I need a republican..

[lauren grier]

LOL.. you are probs never going to hear me say that again ^_^

But I need an explanation .. A CLEAR .. lacking emotion and all the grr passion stuff.. I do not want anyone arguing in this post.. I just do not understand and wish to understand the view of the republican.

an explanation on why you think "less government" is good.. Not just that-- but WHAT exactly in detail.. what it means to you.. and.. Where you think the $$ (as less government statements always include less taxes) to fund things/programs that you want to stay/to create should come from... and any other pertinent information- like where you think the government is currently- too active in your life right now.

[Emmy]

I am a republican. And I believe in less government (actually a whole lot less I lean pretty heavily libertarian). But there is no way in heck I'd go into all the reasons why on a public message board LOL. Everybody would just knitpick my every viewpoint and reasoning!

I'm interested in your question though LA, are you just so far on the democrat side of the view that you can't picture the other side so you're wanting to get a feel for why someone would feel that way?

[lauren grier]

I'm not a democrat..
I really want to understand as it's something that is continuously brought up- and contradicted- whenever someone argues it to me. So I want to hear someone with a clear concise explanation so it doesn't make my head wobble.

[lauren grier]

and i said there was no arguing allowed in my post. I will kick anyone who does :p

[Lyd]

Umm. I'm not a registered Republican. But, I am relatively conservative and have Republican tendancies. However, I do also consider myself to be pretty open minded without extreme leanings to either the left or the right, so . . .

For me, it's not about less government as much as it is about local government. I think the state and local governments should have more say in how things work in their communities. In particular, I feel like education is an area that would be so much more efficient and effective if local communities were able to identify their own problems and figure out what they need to do to solve them instead of having to meet a standard set up by some guy in Washington who has never set foot in the state, let alone the individual communities.

Now, I recognize that this brings with it a while new set of problems about funding and college standards and all sorts of things. And, I don't have good answers for all of that, so maybe I'm no help in answering your question at all. I just think that the people who are in the local communities and who know their local problems and the source of those problems should have more say in how those problems are dealt with.

As for areas where I feel like the government has too much control of my life, I can't say that I feel the presence of the government holding me back that much. But, I would dare say that people who deal with government services more than me would have some stories to tell about inefficiencies, red tape, and regulations that are pretty ridiculous. My main gripe with the government is that it's really expensive and doesn't accomplish much. I don't feel like there are many politicians out there who are REALLY looking out for the people. They have a lot of other interests with a lot more money attached. So, I can't say that I'm in love with either party right now.

So, after all that, I'm pretty sure I didn't help you at all La. LOL!

[taracotta7]

Wow......I hope we can all stay nice in this thread! :) I mainly vote republican due to my moral believes. MOST republicans vote along those guidelines for me. I know there are some democrats that tend to toe the line on those issues. That being said.......I don't vote for someone due to what party they claim. I vote on that person and their agenda. I have voted for people in all parties.

As for government assisted programs.........it just depends on what you are talking about. If it is the heath care program I am totally against it. My hubby and I are self employed and have employees. We are already paying out the butt on health premiums (seriously....my family alone (2 adults and 1 child) who don't have health issues and not on any medication pay over $1000 a month in premium AND our health plan doesn't cover ANYTHING (not even a discount) until we reach 5000 in expenses. We have shopped each year and this is still the cheapest plan out there for us) but this would be a HUGE hardship on us. We would probably have to close shop. Seriously. I know this is a concern to many small business owners. It is already a financial burden on so many and this would just be overwhelming. Why should my hard earned dollars go to help people who are ABLE to work that refuse to? I don't think that is fair to those of us that work hard and budget our money accordingly. I am all about charity and giving......but I shouldn't be FORCED to. I do fully support our government helping those that can't work due to disability, mental illness, ect.

I fully think the government should fund programs. I don't think that comes for free. I hate to see taxes go up but I know it has to come from somewhere. It is not like the US has been a great steward of the nations money (no matter who is in office!). The budget is crazy. Too many bills and not enough money. There are going to be cuts in the budget. There is no way around that. They have to start digging out of the hole somehow.

Is that making sense?

[Emmy]

I am not very good at clear and concise....I'm kind of a rambler. :p So I probably can't help much but I will say in general I believe in less government because our government doesn't do things very well. It seems like most programs and things that are run by the government are far less efficient than they could be - so I just think giving them more to do is a big mistake. As far as how that translates into taxes - I'm not sure what to say, I'm probably not well versed enough to speak to that succinctly.

[lauren grier]

I do not love either party either.. They both have major issues. Major. Our government has major issues- I agree to all those points...

Correct me if I am wrong... please... But I do believe that individual states do have power to make their own legislation even if it is opposing to that of the federal government (prime example being gay marriage-- not to open that bag of worms- but at state level, you can make it legal- it will just not be recognized by the federal government ).


I've had to work directly hand in hand with a lot of govt run programs the past few months. Directly hand in hand with members of the govt. They sucked.
Big time.

I agree that the govt does a LOT of things wrong. and a lot of things need to be addressed/changed/overhauled/fixed/etc. I believe that other democratic nations- balance themselves far better than we do, and I do not know/understand what is broken with our system.

tara, i am too- obviously ^_^ - self employed. I recently, had to obtain medicaid for myself and my son. We are contributing to the system- and I have been.. since my first job forever ago (fyi i didn't take any offense to what you said i'm just explaining myself lol).Health insurance however- with all his health issues- would have beyond broken us.
Being self employed and seeking insurance- sucks- i agree. Are you against the changes to the health care system that are to take place? including the pooling for self employed/small business owners who have x amount of employees. Isn't this more government and could essentially benefit you? or are you just against your taxes/contribution towards funding the medicaid system?

[amandabarugh]

I really have no business in this thread, as I am not conservative in the slightest, nor am I a Republican, but I had to post that the title of the thread made me seriously LOL. :p

[lauren grier]

lol I had to catch people's attention ^_^

[Traci Reed]

Also self employed and having to use Medi-Cal here...the health care bill isn't neccisarily just for "welfare moms" and people ripping off the system :) There's no WAY we could afford health care even though we live comfortably.

I have no business in this thread, I'm interested to see points of view though too :)

I like the stance that it's not really "less government" but rather local government, though in that case we might as well just split up into 50 countries, which I'm not opposed to :) haha.

[Stacey42]

I'm an Independent with Libertarian leanings. To me less government means less red tape, less bureaucracy and more sense in govt. It also means less laws & bills. In many many cases there are already perfectly good laws on the books that simply are not being enforce properly.

There is a govt office that is supposed to hand out grants for rural broadband internet access. They have hundreds of millions to give, and almost 2 years so far to give it and to date they have only recently parted with $20 mill. Maybe I'm just cynical but since that whole office will cease to exist once the money is handed out I suspect they have little incentive to do so. And it's not the only one.

The federal government has gotten involved in managing & making laws for things that ought to be states laws - like medicinal marijuana & abortion. I think the feds have gotten out of hand, taking over things that are not their responsibility. Less govt to me mean less federal rule & more state & local rule.

[joelsgirl]

I think this is SO funny because I have been trying to figure out why a rational person would be FOR big government!
I agree with Emmy that government doesn't do anything well. I think the less the govt. is involved in private business the better. Take for instance this whole BP oil spill thing. You know the only reason BP has an operation in the gulf is BECAUSE WE LIKE TO USE OIL. And BP is taking responsibility for cleaning it up. So why does America expect OBAMA to do something about it? It's not the govt. responsibility.

