel lately? I have...and the dems don't own the rights to complaining about oil prices and wanting change! Instead people are whining to the government to fix it. It's when you get the government involved that you have problems and pay out the ear for it! Aim it at the source...the oil companies.
"Because personal responsibility only sells as a political ploy when the person in question is someone else."
For the life of me I don't understand why anyone thinks that the theory of suppressing people with government dependence is the way to go! If everyone would take personal responsibility and stop looking to the government for dependence then we'd all be better off. Government dependence is a socialists way of life.
One of the reasons I'm a republican is because I was taught, from the examples of my parents, to take responsibility and discipline (oh there's a rare word used!) for my own life and that of my family. Not asking for government hand outs while most able-bodied people work their hind-ends off and pay their taxes just to have the government hand it out to those who are brainwashed into thinking that the government is supposed to take care of them. Government social programs is a crippling theory and it doesn't work...and neither do the people on it. It's just a ploy to get dependent people to vote for the Dems...they have to...it's like a drug...they're dependent on government hand outs for their survival. I happen to know first hand employees who are on welfare and will only work the amount of hours required by law in order to get paid and keep drawing those welfare checks! They turn down overtime because they'll earn too much money. Is the government stopping this fraud? Nahhh... Why!? Once again...Government dependence. Those dems can't rock that boat or they won't get the vote!
And while I'm on the subject of Dems...
I'm 50% owner of a company for 26 years and I simply do not understand how any successful entrepreneur could be a dem! Most entrepreneurs, that I know, are Republicans. Why!? Because the dems tax the socks off of small and large businesses. Why? Redistribution of wealth...gee...more socialism, huh! Large tax bills stiffle companies from expanding. Lack of expansion hinders new hires.
mil,
I have been around business owners and executives most of my life. I've seen their version of personal responsibility. After complaining about about all the welfare cheats they then buy tickets to a concert, put down on the expense form that they are taking a client and then take their next door neighbor. Nice deduction. Then call their lawyer to find a way to get their parent's money "sheltered" so the government has to pay for their elder care and keeps their inheritance intact.
When asked about these practices, almost always the answer is, "I pay more than my share of taxes."
While I don't know who you are and certainly not every owner/executive do these things, the majority, by far, that I have known do.
IAH has gotten to the gist of it:
When a person or business has to pay for someone else, they're against it. When someone else pays for them, they're for it. People complain about welfare mothers and then accept and/or depend on government subsidy just like them.
When the government subsidizes oil companies, they gladly accept it. When the government tries to regulate or tax oil companies, they scream about the free market. It's a joke.
There's no moral high ground in enacting a philosophy of "giving is bad, taking is good". Trying to justify it with Christianity, as some do, makes such claims all the more ridiculous.
Ahh, the Christianity concepts and the teachings of Christ. Bluegill seems obsessed. I will respond in full when time allows, but when did this become about Christian ethics? It's no secret that I'm a Christian, and no secret that you are a humanist. Let's stick to policy, not theology.
"...but when did this become about Christian ethics?"
I've no desire to debate religion with you.
You mentioned life being a gift from God as the basis for what you called the "most important conviction" in the conservative movement. Now you ask that policy and theology be held separate.
Pick one, and we can stick to it.
MIL wrote:
I'm a conservative and I'd be interested in knowing how many of you use mass transit...or ride bicycles to work/shopping...or walk to work/shopping...or make/model of vehicle?
Sorry to disappoint, but I do ride a bike (or walk) to work as much as possible. The reason I'm able to do so is because the distance is short. The reason the distance is short is that we've planned our settlement pattern accordingly, or, in essence, taken a measure of personal responsibility, which I'm being told is the exclusive province of Republicans.
And yet ...
I'm 50% owner of a company for 26 years and I simply do not understand how any successful entrepreneur could be a dem!
I'm a 33.3% owner of a company for almost 16 years and I simply do not understand why party affiliation matters. My hunch would be that entrepreneurial talents are value-neutral in the sense of the skill sets required to succeed.
