From the Washington Post Study:
1. The two parties are miles apart on whether it is better to have smaller government with fewer services or bigger government with more services. Republicans overwhelmingly say people should take care of themselves; Democrats overwhelmingly say government should do everything possible to improve living standards.
2. Republicans see deficit reduction as more important than spending money in an effort to create jobs. Democrats believe the opposite.
3. Divisions over religious and social issues are equally stark. As a whole, the two parties are mirror images of each other on whether organized religious groups should stay out of politics or stand up for their beliefs in the political arena. They are similarly at odds over whether there should be a high wall of separation between church and state and whether government should more actively protect religious heritage.
Where do you stand on these 3 issues? Is it cut and dry or do you feel conflicted? Do you go along with the party line? Please respond.
For now, I just want to point out:
“1. The two parties are miles apart”
The GOP seems to be miles apart. One part wants status quo. The conservatives (some want spending on social issues ie. Huckabee) want spending…but for their purposes, but smaller. The Tea Party wants to just cut spending.
So yes….the two parties are miles apart. You have it down exactly. The problem is that its the progressives vs the Tea Party.
“Cut spending” is an absurd statement. On what? stop paying people salaries? take away VA benefits? close down national parks? Cut out medicare? Take away people social security that they count on? Let roads go to further ruin?
Cut spending is a meaningless bumpersticker.
What social issues does Huckabee want to spend on?
What progressives? Where is the head of the teaparty?
One big huh!!!!????????
@Moon-howler
Cut spending is an absurd statement? So…what? Just keep increasing spending? Its a general term meaning we have to decide what to spend on, cut the rest. How about a 10% cut across the board?
Huckabee liked his “safety nets.”
What progressives? The politicians that like the philosophy of progressivism. Its not about individuals. It’s the philosophy. What does having a “head” have to do with the Tea Party? Its a movement with the same general principles. It doesn’t need a head.
What part didn’t you understand? The politicians/voters that like to spend, grow the government vs the ones that don’t.
yes, cut spending is an absurd remark. I explained why. It says nothing. If you told me to quit spending, would you mean stop paying my mortgage? Cut my grocery bill in half? not buy gas for my car to go to work?
“philosophy of progressivism” oh bullshit. That was 100 years ago.
Please, cut the Glenn Beck stuff.
If I wanted to write to the Democrats or Republicans, I know where to write. Where can I write to the teaparty? I like accountability. If it doesn’t have a head, maybe it shouldnt have any representatives who have crawled under the Republican fence.
Cargo, ytou have dodged every question I asked.
I haven’t dodged a single question. You just don’t like my answers. And I’ve put forth MY suggestions for cutting spending many times. I don’t ever get a comment on them. The one above said, let’s cut spending across the board by 10%.
You do know that if we cut spending by 10%, that means that we still are increasing our debt, right? Or..how about this…. freeze spending levels. No new borrowing.
Can you see the government reducing spending by $1? Because even these cuts that everyone’s worried about from the sequestration by the military…still only 100 billion per year. If that’s what Congress wants, let them answer for any security problems.
We can cut a lot of stuff out. But other programs have to go too.
Progressivism is still a political philosophy. Many politicians ascribe to it. Hillary Clinton calls herself a progressive. Just because you don’t want to admit it, doesn’t mean its not true.
Cutting spending, those examples = cutting only needed things….now you’re being willfully obtuse. So that phrase means nothing? You don’t try to cut personal spending when you are spending beyond your means? Is everything that the federal gov’t spends an absolutely necessary expenditure. Instead of replying with bumper sticker answers, why don’t you answer MY question? Do you favor just continuing our increasing deficits and borrowing more and more? Or not? If I told you to quit spending because you are paying more out, than you are taking in….and you’re eating steak every night…yes. Stop paying for steak. Stop eating at restaurants. Don’t by jewelry, etc. I’d tell you to prioritize. And if that means juggling necessary accounts..well, that’s what you do. We have no more money and borrowing more makes everything worse.
If you have a concern with a statement by a Tea Party group, contact that group. If you have a problem with a philosophical stance….there’s no one. Just like I have no one to call because I disagree with a liberal idea. The Tea Party is a movement, not a organization. The movement is made up of a number of organizations.
@Cargo you are trying to justify a bumper sticker remark still. It says nothing. Obviously, some areas can absorb budget cuts better than others. Until we can take the 1% off the sacred list, I see no point in a conversation. Why should Mitt Romney pay at less of a rate than I do?
I don’t want to gut this nation. If I get hit with a !% or 2% hike, then that is the price I have to pay. I would want some assurance that those with greater assets than I have also pay more of their fair share.
Our tax rates used to be far higher than they are now. They are the least they have been in my lifetime. Frankly, it is fairly transparent who is the engine driving the train that is protecting the wealthy. I feel like a surf in a feudal society as it is.
The federal government’s jewelry is a new weapon. It can’t be compared to household budgets. Let’s just pull a few items out of the sky…the National Parks which are our resource have been allowed to go to fallow and fall into ill-repair since 2000. This applies to National monuments and battlefields also. Do we want to cut them back even more? Might as well sell them and put in condos. How can you cut back on medicare? How about social security? T
Border security? Can’t be done. You all would howl too loudly. Federal roads? Can’t be done. Cabinet level departments? What I might chose might make someone else howl.
Cut back Congressional perks. I can go with that…
Next topic. I can’t mush too much together.
I just don’t accept “stop spending.” It is meaningless. Its a bumper sticker.
Oh.. so we shouldn’t try to cut spending unless the ‘evil’ one percent pay their fair share.
So…what’s fair, then?
Hey cargo, would you be willing to pay higher taxes for immigration and border enforcement?
You didn’t ask me, but that’s an easy one. We’d have MORE than enough to pay for the best immigration and border enforcement on Earth, a legitimate Federal Government job according to the Constitution, if the Federal Government actually focused on its legitimate jobs and left the rest to the states. Example: Border enforcement=legitimate Federal Government job….Health Care=Not a legitimate Federal Government Job.
@Starryflights
I’d be willing to cut other programs.
I would be willing to pay a specific tax dedicated to only paying down the debt. Of course, no matter how high that tax gets, we can’t keep up with the spending.
@Cargosquid
Why do you call them evil? I don’t think they are evil. I think people who earn a million a year have more ability to pay than someone making $50k. They could easily go up a $ or two in rate. I know I sure have had to eat that much of an increase a year, in days past.
Obviously, you can’t have tax cuts and 2 wars and 2 major new programs and end up on top. Even I don’t believe in that kind of fairly tale.
Cuts are needed also but…not every area can take a cut. Some areas can take larger percents than other areas. Common sense is needed also.
The people who whine and bellow about taxes need to realize that taxes are lower now than they have ever been in years.
@Cargosquid
I would be willing to have a debt cancelling tax also, within limits.
How about church/state issues? Who is winning? the church or state? Is the balance just about right?
How about praying before meetings? Local? Supreme Court? Congress? Presidential Prayer breakfasts?
You cannot favor debt reduction while simultaneously favor defense spending and border security, unles you are willing to pay more tax. You position is contradictory.
@Moon-howler
the “evil” was sarcasm. I was basing it on the narrative presented by the left.
Obviously, you can’t have tax cuts and 2 wars and 2 major new programs and end up on top. Even I don’t believe in that kind of fairly tale.
Cuts are needed also but…not every area can take a cut. Some areas can take larger percents than other areas. Common sense is needed also.
FINALLY!
And that’s what I mean by stop spending. You just described spending CUTS. So the “rich” have more ability to pay. So…how much is fair? They already pay more in percentage wise and in per capita now? Why does a 1% increase mean that everything is ok. You can confiscate the entire wealth of the top 10% and not match one year’s deficit.
Since we can’t pay for what we are doing… and raising taxes WILL NOT grow the economy or pay down the deficit since we spend faster than we can raise it, we HAVE to cut programs. Now we decide what to cut. I feel nothing should be sacred. If we want a fully funded program, what do we cut elsewhere?
@Starryflights
Of course I can.
It’s called prioritization. Cut spending elsewhere. Kill the department of education and move ITS budget to border security. There. Fixed.
I would make Dept. of Education an agency. It was a good idea on paper but I am not sure what their role really is now. I do believe prioritizing education is a good idea but not the way we are going now.
You want to put more money on the border? Why? You are aware of how much Obama has already done? Moving the Dept of Ed’s budget to border security would fix nothing. Such a suggestion only shows me one thing and one thing only.
You might want to check various news sources and discover that the southern border traffic is now down to a trickle because of economic improvement for the middle class in Mexico.
Lots of things should be sacred.
I maintain that “Stop Spending” is a bumper sticker.
@Moon-howler
You want to put more money on the border? Why?
That was only in answer to Starry’s question. I actually have other priorities that come first.
I used the DoE’s budget as an example because that’s one agency I would like to see gone.
“I maintain that “Stop Spending” is a bumper sticker.”
“Cuts are needed also but…not every area can take a cut. Some areas can take larger percents than other areas.”
I’m confused. You have two contradictory statements.
The second one is the definition of “stopping spending.” That’s what a cut is.
I probably got distracted. Shrug…Some agencies can take bigger cuts that others. New weapons could take a bigger cut than veterans benefits. (If we could just get out of Afghanistan)
See there, I completely agree! We need to prioritize.
Militarily, I think that it necessary to cut funding, but don’t hollow out the force. Kill the LCS program in the Navy. Cancel one of the two engines demanded by Congress, but not the military for the F-35. Do we need the F-22 more than we need more aircraft in general? Review our treaty needs and responsibilities. What size Army do we need? I say keep the Marines and Spec Ops at current size. Reform the Navy ship acquisition program. We’ve been getting crap lately. Streamline the benefits program, including expanding them. Open treatment by private doctors to the VA program. Simplify and expand the college tuition programs for vets, especially combat vets. Allow receipt of BOTH retirement and disability. Get out of Iraq (we still have troops there…called “non-combat troops.) and Afghanistan. The missions are DONE.
Refurbish and replace equipment.
You’ve already seen my ideas on other cuts.
I know how we could start cutting some funding. Do you realize that after only one term in congress they can retire at full salary for life. My IBM retirement is decent but not even close to theirs. I suspect your retirement isn’t that good either. How about we have government employees receive equivalent retirement, healthcare and any other perks.