Why I am a Disgruntled Democrat

[Iceman]

I don't post much in this forum, primarily because I simply do not have the time to debate all of the issues. However, to clarify where I sit politically I am writing this post. I have spent a good deal of time thinking about this and documenting this so â?¦ if you skim what I have written â?¦ STFU and go away â?¦ I have no patience for you. If you take the time to read this and try to understand why I am sitting where I am then I will do the same for you â?¦ I encourage you to enlighten me of your point of view.

Why am I a disgruntled democrat?

Well to answer that question I have to describe why I consider myself a democrat in the first place.

a) I was born during the civil rights era, missing 1961 by a few days. My father was the precinct chairman for the Democratic Party in Tarrant County Texas (Fort Worth TX and vicinity). I was raised to believe that all people white/black/yellow/male/female/etc... were due certain 'unalienable rights' regardless of their region of birth, age, or religious beliefs. I grew up holding signs in protest demanding that all people be given such rights regardless of their nature. The Democratic Party heralded these principles and fought hard to pass laws to guarantee these rights.

b) I was taught at an early age about Keynsian supply side economics ... That it was a good idea for the government to borrow money during recessions and to use it to stimulate the economy and that during the good times the government should focus on repaying the debt in preparation for the next recession. The Democratic Party understood these principles at that time and sought to put them into practice.

c) I was born during the height of the cold war and lived in fear of being nuked. I was taught that our nation needed to present an image of strength ... so strong that nobody dared try to launch a single RV at our homeland. The Democratic Party at that time understood this principle and was committed to doing just that. John F. Kennedy was a prime example of such as he puffed out his chest and scared the bejeebus out of the Soviets and Cuba ... He refused to back down and showed extreme courage in the face of a nearly hopeless situation. He made America proud ... He brought us back from the brink of nuclear destruction.

d) I was taught that the key to a strong, stable, and successful country was the family. That by strengthening the family we added stability to all of our relationships, reduced crime, and reduced poverty. Having a strong family fosters a sense of hope and a belief that no matter how bad our problems get, they can be dealt with successfully. When I was a child the Democratic Party was focused on just that â?¦ strengthening the family.

Now â?¦ decades later â?¦ I see the Democratic Party consistently going against the very principles that made me believe in them when I was younger â?¦ I see the other party following some of these principles but I am unable to cross the line and consider myself â??one of themâ?? for several reasons â?¦ I wonâ??t go into these reasons in this thread â?¦ That is another topic altogether.

a) I see the Democratic Party use the race card and related programs as a form of â??voter cocaineâ??. They convince the people that they need such and use it as a way to manipulate the voters into voting for them â?¦ thereby preserving their power base. The result of this is that two full generations of the â??underprivileged poorâ?? have been raised believing that all of their problems are someone elseâ??s fault. They have no incentive to do anything about their problems and as such, the cycle of dependence and poverty continues. In contrast I see the other party as a group that is essentially colorblind. They are certainly NOT focused on making any reparations for the mistakes of the past but they operate on a normal basis without regard to race â?¦ Take for example the current administration: There are 3 blacks on the top level staff. W selected them solely on their abilities and never gave a thought to their color. This type of attitude is essentially the goal that the Democratic Party claimed they wanted in the 60â??s â?¦ â??To work towards the elimination of prejudice and discrimination within the community and societyâ?

[Vertigo 99]

You're a republican.

[Iceman]

LOL!

[Avder]

Ok, so what do you explicitly disagree with regarding the republican party?

[Iceman]

Once again, that is a topic for another thread. Read the above SKIMMER!

[CDN_Merlin]

Iceman, very well written. I'm not a follower of any political party (in Canada) but I can understand your fustrations. What you are experiencing is called, ready for this? "politics". They lie to you so you vote for them and once they are in power, they do what they want.

This is one of the reasons I've only voted twice in 16 yrs. Why vote for either party of they are both evil? In Canada, we have about 5 parties to choose from unlike the US but the only 2 that always win are the Liberals & Conservatives.

I am presently working in the Federal Gov't (Foreign Affairs Canada) and it disgusts me to see how much money is wasted on useless things. I know this is part of life but if we could manage the $$ better, our countries would be better off.

[Birdseye]

I was taught at an early age about supply side economics ... That it was a good idea for the government to borrow money during recessions and to use it to stimulate the economy and that during the good times the government should focus on repaying the debt in preparation for the next recession. The Democratic Party understood these principles at that time and sought to put them into practice.

That's not supply side economics. You are talking about Keynsian economics in general, which both parties are terrible at. SS economics was first tried in a large scale by Reagan in the 1980s. He massively increased military spending and gave a large tax cut at the same time.

