I am a college educated, big-city living, agnostic who voted for Bush.

[gopunk]

2.) A true fiscal conservative knows that Bush is about as conservative when it comes to the budget as Clinton was if not worse ! The size and scope of government has increased more so under Bush then under Clinton. Government spending is through the roof and cutting taxes while fighting a billion dollar a month war and spending like a drunken sailor is not the sign of a fiscal conservative. One day the bill is going to come in and someone is going to have to pay for it. Frankly the GOP needed a dem in the whitehouse to wake them up from the spending day dream they are caught in right now and to shock them back to their core fiscal values which they have abandoned in mass.

this is what i was thinking as well... the government is spending more and more money (not even counting the war), i don't really understand how somebody claiming to be a fiscal conservative can be for this...

 

[miketheidiot]

Formerly midsizecity dwelling now small city dwelling (50k ugh) atheist who if bush had won a year ago would be having a 24/7 organism today. Think LordTyrannus in political opinion. I had almost identical views.

Currently a socialist who was on the verge of suicide this morning, but then realized that if Bush had lost kerry would be president and thats almost as bad, at which point I sobered up a bit.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: gopunk

2.) A true fiscal conservative knows that Bush is about as conservative when it comes to the budget as Clinton was if not worse ! The size and scope of government has increased more so under Bush then under Clinton. Government spending is through the roof and cutting taxes while fighting a billion dollar a month war and spending like a drunken sailor is not the sign of a fiscal conservative. One day the bill is going to come in and someone is going to have to pay for it. Frankly the GOP needed a dem in the whitehouse to wake them up from the spending day dream they are caught in right now and to shock them back to their core fiscal values which they have abandoned in mass.

this is what i was thinking as well... the government is spending more and more money (not even counting the war), i don't really understand how somebody claiming to be a fiscal conservative can be for this...

I understand fully.

Bush gives hundreds of billions to firms like Halliburton and a boat load of defence contractors. Some of which are behind an absolute maze of corporations that would make even the most die hard IRS investigator cringe. The very language of some of these contracts, bonus criteria and loss insurance/bonus, would make any businessman drool for the rest of their lives.

Then to top it off he gives these and other major companies massive tax cuts under the guise of creating jobs.

What's the count so far? 1,100 dead Americans and countless Iraqis.

It's too hard for people to stomach because the very thought of someone in office doing this is absolutely unbelievable, so they come up with, or look for, any logic or straw at all to try to justify it.

The loss of one man or woman is a tragedy. The loss of a thousand appears as a statistic.

Stop me anytime if you think you can logically claim otherwise.

 

[Jeff7]

The freedom to make as much money as the market allows without being forced to give up a larger-than-normal percentage of it to the government for no other reason than you have been labeled "rich?" Yeah, I hate that that one would have been eliminated under a certain candidate.

If you make $100,000 a year, you can give up 50% of it and still live very comfortably.
If you make $20,000 a year, giving up even just 20% can be a big problem.

Government spending is through the roof and cutting taxes while fighting a billion dollar a month war and spending like a drunken sailor is not the sign of a fiscal conservative. One day the bill is going to come in and someone is going to have to pay for it.

I have found too that deficit spending was hated by republicans before Reagan came in and showed everyone how it's done. Then suddenly, deficit spending was a good thing. The government acts like it can spend money as fast as it can, and then just ask for more. Try that with your local bank sometime. Stop making loan payments, and start taking out more loans. Just tell them that increasing debt is a good thing. I'm sure they'll understand.
For the record, the national debt is at $7,429,582,471,118.88 November 2nd. Oddly enough, that's a decrease of $47,483,117.55 from the previous day. Assuming my quick math is right (with what I could re-figure of Algebra, sad how much I've forgotten), and assuming the debt maintains its current healthy growth rate, we'll be near $9.5 trillion by the end of Bush's reign.

Oh yeah, the party thing and the original question:
I don't tend to like the party system, but I tend to sit more on the left side of the fence on most issues. Too much of what the right does seems dictated by Christian codes of behavior, in addition to a number of other matters I don't agree with them on, like the tacitc of "Economy's bad, tax cuts. Economy's good, tax cuts." - because the govnernment doesn't need income. Would be nice if they'd get a kick in the nuts to get them to actually cut useless spending, like unveilings of expensive paintings of politicians. If they're going to print good pictures of politicians, they should be sold as dart boards, thus giving the government some money back, instead of wasting it.

 

[chess9]

"Now, I don't deny that Republicans get many urban and religious votes, but there are plenty of us who don't fit that category."

