|
|
| Author |
Message |
nsidestrate
Suited's Love Monkey
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 22390
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: Question for my Republican friends |
 |
|
I know that my standing as a devout Liberal will make nervous that I am playing some trick on you, but I promise that I am not. There are many aspects of the Republican party and its supporters that I clearly fail to understand and I hope that you can help me to see things better through your eyes. I promise not to argue. Heck, I won't even be around much the next several days.
My question centers around the McCain convention speech where he repeatedly used a theme of "change." He said a number of times that "change is coming" and described himself and his Vice Presidential candidate as agents of change.
As Republicans, what does this message mean to you? Does it suggest some sort of break with or repudiation of Bush? What sort of change do you think is intended when he says this?
I'm not particularly interested in the idea that he is trying to steal Obama's message of change. I don't want to know it from a tactics point of view, but rather to understand what changes you understand that he intends to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
krazytxan
Texas Matriarch
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4558
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like for you to answer the same question concerning Obama.
And nside, please tell me, as a friend, why you think Obama is qualified to be President.
You go first.
I don't want to argue either. I just don't see what Obama brings to the table besides higher taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
niin
ITH Software Programmer
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 4485
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the current problems with our government, economy, etc, are based on taxes being too low. I think the problems stem from over-spending. I do not thing Obama will lower spending; I think he will raise it, to pay for all his socialized programs. Higher spending means higher taxes from *somewhere*. I don't care if I fall in the 'you'll have lower taxes' bracket. I feel that raising taxes by such an high amount on people he deems 'rich' is neither fair nor the correct solution.
To put it simply, I don't think that someone should be penalized for making more money than someone else. The 'rich' already pay an overwhelming portion of income taxes paid to the government.
In 2007:
-- The wealthiest 1% paid 37% of the taxes.
-- The top 10% paid 68% of the income taxes collected
I'm not saying I think all taxes should just be 'flat', either. I feel that, in a perfect world, you'd be taxed on your non-essential income, but that's an impossible thing to measure.
But I do not think raising taxes on the 'rich' higher than they already are is the answer to any problem. I think it, in the long run, would actually cause the government to collect less taxes. It would cause an initial surge of money, but that's it.
I think McCain will (try to) keep spending low. No matter how many times the '90% Bush voting record' is parroted, I know for the important issues he has voted has mostly voted how he feels is the 'right' way to vote (I've given examples in previous posts); sometimes that's the same as Bush, sometimes it isn't. I do think he is serious about trying to limit earmarks and pork-barrel spending, which is what I think is the main problem with government.
I also think that 90% number being thrown around is just bogus. Congress as a whole voted with Bush 40% of the time; Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. I do not see that as 'change'. I see that as playing politics.
There are many things I do not agree with McCain on; I absolutely hate the entire Republican social platform (abortion, etc). But I feel that is more easily kept in check than the socialization of government.
I think each candidate thinks they have the 'answer'. I simply agree with McCain's answer more than Obama's. I don't think the 'change' Obama has planned is the correct course for the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bullajami
Uber Squid
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 8792
Location: Mrs. Bull's Doghouse
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it means the same two things it means when Obama says it.
"Jack" and "Shit".
It 's just a mass appeal to those who feel like things aren't right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5314
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am (by my definition) a Republican, I vote for R more than 2/3s of the time.
However McCain is one of my least favorite Rs.
His message for Change rang hollow to me and does not inspire.
I believe the WH is currently in Republican hands, exactly what is "change" when you are of the same party? At best it is nonsensical, at worst it gains my sniggering laugh that McCain isn't a Republican after all.
I am one that always disliked McCain for a couple of reasons, one of which that he seemed to pander to the liberal Media and do things they liked, rather than do things that made them holler.
Change is not an inspirational message by McCain for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krazytxan
Texas Matriarch
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4558
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was not a big McCain backer until recently.
Just watch him tonight.
