Conservative transgender

[Stephe]

instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.

Or giving trillions in tax cuts to the 1% on their -personal taxes-. I am sick of hearing how this money "creates jobs" and would hurt small business. I've owned a business or two and the money you spend on operating expenses you already pay no tax on. You can reinvest your money into a business and it is already and will remain tax free. The only time it is taxed is when you claim it as personal income i.e. a CEO taking a massive "bonus" (at the expense of having to fire hundreds of employees in most cases). The vast majority of small business owners don't have a taxable income anywhere close to what they are talking about.

[Shana A]

instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.

Or giving trillions in tax cuts to the 1% on their -personal taxes-. I am sick of hearing how this money "creates jobs" and would hurt small business.

Yes, it's hypocritical that they constantly blame Democrats as big spenders, when the Republicans justify spending just as much or more on different issues.   

Z

[dalebert]

I'd be OK with my tax dollars actually helping people, funding education, health care (not insurance companies), instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.

This is why I often self-describe as liberal even though I am technically libertarian. It has to do with what I value. I sympathize here. Whenever I hear people complaining about how much money the government wastes, I tune them out if they don't first and foremost address military spending. I fear the U.S. is facing a potential massive economic collapse and I can't imagine any way to avoid it that doesn't involve drastic cuts to military spending. Any talk of getting the budget under control by cutting all the other stuph is a joke which is why it's so hard for me to take most Republicans seriously when they pretend to be fiscally conservative. Not only is that what we need to do for economic reasons, but our invasive foreign policy is obscene and unacceptable morally and is actually making us less safe. Welfare and food stamps, I'm willing to talk about the negative social ramifications, but to talk about cutting them to save money is a joke. They're a tiny drop in the bucket.

[dalebert]

Welfare and food stamps, I'm willing to talk about the negative social ramifications, but to talk about cutting them to save money is a joke. They're a tiny drop in the bucket.

Also, I think people have it backwards. They want to be delicate about withdrawing military presence from foreign countries. I think we should do that ASAP. Meanwhile, changing social programs is something that would need to be done more delicately because they have fostered a culture of dependence and can't just jerk the rug from under people. Part of that is inhibiting the private economy in ways that make it harder for regular people to earn a living due to mercantilism.

[peky]

As a physician and surgeon, I have been sounding the warning that Obamacare is nothing more than socialized medicine as seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The following is a review of an article of the truth about what we can expect with ObamaCare.

The incentives that are an essential part of recently passed healthcare reform have been tried many times before, always with the same result, warns economist Yuri Maltsev, Ph.D., in the summer 2011 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and in a presentation to AAPS members in Omaha last month.

Before defecting to the West, Maltsev was a member of a senior Soviet economics team that worked on President Gorbachev's reform package under perestroika.

The Soviet system looked good on paper, employing plan indicators to indicate hospital performance, Maltsev observes....

The Full op-ed by Dr. Ritze can be found here:

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5265

For those who do not know AMA stand for the "American Medical Association" which is the  official "voice" of all American Physician.

Please see below the AMA postion regarding "Obamacare"

[AMA: Supreme Court Decision Protects Much-Needed Health Insurance Coverage for Millions of Americans
For immediate release:
June 28, 2012

Statement attributable to:
Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD
President, American Medical Association

The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.

/quote]



http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page

From the "Horses mouth" so to speak; besides who can trust a defector (an euphemism for a traitor)

[UCBerkeleyPostop]

Also, I think people have it backwards. They want to be delicate about withdrawing military presence from foreign countries. I think we should do that ASAP. Meanwhile, changing social programs is something that would need to be done more delicately because they have fostered a culture of dependence and can't just jerk the rug from under people. Part of that is inhibiting the private economy in ways that make it harder for regular people to earn a living due to mercantilism.

Please define what you mean by mercantilism, it is a term applied to pre-Adam Smith, pre-laissez faire France. Louis XVI finance minister instituted mercantilism. I think you might be talking about Keynsian or Neo-Keynesian economics, which is exactly what this country needs.