Tax cuts to stimulate the economy are not supply side economics. That is called Keynsian economics. Supply side economics is a form of Keynsian stimulation of the economy where conservatives believe giving a greater portion in terms of total dollars to the rich will help the economy more than giving more to poorer people (in popular perception--SS also refers to a broader policy that comes out of post depression monetarist views). In terms of immediate/short effects, simple math proves the supply-siders less efficient (short run effects are simplified as marginal spending X keynsian multiplier). Supply siders argue for a effects that don't happen immediately, but Supply-side economists seek a cause and effect relationship between lowering marginal rates on capital formation and economic expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Read the whole thing. USA Monetary history section at the bottom is the best.

see the Democratic Party continually claim that the other party is irresponsible because of the deficit spending and large debt our country has accumulated. They complain because the other party insists on cutting taxes and try to make it look like these tax cuts are for the rich alone.

Well, it isn't just the democratic party. There are actually a lot of conservatives, libertarians, and greens who are concerned about it. I wouldn't have a problem with supply side economics, although it is a more inefficient way to stimulate the economy than a demand side cut (marginal spending X Keynsian multiplier) if they actually had offsetting spending decreases.

I see less money taken from my (already raped) paycheck, my boss (yes he is rich) gives me large bonuses because he can afford them, and I see many companies invest those savings in their companyâ??s futures â?¦ essentially making them stronger and more able to employee people on a long term basis. My father, the died-in-the-wool Democrat, pounded these ideas into my head when I was a child. Now the Democratic Party, instead of following their original precepts, use it as a way to make the other party look bad

I hate to burst your bubble, but the democratic party never advocated supply side cuts. Kennedy's cut in his term was demand side.

Also interesting that you criticize the democrats about no plan to reduce the deficit, but the republicans created most of our modern debt so maybe they should've had a plan for all of it at the time? Call me crazy. Anyway, GWB had a projected surplus in 2000 and chose tax cut. Irresponsible as hell, but he did it. Nobody is paying the debt down, dems or repubs.

psychologists have shown over and over that having a solid (heterosexual) family increases the chances of children developing into healthy, functional adults by orders of magnitude.

Sounds interesting. Please refer me to the multiple studies you read.

[Avder]

Once again, that is a topic for another thread. Read the above SKIMMER!

I read the whole post, Ice, and I agree with a lot of what you said. However, based on what you disagree with the democrats about and with the absense of disagreements with the republican party, and given your previous posts, I would have to place you somewhere within the Republican spectrum of politics.

Thats why I'd like to see your view on current republican vision and what you agree/disagree with it.

[Iceman]

[edited 3x]

Birds:

thanks for correcting my erroneous labeling of the SS and Keynsian economics and for helping to educate me. I will certainly read the article on econ. I disagree with you on the "conservatives believe giving a greater portion in terms of total dollars to the rich will help the economy more than giving more to poorer" part. What I see is an attempt to spur commerce through tax cuts (hence more working capital) and that is what I was taught (possibly erroneously) was the key to economic stimulation. I also disagree with you on the intent of the democrats to reduce the deficit. I see an attitude of "spend, spend, spend, and tax, tax, tax" from that side and that bothers me ... such was my point. As far as the multiple studies I will look for the material and present it if I can. I heard at least some of it from Dr. Laura Schlessinger and some of it from Dr. James Dobson. Like them or not, they presented fairly convincing arguments to this point.

Vader:

I might do that ... and soon. I will say that a big part of my dislike for republican philosophy is an unwillingness to assist those in need that are willing to help themselves. This particular unwillingness is highly contradictory to what I believe is right. Another part is the complete failure of the republican party to acknowledge the need for paying down the national debt during the 'good times'. However, I am venting right now. Venting because the fundamental values my father taught me and what I saw championed early on in the democratic party seem to have been forgotten. I have rebelled against the democratic party for a long time because of this and I have voted for republicans frequently in protest. I am trying to be open minded and find a good reason to come back to my roots. If the democratic party will come up with a person of character that is willing to take the party back to its roots, I will be posting here in their favor and will go to the polls to vote for them in a heartbeat. In the meantime please don't label me a republican ... I certainly don't feel like one.