He is the REAL deal. He has been through hell and back.
He is a TRUE servant of the people and his past proves this.
McCain will reach out to ALL people...even to Obama.
I believe he will try to cut out all the crap spending in Washington.
He is NOT afraid to fight and will do so for what is right.
He has military experience and we still need this in this time of terrorism.
He will make me feel safe.
And what does Obama offer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toom
Spelling Bee Champ
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 2385
Location: Running for benevolent dictator next
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it was
1) a strategy to turn the "hopenchange" rhetoric around on the opponent. I think it failed in that regard, and I think it was bad strategy in that it was unnecessary. The middle-of-the-road voters don't vote for Obama this time because of hopenchange.
2)an effort to distance themselves from the Bush administration. I think they failed in this regard too, as they never properly answered the "90%" charges (which are misleading, considering Obama voted with GWB 45% of the time).
I guess I can answer this thread even though I vote for Ds often, most notably and recently Strickland (OH governor) 2006, because I will be voting for McCain in November. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krazytxan
Texas Matriarch
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4558
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to know a little about me...
Tonight... I made my youngest two kids (age 11 and 18 ) watch a replay of 9-11 . I paused it to give my comments.. they need to know and understand what happened. I hope they did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krazytxan
Texas Matriarch
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4558
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Niside..sharky..please answer my questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jfletcher
Will work for food
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 3141
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my quandry, which I think is similar to nside's:
McCain insists he's not like Bush.
Republicans insist they like McCain.
Does that mean that Republicans don't like Bush?
(His approval rating would seem to say that is the case, although it's hard to find a Republican official willing to publicly admit it.)
So, Republicans, do you like McCain because you think he will be like Bush, or because you think he won't be like Bush?
(Yes, I know, nothing is so simply black and white, but go with me here for the sake of the debate.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PizzaByNight
53o
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 3623
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nsidestrate wrote: | | I'm not particularly interested in the idea that he is trying to steal Obama's message of change. |
Lol….I can’t help but comment that just as Republicans were running with the lipstick comment recently, there’s a current of “McCain is trying to be a me-too change guy” running in the press lately.
| Helen Thomas wrote: | | McCain has, incredibly, tried to hijack Obama's slogan - "change." This is an audacious McCain tactic that tries to separate him from President Bush, most of whose policies McCain has solidly supported for the past eight years. |
| Michael Moore, editor of the Union Advocate wrote: | | And while McCain used the word "change" 10 times in his acceptance speech, the fact is he's voted with President George W. Bush more than 90 percent of the time in the Senate. |
| Barack Obama wrote: | | "How do they have the nerve to say it?" Obama asked a suburban Detroit audience Monday. "When you've been supporting this current president, your party has been in power, and you're not offering anything new, how is it that you're serious about change? You're not. It's empty words. You're just saying it because you realize, 'Obama has been talking about change. That seems to be working. Maybe we should try to say it too.'" |
I had not listened to McCain’s speech so when I read the OP, I was cynical as well. But after reading the transcript, I changed my mind. His references to change are specific (or so I interpret them) in ways that would resonate with Republicans.
There are 37 paragraphs in McCain’s acceptance speech. In 5 of them he mentions change.
| McCain in paragraph 10 wrote: | | “She knows where she comes from and she knows who she works for. She stands up for what’s right, and she doesn’t let anyone tell her to sit down. I’m very proud to have introduced our next Vice President to the country. But I can’t wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming. I’m not in the habit of breaking promises to my country and neither is Governor Palin. And when we tell you we’re going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country’s problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We’ve got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you.” |
The first case in which he mentions change and perhaps the most important. With Social Security being such a sensitive issue (many are warning that there is going to be a funding crisis in coming decades as the worker to retiree ratio dwindles), it seems to me he’s offering a secret handshake to conservatives that have an interest in entitlement reform – serious reform in which a significant priority will be placed upon the protection of the American taxpayer.
| blog.afl.cio wrote: | Obama’s record on Social Security is clear. As a senator, he’s voted against proposals that would require deep benefit cuts. He’s pledged that as president, he would oppose benefit cuts or an increase in the retirement age.
