Am I Still A Democrat????

[DOS2]

I look around and I have to wonder.

I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Basically I think most people should be able to be anything they want but *I* might not be able to pay for it.

I'm gay and couldn't be happier. Despite the myth I have never battered, or been battered, by my girlfriend. I beleive completely in gay rights (ie my *right* to exist) but I don't believe I have and rights not held by everyone. I believe in true equality, please make us equal.

I believe in true equality. If I apply for a job hire me because I'm qualified not because I'm from Category A. Also don't give the job to someone else simply because they are from Category B. If they can type faster than me, by all means please hire them.

I don't believe there is a God and I don't subscribe to any religion. At the same time I don't freak out every time I see "In God We Trust." As for the 10 Commandment issue down south, I don't believe it should be in public view since the law is not suppossed to be religious specific but i could care less if the Judgge is Christian. I only care that he is fair and impartial.

I don't think we need anymore laws "for the children." I think parents should take care of the kids and not the legal system, HRS, CDS, or anyone else except in the most extreme cases. I happened to be raised by actual parents and didn't think daycare workers were "Mommy."

I think marijuana should be legal because it is cheaper and not much differnet from Prozac, or Zocor ow whatever the hell you are taking while you pretend you don't do drugs.

I don't think any guns should be banned. I've grew up around guns and I own a few and it never occured to me to kill someone. I don't see how taking my guns away will prevent crime. Also disarmed violent felons are still violent felons, trust me they will find a way and I prefer to keep my guns in case they show up at my door.

I believe in services but c'mon. LBJ built the basic structure of public services. Since then we've just been spending more money on extra beuracracy. I don't hate them, but I really don't wanna fund special services for midget tv repairmen. We have to draw a line somewhere. Social programs should benefit all of society, not special interest groups who only comprise 2% of it.

The above used to be, more or less, how Democrats felt traditionally.

But I look around and I see some pretty outrageous stuff being promoted. Even more I've seen a lot of radicalism and hatred being touted as mainstream Democratic politics.

So am I still a Democrat?

I just don't feel like a Republican yet.

[JanMichael]

1. What are the things that you consider "outrageous stuff being promoted"?

Just curious.

[tlcandie]

3. Honestly, I don't think you are alone in questioning....

I think those who participate in DU are trying to determine just what being a Democrat means these days.

There is a WIDE spectrum of people participating here and it seems we must all find common ground or else each go our own separate way. The in-fighting and such is nauseating.

Let's hope we can each find ourselves and THE PARTY again...maybe a bit evolved, if that is possible?

[old dog]

50. No, he is not the only one

I actually was planning to post a similar question as I think the extreme left is damaging the party but after reading the thread, i think I will just shut up and watch for a while. I don't really wish to get ripped up on my first post. I'll save that for #26

Hello,
the new guy

[DOS2]

9. Well Not Really Dems

But those who are actually Greens, Marxist, and such who have seemingly infiltrated out party because they couldn't accomplish anything independently.

Much in the same was Neo Cons are nothing like old style Republicans before they were occupied by the religious right and other groups who couldn't survive independently.

But the stuff that drives me NUTS, that I cannot stand to be associated with is some of the PETA antics (I love animals but I will eat them dammit), Earth First types who commit actual acts of terrorism (I love the planet to but I'm not gonna light SUVs on fire to stamp out air polution) and just the other nutball stuff.

Now I don't mind activism and getting the word out. I do that too when I'm not working my ass off to pay my bills. But I don't unduly screw with people and demand that they acknowledge my issues. I know a lot of homosexuals who do and I think at the end of the day they make my life harder by alienating people. I'm not gonna hide it but I don't wear a t shirt announcing my sexual identity.

[JasonBerry]

16. Focus on your Avatar and....

The Yin and Yang and (start music) go with the flow.

[JanMichael]

34. You don't hide it? Really? You've mentioned it in the first 2 posts.

Hardly coy in my most un-humble opinion:-)

Oh. I don't "get" this either:

"Earth First types who commit actual acts of terrorism (I love the planet to but I'm not gonna light SUVs on fire to stamp out air polution)"

You consider acts of political vandalism as Terrorism? Am I mis-taken? Have I projected? I hope so...

[DoNotRefill]

57. What else is it?

"You consider acts of political vandalism as Terrorism?"

Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of if you do it for an ideologically pure reason or not.