We need to increase the food stamp program. There are millions of kids who are not getting enough to eat and/or worse yet families eat junk food because it is cheaper than fruits and vegetables, the result will be millions of dollars of health care costs.  It is the same wrong-headed view that leads politicians to back spending money for prisons instead of education.

[justmeinoz]

Having had a chat with a Lesbian friend who works for Rainbow Labor I am actually starting to take the idea of the "Rainbow Nationals" more seriously. 
Given the social and economic situation of Tasmania, and the local State voting system it could be a goer.  Maybe not actually get a seat although you never know here, but at least give people a voice.
First thing would be to find out how to register the name I guess.  Hopefully there will be further posts.

Karen.

[Adrian_Michael]

Jumping in late.

With a simple statement.

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But I also have some radical ideas on welfare and homelessness

Which is why I voted with clear conscious for Gary Johnson, and would do so again.

I want our government out of foreign military affairs unless we are attacked(Iraqi war I backed, the subsequent two wars after I protested).

I want our welfare recipients working, but I want them to also get free daycare. Solution, train some welfare recipients to be daycare workers, put able bodied ones to work on our aging and often failing infrastructure. Make them take drug tests, on THEIR dime if they want their job and check.

Give homeless people access to the millions of unbought foreclosed homes, for free, IF they work for the government on, again, our failing infrastructure. Kick em out if they don't work.

Eliminate things like tax credits and tax loop holes/rebates. Eliminate the tax bonus on *donated* and *charity* stuff, it defeats the *goodwill* aspect of it. Tax everyone at a flat rate, and don't give it back.

Stop paying people to have kids. Child tax credit, child care credit, EIC...just a bunch of hoopla to give more money back than put in.

Yup, I am an odd one.

[dalebert]

Please define what you mean by mercantilism, it is a term applied to pre-Adam Smith, pre-laissez faire France. Louis XVI finance minister instituted mercantilism. I think you might be talking about Keynsian or Neo-Keynesian economics, which is exactly what this country needs.

Yes, that's what I mean. It's when big business is in bed with big government and success or failure in business stops being about doing a good job providing for a market need and becomes about lobbying for fat government contracts or for favorable (to your business) regulations, regulations that shut out your competition, price controls that favor you over your competition, etc. People who fear greedy, powerful people and don't fear that power structure, I have a hard time relating to. It is the epitome of greed and corruption.

[tekla]

It's when big business is in bed with big government and success or failure in business stops being about doing a good job providing for a market need and becomes about lobbying for fat government contracts or for favorable (to your business) regulations, regulations that shut out your competition, price controls that favor you over your competition, etc. People who fear greedy, powerful people and don't fear that power structure, I have a hard time relating to. It is the epitome of greed and corruption.


And when wasn't that true.  No matter how you define it, government and business are Siamese Twins joined at the hip.  What often is good for one, is good (to a degree) for the other.

a good job providing for a market need
I'm interested in how much (or little) of any of the mountains of stuff that is being produced is really a 'market need' or is it all just a controlled, implanted desire.

or for favorable (to your business) regulations, regulations that shut out your competition, price controls that favor you over your competition,
Why not?  Obviously, competition - particularly the unfettered kind we unleash so well - is massively wasteful.  Money spend in a business on competition has negative economic impact as opposed to money spend on capital improvements or inventory.  And - its' bad for business when some fly-by-night, greedy, quick-buck artist gets going and ends up creating lots of bad press and bad feelings.  And lots of stuff that is sold is dangerous in some way, and that requires regulation too.  After all if the Teddy Bear was stuffed with toxic waste, or stuff that went up in flames faster than a joint at a Jerry Show, or had small parts that kids could eat - well we want that regulated.  Guns, not so much.

[dalebert]

Money spend in a business on competition has negative economic impact as opposed to money spend on capital improvements or inventory.

I don't think about it in terms of some money is spent "on competition" and other money is spent on actually running the business like they are two different categories. That's a strange way of charging the word with negative emotion. Having choices is an integral factor of being free and the fact that more than one company will be providing similar things means that competition is a fact of reality, and that fact means they have a particular incentive to run their business well, provide a good product at a good price.