In contrast, McCain called Social Security “a disgrace” and also has said if he becomes president, cuts to Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age would be “on the table.” In his decades in the Senate, McCain repeatedly has voted for plans that would undermine Social Security by diverting public funds into risky privatized accounts or opening the door to benefit cuts. |
If FDR made a promise to the country that ultimately can’t be kept, then let’s unbury our heads from the sand and make some adjustments while it’s still early. If McCain could pull something like this off, that would be huge change. What I fear is that the Democrats of tomorrow will attempt to address the shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare solely through tax increases, placing an undue burden on the young and the prosperous. Social Security and Medicare to help serve as safety nets ? Yes. To be used as blunt instruments to subtly achieve massive societal wealth transfer ? No. (Can you feel the paranoia coming through ?  )
| McCain in paragraph 14 wrote: | | “I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles. We’re going to change that. We’re going to recover the people’s trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.” |
1. He wants to change the trend from both parties making government bigger to his side of the aisle being a force for reforming government once again. What Reagan lover wouldn’t be thrilled about the idea of smaller government ?
2. He addresses those Republicans who feel disillusioned that Republican politicians have not lived up to the expectations created by the Republican Revolution of 1994. He promises to change that perception. Not sure how well that flies since many conservatives were lukewarm about McCain.
| Paragraph 19 wrote: | | “I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn’t even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That’s going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We’re going to help workers who’ve lost a job that won’t come back, find a new one that won’t go away. We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we’ll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.” |
Am assuming that unemployment benefits is the Democrats’ baby and he wants to change some aspect of it. I’m impressed with how informed many of you ITHers are and anyone who can provide amplification on this, feel free.
Harrington would award zero points for the job training reference, as that’s a common staple in acceptance speeches.
| Paragraphs 25 & 26 wrote: | “I’m running for President to keep the country I love safe, and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has. I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military and the power of our ideals — to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace. In America, we change things that need to be changed. Each generation makes its contribution to our greatness. The work that is ours to do is plainly before us. We don’t need to search for it.”
“We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington. The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn’t a cause, it’s a symptom. It’s what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.” |
He seems to take aim at everyone there. I would think he holds the Republicans more responsible for national security but the Democrats for education. His earlier comments in the speech about introducing more competition into our educational system and making it more accountable are the types of changes that conservatives are looking for.
So, after looking through the speech, I don’t think he was throwing the change word around for pandering purposes at all. While the Republicans are looking in their purses and discovering lipstick these days, Democrats are finding loose change.
Last edited by PizzaByNight on Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:13 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
niin
ITH Software Programmer
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 4485
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jfletcher wrote: | Here's my quandry, which I think is similar to nside's:
McCain insists he's not like Bush.
Republicans insist they like McCain.
Does that mean that Republicans don't like Bush? |
Bananas aren't like apples.
I like Bananas.
Does that mean I don't like apples?
I don't think your question is valid, so I can't really give an answer.
I don't think Bush is near as bad as the media (and many people) think he is. I think many/most of the problems with the economy are not his fault. I don't like virtually any of Bush's social policies (although I do understand that position).
Did you know that, since the Bush tax cuts in 2003, that our federal revenues have grown by $745 Billion (according to the Congressional Budget Office), the largest increase in history over such a short period of time.
I do think the government (not just the administration) overspends.
There are many reasons for the poor economy, but I do not think the reason is entirely Bush-related.
I do not think McCain will be Bush 3, if that is what you are asking; and I think that McCain is serious about trying to get spending under control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nsidestrate
Suited's Love Monkey
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 22390
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krazytxan wrote: | | Niside..sharky..please answer my questions. |
I'm just checking in for a second before bed - I really won't be around much, so I didn't see your question sooner. I would be glad to explain why I support Obama, but I don't want to do it in this thread (at least not until people have answered).