I'm not sure of the skill sets required to conclude from a poster of Chairman Mao that the poster's owner is a Communist, but what surprises me is that leftists seldom assume that when they see the poster for the first time.
Right wingers, however, often do.
Something about subtlety in perception, but I'll let it go.
"The reason the distance is short is that we've planned our settlement pattern accordingly, or, in essence, taken a measure of personal responsibility, which I'm being told is the exclusive province of Republicans."
That's exactly it. That decision affects issues other than pure transportation costs as well. We're within walking distance of police and fire headquarters, K-12 schools, the sewer plant, and public works departments.
Our lifestyle requires less public subsidy than do many others in the exurb because we consciously choose to live in a way that saves money and resources, both private and public, and they choose to do otherwise.
Based on free market principles, should I get a tax break or should Daniel pay a higher rate?
First of all let me set the record straight, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY SITUATION! To not think so would be ridiculous!
Re: Hoosier
As I stated, I've helped run a successful business, THANKS BE TO GOD!, for 26 years. I have also been around business owners all of my life. My father was a successful business owner. We all know there are exceptions to every situation. I don't know what business owners/execs you've been around but I do know that the ones I've known are/were hard working, responsible people. If a company is going to be successful then they have to take care of their employees, customers and vendors.
After complaining about about all the welfare cheats they then buy tickets to a concert, put down on the expense form that they are taking a client and then take their next door neighbor. Nice deduction. Then call their lawyer to find a way to get their parent's money "sheltered" so the government has to pay for their elder care and keeps their inheritance intact.
Welfare cheats is inexcusable under any circumstances...and two wrongs don't make a right! I don't excuse practices like these and neither would any other responsible enterpreneur. Speaking about inheritance...why in the world should the government be taxing inheritance anyway!? The parents paid on this money then the government comes back and taxes it again. Double taxation!
When asked about these practices, almost always the answer is, "I pay more than my share of taxes."
I understand the statement about; I pay more than my share of taxes. As I said before (sigh!)...the taxes a company pays to the city, county, state and federal government is overwhelming to a successful enterpreneur. This person will sacrifice a large percentage of his/her pay, for many years, in order to pay these taxes and be able to expand the business (which must be done in order to compete). Then when the day comes that all of these sacrifices (low or no pay, little or no vacations, 70-80 hrs work a week, families at time put on the back burner in order to get the business off the ground) pays off and they are FINALLY able to reap the rewards for themselves...well that's when people like yourselves start singing the class envy song. It's sickening. People ignore their hard work and sacrifices and only see their hard earned rewards.
certainly not every owner/executive do these things, the majority, by far, that I have known do.
It sounds to me like maybe you have business friends in low places.
Sorry to disappoint, but I do ride a bike (or walk)
But you don't say if you ride the bike to run your weekly chores. Do you own a vehicle? If so...tell us about it. :)
That seems to be a way-out-there assumption, Hoosier, especially in the USA! If I saw the poster of Chairman Mao I would simply wonder about the motives of this person. I can't speak for anyone else.
Re: Bluegill
When a person or business has to pay for someone else, they're against it. When someone else pays for them, they're for it. People complain about welfare mothers and then accept and/or depend on government subsidy just like them.
I have no earthly idea what you're babbling on about here! If an employer will gladly hire these people, give them good wages AND health, dental, eye insurance, in exchange for their labors, then why should he/she be collecting welfare from our government too?
I'll say it again, I happen to know, first hand, employees who are on welfare and will only work the amount of hours required by law in order to get paid and keep drawing those welfare checks! They turn down overtime because they'll earn too much money.
There's no moral high ground in enacting a philosophy of "giving is bad, taking is good". Trying to justify it with Christianity, as some do, makes such claims all the more ridiculous.
Over taxation is one of the reasons that America broke away from England. At what point do we say enough is enough?
Start your own business then come back in 10 years and talk to us about it. In other words...walk a mile in our shoes, friend!
Oh...I almost forgot!
