Why should I vote Republican?

[Moooooo]

thanks man..and right back at you.

Your story really makes me think about how good health is one of the prerequisites to be able to prosper, and how much of a burden chronic health problems can be.

Did your mom work before she got sick?  If so, she should be able to get some type of disability from the insurance she had at her previous job.

I understand the situation in a way, because my mom suffered from chronic health problems for about 8 years.  Had she not been married to a man with a good income, or married at all, she would have also suffered economically because of her illness.

I went out and bought supplemental disability insurance about 8 years ago, and I bought additional disability coverage this past year, to cover me in case I am ever unable to work due to illness.  Good health is a great blessing that we should never take for granted.

I wish your mom the best and hope she can recover from her illness.

Yes, my mom worked until she got sick.  But Im pretty sure her job at the time wasn't anything major.  I think she was a secretary for a small business.  When she was diagnosed with Chron's she was forced to get a colonoscopy and was put on a very harsh steroid (prednisone).  The prednisone eventually lead to (or at least the doctors think...) her breaking both of her hips.  She now has steel reinforcements/plates in both of her hips, which helps her to walk and get around.  All of this at 35.

As far as disability.  She refuses to file.  She thinks people will look down on her as if she were on welfare or something.

After all of that she's still a pretty upbeat person.  Of course, she has her good days and her bad days.  But overall Id say she's pretty happy with life.

[dazzleman]

Yes, my mom worked until she got sick.  But Im pretty sure her job at the time wasn't anything major.  I think she was a secretary for a small business.  When she was diagnosed with Chron's she was forced to get a colonoscopy and was put on a very harsh steroid (prednisone).  The prednisone eventually lead to (or at least the doctors think...) her breaking both of her hips.  She now has steel reinforcements/plates in both of her hips, which helps her to walk and get around.  All of this at 35.

As far as disability.  She refuses to file.  She thinks people will look down on her as if she were on welfare or something.

After all of that she's still a pretty upbeat person.  Of course, she has her good days and her bad days.  But overall Id say she's pretty happy with life.

My mom was also on heavy doses of prednisone.  She didn't work before she got sick, so it didn't affect her financially.

Just about every job offers disability coverage as a benefit.  Typically, the disability pays 60% of salary during the period of disability.  SSI is a fallback for people without private coverage, since private coverage will almost always pay more.

I am generally unfriendly to welfare, but you can be sure that I'd file for my disabilit coverage if I ever needed it.  In fact, I was on disability for a short time earlier this year when I had my neck surgery.  I think there's a big difference between filing for an insurance benefit on which you have effectively paid premiums, and being a healthy person who takes something from taxpayers without making any contribution to society.  Your mom really ought to reconsider her position on disability.

It's scary the side effects that the prednisone can have, however much it might be necessary to control some types of inflammation.  I really wish your mom the best, and I'm glad to hear that she's keeping her spirits up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry was a prosecuter. Explain to me why someone should vote against the prosecuter because of crime?

Democrats are softer on crime than Republicans.  Period.  End of story.

A prosecuter sounds more anti crime than someone who got a slap on the wrist for a DWI.

[ATFFL]

If you believe government is not the solution to every problem, you should vote Republican.

If you want lower taxes with reduced spending, vote Republican(we need a few more of these people in the party.)

If you do not like the victim mentality that is becoming more and more prevalent, vote Republican.

If you like reasoned discourse within the party and not being called A "RINO" or "DINO" everytime to take a moderate position, become a Republican.  **Note: This does not apply during primaries.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you believe government is not the solution to every problem, you should vote Republican.

I thought invading Iraq was a solution to every problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discretionary spending is up 35% under Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about people like Trent Lott who whine about discrimination against southern Christians?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's right, no moderate Republican has ever been called a RINO.

[TheresNoMoney]

If you want lower taxes with reduced spending, vote Republican(we need a few more of these people in the party.)

Ridiculous. The Bush administration has the highest inflation-adjusted spending since the LBJ adminisration. In addition, taxes at the state level have gone up faster than any time in decades.