[Birdseye]

I disagree with you on the "conservatives believe giving a greater portion in terms of total dollars to the rich will help the economy more than giving more to poorer" part. What I see is an attempt to spur commerce through tax cuts (hence more working capital) and that is what I was taught (possibly erroneously) was the key to economic stimulation. I also disagree with you on the intent of the democrats to reduce the deficit. I see an attitude of "spend, spend, spend, and tax, tax, tax" from that side and that bothers me ... such was my point. As far as the multiple studies I will look for the material and present it if I can. I heard at least some of it from Dr. Laura Schlessinger and some of it from Dr. James Dobson. Like them or not, they presented fairly convincing arguments to this point.

Well, the government has two ways of spurring the economy: fiscal and monetary policy. Google monetary policy, fiscal is what we're talking about. John Maynard Keynes proposed new ways for governments to smooth the business cycle in the depression era. To summarize, dominant economists from his ideas now believe that government can smooth the cycle by using different methods which include spending (yes, spending can stimulate the economy) and cutting taxes.

You can fund scientists, engineers, and universities to theoretically build the economy. Technological increases in a way can be thought of as a public good. Some obstacles are so large that it takes someone to get the ball rolling on technology that will end up benefitting everyone but the starter will lose.

Manipulating taxes are thought of as a stimulative way to smooth the cycle in times of bust. The idea is during a deficit to cut taxes to put money in people's pockets so that spending won't dip. Businesses need consumer confidence up and people not to fear the recession and change their spending habits. A demand side cut addresses this issue very well, meaning give a greate total proportion of the cut to those with a high MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume, meaning if you are given $1 how much do spend of that dollar? Poor spend more). Conservatives propose a tax cut where a greater total proportion of the dollars go to wealthy individuals. Their idea is that businesses will then suddenly decide to hire people, build new things, etc. Its a neat idea but I never saw any of the famed economic boom turn up for how much was spent. It certainly has a positive effect, but I don't consider it as efficient.

I think a better way to do it is to use both--create good business environments by keeping taxes lower on *businesses* not necesarilly on the richer income tax brackets for the supply end. On the demand end, keep money in pockets with those consumers with the high MPC. This stabilizes consumer confidence and keep cash registers ringing. Businesses always do better with consumers buying, so we have to worry about that as well as keeping good business environements.

The funny thing about the Reagan and Bush tax cuts is that they are tax loans. If you have to borrow to cut taxes, you're just going to have to pay back . I argue that in the long term, supply side economics without offsetting spending cuts is actually worse than doing nothin. We'll be paying back the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for years, and with interest. Every dollar cut is going to be replaced--with money by us, the tax payers. It's great and all to want businesses to expand etc. but we're going to now have to go through some rough times on the budget to pay for it. The % of the budget that goes to paying off debt is money in the toilet. Government waste and inefficiency.

The best tax cut right now is paying off the deficit. We're fighting a war on terror "for the future" but our economic policies are the exact opposite. Social security is going to be a mess soon, and with the deficit and debt in the tank now is the time to get things in control. Call it a pre-emptive strike

[Sirian]

The GOP is a big tent. There's room for you there, Iceman. However, there is probably more need for you on the Democratic side. Democrats have a proud tradition and important principles. I wish you luck in your desire to "return home". Or perhaps, your longing for the party to come home to you, since you haven't changed. They are the ones who have changed.

- Sirian

[Dedman]

The GOP is a big tent. There's room for you there, Iceman. However, there is probably more need for you on the Democratic side. Democrats have a proud tradition and important principles. I wish you luck in your desire to "return home". Or perhaps, your longing for the party to come home to you, since you haven't changed. They are the ones who have changed.

- Sirian

That's a good way of putting it Sirian. It's kind of how I feel.

[Avder]

Or perhaps the best course of action would be to find a party that actually echos a lot of your ideals, or to start one. I personally dont consider myself a democrat either because I disagree with a lot of their policies, but dont consider myself a republican either because I disagree even more with thier current policies and their direction. For me, its a choise between lesser of two evils when I'm forced to pick democrat or republican. In the election, the only candidate whose jargon actually made a damned bit of sense was Naders, and when I decided who to vote for it was a choiuce between a symbolic vote for someone whom I actually agree with, or a vote against someone who I absolutely cannot stand.

Two party dominance sucks balls, man.

[Birdseye]

I agree. Find the issues that bother you the most, and vote for the party that is pushing for those changes the most.

For me, it's privacy rights, government scope/size, personal rights/freedoms and fiscal conservation. That's why I vote Libertarian. Bipartisan support of the Patriot Act is principally the most dangerous thing that happened after Sept. 11th in relation to our rights.

* edit *

Ice, I also forget to mention that for economic issues, medical doctors are not always the best. When radio commentators are way out of their field I sniff partisantry. There is a nationwide syndicated program called Money Talk with Bob Brinker. Bob is fantastic, but the program is definitely all economics with a lot of investing. If you can handle the investing sections, his comments on the federal government's behavior are always excellent and well researched.