And - its' bad for business when some fly-by-night, greedy, quick-buck artist gets going and ends up creating lots of bad press and bad feelings.  And lots of stuff that is sold is dangerous in some way, and that requires regulation too.  After all if the Teddy Bear was stuffed with toxic waste, or stuff that went up in flames faster than a joint at a Jerry Show, or had small parts that kids could eat - well we want that regulated.  Guns, not so much.

It sounds like you're constructing a strawman here. I was merely pointing out that you can follow the big money and see how a lot of what is passed off as economic stimulus or protective regulations is actually favors that serve the wealthy and powerful people who paid for those favors. I would be less critical of Keynesian economics if, in actual practice, I saw contracts going to lots of promising small companies with lots of potential to expand jobs and choices if they just had a little capitol to get going. But like I said, you can usually follow the money and see that it almost always amounts to some kind of corporate welfare that has been paid for. And if you really want to see waste, shovel government money into a business that has been run poorly but is "too big to fail".

[dalebert]

On further thought, I don't think you're trying to strawman me per se. More likely it's accidental. I wasn't trying to make an argument against all regulation. The point is there are regulations sincerely intended to protect people and then there are those that serve certain powerful interests and do more harm than good. And it's only one example of mercantilism. When I use that word I mean businesses buying the power of government to serve their interests against the interests of the general public. A lot of "conservatives" don't have a problem with this as they believe in some form of trickle down economics and that this B.S. will somehow indirectly help the little guy. I don't consider myself a conservative.

[enfys]

I wonder if I could add a perspective from the UK.

Firstly it is quite inspiring that people in the USA voted to give Obama another term, only a few decades after the end of segregation. He symbolises hope for the future and was the overwhelming preference of europeans.

However politically he would easily be a member of one of the right wing parties in Europe. In the UK the Conservative government officially supports gay marriage while attacking working people's jobs and conditions.

As regards the Health Service, which is being destroyed in England but not in Wales where we have a left government, it is overwhelmingly supported. In my particular case I can phone my local doctors' group practice and get an appointment that day, if serious. I can see the doctor after waiting a short time in the waiting room and be prescribed medicine to be collected the same day or have further tests or be referred to a specialist. All of this is free, even prescriptions in Wales.

The

[Berserk]

Just wondering if anybody is in the same boat as i am, i do identify as MTF but politically i fall into the conservative end of the spectrum, i am deeply saddened by their lack of support and sometimes utter resistance to us, but in honesty i believe their economic, environmental, and other various standpoints just make far more sense than the Democrats, also i believe that the democratic politicians are willing to say anything for our votes, and i dont really believe that they truly give a damn about us, just our voting power. If only there were republicans who could show us some support, that would certainly be interesting, a far more poweful libertarian party, in my opinion, could really help out the USA. Reading about health care in socialistic countries, and the long waits everybody faces just to see a doctor, doesnt really make obamacare sound too appealing to me, because in reality, no matter what is on paper in Obamacare, it faces the realitiess of: limited doctors, limited supply chains, and government intrusion.

Not really. This is the ignorant standpoint of pro-republican types who think that public health care is the devil, yet they never look at the things that stand in the way of a fully effective public health care system in countries that have them. For example, here in Canada we actually have a pretty good healthcare system. The issue that results usually in shortages is the fact that it takes time to develop a proper medical system (anywhere, under any system, for that matter). Under Liberal or NDP rule public health care begins to gain traction and develops, but because Canada tends to be a country that is easily swayed by "rah rah, we'll lower your taxes" conservative rhetoric (not taking into consideration that lower taxes are meaningless when you have no public services, and you end up paying more in the long run without them) and so every few election years people vote conservative. Voting conservative then kick starts a decline in public health care services with employment cuts and other damages done that can prolong wait times. And so the these are not symptoms of public healthcare itself, but of the fact that conservatives keep trying to privatise healthcare every chance they get.

Additionally, these privatisation arguments are written from an extremely classist perspective, and usually by people who have some kind of coverage through their workplace. It doesn't take into account the countless people who cannot access privatised healthcare at all even for an annual physical. Conservatism will always favour the socially privileged over everyone else.