I'm not sure this squares with your topic title. Perhaps you meant suburban or rural rather than urban?

Regardless, party affiliation is more about culture/political ideas than education, IQ, or where you live. A fellow raised in Birmingham, Alabama who now lives and works in N.Y. City isn't going to become a liberal overnight. Actually, things are usually much worse for that fellow-his kids become liberals.

-Robert

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

The freedom to make as much money as the market allows without being forced to give up a larger-than-normal percentage of it to the government for no other reason than you have been labeled "rich?" Yeah, I hate that that one would have been eliminated under a certain candidate.

If you make $100,000 a year, you can give up 50% of it and still live very comfortably.
If you make $20,000 a year, giving up even just 20% can be a big problem.

That's the main reason I vote republican. It should not be the government's role to decise how much you should keep to "live comfortably". The guy making $100,000 earned that money himself, just like the guy who earned his $20,000. They are both entitled to that money. Who is the government to say, "Sure, you made $100,000, but we feel you should only keep $50,000 of it. That's what we'll ALLOW you to keep." What is this, communist Russia?

My wife and I bring in close to $100,000, and it's not as much as you think. After taxes, we barely have enough to pay our bills. Yes, we have 2 cars (nothing extravegant, a '99 Sentra and '00 Durango), but we live in an apartment. We just now have been able to save a meager down payment to buy a house. We have over $100,000 in combined student loans. We're struggling. Sure, I could cut out high-speed internet, cable, cell phones, going out to eat, etc. But why should I? Because the government thinks I should be forced to do without, so they can give my money to someone who makes less? F that!

That mentality is what's wrong with this country. If you want to live in a socialist government, then move to Europe. I voted for Bush, and I'm SO glad he won. We cannot elect leaders that are going to decide for us how much salary is "too much".

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: CPA
I am a college educated, big-city living, agnostic who voted for Bush.

so all that tuition money was a big waste then, wasn't it ?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Svnla

The city. We ranked 3rd in the state (behind New Orleans and Baton Rougue).

I don't mean to be obnoxious but that doesn't strike me as big-city living. NY, LA, SF, Seattle, Chicago, maybe even New Orleans, THAT is big city living. (I know, it sounds obnoxious). 😛 Point is I'm not sure if you really break the stereotypical mold of a Republican.

That is obnoxious. One of the complaints I keep echoing about liberals is that they want the high intellectual ground, but fail to maintain it. Another is that outside of the SMA's you listed, they don't recognize any other centers of population in the United States. I have lived in Manhatten, on Sheridan Blvd near the lake in Chicago, in Oklahoma City, in Atlanta, and in mobile. I am agnostic and don't like true believers of any color. Liberals are just as much true believers in their own light as are the Christian Coalition. True believers are people who take a stance and believe in something through blind faith, beyond logic or reason. Despite monumental evidence of the kind of person Kerry was, the true believers on this board fought viciously to defend his every nuence. I don't like the Christian Coalition, and I like many liberalsbut I don't respect them. One of the things I fail to respect is the fact that liberals refuse to see themselves as intellectually lock stepped true believers on par with the worst of the religious zealots. If you were to read back over the postings in this forum, you could hardly miss it. You will never do that!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I am a genius, I don't believe in fairies, and I voted for Kerry.

I checked and your name is not on the Mensa list.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Funny, because I know many conservative Christians, well educated and professional, who voted against Bush because they think he has made them look like Killers for Christ, and they don't appreciate that.

 

[cmdavid]

I'm a college student and a christian conservative oddly enough...
its tough b/c most other college students i know voted for kerry.. but nontheless i wear my bush pin to school eveyrday in hopes of getting into discussions with some of these students.. its amazing how easily you can persuade somebody who bases their voting decisions off lies like "bush went to iraq for oil, he lied about wmds, hes killing tens of thousands of iraqis everyday, he planned 9/11"... my intent is never to persuade them but rather to at least motivate them to learn a little bit about the world, and to hear BOTH sides of the story, rather than just the liberal media side, or michael moore's for that matter....

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
[I'm all for freedoms, just like most Americans. Which ones do you feel are being eliminated?

The freedom to make as much money as the market allows without being forced to give up a larger-than-normal percentage of it to the government for no other reason than you have been labeled "rich?" Yeah, I hate that that one would have been eliminated under a certain candidate./q]

Well said. That is the BIGGEST problem I have with the Demorat party (rewarding the lazy, stay at home making baby after baby, and penalty for the hardworking, take risk types).

I think that is why the majority of naturalized citizens, immigrants such as myself pick the GOP, at least they don't tax us to death just because we make some money due to our hardwork.