If you like reasoned discourse within the party and not being called A "RINO" or "DINO" everytime to take a moderate position, become a Republican. 

Ridiculous again. Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Voinovich, Hagel, Lindsey Graham, and DeWine are all frequently called RINOs by the far-right wing of the Republican party. Anyone who doesnt' fall in line behind Frist/Delay/Dobson 99% of the time is called a RINO. 

[ATFFL]

If you want lower taxes with reduced spending, vote Republican(we need a few more of these people in the party.)

Ridiculous. The Bush administration has the highest inflation-adjusted spending since the LBJ adminisration. In addition, taxes at the state level have gone up faster than any time in decades. [/quote

Ok, since two people have shown their inability to connect to the two concepts:

Note how i mention we need more people with this view in the party?  That is why I want people who feel like that in the party.  The view is dying out and we need it back desperately.

If you like reasoned discourse within the party and not being called A "RINO" or "DINO" everytime to take a moderate position, become a Republican.

Ridiculous again. Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Voinovich, Hagel, Lindsey Graham, and DeWine are all frequently called RINOs by the far-right wing of the Republican party. Anyone who doesnt' fall in line behind Frist/Delay/Dobson 99% of the time is called a RINO. 

Proof, please.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On FreeRepublic, they've decided that McCain isn't fit to be called a RINO.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1409976/posts

[opebo]

If you hate homosexuals, and want to make your own miserable life seem less bad by having the State persecute hedonism (in other words if you are a religious).  Also if you take great joy in seeing foreigners killed, and are willing to pay the price in terms of loss of security and damage to the 'national interest'.

Also if you would like to make less money, and ensure that your working class offspring make even less than you do.

[J. J.]

Good question.  I think Republican policies are generally geared to people who have the ability and desire to improve their economic circumstances through their own efforts.

Im don't understand this statement at all.  My dad works 50+ hours a week.  How is that not trying to improve ones economic circumstance through his own efforts?

By the way, we're not on welfare or anything.  My mom doesn't receive SSD.  However, if we didnt have my grandparents we probably would be.

One, SSD isn't really the issue, but your wife might be eligible.  This doesn't have a Republican spin.

Second, there have been tuition tax credits offered by Bush.  That is a positive effect for your personal situation.

[The Duke]

I think one reason to vote GOP is to protect traditional values.  If you want to keep "under God" in the pledge of allegiance at your kids school, if you want to end taxpayer funded condom distribution in public schools to your 14 year old son, if you want strong anti-drug policies, etc. then vote Republican.

Your general direction seems to be that Republicans aren't there for you on financial issues, and people in that position shouldn't vote Republican because of the culture.  But you can't put a price tag on living in a country where you feel comfortable with your kids walking down the street and not being mugged by a heroin addict whose going to shoot up with government funded needles from the needle exchange program.

I think the response is that a stronger culture, even if you agree with the GOP on social issues, won't pay the bills.  This is true, but neither does welfare if you're making $40,000.  I'd imagine that your family doesn't qualify for Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC/TANF, or any of the other social programs that are supposed to make things easier for people like you and your family.  Big government had its chance, and it didn't come through.  People like your dad keep paying huge sums in taxation for benefits they never see.  He's at an age where he can't even count on Social Security and Medicare being there for him.  Maybe a stronger culture doesn't pay the bills, but apparently welfare doesn't either.

I'd also say the war on terror is a reason to vote GOP, but I don't even know where your parents stand on that issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think one reason to vote GOP is to protect traditional values.  If you want to keep "under God" in the pledge of allegiance at your kids school, if you want to end taxpayer funded condom distribution in public schools to your 14 year old son, if you want strong anti-drug policies, etc. then vote Republican.

Your general direction seems to be that Republicans aren't there for you on financial issues, and people in that position shouldn't vote Republican because of the culture.  But you can't put a price tag on living in a country where you feel comfortable with your kids walking down the street and not being mugged by a heroin addict whose going to shoot up with government funded needles from the needle exchange program.