While asking you questions about YOUR transportation mode I neglected to add that I do NOT live in the burbs...I live in the city...and I drive a hybrid.
Very first thing, I was not the one who wrote about Chairman Mao although I do agree with the writer's premise.
A little of my own background. I am the the VP of a wholesale distribution business with sales exceeding 30 million and employing approximately 45. My father was a small business owner(sawmill and farmer)and he ate breakfast every morning with people in insurance, manufacturing, exec's from the local General Electric plant, etc. What a thrill to go with Dad to breakfast when I was old enough. As I got even older, I started to understand what these people were saying. I have seen and heard it, repeatedly, over the past 35 years since graduating college. I was here 23 years ago when we started this business. We hand wrote every ticket and then manually figured the gross profit on each ticket. I know all about long hours and such. Now to some of your other responses.
The inheritance tax is not necessarily double taxation. You should know better than to make that statement. You buy an asset, say a $10,000 worth of stock, and you hold it for a number of years. You pass away and the stock goes to your son/daughter and it is worth $100,000 the day you pass. Your son/daughter's cost basis for the $100,000 stock is $100,000. If you had sold it the day before you died, there would have been capital gain taxes due on $90,000. There will NEVER be taxes paid on that $90,000 gain. That does not look like double taxation to me. Matter of fact, it looks like NO taxation to me. And all of this is not even getting into the exemptions. Usually, most of the "money" above the inheritance exemption is in assets, such as I have described.
We do agree, a welfare cheater, is inexcusable. I never said, nor thought, any different. Sounds to me, though, that you ARE excusing the "tax cheat" who says that they pay more than their share of taxes to justify their cheating. When is a lie not a lie?
Also, I was not the one who wrote about biking and walking. You might consider reading a little closer. So far, you are wrong about Mao, biking and walking, inheritance taxes... but who's counting. ;-)
Who is counting? You are and so am I!
Sounds to me, though, that you ARE excusing the "tax cheat" who says that they pay more than their share of taxes to justify their cheating.
You need to read a bit closely also...and NOT make idiotic assumptions!
I never said I excused the "tax cheat" and I do not nor have I ever excused such actions! THAT is a bad assumption on your part!
You don't need to assume anything where I'm concerned. I make myself perfectly clear. Assuming that you know what another person is thinking to win your argument can bite you in the behind and isn't that what bluegill was doing when he referred to his Chairman Mao scenario? Darn! I believe you've slipped into his trap.
I apologize for mixing up your opinions with those of bluegill. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference.
This is not an assumption--it was not Bluegill who made the Mao comment either.(We will write this one off to you just having a bad day)
I too apologize for my idiotic assumption on the tax cheat. How I ever read that wrong I will never understand:
"I understand the statement about; I pay more than my share of taxes..."
It's obvious that you were thrashing that tax cheat.(yeah, it's sarcasm)
Instead of "dancing" let's try this. The welfare cheat and the tax cheat are both equally guilty of stealing from the rest of us. Agreed?
No more comments on the inheritance tax?
Thank God...you FINALLY got it! yes it's sarcasm.
No, I don't have anymore comments about any of this. I've said what I wanted to say...you've responded. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on most of our points here.
There's no sense in trying to beat a dead horse. ;-)
I understand, time is short supply for all of us. Although, I do find it interesting that you "quit" before agreeing that a tax cheater is equally as bad as a welfare cheater. Are we agreeing to disagree on that?
You're right, that horse ain't moved!! ;-)
You're prodding again. I did state my views...read 'em c l o s e l y.
My mistake...I don't think your horse is a horse at all. I think it's a jackass. :-)
Jack,
Thanks for another thing that we can agree on.
I'm actually the one who wrote about bicycles and Mao.
In addition to the bike, I own a 1985 Ford f-150 that I drive as little as possible, but certainly use when stocking up on kitty litter.
Chores that can be done by bike or walking are done by bike or walking.
I'm doing my bit, in this and in other ways.
Now, c'mon guys - entertainme some more.
Post a Comment