Sponsored
Links |
|
George B
Plano, TX
Posts: 6 Events: 101
|
Over the last several election cycles I've been a volunteer for the Pete Sessions congressional campaigns and also helped the Dallas County Republican Party; Generally good people, but for the 2008 election cycle I'd like to have more influence over policy than just a "lesser of two evils" Southpark Douche vs. Turd election choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd What I really want is to pay less taxes and get less government in return.In an article titled The Leadership Myth, Arnold Kling wrote "The conventional wisdom is that we would be better off if politically powerful leaders were less mediocre. Instead, my view is that we would be better off if mediocre political leaders were less powerful." http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102406A I would be interested in meeting other people who share similar views and want to work for more limited government.George |
Mike K
Allen, TX
Posts: 371 Events: 226
|
George,
It was nice to see you today at lunch.
I do agree with you that the government should be as small as possible.
I used to think that the republican party represented that and before 96 I used to be a republican. I volunteered in Phil Gram's election.. But switched to the democratic party in the middle of the Clinton years because I saw a Democratic president who was balancing the budget, cutting spending, and the economy was doing great.
I somewhat agree with you that the politicians from both parties are not really for smaller government because once they get elected they try to spend on their pet issues and pass laws to favor their value system.
When you pick between the two parties it is somewhat picking the one that can do less damage. so I can say that the republican party scares me more than the democratic party in that they can do more damage in the laws they pass, the judges they appoint,
From the republican side I worry about tolerance between people that are different (immigrants, different races, different religions). I worry about the environment. I worry about their relationship to oil companies and oil producing countries. I worry about excessive spending and deficit, I worry about conservative judges that take away rights of privacy, choice, other basic rights.
From the democrats I worry that they may revert to excess spending. Bill Clinton was the first democrat to cut spending and balance budget. I worry about some anti business practices like what happened with Microsoft, I worry about restricting free trade
But overall i still worry a lot more about the damage that Republicans can do.
|
George B
Plano, TX
Posts: 6 Events: 101
|
Name one Democrat that acts in a way that would lead one to believe that he or she believes in smaller more limited government.
From the mid-80s through 2002 many people in North Texas were represented by Republicans Phil Gramm in the Senate and Dick Armey in the House. Both pushed through laws that helped limit congressional spending. Gramm Rudmann used the threat of automatic across the board budget cuts to keep the issue of budget deficits on the front burner for several years in a row. Dick Armey introduced the bill that created the base closing commission, closing many redundant military installations over the years.
I doubt that balanced budgets would have happened during the Clinton Presidency without the constraints imposed by House Republicans following the 1994 elections. Note that the tax rate on long-term capital gains was reduced to 20% in 1997 in spite of Clinton and the budget still came into balance.
Mike, I have not met "the republican side" that you worry about. Individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups are actively welcomed into the Republican party as individuals. However, Republicans tend to reject racial and ethnic identity politics. Republicans tend to believe that Judeo-Christian values provide the general moral underpinning for Western Civilization and our laws. Republicans will not tolerate murder by radical Islam, but Hindus, Buddhists, and others not trying to kill us are a non-issue. Regarding conservative judges, Republicans want judges that respect rights actually written in the constitution and the bill of rights without making up new rights that are not. Constitutional amendments, not judicial activism, it the correct way to add privacy rights or remove political speech or gun ownership rights. Republicans are split on the issue of abortion, so overturning Roe v. Wade results in a patchwork of different state restrictions on abortions, not a ban.
|
Mike K
Allen, TX
Posts: 371 Events: 226
|
OK,
I will try to answer the issues you mentioned above:
> Name one Democrat that acts in a way that would lead one to believe
> that he or she believes in smaller more limited government.
Bill Clinton, balanced the budget and created a surplus, He reformed and decreased spending on welfare He did not raise taxes.
> From the mid-80s through 2002 many people in North Texas
> were represented by Republicans Phil Gramm in the Senate
> and Dick Armey in the House. Both pushed through laws
> that helped limit congressional spending.
in the 80's and Early 90's I used to be a republican. I mentioned in my previous post that I volunteered in the Phil Graham campaign. In the last 6 years though, a Republican president and a Republican congress have created record deficits. how can you, being an advocate for small government, be OK with that.
As far as the last paragraph and the fear issue. let me give you some examples.
First I don't think that anybody would advocate that we would tolerate people trying to kill us. I hope you did not understand that from my comments. I lived in Lebanon during the war between the Christians and the Muslims for 13 years and I have been exposed more than a lot of other people to the dangers of religious fanaticism and the wars it creates. our village was attacked during the war because it was a Christian village and many people were killed. My family had to run away and we became refugees. I was 8 years old when that happened. I came to the States to be part of a stronger country that can defend itself. and I don't think that the Democrats are just going to let the terrorists kill us
But here are examples of the things that do scare me:
A few month ago the Republicans in Congress were trying to pass a law that would make it a felony to help or aid an illegal immigrant. That sounds nice until you realize that there are thousands of people who are taking care of parents or family members that are not legal. That would take thousand of hard working legal immigrants and make them felons overnight just for taking care of their parents. their choice would be to either throw their parents on the street or become felons. The Republicans tend to deal in absolutes and they don't see gray.
When I read the Bible I see things about tolerance and love and helping people who are weaker. The republicans have been blocking laws that would make "private" health insurance available to the 43 million people who are not insured. and I am not talking about universal health care here. I am talking about making laws that would provide private insurance to people at reasonable (pool based) prices. there are programs like that in some states and they do decrease the number of uninsured, and they decrease the number of poor people who use the emergency room as a clinic.
Until 3 years ago. if you get a job in Texas you could automatically enroll in the health plan that your company provides without health checks and you would be covered. Gov Perry and the Republican Government in Austin passed a law 3 years ago that makes you show proof of continual coverage for the last 18 month before you get accepted into a work health plan. that way insurance companies now have a mechanism to reject new employees from a plan or reject existing conditions.
If your glasses get scratched or you break them you used to be able to go to the store and buy new ones. they would measure your old glasses and make you new ones. 3 years ago, a new law was passed that makes you have to see an doctor and get a prescription every time you get new glasses. another change in law by the Republicans to favor a group that contributes to their funding at the expense of civil liberty.
The 2 examples above happened to me personally. there are hundreds of other examples of catering to lobby groups and changing laws that take away rights. I am not really looking for additional rights. I am just worried about losing the ones we have.
there is nothing in the constitution that is stated clearly about health care or insurance companies or doctors or oil companies and yet legislators make detailed laws and judges approve them all the time without any constitutional reference.
All these types of laws, even though they are not related to government spending and budget do limit personal rights and remove "freedom" or "liberty" for individuals. and Republicans are passing hundreds of them is states and in the federal government.
|
George B
Plano, TX
Posts: 6 Events: 101
|
Long post, but I'd like to correct a few items.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was clearly a tax increase. Vice President Al Gore cast tie breaking votes both in the senate and House/Senate conference. This bill could not have passed without active support from Bill Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993
Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he signed a bill from the Republican Congress in 1996. This legislation was part of the Contract with America. Congressmen John Kasich, Clay Shaw, Jim Talent, etc. did the heavy lifting to get this done.
Both parties propose stupid legislation, but often bills that pass the US House overreach for tactical reasons. 1) Sometimes the House goes too far so they have something to give up in conference with the Senate. 2) Sometimes the House just send bills through the system that they know will not become law just so they can pretend that they did something.
Parts of H.R. 4437 Sensenbrenner immigration bill went to far for reasons listed above. They were also trying to do something about the people who smuggle illegal immigrants into the US, so they may have just done a very bad job of writing that part of the bill.
|
Mike K
Allen, TX
Posts: 371 Events: 226
|
George,
I agree with you on the immigration bill. its good that there was reasonable people who finally shut this bill down. Illegal immigrant smugglers should definitely be stopped by law enforcement. But I think that there are existing laws that can be enforced to stop them. The bill was just too aggressive and affected thousands of legal immigrants.
About the welfare bill. Bill Clinton was for welfare reform. he ran on it, he had a lot of speeches on it and he did pass it. The fact that he vetoed some earlier versions of it, was because he wanted some changes made. you just mentioned how sometimes Congress goes too far on some bills for tactical reasons. and the system eventually balances things out. and the veto is part of that balance.
|