Setting SUVs on fire is STUPID. It's also counterproductive. What happens after an attack like this? Surely the people victimized are insured, so they'll just replace the vehicles. The toxins released into the air will go on to help further damage the planet, and more resources will be consumed and pollutants created to make the replacement vehicle. Who will pay for the damage? The insurance companies, who will (kindly, and with our best interests in mind, I'm sure...) pass it on to US. Isn't that SPIFFY.

BTW, my definition of terrorism is "a criminal act committed with the intent to influence or change public opinion"

There are ways to protest WITHOUT breaking the law. These people HARM our causes, they DO NOT help us.

[JanMichael]

69. We aren't going to agree on this one at all.

The idea of "Terrorism" is being destroyed in this counrty...Ley's look at the dictionary definition: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Interesting. Did the vandalism, in which no person not involved in doing it was injured, "Terrify" you or anyone else? I sure as shit hope it didn't:eyes:

"my definition of terrorism is "a criminal act committed with the intent to influence or change public opinion""

So blocking traffic without a permit is terrorism in your book? Much civil disobediance would probably qualify.

Hmm. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder and sometimes it may not be so bad...

[gully]

2. Of course. Don't let anyone else define YOU...

Sounds like Deans your guy huh? You share many key positions, though not all. Dean believes in programs for children, and so do I personally.

I don't agree with all of your statements, but many of them...and liberals/progressives/democrats are allowed to have differences IMHO.

[JasonBerry]

7. I think gully's right

That's why you are a Democrat! The Democratic party (for the most part) is more open to a diversity of opinion. It's part of being a Democrat! Like gully said, it's okay for their to be differences in opinion. The Republican party (again, for the most part) is very intolerant of many of your social positions. I disagree, along with gully, on a few things you said - but so what? Try to tow some of your social positions in the Republican party and you'd be back faster than you could say, "WHAT was I thinking"????

[Alenne]

4. You are whatever you want to be.

[msanger]

5. why are you asking the question?

For some reason, your question doesn't feel genuine to me. Perhaps it is because I just came back from the Dean rally in Falls Church, where there were dean said something like the following....

...We have to be for good schools, not just in Virginia and Vermont, but in Alabama and Missisippi....

The point I think Dean was making is that we have to be about more than just "what is good for me and mine." We have to be about what is good for everybody.

[roughsatori]

11. The line about "midget" TV repairmen and "special interests"

give the poster away.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

79. yes, it did

You can always tell the reactionary rhetoric of the right-wing. Notice it was an attack on big government but not bigcorporations and a exaggerated minority group (midget tv repairmen).

Then there's the don't complain if you can't afford something attitude, as if it's just natural that some people have all the money and most people have little. When you ignore the government policies that demand that sort of distribution, I think you've drank the kool-aid as it were.

[DOS2]

13. msanger

I guess I ask because I don't feel represented.

I'm not sure where you read I was against schools though.

[bearfartinthewoods]

63. not genuine? hrmmmfpt

a LOT of us experience the same culture shock the poster has when they get here. i remember being actually bewildered for being attacked for expressing opinions which are generally mainstream democratic. it's no secret that the many of the most prolific and passionate DUers are ultra left and probably not really dems.

why shouldn't this poster feel confused....i was. the idea that you would assume she is posing is very typical. anyone who doesn't toe the very left edge of the party line is constantly accused of being other than sincere.

to the poster...if you have thick skin, speak up for mainstream dem values. if you prefer, lurk and learn what you can.

[LWolf]

71. hmmm...

I don't remember attacking anyone for having a different position than I. I do feel, at this moment, as though you have just lumped me into the category as "not really dem" because I'm further to the left than you. Are you saying all of us lefties ought to leave the party to the mainstream DLCers?

[bearfartinthewoods]

76. where did i say anything like that?

there are many posters here that are not dems.

they are by definition, the most left on the board.

they are also very outspoken and prolific.

if you don't fit the above then i'm not talking about you.

i did not say the lefties should leave either the board or the party.

i am saying they need to realize that while they are the majority on this board, they are not the majority of the party.

i am also agreeing with the poster that coming here can be a shock to the system for a regular dem....enough of a shock that they may wonder if they fit into the democratic party as it is depicted here.

[ikojo]

78. Who can really say what are "mainstream" Dem values?

Posted by bearfartinthewoods

"i am saying they need to realize that while they are the majority on this board, they are not the majority of the party."