I think we've become waaaay to dependent on govt. to do things we should be doing for ourselves. I support govt. schools, hospitals, roads, justice system, etc. But the more govt. gets involved in private business and our personal lives, the less I like it.

[Kim Mauch]

I'm hoping we all can post in this thread. :) I'm a die hard democrat, and have been since I knew the difference.

My hubby is a die hard democrat too, but his family is 110% republican. It is a huge issue with us, and we can't have political conversations with his family at all! (Well we could, but they just tell us we're stupid and wrong, so we don't.)

So why am I in this thread? Because I would love to hear from republicans. I want to understand their perspective, and that is something that can't / won't ever happen with DH's family.

Love the thread title, too! :thumbup:

[coopert]

I agree that the govt does a LOT of things wrong. and a lot of things need to be addressed/changed/overhauled/fixed/etc. I believe that other democratic nations- balance themselves far better than we do, and I do not know/understand what is broken with our system.

I am a registered Republican, but that is probably because I live in Orange County, and grew up in Yorba Linda, the birthplace of Richard Nixon, but I definitely lean more towards the left. I think our system is broken because of bipartisanship. The two parties refuse to work together and until they can compromise and work together towards a better America, it cannot be fixed. And unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[lauren grier]

So- those of you who support stronger state government and less federal involvement- There is still the taxes issue yes? Would you be opposed to much higher state taxes if you take away the high levels of federal funding, federal involvement, and so forth? This would also be unbalanced btwn the states as different states obviously need varying amounts of funding.
(fyi I'm not opposed to stronger state governement-- I am just curious as to how you would approach that. If you want the federal govt to back off- it has to be across the board yes?).

And yes, Kellie, I agree... I kind of chuckle a little @ all the ranting that the govt isn't doing enough (they are infact, doing a lot though), when everyone is saying they want less govt. This is one of the millions of points that I just do not understand. When everything falls apart... we want the govt there. We can't have that support only when it suits us. It's there or not.

[lauren grier]

and of course dems can post.. as long as you're nice LOL..

and if i get annoying - someone is allowed to tell me to shush it too. I really just want to understand. I don't *get* the back and forth. My opinions are......................... very strong.. but I promise I'm not bringing 99% of them into this haha.

[MommaTrish]

I'm an Independent with Libertarian leanings. To me less government means less red tape, less bureaucracy and more sense in govt. It also means less laws & bills. In many many cases there are already perfectly good laws on the books that simply are not being enforce properly.

Same here.
Two of my main issues with the way the government handles things are with the welfare/foodstamps/medicare and education. With the first set I think that there are far too many loopholes in those programs so that they do not run in the ways that they should. (I say this as someone who lives around one of the poorest areas of the country) People find ways to stay in the programs when the time limit (because there is one on welfare) is up by working around the system. And at the same time I feel that the requirements for those three can be overly strict so that those who are working but do still need the assistance find it extremely difficult to impossible to get the help they need. We were on medicare when the boys were little since John's old job did not have insurance. When Zach turned two his doctor noticed mole on his back was getting progressively larger and darker. We had to go to six different doctors to get second opinions because medicare kept denying to let us take him to get it tested. When they finally did approve it we had to take him to the worst hospital around us to a specialty group there, which had a three month wait to be seen. He finally got a biopsy on it and the results came back as pre-cancerous we had another 3 month wait before medicare would approve for it to be removed. (sorry about the rambling rant... we were on it three years and it was just a horrible experience...)
As for education yes the states and local governments have some control over that, but the vast majority of the control is held by the federal government which I think is just wrong. I think the federal government should have SOME control, but I think the state and local should have the most. That way it is more individualized and in the end more beneficial to the students.

[MommaTrish]

So- those of you who support stronger state government and less federal involvement- There is still the taxes issue yes? Would you be opposed to much higher state taxes if you take away the high levels of federal funding, federal involvement, and so forth? This would also be unbalanced btwn the states as different states obviously need varying amounts of funding.

If I thought that it would go to the benefit of my community and stay primarily in the community, I would have no problem paying more taxes.

[coopert]

Something I have never understood about Republicans and the fact that they want less government, is why they are for laws against abortion, against medical marijuana or legalizing marijuana altogether, and against legalizing gay marriage. It is such a contradiction of less government to me. I guess this is where my liberal side comes out. I don't necessarily participate in all or any of them, but if there is an explanation about this from a Republican that is something I have always been curious about. And please don't let this start an argument because i realize most people have very strong opinions on them all and arguing about it will not change anybody's views. I just want to understand how Republicans want less government, but only when it comes to specific things.

[lauren grier]

Something I have never understood about Republicans and the fact that they want less government, is why they are for laws against abortion, against medical marijuana or legalizing marijuana altogether, and against legalizing gay marriage. It is such a contradiction of less government to me. I guess this is where my liberal side comes out. I don't necessarily participate in all or any of them, but if there is an explanation about this from a Republican that is something I have always been curious about. And please don't let this start an argument because i realize most people have very strong opinions on them all and arguing about it will not change anybody's views. I just want to understand how Republicans want less government, but only when it comes to specific things.

yes.
this is in the list of millions of things i do not understand. :] I was really hoping someone would have explained all of the "exceptions" to the general repub stance but no one has yet.. lol

[krystalhartley]

In an ideal world, I think there would be a greater deal of accountability and responsiblity at the local level. If things worked out in my perfect world, every family would have a strong work ethic (which applies to just more than holding down a job), would be there for their families and their neighbors, etc.-elying less on government. However, it's just not realistic that it will happen that way, so I do see why government subsidizing and internvention is necessary. If, however, people invested more (time, energy, money, etc.) into their own communities, I think it would definitely undermine the argument that the federal government has to get involved.

On another level, I'm okay with some government intervention. For example...car seat / seat belt laws. If people were responsible, there wouldn't be a need for the laws because people would just do the right thing. Instead, thousands of needless fatalalities spurred legislation.

It's probably not a bad thing to have someone overseeing pharmaceutical industry, making sure stuff we take is safe--but I bet almost anyone you talk to probably thinks even the FDA isn't doing the best job it can (due to lobbyists, money, etc.).

So, I'm torn. I guess until more people choose to do what's right simply because it's the right thing to do, we have to have Big Brother wasting our money to tell us how/when/what to do.

eta:
Just read the response above. Despite being pretty conservative, I am actually not supportive of legislation that interferes with people's way of life as long as it doesn't harm others (emotionally or physically). Gay marriage, for example, is not something I necessarily support, but I think it's wrong for the government to butt in and make it constitutionally wrong. There are no freedoms being removed through the practice of gay marriage. No one is dying. Etc. Etc.

[lauren grier]

I too would like to live in your perfect ideal world krystal.. lol. unfortunately of course, our very country is based on capitalism and greed.. corruption and manipulation to get ahead.. to beat out the others in the great rat race. I don't think this is something that will ever change.. I think it's ingrained in human nature (not that I am one who thinks all humans are evil..)/

This is also however, why i think large government- when applied properly (erm)- is important. Because we need regulation w/ the greedy companies.. We need regulation to protect our children- to keep them safe, to ensure they are getting an education, to ensure they are getting health care.. etc... and I'm not sure how to balance that. I think- at the base- our government system is awesome. Checks and balances and all that. We just need a reset button.

I also- agree with your statement wholeheartedly.. and I appreciate it even more since you are opposed to things such as gay marriage personally & that there is no harm to you or others, there should be no legislation or government involvement reguarding those sorts of things. There are many t hings in the world that i may disagree with.. but if it's not hurting me/others, I have no business in saying it's wrong for other people to do so.