I'm not looking for why people support McCain so much, more what they perceive the message of change to mean. I am especially interested in the notion of whether they imagine a McCain administration will be significantly different than a Bush administration and if they see that as a good thing or a bad thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nsidestrate
Suited's Love Monkey
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 22390
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PizzaByNight wrote: | | There are 37 paragraphs in McCain’s acceptance speech. In 5 of them he mentions change. |
True, but they bookend the policy portion of the speech. A lot of those paragraphs contained no policy content (telling his life story, thanking the people he wanted to thank for helping him get there).
| Pizza wrote: | | Am assuming that unemployment benefits is the Democrats’ baby and he wants to change some aspect of it. I’m impressed with how informed many of you ITHers are and anyone who can provide amplification on this, feel free. |
He hasn't been terribly specific, but the upshot is that he wants to revamp unemployment to provide more training to help unemployed people change industries. He would eliminate the many other job training programs and create one system, run through the unemployment system. It is a bit unclear how it would all work, since the actual direct contact aspect of unemployment is a state function at the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
janeg
Regina Canada
Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 5103
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| niin wrote: | | I don't think the current problems with our government, economy, etc, are based on taxes being too low. I think the problems stem from over-spending. I do not thing Obama will lower spending; I think he will raise it, to pay for all his socialized programs. |
This is something I really don't get about right-wing/conservative thinking. You all seem to worry that a liberal/democrat government will over-spend yet historically, it's conservative/republican governments that have left you with deficits. You don't want money spent on social programs but you appear to have no problem with massive military over-spending funded by borrowing. Reagan did it and Bush has taken it new levels.
| Quote: |
To put it simply, I don't think that someone should be penalized for making more money than someone else. The 'rich' already pay an overwhelming portion of income taxes paid to the government. |
| Quote: |
In 2007:
-- The wealthiest 1% paid 37% of the taxes.
-- The top 10% paid 68% of the income taxes collected
|
If you found your data from articles similar to this one then I have to argue with using the numbers as a fair representation of the tax situation. The top 1% earned the same amount of income as the bottom 50%! Consider what would happen to those in the bottom group if they had to pay 17% more in taxes. The effect of a 33% tax rate on someone making $10 million is not comparable to the impact it would have on someone making $20k a year.
| Quote: |
I'm not saying I think all taxes should just be 'flat', either. I feel that, in a perfect world, you'd be taxed on your non-essential income, but that's an impossible thing to measure. |
If, by non-essential, you mean income over and above what's required to maintain a reasonable standard of living, I think the tax system does attempt to do that, the problem is they start from a 'poverty level' that is applied across the board, without considering the differing economic situations that exist within the country. Just as a lower level can't be fairly set without taking local economic conditions into account, neither can you set an upper level that will be fair to higher income brackets. A person making a $150k a year has a very different view of what a 'reasonable living standard' is that that of someone making $25k and someone making $10 million a year.
| Quote: |
I think McCain will (try to) keep spending low. No matter how many times the '90% Bush voting record' is parroted, I know for the important issues he has voted has mostly voted how he feels is the 'right' way to vote (I've given examples in previous posts); sometimes that's the same as Bush, sometimes it isn't. I do think he is serious about trying to limit earmarks and pork-barrel spending, which is what I think is the main problem with government.
<snip>
There are many things I do not agree with McCain on; I absolutely hate the entire Republican social platform (abortion, etc). But I feel that is more easily kept in check than the socialization of government. |
Based on the history of republican administrations, I think you are being overly optimistic. There is, and has been, so little spent in the US on so-called social programs; what are you using as a basis of comparison? How do you know social spending would not be easier to keep in check? Or that they will require taxing the rich? And would that really be worse than the current situation, with the government spending borrowed money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