I think the response is that a stronger culture, even if you agree with the GOP on social issues, won't pay the bills.  This is true, but neither does welfare if you're making $40,000.  I'd imagine that your family doesn't qualify for Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC/TANF, or any of the other social programs that are supposed to make things easier for people like you and your family.  Big government had its chance, and it didn't come through.  People like your dad keep paying huge sums in taxation for benefits they never see.  He's at an age where he can't even count on Social Security and Medicare being there for him.  Maybe a stronger culture doesn't pay the bills, but apparently welfare doesn't either.

I'd also say the war on terror is a reason to vote GOP, but I don't even know where your parents stand on that issue.

"Traditional values"? The same people who were against inter-racial marriage because it "wasn't traditional" are now against gay marriage because "it's not traditional".

Democratic Presidents are much better than Republican Presidents at creating jobs.

I would suggest voting against anyone who ignored the 8/06/01 imminent attack by Al Qaeda on US soil memo.

[A18]

Is there a reason you quoted dazzleman and posted nothing?

[Sam Spade]

As of right now, the thing that separates a "Republican" voter from a "Democrat" voter is foreign policy issues (the excellent Pew poll observed that).

Wasn't that way 5 years ago, actually.  The alliances of support were different then, though the numbers were extremely similar.

[nclib]

Is there a reason you quoted dazzleman and posted nothing?

I meant to post a reply, but my login time expired while I tried to post.

I'll fix that.

[nclib]

I think Republican policies are generally geared to people who have the ability and desire to improve their economic circumstances through their own efforts.

Republicans are not strong for people who have disabilities and the like.

I think this is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans falsely assume that everyone (or almost everyone) can succeed if they work hard enough. Democrats tend to have in mind those who need help.

Democrats are much more likely to realize that a high proportion of those who don't succeed, fail due to circumstances outside their control.

[John Dibble]

Republicans falsely assume that everyone (or almost everyone) can succeed if they work hard enough. Democrats tend to have in mind those who need help.

Democrats are much more likely to realize that a high proportion of those who don't succeed, fail due to circumstances outside their control.

Some people are genuinely unfortunate, but you should also look at many of those who do get failures due to outside forces - what do they do afterwards? Many of them turn to drugs, alcohol, and various other things that only make things worse, or they don't even try to pick themselves back up(even if they are able). Sure, there are circumstances beyond your control, but it is up to you what you do once they have taken affect. I'm willing to help those who are willing to make the right decisions and work for themselves to pick themselves back up, but many people just don't even try so I don't care to bother with helping them - it's basically a wasted effort.

[Smash255]

Dazzleman while Giukiani does deserve some of the credit for the reduction in crime in NYC, keep in mind that during the same span crime & violence nationally also dropped sharply (the drop was greater in NYC than other areas) but nationally throughout the mid to late 90's crime dropped quite a bit nationwide as well.

[TheresNoMoney]

Second, there have been tuition tax credits offered by Bush.  That is a positive effect for your personal situation.

The Hope Credit and Lifelong Learning Credit were both created under President Clinton.

[jacob_101]

1. Republicans will fund defense and make that the governments number one priority which is clearly stated in our constitution.  After all, if you are wondering how a government can make your life better, we need to remain free.

2. Republicans are for lower taxes.  Keep more of what you make.

3. Republicans are for less government interference allowing for the free market to work.

4. As far as the community goes, that can only be done locally for the most part.  I don't think that is a democrat or republican issue.  That's up to the individual citizens to make a good community.

4.

[The Duke]

I think one reason to vote GOP is to protect traditional values.  If you want to keep "under God" in the pledge of allegiance at your kids school, if you want to end taxpayer funded condom distribution in public schools to your 14 year old son, if you want strong anti-drug policies, etc. then vote Republican.