[joelsgirl]

So, I'm torn. I guess until more people choose to do what's right simply because it's the right thing to do, we have to have Big Brother wasting our money to tell us how/when/what to do.

eta:
Just read the response above. Despite being pretty conservative, I am actually not supportive of legislation that interferes with people's way of life as long as it doesn't harm others (emotionally or physically). Gay marriage, for example, is not something I necessarily support, but I think it's wrong for the government to butt in and make it constitutionally wrong. There are no freedoms being removed through the practice of gay marriage. No one is dying. Etc. Etc.

Krystal Hartley, you are pretty close to perfect. I agree with most of what you said.

In regards to abortion, it's not just a moral issue. I support legislature that makes abortion illegal because it DOES harm others. It protects an unborn child with a beating heart but no voice. Of course others don't see it this way, but that is my reason.

[taracotta7]

I am not against state assisted insurance programs. In fact, my youngest son Landon is benefiting from it. Since I adopted him from the state system, he gets state insurance until he is 18 as a benefit. I AM SO THANKFUL FOR THIS. I don't think that all people on state assisted health care are dead beats. There are many reasons that it is there for and it being used for. BUT there are many that take advantage of this too. Those are the people that I have a hard time with. Those are the people that I tend to run into A LOT since I have been a foster/adoptive family through the state. There are HUGE holes in the system that needs to be corrected. I didn't mean that judgmental. I promise! I was mainly thinking of those that lie to get it or simply don't work to qualify instead of doing a honest days work and be a grown up. Unfortunately we don't qualify due to making too much money so we are paying out the A** for crappy coverage.

Universal health plan - I have looked into the provision for small business owners and I have to be honest........I think there is A LOT of unclear terminology that will be up for interpretation that in the end would screw us. If it was VERY DETAILED and left no room for gray area, I would rethink my stance on it. Our state has a program to "help" small business owners and we used it for one year........then it blew up in our face. Seriously. It was a way to help us offset the cost of providing it to our employees (didn't help us because we made too much. grrr) and then it was taking away from us due to giving our employees a raise for cost of living. Seriously. Not a HUGE raise.....a very small percentage. So in the end, it cost us and our employees MORE money even though they got a raise. No good. So that is my fear. Also, once you are in those programs, then you have constant reporting to them. I still get statements from them even though it has been FIVE years since we did it. It is a required for them that I will have to send in or they put a lean against our business. It is just craziness. It just get to be too Big bother for me.

I agree with all the statements of it starting locally. It is important to get involved, contact your state reps and be informed.

[lauren grier]

Krystal Hartley, you are pretty close to perfect. I agree with most of what you said.

In regards to abortion, it's not just a moral issue. I support legislature that makes abortion illegal because it DOES harm others. It protects an unborn child with a beating heart but no voice. Of course others don't see it this way, but that is my reason.

I accept your opinion on that one.
I don't want to get into the abortion debate.. or the gay rights debate.. or all that other stuff.

But you explained your position clearly. You believe it harms others. Good.
If someone tries to argue that gay marriage harms them though. I will probs not accept their opinion.

[lauren grier]

I didn't mean that judgmental. I promise! .

No worries :] I didn't think you were being judgemental- and I agree.. I mean, I see it with my own eyes when i have to go down to the DHS office to report, or provide documentation etc. I don't think there is a way to fix that- that wouldn't hurt countless HONEST participants though, and that is really really unfortunate. People will always lie and cheat and manipulate the system.. We need to all go live in krystals bubble ^_^
lol your quote was too long so i just left that line so you knew i was talking to you hahaha

[aggiefamily]

So- those of you who support stronger state government and less federal involvement- There is still the taxes issue yes? Would you be opposed to much higher state taxes if you take away the high levels of federal funding, federal involvement, and so forth? This would also be unbalanced btwn the states as different states obviously need varying amounts of funding.
(fyi I'm not opposed to stronger state governement-- I am just curious as to how you would approach that. If you want the federal govt to back off- it has to be across the board yes?).




Not all states have a state tax.

As I get older I seem to be more middle of the road. I see and agree with points on both sides. I don't think I could ever 100% lean either way.

I am not opposed to being taxed more. I do get irritated when I think about how my money is or isn't being used. I kinda wish you had little checkboxes when you filed your taxed indicating what you want your tax money used for.

I am not opposed to health care reform as long as I don't have to what we currently have.

I think that states do have a better grip on what is best for the citizens that live within that state.

[taracotta7]

In regards to abortion, it's not just a moral issue. I support legislature that makes abortion illegal because it DOES harm others. It protects an unborn child with a beating heart but no voice. Of course others don't see it this way, but that is my reason.

Totally agree. There are so many families that would love to have that child no matter how it was conceived (rape, unplanned, drug exposed, ect). I, as an adoptive mother, am very passionate about this topic. All my adoptive kids were born to drug addicted mothers that used during pregnancy and all the babies were positive to cocaine, meth, and/or marijuana at birth. I WANTED them. They are PERFECT for me. I am so glad that their moms made this correct decision even though they were making other bad choices. I can't imagine my life without them.

[lauren grier]

Not all states have a state tax.

As I get older I seem to be more middle of the road. I see and agree with points on both sides. I don't think I could ever 100% lean either way.

I am not opposed to being taxed more. I do get irritated when I think about how my money is or isn't being used. I kinda wish you had little checkboxes when you filed your taxed indicating what you want your tax money used for.

I am not opposed to health care reform as long as I don't have to what we currently have.

I think that states do have a better grip on what is best for the citizens that live within that state.

I know i meant.. I worded it wrong ^_^ I meant if you take away federal taxing and put it all on state level-- there would be massive state taxes for everyone- as there would be no funding to support all the things we take for granted.

[aggiefamily]

I know i meant.. I worded it wrong ^_^ I meant if you take away federal taxing and put it all on state level-- there would be massive state taxes for everyone- as there would be no funding to support all the things we take for granted.

That is true.

But what happens when states don't want or need more federal help? Why should they take/accept money and assistance when they don't need it? I know the Texas Governor (a whole other discussion!!!) did not want to take the stimulus money. His argument was that there were too many strings attached. That the programs the money was earmarked for would be put in place but eventually the money would run out. The money for the program would then become the state's burden.

All I know is that at the end of the day, I am blessed to live where I live. This county is far from perfect but we do have "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For that I am thankful.

And unlimited high speed internet. I am also thankful for that.

[lauren grier]

hmm...
lol i actually said hmm outloud.
In the case of a state not wanting to accept federal aid- I think it would have to be a matter voted upon by the public obviously- as one mans opinion should not govern the entire state (thus our democracy). Obviously, this doesn't exist .. I know that we have to vote (in my state) where funding goes to... (transportation, development of parks etc etc).. But I think it could be expanded upon.. and I think you have a valid point.

We are certainly lucky. We're lucky we can disagree so vocally with the decisions of our government, and we are lucky for all the advantages we have. Things could certainly be a lot worse.... but that's not to say they are fantastic either.

[lovely1m]

Very interesting topic. I always like when I can read an opinion that is extremely different from mine and understand why they think that way. Much easier to discuss political topics without fighting, you learn more this way (even if it doesn't sway your opinion in the slightest). Can't answer the original question, but I enjoyed reading some of the answers.

do have to say as far as the insurance issues, I applied for state insurance for my son recently (just him, I didn't want it for myself). We have no insurance, I am a single parent with no child support, I make enough to make sure we can have the basics and a couple of extras (like cable, internet and a new toy for my son once a month), but I didn't qualify for even the highest income level insurance. I made $52 too much a month. I work 3 jobs and it kinda seemed like it would be smarter for me to quit one job and get assistance after you see stuff like that, you know? A couple of weeks later though I got a job to replace the full-time job that pays more so I can afford to get insurance now when I get my first paycheck, but it makes you think, no wonder people don't work to get help.