Honestly what really gets me when LGBT folks talk about "oh well, if only conservatives would be more accepting of us, conservative parties would be such a better option!" is they really forget that there is any other marginalised people in their own nations. Conservatism typically comes with anti-immigrant, anti-poverty, pro-private education, pro-private healthcare, anti-choice, pro-prison expansion, anti-rehabilitation, generally anti-social service policies in addition to being sexist, homophobic and transphobic. Social services are there not only for the average person who needs them (because not even most middle class families would be able to go for a physical annually under a private healthcare system), but in recognition that without it you are effectively further damning anyone who cannot access those services otherwise. It is at least partially recognising the way oppression works, and partially recognising that the government and society do need to tip the scales to even begin creating equality after centuries of oppression. You are failing to recognise that not everyone is born into a situation where they can access the same opportunities as wealthier members of the population.

Hearing stories of transgendered people in other countries with government provided health care having to wait YEARS just to get on HRT shows me that government health care is a load of crap.

Would you mind giving some kind of source for this information? As someone happily living in a country with a public healthcare system, I've never heard of anyone waiting "years" just to get on HRT. In fact, we usually get it faster.

[Jamie D]

According to natural law theory, some of the most basic natural (human) rights, as defined by Locke, are the rights to :life, liberty, and property."  Locke wrote, "Reason, which is that Law teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."  Thomas Jefferson famously reformated that concept in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Your right to life is a guarantee that you "own" yourself - that you control you own person.  The right to liberty ensures that you can follow your own will, in the absence of law, and that you will not be subject to the arbitrary will of another.  The right of property means that you benefit from the sweat of your brow, and of your ideas or ingenuity.

The problem with modern "socialism" is that a great number of people feel entitled to live off of the effort and possessions of others.  Concepts, such as the "redistribution of wealth," are antithetical the the basic premises of natural law theory.  Governments are instituted to provide justice and to defend the society that created them.  Anything beyond that smacks of tyranny.

[peky]

According to natural law theory, some of the most basic natural (human) rights, as defined by Locke, are the rights to :life, liberty, and property."  Locke wrote, Reason, which is that Law teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."  Thomas Jefferson famously reformated that concept in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Your right to life is a guarantee that you "own" yourself - that you control you own person.  The right to liberty ensures that you can follow your own will, in the absence of law, and that you will not be subject to the arbitrary will of another.  The right of property means that you benefit from the sweat of your brow, and of your ideas or ingenuity.

The problem with modern "socialism" is that a great number of people feel entitled to live off of the effort and possessions of others.  Concepts, such as the "redistribution of wealth," are antithetical the the basic premises of natural law theory.  Governments are instituted to provide justice and to defend the society that created them.  Anything beyond that smacks of tyranny.

Agreed with the caveat that the means and sources by which many people and corporations (specially) gain "property," while legal it is immoral and based on exploiting and abusing other fellow humans. And let me remind you that I am talking about the 1% here, not you pop-n-mom small business, or rich lawyers or doctors, but the individuals and corporations who through their "property" lobby congress to pass laws that allows them to exploit and abuse the "costumer." Case in point the APR that credit cards charge, up to 35%. Yet in the 1930's the feds went after people who charged more than 15% interests in loaned people for USERY.

[Stephe]

The problem with modern "socialism" is that a great number of people feel entitled to live off of the effort and possessions of others.  Concepts, such as the "redistribution of wealth," are antithetical the the basic premises of natural law theory.  Governments are instituted to provide justice and to defend the society that created them.  Anything beyond that smacks of tyranny.

I do hope humans have evolved beyond "survival of the fittest" mentality, which a lot of the conservative rhetoric sounds like to me.

Also, without some "socialist" component to our government, there would be no roads, police, port authority etc that a lot of business depends on for them to be successful. Those businesses would not be successful in a vacuum, they depend on the services the government supplies to make a profit. I also don't want to see us revert back to what working conditions were like in the late 1800's. With zero regulation, that is likely what would happen. Of course the 1% would become even richer but in that time of zero regulation did we see the middle class expend or "trickle down" economics? It wasn't until the unions got organized and forced the wage increases, that the middle class even came into existence.