I will say one thing: The DLC (corporate) Democrats have done such a good job alienating working people that most people choose to stay home on election day. For the most part these are people who would be the natural base of the Democratic party (working-class and poor people) but because the DLC Dems are more interested in courting the suburban "swing" voter these voters feel marginalized. They rightfully think neither party cares about them or their concerns so they stay home.

Perhaps it's a self fulfilling prophecy...working-class and poor people don't think the Dems care so the Dems don't articulate the positions of working-class people so working-class people abandon the Dems, not for the Greens, but for apathy and non voting.


:spank:

[ComerPerro]

6. Of course you are

All of these positions, I feel, are positions held by many Dems. Any idea that Dems want to give people something for nothing or promote any group over another is just right wing bullshit.

[roughsatori]

8. If you have to ask then you probably are not one

possibly never were. I guess I'm just a lunatic radical left-winger, but your post does not seem even slightly sincere to me.

[DOS2]

14. roughsatori

Thank you for demonstrating my point perfectly.

You seem to be exactly the type of "us vs. them" person I was referring to.

I'm not radical enough so I must never have been a true Democrat. I love it.

[roughsatori]

18. Knock off playing the victim

You continue your falseness. I never questioned your being "radical enough." I questioned your sincerity ,and I still do. Your post sounds phony to me. Maybe you will prove me wrong, but I sincerely doubt you will.

[DOS2]

27. I was answering

your accusation of insincerity.

Basically you accuse me of being insincere (and still do) because I'm not the same kind of Democrat YOU are.

Only YOU, and those like you, qualify.

You sincerely are no different from the people you probably decry.

[roughsatori]

38. I share many of the opinions you CLAIM to have

but you keep resorting to the new right-wing trick of pretending to be the "victim."

You wrote something that is so absurd I had to laugh: "no different from the people you probably decry." "PROBABLY," I mean now your inventing imaginary people and that I "decry" them. LMAO

[DOS2]

48. You were the one

who doubted my sincerity because I don't think like you.

I just answered your accusations and found irony in your statements.

And NOW you claim you think like me?!?

And then you accuse me of being a victim?

Geeze you are like a rapist going "Look how she's dressed, she was begging for it."

[Sideways]

62. The Poster Doubted Your Sincerity Not Because You Don't Think Like S/He

You have twisted what RS said. S/He never claimed your opinions were incorrect or inconsistent with her/his own. They merely stated that they don't believe you are who you claim to be. You were the one who tied the claim of insincerity to your opinions. Not RS. S/He just thinks you are being disingenuous about who and what you are.

In other words RS thinks you are here playing games, wasting time, energy, and bandwidth. And so do I.

BTW you really need to RUN down to your local JC and take a logic class and a creative writing class if you want to even consider trying to continue this stunt for much longer. You aren't very good DOS2.

[bearfartinthewoods]

65. exactly what makes you doubt?

just what about this post makes you doubt the sincerity?

i'm really curious. the count? the count is just about where i was when i first gave voice to a similar sentiment.

btw....you've been here long enough to know what to do with your doubts. click alert. BUT we are supposed to treat each other with respect. questioning someones motives without or even with a clear cause is not respectful.

deal with the message....not the messanger.

[bearfartinthewoods]

64. hahaha....typical. can't even impagine someone sincerely wondering

where there reality lies after falling into the DU looking glass.

hent...the ultra lefties are a minority, even within the the democrats. i have no problem with that until the left edge starts acting like a majority, and a dismissive majority at that!

[MercutioATC]

10. At he risk of sounding partisan, you seem to be a Dean Democrat.

...pro-civil unions..pro-equal rights for ALL Americans...sounds like a Dean Dem to me.....

[DOS2]

17. Yeah I seem To Be

agreeing with Dean a LOT lately.

[Leftist78]

12. It's a big tent

You're on the right edge of it on some issues, and near the center of it on other issues. No biggie, we may not agree on everything, but as I said, it's a big tent and we're glad to have you in it.