[aggiefamily]

I agree with your statement about public vote. I think a lot of the grumbling about governmnet comes from the feeling that we don't have a say. Yes, we vote for our senators and representatives but do they really represent your own opioions, beliefs and feelings?

I think that is where the level of trust is lost. If my representative was truly representing me I would be more inclined to have more government. But right now I think they are a bunch of idiots and I don't trust that they have my best interest in mind.

I wish we were able to express our vote more. I wish I was able to vote for specifically what I want and not have someone do it for me. You can only trust yourself.

[lauren grier]

Very interesting topic. I always like when I can read an opinion that is extremely different from mine and understand why they think that way. Much easier to discuss political topics without fighting, you learn more this way (even if it doesn't sway your opinion in the slightest). Can't answer the original question, but I enjoyed reading some of the answers.

do have to say as far as the insurance issues, I applied for state insurance for my son recently (just him, I didn't want it for myself). We have no insurance, I am a single parent with no child support, I make enough to make sure we can have the basics and a couple of extras (like cable, internet and a new toy for my son once a month), but I didn't qualify for even the highest income level insurance. I made $52 too much a month. I work 3 jobs and it kinda seemed like it would be smarter for me to quit one job and get assistance after you see stuff like that, you know? A couple of weeks later though I got a job to replace the full-time job that pays more so I can afford to get insurance now when I get my first paycheck, but it makes you think, no wonder people don't work to get help.

SSD is awesome like that ;) I really don't think we've ever gotten politically ugly LOL..

anyway..yes. and this is yet another problem. Tightening regulations even further because of those who abuse the system would just hurt more and more families... and otoh- your statement, unfortunately, is what a lot of people DO do. Manipulating the system, once again. I understand why there are guidelines. I understand if you make 52 dollars too much you don't get it the end... But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
Our situations are similar- in the fact that we're both single parents, receiving no CS & no medical insurance from the other parent. This isn't a "unique" situation.. there are a lot of honest hard working people who need these programs.

[lauren grier]

I agree with your statement about public vote. I think a lot of the grumbling about governmnet comes from the feeling that we don't have a say. Yes, we vote for our senators and representatives but do they really represent your own opioions, beliefs and feelings?

I think that is where the level of trust is lost. If my representative was truly representing me I would be more inclined to have more government. But right now I think they are a bunch of idiots and I don't trust that they have my best interest in mind.

I wish we were able to express our vote more. I wish I was able to vote for specifically what I want and not have someone do it for me. You can only trust yourself.

This is one of the problems i I have with a more local government focused system.. because I don't believe that the small scaled government is......... governed LOL enough. We do not have all the branches in place in the same force of the federal government.. so at the end of the day- the public doesn't have "as much of" a say on the local government. This is the way I see it anyway.
Maybe THAT is what needs an overhaul. Not the federal government as a whole- but how we operate on state level.

[lovely1m]

But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
Our situations are similar- in the fact that we're both single parents, receiving no CS & no medical insurance from the other parent. This isn't a "unique" situation.. there are a lot of honest hard working people who need these programs.

I completely and totally agree with this.

[nesser1981]

I just wanted to say something about health care, I'm beyond greatful for Medicad. If it wasn't for that government program we would be about $70,000 in debt from Keira's cancer.

They've paid for everything, the surgery alone to remove her her tumor was $60,000, chemo is $1000 a pop, she has 10 visits left.

I find myself smack dab in the middle on most issues, but when it comes to health care, I think we all should get it. Don't care how you slice it. As far as other things, I hate how Welfare and things like that get misused, our taxes should be spent better, there are a lot of problems with our government, but there are a lot of good things too.

[taracotta7]

anyway..yes. and this is yet another problem. Tightening regulations even further because of those who abuse the system would just hurt more and more families... and otoh- your statement, unfortunately, is what a lot of people DO do. Manipulating the system, once again. I understand why there are guidelines. I understand if you make 52 dollars too much you don't get it the end... But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
Our situations are similar- in the fact that we're both single parents, receiving no CS & no medical insurance from the other parent. This isn't a "unique" situation.. there are a lot of honest hard working people who need these programs.

Totally agree. This is where we couldn't get state insurance either when we applied.......it was less than $200 away from not qualifying. When I said we made too much money.......it doesn't mean that we are rolling in the dough! LOL That is when we really had to make some hard decisions. Since I am a SAHM we sold a car and bought a very cheap car with cash just so we could pay our insurance premiums. I know that there are many in the same boat that you are in and I totally agree that it completley sucks. This is why I think it is horrible that people are on it that don't NEED it, they just find it as an easy way out of working.

[Lyd]

This is such an interesting thread. And, I love that we can have a respectful discussion here.

About state taxes going up if we had more local control . . . I thought the exact same thing. People would have to get on board with paying more state taxes. But, I feel the same way as a PP said. I wouldn't mind paying a little more if I knew it would be used well.

And, you are also right La, that if we gave more control to state/local governments, there would need to be a massive overhaul in the way we elect our representatives, the way things are regulated, etc. It would be a HUGE shift. But, in my dream world, that's still the way it would be because I really do believe that state/local leaders know better how to deal with their problems.

I do think that we need a strong federal government for certain things - like the military. I'm definitely not for getting rid of the feds entirely. I just wish my voice was heard more. And, the way things are right now, it sounds like we all feel that way. The system is broken. But, I also feel really grateful to live in this country. Our flawed system is still the best one out there IMO.

[Lyd]

Oh - and another thing I thought of . . .

To a lot of people, issues like abortion and gay marriage, are moral issues. So people who are opposed to them are opposed to them on moral grounds and it doesn't really have anything to do with big or small government. They will be opposed to them no matter what and no matter where. And, if they have to use the federal system to get the laws they want, then they probably will try to do that. Maybe that's a little hypocritical if someone says they want smaller government but still wants federal regulation on particular issues. But, I think we all agree that the federal government does have its place, and everyone will have different opinions about where that place is.

[lauren grier]

Oh - and another thing I thought of . . .

To a lot of people, issues like abortion and gay marriage, are moral issues. So people who are opposed to them are opposed to them on moral grounds and it doesn't really have anything to do with big or small government. They will be opposed to them no matter what and no matter where. And, if they have to use the federal system to get the laws they want, then they probably will try to do that. Maybe that's a little hypocritical if someone says they want smaller government but still wants federal regulation on particular issues. But, I think we all agree that the federal government does have its place, and everyone will have different opinions about where that place is.

I'm going to try to keep my response as toned down as possible ^_^
I think it is highly hypocritical- just as i think it's hypocritical to rant that obama isn't "doing more" when you ask for less government the day before. I think ....
what it boils down to is what amanda said- that it's about trust and having a voice-- NOT imo (not amandas here lol) specifically, more or less government/regulation. I think everyone wants the government there to do .. what they want it to do. Whatever that may be.
I do think. In general however. That morals are a messy thing to mix into politics... There are those that will argue that...... murder is illegal because it is morally wrong- and therefore my argument is mute. (moot? it doesn't matter lol). I disagree. Laws are there to protect the citizens of a country. Not to impose morals. It's morally wrong to cheat on your spouse- but it is not a punishable crime by mans laws (in our country). Mans laws, are there to protect the citizens from harm inflicted by other citizens. Stealing, physical harm, i'm losing my train of thought crap... lol.. This is why I accept Kellie's argument against abortion. She believes abortion is murder- she sees a fetus as a person. She sees it as harming another person- therefore this is not a moral issue- this is a protection issue to her.