Your general direction seems to be that Republicans aren't there for you on financial issues, and people in that position shouldn't vote Republican because of the culture.  But you can't put a price tag on living in a country where you feel comfortable with your kids walking down the street and not being mugged by a heroin addict whose going to shoot up with government funded needles from the needle exchange program.

I think the response is that a stronger culture, even if you agree with the GOP on social issues, won't pay the bills.  This is true, but neither does welfare if you're making $40,000.  I'd imagine that your family doesn't qualify for Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC/TANF, or any of the other social programs that are supposed to make things easier for people like you and your family.  Big government had its chance, and it didn't come through.  People like your dad keep paying huge sums in taxation for benefits they never see.  He's at an age where he can't even count on Social Security and Medicare being there for him.  Maybe a stronger culture doesn't pay the bills, but apparently welfare doesn't either.

I'd also say the war on terror is a reason to vote GOP, but I don't even know where your parents stand on that issue.

"Traditional values"? The same people who were against inter-racial marriage because it "wasn't traditional" are now against gay marriage because "it's not traditional".

Democratic Presidents are much better than Republican Presidents at creating jobs.

I would suggest voting against anyone who ignored the 8/06/01 imminent attack by Al Qaeda on US soil memo.

Name ONE national Republican who opposes inter racial marriage.

At what point did anyone say anything about job creation?

You 9/11 memo claim has already been refuted many times.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman while Giukiani does deserve some of the credit for the reduction in crime in NYC, keep in mind that during the same span crime & violence nationally also dropped sharply (the drop was greater in NYC than other areas) but nationally throughout the mid to late 90's crime dropped quite a bit nationwide as well.

Nationwide crime didn't drop anywhere near as much as it did in NYC.  In NYC, crime was down about 60% within 4 years of Giuliani becoming mayor.  The nationwide drop was nowhere near this magnitude.

This debate is important because we need to know how to keep crime down.  I believe that in NYC, the Democrats would not be capable of keeping crime down, because they are heavily dependent for votes on a constituency that opposes effective anti-crime policies, and no Democratic mayor would be able to stand up to that constituency.  The result would be that, like under Dinkins, the police would be handcuffed, in the name of "tolerance" and "understanding" and the criminals would run the streets once again.

[Smash255]

Dazzleman while Giukiani does deserve some of the credit for the reduction in crime in NYC, keep in mind that during the same span crime & violence nationally also dropped sharply (the drop was greater in NYC than other areas) but nationally throughout the mid to late 90's crime dropped quite a bit nationwide as well.

Nationwide crime didn't drop anywhere near as much as it did in NYC.  In NYC, crime was down about 60% within 4 years of Giuliani becoming mayor.  The nationwide drop was nowhere near this magnitude.

This debate is important because we need to know how to keep crime down.  I believe that in NYC, the Democrats would not be capable of keeping crime down, because they are heavily dependent for votes on a constituency that opposes effective anti-crime policies, and no Democratic mayor would be able to stand up to that constituency.  The result would be that, like under Dinkins, the police would be handcuffed, in the name of "tolerance" and "understanding" and the criminals would run the streets once again.

Rudy does deserve some of the credit no question, however saying criminals would "run the streets again" I think is a bit absurd.  As I said crime was also down on a national level, it was also down by even more in NYC, no question Rudy deserves some of that credit.  However part of the reason is also economically driven.  The biggest drops in crime in NYC tend to happen in the higher crime neighborhoods.  When crime was at its worst in NYC in the late 80's & early 90's  the economy was pretty lousy, especially in the high crime inner city neighborhoods.  In the 90's as crime rates decreased keep in mind that the economy was getting better on a national level, and was getting much better in many of the inner city neighborhoods.  Granted the economy there still wasn't all that good, and the level of poverty was still rather high, but their were vast improvments in the poverty rates & overall economic conditions in many of these areas.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman while Giukiani does deserve some of the credit for the reduction in crime in NYC, keep in mind that during the same span crime & violence nationally also dropped sharply (the drop was greater in NYC than other areas) but nationally throughout the mid to late 90's crime dropped quite a bit nationwide as well.