[Rose Siding]

15. I love this question

because I can share one of my favorite DU responses, given by sfwriter to a similar question last December:



The next big push from the White House will be to continue down the road of wealth redistribution that Reagan started. Remember, we built the Interstate highway system and paid for the Apollo project under this "old" structure. We'd be hard pressed to rebuild it now. We have been progressively moving the burden to the middle-class of this country from the top 2% (Read corporations, multi-millionaires and billionaires) for two decades now. The White House has said those making between $45,000 and $75,000 need to pay a third more in taxes. Along similar lines, the Wall Street Journal is echoing Republican support to do away with the Earned Income Tax Credit which helps the poorest Americans. They called Americans living on $12,000 a year "Lucky Duckies."

If you agree with this position, then you are a Republican.

Republicans have been actively chocking off school funds across the nation since the early 90's leaving an education system that is under-funded and struggling. Now, school vouchers give parents a choice to pull their kids from under-funded and under performing schools. This loss of revenue will leave the schools even further under-funded and under-performing. It is s self fulfilling prophecy.

The Republican attitude behind vouchers is that the value of public education is selfishly and directly related to their own children. My money = my taxes = my kid's education. This flies in the face of every reason we have public education. The value to you isn't in your kid, but in the woman who operates on your kid, or the EMT who rescues you from a car wreck, or simply the kid you rely on to give you the right amount of change. Public education is about building a competent and responsive workforce. It is about community.

If you don't believe in strong public education, then you are a Republican.

Social Security is an issue facing not just America, but every industrialized nation on Earth. I believe Italy will be the first to hit the curve. Every social democracy on the planet faces it. We are one of the few where the debate isn't about saving it, but how to scrap it. Again, a social safety net is of massive benefit to a society in addition to the moral and ethical reasoning behind it. So far, the star Republican plan has been privatization. A popular topic while the economy and stock market soared, but in practice, it would have been a disaster. Just look how many retirees private savings have been obliterated by this last downturn. I'd suggest you start by looking up info on Al Gore's plan for Social Security. While the right-wing press made a great deal of fun about his metaphorical lockbox, I believe that concept alone would have added ten or fifteen years of life to it. You mention Social Security drawing from the general fund. In truth, the general fund has borrowed from Social Security for years.

If you think that a well managed and insured safety net for the nations weakest and elderly members is a bad idea. If you think "every man for himself" is a better idea, then you are a Republican.

Affirmative action has done more to create a generation of political and professional peers out of the African American community than any other program in history. On a purely historical basis of fairness, I'm for it. It has given us Colin Powells and Clarence Thomases right along with thousands of other doctors, lawyers, and role models for an entire community.

The other reason for it is more practical. Students attending overwhelmingly white schools will find themselves crippled in the future workplace where minorities will be the majority. A lack of cultural understanding will cost this country quite a bit both abroad and at home. In the case you cite, the University says it has a duty to the students to provide a diverse community.

Finally, for many of these students, this will be their first chance to excel. We've already discussed under funded schools so bad you'd consider vouchers. Can we reasonably expect the products of the worst of this system to perform on par with the products of the most expensive private schools? In the long run, that's what is created. An education system of haves and have nots. For many of these students, this is the first crack at a real education and they excel.

If you are for an educational survival of the fittest, and see no social, moral, or practical reasons for promoting minority education, then you are a Republican.

Finally, prescription drugs and universal healthcare. If your biggest beef is that a few of those billionaires and zillionares grandma’s might take advantage of the system, then don’t worry. They have been paying their taxes like the rest of us. At only 2% of the population, their prescriptions are a small price to pay for prescription benefits for everyone.

If you’d rather some grandmother eat Alpo to afford her blood pressure medicine rather than live in a world where Gate’s granny gets hers too, then you are a Republican.

On to Healthcare… There are several studies that show America at the bottom of the healthcare services curve. This is mostly due to the massive influence of privatized medicine and HMO plans. Think of America as one big society for a moment and compare total healthcare expenses to those of other nations. Ours are already a little bit more. This includes your employer’s insurance premiums (if they offer insurance), your co-pay, out of pocket, etc. Now compare the quality of care received on average. America is at the bottom.

What's going on here? Well, at every point profit, marketing, administration, lobbying, and legal fees are extracted from the American system, patient care is diminished. Every dollar spent on a marketing campaign to get people to take more Claritin costs us not only the lost value of the dollar in patient care, but the time spent in millions of doctor visits to explain to the patient why they don’t NEED Claritin just because they saw it on TV. Our system is designed to make a profit, not provide healthcare.

If you think making money off of the sick is more important than healing them, then you are a Republican.