[Balinda]

I am a republican for moral/religious views. That being said does not mean I only
vote for republican candidates.

As for as more or less government...I say let's make the agencies and programs work more efficiently. I know some probably do and have a hard time getting funding..and funding is hard to get from taxes or wherever it comes from in a time of recession and job loss. Another thing that runs our budgets and debt into the red is the pork barrel politics...of sure I will vote for this or that if you give me/my state/or cause x amount of dollars. This is both parties. What happened to just voting on an bill to get the greater good. Pipe Dreams, huh? But ya's know what I mean.
That's just my little 2 cents.
Great thread BTW!!!

[taracotta7]

I am a republican for moral/religious views. That being said does not mean I only
vote for republican candidates.

As for as more or less government...I say let's make the agencies and programs work more efficiently. I know some probably do and have a hard time getting funding..and funding is hard to get from taxes or wherever it comes from in a time of recession and job loss. Another thing that runs our budgets and debt into the red is the pork barrel politics...of sure I will vote for this or that if you give me/my state/or cause x amount of dollars. This is both parties. What happened to just voting on an bill to get the greater good. Pipe Dreams, huh? But ya's know what I mean.
That's just my little 2 cents.
Great thread BTW!!!

YES!!!!! I vote based on my views too but that doesn't always mean republican. Also on that note.......I know Christianity isn't everyone's view. I am strongly convicted by my views though. So I would HAVE to vote with that in mind just to stand by my beliefs. I don't judge others by their choices in their life........we all make decisions, good and bad, and have to live with the consequences of those actions. It is not up to me to decide for others. I do have to go with my "gut" and convictions though. I don't live a perfect life and I do make mistakes. I just try to be the best person I can be and show God's love and grace to others. I just hate that there are many "christians" claiming to be doing "God's work" in hate and making it hard for others to live their lives. There is no reason for hateful things to be said or done to others that I don't agree with their views or lifestyle or choices. I am not one of "those".

Also, YES on programs need to run more efficiently. Not only will that cause less head ache for those seeking assistance but it will also save our great country MAJOR dollars! What a concept. It sounds easy doesn't it? I wish I understood how this is not happening. It just seems like common sense to me.

I love this thread. I am so glad that we are all adults and can have a healthy discussion on even political matters! SSD is the best! Thank you ladies for being part of this awesome network! I just love it here!

[krystalhartley]

Krystal Hartley, you are pretty close to perfect. I agree with most of what you said.

In regards to abortion, it's not just a moral issue. I support legislature that makes abortion illegal because it DOES harm others. It protects an unborn child with a beating heart but no voice. Of course others don't see it this way, but that is my reason.

Agreed. Totally. The Government stepping in to protect a life to me is valid.

And I think preaching small government and walking a different walk to promote legislation that protects neither life or liberty of US citizens is hypocritical.

[krystalhartley]

I was going to add that my little sister and I used to argue...

We were both married with little girls, but I was 24 when I had Avery, and she was just 19. She was still in school, and her husband waited tables and various other things for income. My husband was a salaried white collar worker, and I was a SAHM.

We would constantly argue over democrat vs. republican view on things regarding size of government, welfare, healthcare, etc. She leaned liberal, and I leaned conservative. It was hilarious to me that later, when her husband landed a regular job and they bought a house, etc. that she started to see my point of view more. She finally "got" what I had been trying to say to her. She really adjusted her perspective from a young, kind-hearted, peace-love-and-happiness kind of thing to someone who was paying lots of taxes and working her butt off while friends would continue to abuse the system with their 6 kids, living on gov't funds to go to school and using it to buy fully-loaded minivans and plasma TVs, etc. And then the argument comes full circle to a discussion about how it's just not working...yes people need help, but there has got to be a better way. Just nobody has the answer.

This is very anecdotal and I know millions of women who were in my shoes who still would lean / are liberal in regards to the role of government. I also know that there are millions of women who want a smaller government but have compassion in their hearts and just accept that what we have to make the most of what we have...even if it's not a perfect system. We gripe and complain as we see system abuses, money wasted...but we don't have any answers. Even if we had a brilliant idea, the liklihood of it being implemented isn't very good. Newton's Law and all that.

[joelsgirl]

This is also however, why i think large government- when applied properly (erm)- is important. Because we need regulation w/ the greedy companies.. We need regulation to protect our children- to keep them safe, to ensure they are getting an education, to ensure they are getting health care.. etc... and I'm not sure how to balance that. I think- at the base- our government system is awesome. Checks and balances and all that. We just need a reset button.

Okay but WHO is going to regulate the greedy companies? Greedy congressmen and senators. No thanks. My dad is a very honest and well respected local politician, and he says that to get to that level, you HAVE to have sold out somewhere...and have to be willing to sell out a lot more places to stay there.

[ryliesmom]

But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
.

This I completely agree with and it's already that way in my state, and has been since I moved here. The only problem I see is the word "affordable". Who is going to define what that means and how can we truthfully define it for everyone? Every situation is unique so there has to be some limitations set up and in doing so what is affordable for you might not be affordable for me. I don't know how we ever get past that.

What scares me about gov't run healthcare is that I work in healthcare. I see what happens to hospitals and clinics when the govt is reimbursing vs. a commercial ins. carrier. It bites! I'm scared that more drs. won't be able to keep their practices open because reimbursements will go down. You can't run a hospital or clinic on just medicare/medicaid patients because the gov't reimbursements are way too low.

As far as taxes, I don't mind when my local taxes get raised as much because I know where that money is going. On the local level my taxes get raised for a specific purpose: better roads, improve the local school system, etc. On the national level taxes are just raised because the gov't needs more money. Well honestly, with the national deficit, that's just not good enough for me. My state and local govt budgets are balanced (hasn't always been that way here on the state level, but we've had a good Dem. gov. who helped us and I feel has done a pretty good job the last 8 years and yes, I'm pretty much a Republican on the national level). My household budget is balanced. I have a huge problem with the national govt not doing anything I can see to try to rectify the situation except keep asking for more money. To me they can't manage what they already have and I don't feel like they'll be able to manage any more in any better way. So until I see the govt (both sides, I don't really trust politicians of any party) cutting back a little themselves and trying to set things right, I have a huge problem with them wanting more of my money that I have worked hard to get. And this is how I feel about "bigger government". I guess it all boils down to the fact that I don't trust "Washington" at all. I think they all say what they think we want to hear and then do what fits their own personal agenda. I keep a very close eye on how my federal Congressman are voting.

I didn't mean to go on so long. Hope that sounded ok and didn't offend anyone. Ducking out of the way now. :)

[Keely~B]

Okay but WHO is going to regulate the greedy companies? Greedy congressmen and senators. No thanks. My dad is a very honest and well respected local politician, and he says that to get to that level, you HAVE to have sold out somewhere...and have to be willing to sell out a lot more places to stay there.

I think that's part of why we in the US desperately need campaign reform. We've created the monster we detest. When it costs so much money to get elected we really limit the pool as well as create the perfect environment for the shady relationships and revolving door practices between government and big business. Even at the local level it's gotten to be way out of kilter.

[ayaandjudah]

I like the stance that it's not really "less government" but rather local government, though in that case we might as well just split up into 50 countries, which I'm not opposed to :) haha.

See I agree with you here...but I am not a republican, I am heavy liberal. I have never truly gotten the entire state's rights thing. If we are to be a unified country than there are unified laws that we need to have an a unified government that controls them.