Nationwide crime didn't drop anywhere near as much as it did in NYC.  In NYC, crime was down about 60% within 4 years of Giuliani becoming mayor.  The nationwide drop was nowhere near this magnitude.

This debate is important because we need to know how to keep crime down.  I believe that in NYC, the Democrats would not be capable of keeping crime down, because they are heavily dependent for votes on a constituency that opposes effective anti-crime policies, and no Democratic mayor would be able to stand up to that constituency.  The result would be that, like under Dinkins, the police would be handcuffed, in the name of "tolerance" and "understanding" and the criminals would run the streets once again.

Rudy does deserve some of the credit no question, however saying criminals would "run the streets again" I think is a bit absurd.  As I said crime was also down on a national level, it was also down by even more in NYC, no question Rudy deserves some of that credit.  However part of the reason is also economically driven.  The biggest drops in crime in NYC tend to happen in the higher crime neighborhoods.  When crime was at its worst in NYC in the late 80's & early 90's  the economy was pretty lousy, especially in the high crime inner city neighborhoods.  In the 90's as crime rates decreased keep in mind that the economy was getting better on a national level, and was getting much better in many of the inner city neighborhoods.  Granted the economy there still wasn't all that good, and the level of poverty was still rather high, but their were vast improvments in the poverty rates & overall economic conditions in many of these areas.

I don't agree that there's any real link between crime and the state of the economy.  Crime rose for decades whether the economy did well or not.  The economy was booming in the late 1980s as crime went through the roof.  People don't steal, rob and kill because they have financial problems; they do it because they think they can get away with it.

[Smash255]

Dazzleman while Giukiani does deserve some of the credit for the reduction in crime in NYC, keep in mind that during the same span crime & violence nationally also dropped sharply (the drop was greater in NYC than other areas) but nationally throughout the mid to late 90's crime dropped quite a bit nationwide as well.

Nationwide crime didn't drop anywhere near as much as it did in NYC.  In NYC, crime was down about 60% within 4 years of Giuliani becoming mayor.  The nationwide drop was nowhere near this magnitude.

This debate is important because we need to know how to keep crime down.  I believe that in NYC, the Democrats would not be capable of keeping crime down, because they are heavily dependent for votes on a constituency that opposes effective anti-crime policies, and no Democratic mayor would be able to stand up to that constituency.  The result would be that, like under Dinkins, the police would be handcuffed, in the name of "tolerance" and "understanding" and the criminals would run the streets once again.

Rudy does deserve some of the credit no question, however saying criminals would "run the streets again" I think is a bit absurd.  As I said crime was also down on a national level, it was also down by even more in NYC, no question Rudy deserves some of that credit.  However part of the reason is also economically driven.  The biggest drops in crime in NYC tend to happen in the higher crime neighborhoods.  When crime was at its worst in NYC in the late 80's & early 90's  the economy was pretty lousy, especially in the high crime inner city neighborhoods.  In the 90's as crime rates decreased keep in mind that the economy was getting better on a national level, and was getting much better in many of the inner city neighborhoods.  Granted the economy there still wasn't all that good, and the level of poverty was still rather high, but their were vast improvments in the poverty rates & overall economic conditions in many of these areas.

I don't agree that there's any real link between crime and the state of the economy.  Crime rose for decades whether the economy did well or not.  The economy was booming in the late 1980s as crime went through the roof.  People don't steal, rob and kill because they have financial problems; they do it because they think they can get away with it.

As far the the economy in the late 80's, I was mainly referring to the local economy in many of the higher crime areas of NYC was real bad.  While the national economy got a bit better during the late 80's, the local economy in many of the high crime areas was as bad as the early 80's.  The National economic boom in the late 80's did not have any impact on many of these high crime & inner city areas.  The economic boom during the 90's however, was something that was also felt in the inncer-cities and these areas experienced rather large economic growth as well, something they did not experience in the late 80's.