Finally, Bill Frist, our new Republican Senate Majority leader has made the healthcare agenda pretty clear. He helped scuttle the patient’s bill of rights. He will limit exposure of theses HMOs and Drug Companies to liability. The $250,000 cap on lawsuits was bandied about by former house member and Republican Bob Barr. That would guarantee it is cheaper to let cancer patients die and pay off the lawsuit. Will that help patient care?

Frist had the amendment inserted into the Homeland Defense Bill that will protect Ely Lilly from ongoing vaccine lawsuits. Does that help healthcare or homeland security?

Frist didn’t vote or pay much attention to politics until he was in his 30’s. Around then, Hillary Clinton started on her national healthcare plan. Frist’s family fortune comes from the HCA HMO. It is the family business, the source of their wealth. After lobbying congress for a time, Frist decided to cut out the middleman and become a congressman. His concern for our health runs so deep that he has championed smoking for 12-year-olds. He is a heart and lung surgeon. The hypocrisy and irony are awesome. Do you think he cares about the healthcare of Americans or preserving profit?

After all this is taken into account, reexamine the Canadian system where everyone pays, everyone benefits, and nobody ever spend their twilight years BEGGING for the healthcare they spent their lives paying for.

Think long and hard before becoming a Republican. Realize all the costs and look down the road at the consequences. I’m a Democrat because I prefer reason to rhetoric. I’m a Democrat because I believe in the golden rule. I’m a Democrat because I believe that the rights and freedoms of individuals are worth more than those of corporations. I’m a Democrat because I believe it is the DUTY of the wealthy, young, strong, and able-bodied to champion the rights of the poor, elderly, weak, and the sick. It makes us a stronger nation.

I can give you moral, ethical, and financial reasons for my being a Democrat, but I’ll leave you with this practical one. Be a Democrat because at some point you or someone you know will be poor, weak, elderly or sick. When that time comes, it will be too late to change your mind.

[LWolf]

72. I guess I'm a dem after all,

and not a leftist commie infiltrator.

Thanks! :hi:

[onecitizen]

73. Wow!! I loved this..........

thanx for posting it Party_line. That's exactly as I feel. Someday these stingy cons on the right is gonna need somebody's help.

[Malva Zebrina]

80. thanks for posting it

I loved it also.

[snyttri]

19. What rights do gay people have that non-gay people don't?

[DOS2]

22. snyttri

My apologies.

I didn't mean to suggest we did. I just don't think it would be a good idea to create any. For instance I wouldn't promote a homosexual version of affirmative action. I am against affirmative action on principal and would not endorse it simply if it would benefit me.

I know it might be ideological and naive but I wish for true equality.

[roughsatori]

30. we really need to worry that gay people will get more rights

then heterosexuals. LOL

You wrote:

"Social programs should benefit all of society, not special interest groups who only comprise 2% of it."

Would you please name the "special interest" groups you are referring to. Could you provide a link that gives actual facts to back up this claim?

[snyttri]

gay affirmative action

How did this become a concern for you? Is this is a proposal in your state?

[DoNotRefill]

58. Affirmative Action is a very touchy subject.

I'm NOT an AA fan. I think that everybody should be treated equally. The problem is that even though discrimination is illegal, it still happens. AA is a way to try and address past AND present injustices. Is it perfect? HELL NO. But I've yet to see another viable plan to correct the way reality is. Therefore, I grudgingly support AA.

[bearfartinthewoods]

66. the right to a sheltered. publicly funded school

lots of straight kids are victimized but they have no school to which to retreat.

the GLBT kids have a special extra 'right'.

[Gman]

20. You're not a Democrat and never were a Democrat

I don't know why you even bothered wasting bandwidth.

[DOS2]

24. Gman

Gee then why doers my card say that?

Why did I vote for Clinton twice?

[mdmc]

21. Don't be afraid to check out

the log cabin republicans.
When this 2004 campaign is done, I bet your vote won't go to Bush.
Your a Dem.

Your not a Big Govt / Tax and spend Dem, like me.
But your a Dem.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

23. Maybe I can help...

Since I'm a lot like you.

The answer is quite simple. You're a Democrat. You just have been fooled by the plutocrats who own the media in this country.