If we allowed all the power to go back to the individual states I think we'd see a pretty interesting map emerge. The entire middle of the country would abolish abortion rights, allow excess guns and would ban gay marriage. The perimeter would be the opposite.

At that point why be a unified country?

[ayaandjudah]

YES!!!!! I vote based on my views too but that doesn't always mean republican. Also on that note.......I know Christianity isn't everyone's view. I am strongly convicted by my views though. So I would HAVE to vote with that in mind just to stand by my beliefs. !

I have to say that I find it very difficult to hear all the time that abortion rights and gay marriage issues are Christian issues and we should adopt Christian law into American Law. Sarah Palin recently said that the US Law should be based on the ten commandments.

As a non Christian (I am Jewish) I can not stand to hear that because Christianity doesn't approve of gay marriage that the American government should not either.

There is something called separation of church and state. It was created so that the government would not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of religious houses of worship. That means that if the American Government were to allow Gay Marriage that they could NOT force it upon religious organizations.

So why on earth prevent others from do it? no one is asking you to marry a woman?

These reasons are why I feel that a larger federal government free of religious affiliation is vital to our country.

[crecia27]

To answer your question about higher state taxes - in theory yes I'd be ok with that. Its hard to pay taxes and know you are paying for a great life for people you had not choice of voting into office. Knowing they are living an extravagant lifestyle while our soldiers are barely making enough money to stay above poverty lines. I would like to believe that while at first it would be more expensive, it would lead to lower costs as things became more efficient. I don't think you could ever totally do away with federal taxes though, someone has to pay for the armed forces and such.

One of my biggest problems with "big" govt is the waste. If you've ever used a military hospital you've probably seen it. I would also like to think that politicians would be much more accountable if just at a local level. You make promises, you don't keep them, that community is much more likely to band together and boot your ass.

I agree with whoever said bipartisanship is killing our nation. I think it causes more hate and anger than it does anything positive

[Lyd]

To a lot of people, issues like abortion and gay marriage, are moral issues. So people who are opposed to them are opposed to them on moral grounds and it doesn't really have anything to do with big or small government. They will be opposed to them no matter what and no matter where. And, if they have to use the federal system to get the laws they want, then they probably will try to do that. Maybe that's a little hypocritical if someone says they want smaller government but still wants federal regulation on particular issues. But, I think we all agree that the federal government does have its place, and everyone will have different opinions about where that place is.

I guess what I was trying to say with this is that not necessarily EVERYONE who identifies a Republican does so because they like the idea of small government. Some of them probably call themselves Republican because they agree with the stance that the Republican Party has traditionally taken on some of these issues. And, others may be Republicans for entirely different reasons. For me, it's about having more power at the local level.

I just don't see it as black and white. There are so many different kinds of people who belong to both parties and such a range of opinions within each party. And, it's not all or nothing. Wanting more power at the local level doesn't mean that you want to eradicate the federal government. We DO need them. But, like I said, everyone will have a different opinion about how large of a role they should take and on which issues.

[Emmy]

A comment I have to make - capitalism is a good thing (IMO). Where would be we be without capitalism? Working hard to "make something of yourself" is a long held American idea and it's been important to the growth of our country. Immigrants flooded our country in the last century purely because it was the land of opportunity and if they worked hard enough they could build a success for themselves, become a business owner, get a good education for their children, etc. Capitalism makes our country work well. There is little incentive to work HARD if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your efforts - that is why capitalism works.

This is an interesting thread and I am glad that people aren't fighting - there have been some awful political threads on the homeschool board I visit. :blink: That being said - as much as a liberal would have trouble understanding my base level views on politics, I struggle just as much with understanding theirs, kwim? We could have this exact thread from the opposite perspective with me asking - so explain to me this democrat shizz, why they heck do they want to tell me how to do everything? :p (of course La asked her question a lot more gently - I'm just being silly)

As to the healthcare thing - that truly is such a difficult issue. Healthcare is a MESS. I'll post about my thoughts on that in a different post - feeding Hazel right now.:)

[lauren grier]

I don't wan to tell you how to do everything :] With the two main political parties to "chose" from i def am on the democratic side- but like I said early on i'm not a dem. I think personally.. the democratic side offers MORE liberties to the people- than the repub side- which is (imo) telling me how to live, who to love, etc etc.

Kellie my statement was more hypothetical than anything.. Stemming from krystals perfect world- thus why I Said if "run properly (erm)" or whatevr exactly I said.

You can not remove the human element from our government- there will therefore always be greed and corruption.

[lauren grier]

I just don't see it as black and white. There are so many different kinds of people who belong to both parties and such a range of opinions within each party. And, it's not all or nothing. Wanting more power at the local level doesn't mean that you want to eradicate the federal government. We DO need them. But, like I said, everyone will have a different opinion about how large of a role they should take and on which issues.

It's def not black and white.. and as has been stated- the bipartisanship is def a problem. There are some platforms of the dem party that i am absolutely opposed to. There are platforms that I don't think either party even addresses adequately.
I was just chuckling to myself the other day listening to some political radio (yeh im a dork) thinking how HARD it was drilled into our heads in school- that a third party candidate has and never will win an election. Of course they won't. We've been told for our entire lives not to waste our votes on someone other than a repub or dem.

[Emmy]

La - my perception is that the democrats try to tell me how to do everything via their regulation. An example - while I live in a very homeschool friendly state, many states have hardcore regulations that dictate what homeschooled kids have to be taught and how much and all that. Presumably this is for the protection of the kids education. But in my opinion the responsibility of educating my child falls on my shoulders not the governments. Same goes for vaccines, homebirth, even things like being able to buy raw milk (not legal in my state) etc. Their seems to be a pervasive viewpoint that the american people can't be trusted to make their own choices and therefore we need to regulate those choices so they make the "right" ones. Again - totally my opinion, my perception, my viewpoint.

[lauren grier]

La - my perception is that the democrats try to tell me how to do everything via their regulation. An example - while I live in a very homeschool friendly state, many states have hardcore regulations that dictate what homeschooled kids have to be taught and how much and all that. Presumably this is for the protection of the kids education. But in my opinion the responsibility of educating my child falls on my shoulders not the governments. Same goes for vaccines, homebirth, even things like being able to buy raw milk (not legal in my state) etc. Their seems to be a pervasive viewpoint that the american people can't be trusted to make their own choices and therefore we need to regulate those choices so they make the "right" ones. Again - totally my opinion, my perception, my viewpoint.

Well........
A lot of those things are state level issues. Right? Actually all of them but vaccines may be (and even those vary slightly from state to state yes?). If we want to reduce the regulations imposed on us by the federal govt- and put it in the hands of local govt-- how will that help things?

[Stacey42]

Honestly I don't know any Republicans who say Obama should be doing more. I do know Dems who think that though because they voted him in on the hope that he would do more. Those Reps I know think the BPs problem is BPs problem & BP need to get their butts in gear and fix it. Those Dems I know want to know why Obama hasn't made BP do 'something' to fix it, since Obama is supposed to be saviour of the country & right all the wrongs just like he promised in 2008.

I've voted Independent in every election since 1986. Throw the Bums Out! has been my rallying cry for almost 25 years now. Dems, Reps doesn't matter. The current system is broken, in part because since the Interstate Commerce Act if 1887 & the Transportation Act of 1920 there is absolutely nothing that cannot be defined as needing 'federal oversight' should the federal govt. choose to say so. That gives the feds far more power than the founders intended. More power=more corruption=more waste. Starting with FDR presidents on both sides have used those acts & others to broaden the federal scope more than I think warrented. We need fed money for roads & other transportation & help policing. That's needed from an economic standpoint. Schools as well need fed help and some basic health care for kids. Also for basic economic reasons. The feds don't need to be involved in drugs, gambling, abortion, marriage, guns, etc. Those things are better handled on a local level because what works in the country (a gun in every closet for hunting) doesn't work in the city (too many people to go hunting) or what works in Montana might be useless in California.

I'm not against some federal power, it needs to be there to hold the union together & there are things that are just handled better federally like making sure poor states still have working roads & decent schools. But if California wants to legalize pot, they should be allowed to & if Arizona wants to make possession an offense the should be allowed to.

Too much power has been given to the feds, they have become too partisan because too much is at stake & that is why I think the current system is broken and needs to be torn down & rebuilt.

[lauren grier]

Well that's the thing that I said early on in the thread-- States already CAN create legislation that is "against" the federal legislation. RE: Gay marriage.. Marijuana Decriminalization (mass passed this last year i know for sure), ETC.

[Emmy]

The healthcare issue....this is such a crazy mess. One of the reasons that I do not support the healthcare bill is that I think it addresses some of the wrong issues. It makes healthcare more available to people that couldn't get it before but it didn't do anything about the cost of health insurance or the cost of healthcare. Both of those issues are HUGE and yet they weren't addressed. For that matter - why not open up the health insurance market and let people buy health insurance across state lines from any provider? This was something the dems dodged consistently during the healthcare debates and it makes no sense to me - greater competition results in better pricing for the consumers.

As to the cost of healthcare itself - it's absolute craziness. The pricing is all over the place. If you have no health insurance at all you can pay $900 for something that will cost an insured person $179 (because their insurance company gets a better deal). The inconsistency in pricing makes having no health insurance an even greater problem for the uninsured.

That being said - there is no easy fix and I was glad to see the pre-existing condition thing go away for sure.

I suppose if we wanted to get really intellectual we could discuss whether healthcare is a right or a privilege? ;) That discussion makes my head spin though so I won't go there. I will leave it to say I don't want any child to be without needed healthcare but I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide it out of hand. There are no easy answers.

[lauren grier]

I will leave it to say I don't want any child to be without needed healthcare but I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide it out of hand. There are no easy answers.

I think we agree there.. as I said earlier similar. :]

[lauren grier]

I've never been a supporter of the so called "universal healthcare" and from what I can understand- the president wasn't either. There are members of the democratic political party - and members of his staff- that do support UH.. but I don't think it's the solution either.

[Stacey42]

But they shouldn't have to. The feds have no business making those laws. California, Mass & others can currently say 'oh this is legal here in spite of you feds' because Obama has chosen not to interfere. Some other president might decide otherwise, then we have this long drawn out expensive process of getting cases to the Supreme Court so they can decide whether drugs are a state or federal issue & whether states are allowed to legalize it.

[lauren grier]

But they shouldn't have to. The feds have no business making those laws. California, Mass & others can currently say 'oh this is legal here in spite of you feds' because Obama has chosen not to interfere. Some other president might decide otherwise, then we have this long drawn out expensive process of getting cases to the Supreme Court so they can decide whether drugs are a state or federal issue & whether states are allowed to legalize it.

I agree with you here. I DO think that they should be state regulated-- The concerns of course are, that we are a country, and should be unified.. and I can hop skip over the mass border (which is literally.. 2 steps away from my house) and do something there that is considered a crime when i get to the other corner. It's hairy.

[Emmy]

If we want to reduce the regulations imposed on us by the federal govt- and put it in the hands of local govt-- how will that help things?

I'm not sure I understand the question anymore - I was just speaking to my general political philosophy - why I believe in less government kwim? The basis of what I was saying is that my perception is that democrats want to tell people how to live because they believe people can't be trusted to make their own informed choices. Yes some of the examples I gave are regulated more at the state level but there are similar issues at the federal level (the FDA, Dept. of Education, health insurance regulation, etc). And just to clarify - I'm not arguing my point - just explaining where I'm coming from.

[lauren grier]

I'm not sure I understand the question anymore - I was just speaking to my general political philosophy - why I believe in less government kwim? The basis of what I was saying is that my perception is that democrats want to tell people how to live because they believe people can't be trusted to make their own informed choices. Yes some of the examples I gave are regulated more at the state level but there are similar issues at the federal level (the FDA, Dept. of Education, health insurance regulation, etc). And just to clarify - I'm not arguing my point - just explaining where I'm coming from.

I know you're not arguing :]
I'm just trying to understand too-- but i think stacey explained what you are saying-- that the federal regulations shouldn't exist to begin with-- that there shouldn't have to be laws overriding fed legislation- there should JUST be the state level laws.. yes what you pointed out where all state legislation - so to me, I said.. well How does giving more power to the state help your cause? because they'd just make more laws that you don't agree with. LOL it was a lot clearer in my head.

[Stacey42]

I think at a state level I'd probably be less likely to disgree with the laws. I have always been of the feeling that state & local laws are something I have a say in. I am far more active politically in my county than I am at a federal level. Yes, majority rules but I am far more accepting of defeat when I know it was my neighbors who chose otherwise and have to live with the consquences just like I do. I feel much more 'we're all in this together' at the county & state level, than I do at the federal level.

[lauren grier]

I think at a state level I'd probably be less likely to disgree with the laws. I have always been of the feeling that state & local laws are something I have a say in. I am far more active politically in my county than I am at a federal level. Yes, majority rules but I am far more accepting of defeat when I know it was my neighbors who chose otherwise and have to live with the consquences just like I do. I feel much more 'we're all in this together' at the county & state level, than I do at the federal level.

I think that's really important-- and a really valid point. I was thinking about asking earlier-- how many people were politically active on the local level. Sometimes i don't even KNOW when things are up to vote :confused: It's like a secret- (it's not really- but it's obv not as in your face as the federal level)

[Stacey42]

yeah, local elections & things don't seem to get as much coverage. You see signs in people's yards suddenly saying things like "Yes on Bond 135" and "No on Prop 72" and you're left wondering what the heck bond 135 is for & when are we voting on it? But in a way I sort of like it. Less quick feel good sound bites, less fluff, more actual info & I think, at least around here, more people making informed decisions based on more than a 30 second commercial & radio punditry, just because these is less of those things.

You also have a much better idea of people's biases when you hear things. I know the Hayes are against development bonds because they own the local mini mart & both local gas stations & it will increase the ease for new businesses (their competition) to open. I know the Alberts are for it because their 95 year old grandfather owns a 200acre farm they are hoping to develop into housing subdivisions as soon as he dies & the bond will make the possible lot sizes smaller meaning they can sell more of them. Since i know them & their motivations I can take what they are saying in a better context than I can with senators & special interest groups at a federal level

[Emmy]

I think it's fairly easy to follow local politics if you watch your local news. I personally hate the local news but it's the only way I feel like I know what's going on or what all those "vote for this" "vote no for that" signs mean LOL.

[lauren grier]

I only ever know because of fb.. ^_^ I have a few friends/their spouses that are active in local politics/ members of state govt.

[krystalhartley]

You know, up until the Great Depression, we were really all separate states. It was when we were in this terrible, terrible place that the federal government stepped in with some BIG ideas to HELP and that's what started us on this path to big government. At that point, local and state politicians (for the most part) were desperate for the help for their constituents. They couldn't look at those people uprooted from their farms, living in boxes, etc.