I do agree there are -some- (but not 'a great number of people') who can work but are lazy and don't. But I don't think it's fine to punish the people who can't work, for whatever reason, to get at the minority who are just lazy. All you end up with there is more homeless and poverty stricken children who will never have a chance to get out of that cycle.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/

We should be ashamed we lead the developed world with a 23% rate. That is 1 in 5 kids lives in below poverty level conditions and people want to cut the funds so more will be below this level?

[SarahM777]

I do agree there are -some- (but not 'a great number of people') who can work but are lazy and don't. But I don't think it's fine to punish the people who can't work, for whatever reason, to get at the minority who are just lazy. All you end up with there is more homeless and poverty stricken children who will never have a chance to get out of that cycle.


We should be ashamed we lead the developed world with a 23% rate. That is 1 in 5 kids lives in below poverty level conditions and people want to cut the funds so more will be below this level?

The real question is how do you break the cycle? Does it really help people to get out of the cycle,when those that truly need it have to deal with multiple agencies and programs? Streamline the system and it can be far more cost effective and can deal with the whole person and not in bits and pieces. Is it really going to get someone out of the cycle,dealing with multiple meetings every month as oppose to a single meeting on a monthly basis,or because of the way it's set up it's already doomed to failure?

When they use a broad based figure to say that 23%,is that based on a single figure that does not take into account the difference between someone living in New York City and someone living in Helena,MT? Does it also factor in those who choose to live a simpler lifestyle? Does it include groups like the Amish,whom the government would most likely include because they don't want or need all the stuff,or others who have chosen to live off the land and don't really need the same amount of money to get by and they are satisfied with their lives? Do they consider themselves to be in poverty,or is it that the government says so because of a certain viewpoint?  And is our perception of what is poverty now the same as it was in as recently as the 1930's during the depression? When was the last time someone died because of starvation outside of the very old or very young due to neglet? It doesn't mean that it can't be better but it seems that it has come a long ways from where it once was.

Perhaps part of the perceived problems come from the times when people that are working,whom are struggling and paying taxes see those who are on government assistance can go into a grocery store and get steak,lobster and other higher end food stuffs and they can only afford ground chuck.
It gives the appearance that things are a bit out of whack. It should be enough to get by but not enough to want to make it a lifestyle. Where is the incentive to get off of it if one is better off being on assistance then by getting a job? Change the parameters that would give them incentives to take a job instead of penalizing them,make it so that if they are working at a Walmart that they would be better off with the job then without it. People are far more willing to help out when they see someone trying as opposed to seeing a leech. I think just change the perspective and how some things are done would help a whole lot and would be far better in the long run.

The system we have needs a rework to make it better for those that are in need and for those paying into it. Can it be done? Of course but will the politicians do it? Therein lies the problem.

And a question and challenge for the wealthy politicians who are suppose to be our leaders. If you are so bold to say you want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes,perhaps it would be nice for you to lead by example,show us how you would reform the deductions by example. How you would be willing to pay your fair share,after all you are the ones that wrote the tax code. Pay your fair as you say you want others to do. Quit the whining and crying and always coming up with it's the other guy. Do it yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Stephe]

Quit the whining and crying and always coming up with it's the other guy. Do it yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.

You assume I am a lower income person (bad move). Yes raising the tax "for the wealthy" would make my taxes go up.

And do you honestly believe all people on Gov assistance are buying steak and lobster?

As far as "put your money where your mouth is", last year I gave $5,000 to the local homeless shelter, what exactly have you done to help the poor lately? I also volunteer 10-15 hours a week tutoring under privileged kids. Don't assume when someone says "The wealthy should be taxed more" it's a low income person wanting someone else to take care of this. And if you don't believe there is a SERIOUS problem with the % of children living in below poverty level conditions, you really should get out more often. I find it comical you seem to judge poverty as people dying from starvation.

[Jamie D]