First off, your tax dollars are not being wasted, unless you call Social Security, Medicare, Defense Spending, Defense Pensions, and Interest on the Debt as "waste". That accounts for over 75% of all U.S. government spending. And that's not even counting such things like the U.S. National Parks, NASA, the Library of Congress, or National Institute of Health.

The real difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to honestly pay for the services our citizens demand. Republicans want to use Enron-style accounting tricks to pretend you can get something for nothing -- chiefly by borrowing from the Social Security fund which is currently running a surplus.

As far as the rest - believe it or not, most Democrats are Christian; they just don't think making a "Christian Taliban" is a good idea. Most Democrats do believe that qualifications trump interest group preferences in terms of hiring - they just acknowledge that white guys with powerful fathers is its own form of preference. Look at the way Dubya got his stupid ass accepted to a prestigious school for no good reason. And as for guns, there are plenty of Democrats on both sides of this issue - and they both have good points.

- C.D.

[DOS2]

25. ConservDemocrat

OK seems a lot of people are reading into my post and forming their own opinions.

The supurluous spending I referred to was NOT

medicare, social security, defence, etc.

THOSE were the programs of LBJ which I SUPPORT.

It is the ridicuouls crap we've done since then that really don't benefit society as a whole but only special interests groups.

[Leftist78]

26. just curious

what crap? no attack just asking

[DOS2]

31. Leftist78

Suuuure, ask me that. :)

Geeze, I could think of 100 things when I was watching the news.

I'm pressed for a specific right now. But suffice to say I think LBJ covered the big ones.

Give me a couple days, I'll be here bitching about something.

I promise.

[roughsatori]

32. I'm still waiting to hear who these "special interest groups" are

NT

[Rose Siding]

35. DOS2 can't think of any right now

Needs a couple of days (?)

[DOS2]

42. I'm Sure you are

Got a cross and nails ready?

It may suprise you that I referred to special interest as a whole and not liberal vs. conservative ones.

Not really a "special interests" but my cause du joir currently happens to be The Patriot Act and much of The Department of Homeland Security.

Rather than just mandate that the CIA and FBI cooperate and perform effectively we started this whole NEW beuracracy with amazing insights such as "It is YELLOW today..."

I think the entire DHS is a collasal waste of resources.

How about all the money we send to ISRAEL? Seems to me those BILLIONS of dollars could be more effectively spent getting the INS and FBI to cooperate and root out terrorist who are already in the country.

Israel has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world yet gets more US AID than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED.

[charlie]

44. Those are popular concerns

amongst many Democrats. I'll bet a majority here feel the same way you do... so, why your sense of alienation?

[DoNotRefill]

59. that's not true.

"Israel has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world..."

http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf

This has it listed as #37, with a per capita income of $16,710, as compared to the US, which has a per capita income of $35,060. This puts it behind Ireland, Iceland, Hong Kong, and Australia. It also puts it well behind all of Western Europe except Greece, Spain and Portugal.

[Rose Siding]

28. Be more specific

Do you have a problem with wheel chair ramps? Lunches for poor kids? Define "special interest groups".

[DOS2]

33. No

I think welfare and stuff like that were covered by the original plan. I'm not talking about orphans, etc. or the handicapped.

[Leftist78]

40. ok I'll give you a scenario

let's say there's a single Mom with 2 kids. She works a job at Wal-Mart (notorious for their low pay and union busting tactics), and can't afford to pay all her rent or to pay for child care. Does she deserve help with the rent and the child care in your opinion or not?

[DOS2]

45. Honestly

She already gets it. That was my point. I just can't afford to do a whole lot more for her.

Maybe she needs to get a roomate like with another single mom and realize that a single parent w/2 kids might not be able to afford a house, car, etc. while employed at Wal Mart.

I don't think I should be taxed so much that I cannot pay MY bills because someone working at wal mart has two kids. Hell I'd like to eat too.

[Leftist78]

46. Ok I've changed my mind

I'm not so sure you are a Dem. Maybe more of a libertarian. You seem pretty liberal on gay rights, personal freedom, etc..., but you seem quite conservative on other things like welfare and other programs to help the less fortunate. Maybe you should look into the log cabin repubs.

[DOS2]

49. I didn't say

NO welfare or public assitance.

But we have had those things for a LONG TIME.

When Bill Clinton did welfare reform I think we finally had a good balance. I don't think we need any more and I cannot afford it if we did.