[Spidey]

Iceâ?¦

If you think your party is changing for the worseâ?¦you need to stay in it and work as hard as hell to correct the situationâ?¦itâ??s call â??grassrootsâ?

[Iceman]

Agreed Spidey ... and to do that I make posts like the one above to remind my party of its own roots.

[Mobius]

Iceman: Run for office.

[Stryker]

/me prepares to vote... Icey for prez!

[Bold Deceiver]

psychologists have shown over and over that having a solid (heterosexual) family increases the chances of children developing into healthy, functional adults by orders of magnitude.

Sounds interesting. Please refer me to the multiple studies you read.

Just a brief word on the question of "studies".

There are some matters in heaven and earth, that do not a require a "study". You can almost always detect them; they are usually self-evident in a manner painfully obvious to all but the very best-educated among us.

Say it with me: Children of gay marriage are destined to be deprived, from birth, of either a mother or a father.

Now, I hate to "burst your bubble", but that doesn't sound the least bit "interesting" to me. Sounds like narcissistic selfishness. Of course, I won't know for sure until I analyze a few more studies on narcissism . . . .

Iceman -- the tent is indeed big, and there's plenty of beer and skittles. New guy has to buy the first round, though. I prefer Shiner Bock, or if sold out, Sierra Nevada.

Cheers,

BD

[Testiculese]

Say it with me: That doesn't really differ from the majority of this country.

[WarAdvocat]

For me, it's privacy rights, government scope/size, personal rights/freedoms and fiscal conservation.

That's what the Republican Party supposedly stands for too

[Iceman]

Say it with me: That doesn't really differ from the majority of this country.

Very true Testi but BD has a good point here. Children of Gay marriages will be deprived of either a mother or a father. Regardless of what the 'norm' is in this country, depriving a child of either one hurts them in many ways. Just because our country is full of dysfunctional families (including my own) doesn't mean that we should encourage dysfunction in the family.

I believe (and so did the Democratic party my father taught me about) that the success of this country over the last 228 years is largely due to the fact that the family unit has been strong relative to other countries. With such strength in families comes high self-esteem and self-confidence. I don't think I need to describe why these characteristics are important to our country.

[Top Gun]

Iceman, multitudes of studies back up your feelings about the importance of the nuclear family to society. Without it, humanity couldn't have gotten to the point we are at today. I also want to say that, if the Democratic Party were as you wish it to be and as it once was, this country would be much better off. Iceman for Prez!

[Birdseye]

Well, there are some studies that show as adoptive parents gay parents do fine.

There is the obvious lack of one sex, but with so many divorces kids get screwed. A loving couple may provide a sturdy home for kids stuck at adoption centers.

That's what the Republican Party supposedly stands for too

Yeah, haha. Actually that's the libertarian party. The people that finally figured out that those values were a front are in the LP

[Bold Deceiver]

Say it with me: That doesn't really differ from the majority of this country.

Even if you were actually correct that a majority of children in the U.S. are raised in homes without a mother or a father (you're wrong, by the way); your suggestion that because a bad thing happens, we should all gather round and make it policy ... is patently absurd. It is, however, a favorite strategy of the liberal mind, whenever cornered with difficult logic.



Six points deducted for lack of creativity.

Your beer is getting warm over here, Ice. Pull up a chair on the porch, and sit a while.

BD

[Bold Deceiver]

Well, there are some studies that show as adoptive parents gay parents do fine.

Sigh. My first response was not gentle. I'm going to try a more Socratic method.

Birdseye: All things being equal, and assuming equal (and excellent) parenting skills by both A) a Gay Couple; and B) a Heterosexual Married Couple, please answer the following question:

Which couple would you prefer to raise your own newborn baby child as guardian, upon your death from an untimely Pyro explosion (because Testiculese, running-dog lackey that he is, failed to properly screw on the gascap after refueling)?

The answer is A or B. Any answer other than A or B, or inconsistent with A or B, will be considered slithering, and you will chastised accordingly.

Anxiously awaiting,

BD

[Birdseye]

I would prefer B. But if stuck in the system for its whole life vs. gay people, I put the child with the gay couple.

[Bold Deceiver]

I would prefer B. But if stuck in the system for its whole life vs. gay people, I put the child with the gay couple.

Well spoke.

BD

[Vertigo 99]

i know a kid who had two moms, he was a real nice kid.
amongst the most well adjusted people ive ever met.