Actually, I happen to be a conservative, and I have had plenty of my share with liberals who would rather rant and demonize than speak civilly. If you check the linked blogs on my website, you will happen to see two are conservative and one is libertarian.
To be honest, we have had the best economies under Clinton and Reagan. Reagan's policies pulled us out of another recession. Clinton cut military spending because the Cold War officially ended during the Reagan years; this is why we had a biggers. Bush raised taxes due to the war in Afganistan and Iraq. However, they never pushed our economy to this point. The public has been suffering just these past three years.
Conservatives want to keep medicare and social security. Not a single person wants to remove them. There is certainly a lot of waste and fraud, so it needs to be reformed. Also, some debate exists about whether medicare and social security should be state-run or federal-run programs. The states should know what would benefit their citizens better than the federal government would. Social security is virtually defunct, anyway, because the program does not have enough money. Paul Ryan's plan would have indeed kept all the necessary programs intact. Ryan wanted to reform and improve medicare, but the Democrat congressmen smeared him and lied about his program.
I agree that the government should lower taxes and spend less because then the people would have more of their own money to keep the economy going. The massive trillion-dollar debt had little or nothing to do with medicare or social security and in fact had plenty to do with Obama's nationalized healthcare, the stimulus bailout, cash for clunkers, and other billion-dollar programs.
My problem wasn't really with conservatives in general, in fact, I consider myself fiscally conservative. My issue was that this lady kept insisting that she had all the answers when she was clearly completely uneducated about the entire situation, process and issues involved. I agree that the deficit is largely war-induced. I agree that it seriously needs reduction and we need to cut a lot. I also think that the top 1% of the country needs to be taxed more. I see your point about states managing welfare and medicare, but the inherent issue with that is that some states will inevitably have better or easier to access programs and the needy will flock to them, leaving them stuck with a huge budgetary concern.
Yeah, there tend to be uneducated or hostile people on all sides of the spectrum. I have been severely burned by both conservatives and liberals. And I have witnessed encounters in which two people who used to speak civilly then spit and rant incoherently at each other due to political differences. Sometimes, I hate politics, but they fascinate me. *shrug*
"I see your point about states managing welfare and medicare, but the inherent issue with that is that some states will inevitably have better or easier to access programs and the needy will flock to them, leaving them stuck with a huge budgetary concern."
Let me see if I understand what you are saying... you do not want medicare and social security to be state-funded because it would burden the budgets of a small number of states. So, you would rather medicare and social security be nationally-funded, which would burden all of the states?
I do not think the deficit is war-induced. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq never burdened our economy the way we have been burdened for the past three years. Our nation has gone through much more serious and expensive wars without damaging our economy - WW1 is a good example because then we had the Roaring Twenties. WW2 was much more costly, and our economy was already in a Depression at the time. However, the 1950s was full of economic prosperity. Our nation's economy has been suffering three years instead of eleven. I tend to focus the blame on Obama's nationalized healthcare (Most jobs offer health insurance, and we already have medicare), the stimulus (unmployment rate is higher than 3 years ago), cash for clunkers, and other billion-dollar programs.
Actually, I happen to be a conservative, and I have had plenty of my share with liberals who would rather rant and demonize than speak civilly. If you check the linked blogs on my website, you will happen to see two are conservative and one is libertarian.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, we have had the best economies under Clinton and Reagan. Reagan's policies pulled us out of another recession. Clinton cut military spending because the Cold War officially ended during the Reagan years; this is why we had a biggers. Bush raised taxes due to the war in Afganistan and Iraq. However, they never pushed our economy to this point. The public has been suffering just these past three years.
Conservatives want to keep medicare and social security. Not a single person wants to remove them. There is certainly a lot of waste and fraud, so it needs to be reformed. Also, some debate exists about whether medicare and social security should be state-run or federal-run programs. The states should know what would benefit their citizens better than the federal government would. Social security is virtually defunct, anyway, because the program does not have enough money. Paul Ryan's plan would have indeed kept all the necessary programs intact. Ryan wanted to reform and improve medicare, but the Democrat congressmen smeared him and lied about his program.
I agree that the government should lower taxes and spend less because then the people would have more of their own money to keep the economy going. The massive trillion-dollar debt had little or nothing to do with medicare or social security and in fact had plenty to do with Obama's nationalized healthcare, the stimulus bailout, cash for clunkers, and other billion-dollar programs.
My problem wasn't really with conservatives in general, in fact, I consider myself fiscally conservative. My issue was that this lady kept insisting that she had all the answers when she was clearly completely uneducated about the entire situation, process and issues involved.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the deficit is largely war-induced. I agree that it seriously needs reduction and we need to cut a lot. I also think that the top 1% of the country needs to be taxed more.
I see your point about states managing welfare and medicare, but the inherent issue with that is that some states will inevitably have better or easier to access programs and the needy will flock to them, leaving them stuck with a huge budgetary concern.
Yeah, there tend to be uneducated or hostile people on all sides of the spectrum. I have been severely burned by both conservatives and liberals. And I have witnessed encounters in which two people who used to speak civilly then spit and rant incoherently at each other due to political differences. Sometimes, I hate politics, but they fascinate me. *shrug*
ReplyDelete"I see your point about states managing welfare and medicare, but the inherent issue with that is that some states will inevitably have better or easier to access programs and the needy will flock to them, leaving them stuck with a huge budgetary concern."
Let me see if I understand what you are saying... you do not want medicare and social security to be state-funded because it would burden the budgets of a small number of states.
So, you would rather medicare and social security be nationally-funded, which would burden all of the states?
I do not think the deficit is war-induced. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq never burdened our economy the way we have been burdened for the past three years. Our nation has gone through much more serious and expensive wars without damaging our economy - WW1 is a good example because then we had the Roaring Twenties. WW2 was much more costly, and our economy was already in a Depression at the time. However, the 1950s was full of economic prosperity.
Our nation's economy has been suffering three years instead of eleven. I tend to focus the blame on Obama's nationalized healthcare (Most jobs offer health insurance, and we already have medicare), the stimulus (unmployment rate is higher than 3 years ago), cash for clunkers, and other billion-dollar programs.