[Leftist78]

51. and I totally disagree

I believe welfare reform (a republican demand for years) was one of the worst things Clinton ever did. The absolute worst was NAFTA, but welfare reform is right up there.

I believe most Dems at this point view those 2 decisions as mistakes that should be corrected.

Maybe you are a Democrat, but you are on the right edge of the party on these issues, but at the same time, I don't think you'd be very happy with the rebublican party because of their stance on social issues. I don't know if you fit solidly in either major party. I'm at a loss. :shrug:

[DOS2]

54. I guess I'm a 'individual'

But I agree on NAFTA.

In my heart, I agree with you on welfare, etc. If I 'could' I would provide for everyone in the country.

In my heart, I think these people for the most part (the violent criminals notwithstanding) deserve assistance.

But I don't want to become homeless myself because my money all went to help the homeless. That is my only point.

There has to be a balance.

I have honestly gone without food before because there is no money left. And that is while working full time.

I'm not rich, I don't have a giant house or fine luxuries. But at the same time, being employed I qualify for NOTHING. And at the same time my money is going to other people.

I think before anything else, the money I make should provide for me.

It is not that I'm heartless, I just can't afford it.

[Kool Kitty]

53. If you think you can't afford any more for

public assistance, how do you feel about what you'll be paying for this "war"? I would much rather have my money go to feed people, not go into Halliburton's or Cheney's or whoever is profitting from this Mid-East misadventure. And you know that someone is profitting like a motherf**ker, or we wouldn't even be there.

[DoNotRefill]

60. I wonder if I qualify, then.

I'm against just giving welfare recipients cash. While I wholeheartedly support some welfare programs (like food stamps and AFDC), I'd MUCH rather see the Government provide things like job training, et cetera, rather than just handing out money. Sure, we still need a "safety net", but if somebody is poor (like your Wally World mother of 2 scenario) I'd rather see the Government send her to school of some form while providing proper child care, be it vocational training or college, to help her move towards a more productive life. The main focus, IMHO, should be to give a helping hand to those who need it and can use it, so that they can help themselves (and others through taxes) later on.

Being an Atheist, I hate to quote scripture, but it comes back to the old saying "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

The old welfare system was fucked. The new welfare system is also fucked. We, as a nation, can do SO much better. It'd be good for the individuals, and good for the country.

[Rose Siding]

47. Actually, no. She doesn't get it

(I'm swiping a post I just read from tlcandie)




http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0822-10.htm

<snip>
WASHINGTON - August 22 - Single mothers without work and welfare income reached its highest level in recorded history, according to data released today by the Children's Defense Fund. The number of jobless women with children not receiving welfare rose by 188,000 in one year, leaving a record three quarters of all single mothers without public assistance and causing a sudden surge in extreme child poverty. Single parents and their children entered the 2001 recession with less protection from a failing economy than in any recession in the last 20 years. Congress is working on a revision of the 1996 welfare reform law set to expire in September that could make the problem worse.
<snip>

Below is the link to the PDF file for the whole report
http://www.childrensdefense.org/pdf/no_work_no_welfare.pdf

[mdmc]

29. like what?

welfare?

[mdmc]

37. Like what?

Halliburton?
Enron?
Out with it MAN!
(its not abortion, is it?)

[DOS2]

43. LOL

Abortion.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

55. The point is there isn't much "crap"...

If you look at the actual Federal budget you'll find very little that is actual waste. Most Americans have bought into the idea that the Government spends much more money than it actually does. For example, when you ask Americans how much money we spend on foreign aid as a percentage of GDP, the average answer is 15%. They say it should be reduced to 5%. Almost none of them know that it really hovers around 0.2%, and most of that is funneled to Egypt and Israel as a result of Carter's peace agreement between those two counties.

I could go on, but let me tell you, the ignorance Americans have about their own government budget is absolutely amazing.

- C.D.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. We Spend About Fifteen To Twenty Billion Dollars On

Foreign Aid out of a Two Trillion dollar budget.


Many of our European allies, Canada, and Japan spend more as a % of their budget and GDP.

[sendero]

75. I was about to post a similar comment....

.... the only thing about the original poster's comments that I take exception to is this thoroughly WRONG idea that we are spending billions upon billions upon billions on "welfare" and "special interests".

Look at the Federal Budget. While the numbers I can find don't break everything out, there is a budget items that covers most non-SS "welfare" and entitlements and it hovers around 6% of the budget.

You could cancel it all tomorrow and it would hardly make a difference.

Our money goes to defense (talk about a special interest group, who gets to "lose" trillions with no consequence) servicing current Social Security obligations (you suggest that we just stop that after sucking everyones paycheck for 15.2% for all these years?) and other non-discretionary expenses.

Summary: the big load of wasted money in the Federal Budget, if there is one at all, is buried in Defense spending.

[JanMichael]

36. I've nothing to add. Great post, thanks!

:-)

[roughsatori]

41. Thanks for that post, I just emailed it to some friends. NT

[Booberdawg]

39. You're still a Democrat

Just unhappy about a lot of things - there are many other Dems that feel the same way.

I thought you articulated your concerns very well. To that end, I regret the confrontations in this thread about your sincerity.

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[Robin Hood]

52. You have a hard time with service spending, but fail to bring up

Military spending? Talk about a waste of resources. At least social services put back into the community.

[Lexingtonian]

56. you need better information

as a first thing. There are a lot of canards out there, mostly circulated by Republicans during the '80s, that you echo about "bureaucracy" and "special interests" other supposed socially nonproductive uses of money. They play on provincial prejudices, limited experience, inability to understand statistics and budgets, and that wage slaves tend not to know what management knows about where all the real expenses are. If you want a hugely inefficient use of money, look at the military for truly absurd metrics that, were Republicans to air them, would seem "sensible" to their audience. For example, every Iraqi soldier killed this March arguably cost American taxpayers at least $3 million in expenses to achieve. Where's the outrage of fiscal conservatives, where's the "wasteful bureaucracy" argument on that?

In my opinion the test for whether one is a Democrat in 2003 is basically whether you are willing to suffer to some nontrivial degree so that all non-white and non-straight people attain equality of opportunity in this society. To be perceived as sensible you will also need to agree with the Democratic consensus that presently the management side has disproportionate and undeserved advantages in the American worker-management relationship.

[DoNotRefill]

61. LOL!!! Thanks for that tidbit.

"For example, every Iraqi soldier killed this March arguably cost American taxpayers at least $3 million in expenses to achieve."

I don't mean to sound flippant, but maybe we should have offered a $25,000 death benefit to any Iraqi soldier who committed suicide without harming others. It would have been a lot cheaper... ;-)

(BTW, I'm just being silly here. I wouldn't have actually advocated this in a serious sense.)

[disgruntella]

68. I wouldn't worry about fitting inside a "Democrat" label

As long as you know what your position is on the issues, and keep educating yourself about these issues, you can then look at any candidate and figure out which one best matches your positions. In my view, it'll probably be a Democrat in 2004. However, you're never going to find a 100% match in any party. You might have to accept an "outrageous" position or two in a candidate who otherwise represents your interests. Another alternative is to let your preferred candidate know that you support them on ABC but not D.

And ignore people who say "You're not a Democrat unless XYZ" -- I mean, I disagree with you on some points, but I'm not going to say "you're not a Democrat" -- that's just divisive BS. There is a great diversity of opinion amongst people who post here, and frankly I don't think it's "being a Democrat" that we have in common; it's wanting to vote for a Democrat to get rid of Bush in 2004.

[mcd1982]

70. We are both pretty new...

and I can say I've felt the same way! I used to consider myself pretty liberal -- especially considering I go to school in East Texas: a haven of sexists, racists, homophobes, and the like.

Finding DU was like a breath of fresh air and then it turned into an eye opener/shock. I'm not as liberal as I thought! Lol, not that that is a bad thing. But as many have said before, you can believe most anything and be a Democrat, but you have to pass a lithmus test to be a Republican -- usually being prolife and antigay.

Anyway, welcome to DU. I always find it a constant source of information that always keeps me well informed! Just look past all the mean people and their rants! ;-)

Matthew

[mandyky]

74. Most of what you said, leads me to think

you sound a lot like Howard Dean - guns, gays, budgets.
On the programs for children stuff, you sound a bit libertarian, but still Democrat if that is what you choose to be. Seriously, take a look at Dean (deanforamerica.com)

[Julien Sorel]

77. Democrat or not, y'all can stop responding:

[Iris]

81. Do many people on this board even understand why Affirmative Action exists

I have to wonder sometimes.

[Iris]

82. oops. Just saw #77. My bad.