And so many of our programs have good intentions. They want people to have access to healthcare, education, etc., for our own good. It's healthy for us to do that. Ideally, everyone would be able to make responsible choices to provide that for their families (not talking about the people who can't, but the people who can and don't). So, they (the gov't) feel that in our best interest, it will just be mandated and *they* think they are the best people to oversee the funds for those programs and to have accountability for them (even though we know they really aren't).

Like...if a parent tells their kids to get good grades and leaves it up to the kids and it doesn't happen, well, then the parent gets a little more involved to see that it does happen. If the next level of involvement doesn't work, they push harder and "oversee" things even more. They make rules, rewards, and punishments. It becomes something that takes up a great deal of their time (and probably $$) rather than something that should have been done by the child without that much intervention (given normal learning behavior, etc....not talking about special circumstances). The parent could choose to just not bother, but then she knows it will lead to other problems in the future. And she loves her child and doesn't want to see him suffer.

I wish we were more selfeliant...as individuals, families, communities. It's a really big principle for me. There would be fewer problems, more self-esteem, and more overall happiness. Hard work, saving, education...probably everyone on this board agrees how important they are, but there are millions who don't. Sadly, there are too many who will quit a job to qualify for a program rather than push through on the low wages the job provides. There are people who use their student grants to buy unnecessary luxuries.

I like this quote from a leader of our church:
"No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family's well-being to someone else. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Lord and with his own labors, he will supply himself and his family with the spiritual and temporal necessities of life" (Spencer W. Kimball, "Welfare Services: The Gospel in Action," Ensign, Nov. 1977, 77-78).

Michael and I had a lull between employment back when Avery was little. I think he was going to essentially have about 6 weeks with no paycheck. We had very little in savings, and so we borrowed money from his mother and spent the next couple of years paying that back. When I quit my job to be a SAHM, we downsided from our fully loaded Camry to basic, basic Ford Escorts (no power anything, manual transmission). I know I've seen stories like this and even more severe from many of the cupcakes here on the board... sacrifice a little now for a better place down the road, ya know? Too many people aren't satisfied with that. They are quick to take advantage of every gov't resource before exhausting other possibilities--often with the rationalization that their taxes paid for it, so why shouldn't they?

But while we continue to take money from the gov't, then I guess they see fit to dictate how it's used.

[Ainwena]

I would consider myself a "moderate" on most issues. I am a card carrying liberal when its the environment (don't get me started on BP) and a redneck when it comes to guns. I think less government goes back to the early days of our country. It is the same debate people have been having for over 200 years, and we are still having it. IMO, I think less government goes along with the idea of being independent and supporting yourself, without having to rely on government. Even local government is still "government". The more the citizenry is enabled by government, the more they will expect and demand in the long term, and therefore be more enabled.

It's like a parent who interferes with their child's growing independence. The more they interfere, the child will either accept it and eventually depend on it and demand more OR resist it and revolt. Hence, the situation that America is in today (welfare and other social programs, not taking responsibility, no accountability...people rebelling (at this stage, getting angry, forming a new party, talk of secession blah blah blah).

What is the happy medium? Is there happy medium?
Bleh...my 2 bits.

[heatherbird]

Just poking my head in... I'm a raging liberal Democrat and I think this thread is fascinating. :)

This doesn't have a lot to do with anything, but someone mentioned earlier about how much money people spend to be elected into a federal office... here in California the two major Republican gubernatorial candidates have spent something like $80million (Meg Whitman) and $35million (Steve Poizner) on advertising. And this is just for the primary. Let me tell you, if Meg Whitman had donated $80million to our state deficit and paid for ONE ad that said 'I got our state out of debt, vote for me' I sure would, Republican or not. LOL. :)

[amandabarugh]

I'm hoping we all can post in this thread. :) I'm a die hard democrat, and have been since I knew the difference.

My hubby is a die hard democrat too, but his family is 110% republican. It is a huge issue with us, and we can't have political conversations with his family at all! (Well we could, but they just tell us we're stupid and wrong, so we don't.)

So why am I in this thread? Because I would love to hear from republicans. I want to understand their perspective, and that is something that can't / won't ever happen with DH's family.

Love the thread title, too! :thumbup:

That's me and my hubs, except it's my family that would tell us that we were stupid for being Dems, etc. I'm the token liberal in the family, in all meanings of the word.

[amandabarugh]

I was going to add that my little sister and I used to argue...

We were both married with little girls, but I was 24 when I had Avery, and she was just 19. She was still in school, and her husband waited tables and various other things for income. My husband was a salaried white collar worker, and I was a SAHM.

We would constantly argue over democrat vs. republican view on things regarding size of government, welfare, healthcare, etc. She leaned liberal, and I leaned conservative. It was hilarious to me that later, when her husband landed a regular job and they bought a house, etc. that she started to see my point of view more. She finally "got" what I had been trying to say to her. She really adjusted her perspective from a young, kind-hearted, peace-love-and-happiness kind of thing to someone who was paying lots of taxes and working her butt off while friends would continue to abuse the system with their 6 kids, living on gov't funds to go to school and using it to buy fully-loaded minivans and plasma TVs, etc. And then the argument comes full circle to a discussion about how it's just not working...yes people need help, but there has got to be a better way. Just nobody has the answer.

This is very anecdotal and I know millions of women who were in my shoes who still would lean / are liberal in regards to the role of government. I also know that there are millions of women who want a smaller government but have compassion in their hearts and just accept that what we have to make the most of what we have...even if it's not a perfect system. We gripe and complain as we see system abuses, money wasted...but we don't have any answers. Even if we had a brilliant idea, the liklihood of it being implemented isn't very good. Newton's Law and all that.

You know it's funny that you bring this up, Krystal.

When my husband and I got married, we were the butt-busting, lower middle class family that really needed assistance, but always made just a touch too much. We wore rose-colored glasses, and we were very liberal then. Then our daughter was born with health problems. We needed the assistance even more, but we were slowly moving up, job-wise. Still busted our butts to make ends meet though, and they were barely meeting, if at all. Still liberal as heck.

Now, our hard work has paid off. We don't need the assistance, even though the health issues are still there, and I'm now able to comfortably stay home, where before we couldn't afford for me to work (daycare) but couldn't afford for me not to do so. Everyone has told us that once we hit this point we would become more conservative, and I'm waiting to see if that switch happens because I find myself even more liberal now than I was when we were robbing Peter to pay Paul. Same with the hubs. Although, he's not nearly as bad as I am.:p

I find the dynamics of situations like this fascinating. It's interesting how some change completely, and yet, others continue with their same way of thinking when their personal situations change, either for the better or worse. Politics, in general, fascinate me, though.

[lovely1m]

I don't think that just cause you start to make more money you become more conservative. I always think thats a strange thing to think. My grandparents were rich, large farmers who also owned a trucking business. They vote/d democrat everytime. :)

[Kim Mauch]

I don't think that just cause you start to make more money you become more conservative. I always think thats a strange thing to think. My grandparents were rich, large farmers who also owned a trucking business. They vote/d democrat everytime. :)

I hear this often from my conservative In Law's. Like it's just a matter of time until I "wise up" and stop being liberal.

Like Amanda, I'm living proof this is not true! I was raised by a single mom of three, and we were supported by all kinds of public assistance. I even got some Financial Aid in college due to being so poor. My sisters and their kids still get state health care and other assistance as they are still struggling. Now Hubby and I make a fairly decent living, don't want for anything, and I am still as liberal (or more so) than ever. I could go on about all the ways that I'm liberal, but I don't want to get kicked out of this thread :) and I want my fellow SSD'ers to still like me. :p

I've stayed on the sidelines for most of this discussion, but I am lovin' how civil and intelligent you all are keeping this thread. Kudos to you! :thumbup: