View Poll Results: Republican or Democrat?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • Republican

    30 38.96%
  • Democrat

    32 41.56%
  • Other

    15 19.48%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 94
  1. #61  
    why because somehow 2 1/2 years later it is relavent?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #62  
    Not that it is relevant, but because it was interesting when I started it back up it was 16-16-7. I Would like to see how this divies up these days, 2 and 3/4 years later. The poll was the main thing I was interested in.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I thought I would revive this thread.
    Great. I voted Other. I think its too easy to get pigeonholed into one platform or another.

    I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal and personally conservative.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Great. I voted Other. I think its too easy to get pigeonholed into one platform or another.

    I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal and personally conservative.
    You are almost right along the same lines as me.
  5. #65  
    Independent with Democratic leanings. But if the Repubilcan party stopped bowing to the ultra right wing of the party, especially right wing Christian conservatives, and got back to its roots in fiscal conservatism (i.e., not spending trillions of dollars more than you take in) I could easily swing more toward the Republican party.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Great. I voted Other. I think its too easy to get pigeonholed into one platform or another.

    I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal and personally conservative.

    So how much should one spend on social services before it becomes fiscally liberal?

    Why not let federal government spend our money on defense (of our country) and leave the socially liberal policies up to charitable organizations and individual states?
  7. #67  
    If I were President...

    Quote Originally Posted by burnout
    So how much should one spend on social services before it becomes fiscally liberal?
    I don't know what that limit would be. When money is spent, you have to examine your goals, income and expenditures to determine 'how' much something should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by burnout
    Why not let federal government spend our money on defense (of our country) and leave the socially liberal policies up to charitable organizations and individual states?
    I do think we should spend more money on defense but probably not as much as you might advocate. Our military people are not paid enough for what they do...I would start there along with more/better equipment. But part of the issue for me is how we are utilizing them (I would have a much more restrictive foreign policy...it would be more liberal than conservative). We wouldnt be the 'police' of the world. I would require more multilateral work versus unilateralism.

    If we left the social liberal [policies?-I wouldnt want that because then everything would be ultra conservative if left just to the charitable organizations which are typically religious]spending policies up to charitable organizations and the states, I think most 'poor' people would be ignored for the following reasons:

    1. poor people dont typically vote
    2. states dont get all the money that they give to the federal government...if they got that money, more than likely they would use it for support infrastructure like roads, more transportation options, job development, increased trade, etc...down at the bottom of the policy ladder would be to help the poor.
    3. charitable organizations do help the poor but you don't see a lot of poor in church...to get to them you need to have large outreach programs.

    I think if we looked 'long term' it would be in our best interests (financially) to make sure that we had health care (especially for all children), solid retirement, increased education opportunities, vocational training, etc. If we invest now, the payoffs down the road would more than offset the upfront costs.

    Typically though...we dont think long term.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by burnout
    So how much should one spend on social services before it becomes fiscally liberal?
    I really don't think there really is a fiscally conservative or fiscally liberal, just fiscally responsible and fiscally irresponsible. When the government is paying out more than it takes in you have a fiscally irresponsible government.



    Quote Originally Posted by burnout
    Why not let federal government spend our money on defense (of our country) and leave the socially liberal policies up to charitable organizations and individual states?
    There is slight problem with this. As good as it sounds, the private sector and states cannot handle all that is entailed with taking care of some of people (i.e. SS, welfare, medicare, etc.). Just one example would be to take health care and let the government be responsible for it. I say this because if we look at it in the bigger picture it would take alot of weight off companies that are now paying for health insurance. If we just look at Eastman/Kodak we would see that their total cost to supply healthcare benefits to their employees was in the neighborhood of $650 Million. Imagine the savings to these companies. I would think this would help our economy greatly. In turn by getting healthcare costs off the companies small and large in the US we could tax these companies a little more. The government would be sole insurer and therefore, could then force down the costs of healthcare. Just a thought.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    If we just look at Eastman/Kodak we would see that their total cost to supply healthcare benefits to their employees was in the neighborhood of $650 Million. Imagine the savings to these companies. I would think this would help our economy greatly. In turn by getting healthcare costs off the companies small and large in the US we could tax these companies a little more. The government would be sole insurer and therefore, could then force down the costs of healthcare. Just a thought.
    In doing so, how do you feel the actual cost for the same coverage would change? My primary concern with health care being Gov. run is an extreme ballooning of costs due to the ability to politicize it....
  10. #70  
    Dems are the future
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    In doing so, how do you feel the actual cost for the same coverage would change? My primary concern with health care being Gov. run is an extreme ballooning of costs due to the ability to politicize it....
    The cost for same coverage would be driven done by doctors not taken losses on uninsured patients and being able drive down costs because the govenment would be the SOLE PROVIDER, just to name a few.

    You think this one needs a new thread?
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Oops
    Dems are the future
    Americans are the future not just Dems or Repubs.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The cost for same coverage would be driven done by doctors not taken losses on uninsured patients and being able drive down costs because the govenment would be the SOLE PROVIDER, just to name a few.

    You think this one needs a new thread?
    Could be - seems like a pretty healthy discussion (no pun intended) in and of itself
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Americans are the future not just Dems or Repubs.
    Amen Brother!
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I really don't think there really is a fiscally conservative or fiscally liberal, just fiscally responsible and fiscally irresponsible.
    I agree, the ballooning deficit worries me. I am not sure why it does not worry other people.

    Also occurring on the same exponential scale is the rising gap between the rich and poor. This seems fiscally irresponsible too, if you don't take my word for it, you can hear it from Alan Greenspan:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...p_x.htm?csp=34
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I agree, the ballooning deficit worries me. I am not sure why it does not worry other people.
    Personally, it does worry me but I don't feel we have enough data to judge whether or not it will truly be a problem until the economy fully recovers.

    Keep in mind, the same sky is falling mentality existed during the Regan years but the economic boom later not only eliminated the deficit but provided a surplus until the next economic cycle (the one we're currently in) started.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Personally, it does worry me but I don't feel we have enough data to judge whether or not it will truly be a problem until the economy fully recovers.

    Keep in mind, the same sky is falling mentality existed during the Regan years but the economic boom later not only eliminated the deficit but provided a surplus until the next economic cycle (the one we're currently in) started.
    It seems that I am always hearing from the white house that the economy is so good now under Bush. But only outside of the context of the rising deficit, when the deficit is brought up, the economy is not so good.

    The technology boom that we were fortunate enough to experience under Clinton bailed us out of the mess last time and now the deficit under Bush is more than double what it was any time under Reagan.

    Because it seems that the GOP plan is to keep cutting taxes as a solution for everything, any reasonable person who has no idea how we will get out of this hole would be entitled to at least some concern.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    any reasonable person who has no idea how we will get out of this hole would be entitled to at least some concern.
    I would agree with this, any reasonable person would have some concern.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Personally, it does worry me but I don't feel we have enough data to judge whether or not it will truly be a problem until the economy fully recovers.

    Keep in mind, the same sky is falling mentality existed during the Regan years but the economic boom later not only eliminated the deficit but provided a surplus until the next economic cycle (the one we're currently in) started.
    The sky may not be falling but it is getting closer. The devaluation of the dollar is one prime example to me.
  20. #80  
    Devaluation as compared to? And over what time frame? Seems to me against the Euro we've seem significant improvement?
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions