As a new immigrant, what made you realize which political party in the USA you belonged to?

[Susita 175]

Abortion should be given to rape victims.

This is an argument I had yesterday Niels.

In the hospital now, as part of rape treatment, they offer the victim the morning after pill (which is really good for 5 days) so IMHO, why would they need an abortion?

Morals aside, the pill is a whole hell of a lot cheaper to pay for than an abortion. Sometimes even free.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I thought that when the sperm and egg fuses, it's activated. In order to get rid of it, you abort it. Sometimes the after the morning pill doesn't work for some people. It's those small possibilities that the law is not good to govern.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[Susita 175]

I thought that when the sperm and egg fuses, it's activated. In order to get rid of it, you abort it. Sometimes the after the morning pill doesn't work for some people. It's those small possibilities that the law is not good to govern.

the morning after pill is not an abortion pill, it's a form of birth control.

I guess every method can fail though.

[DEDixon 39]

i don't care what gay people do and i can't firmly come down on either side of abortion yet i'm a repub.

i know why i'm a repub. growing up i had to work for everything, i mowed grass in the summer and shoveled snow off sidewalks in the winter. it was something to earn my own spending money. my parents were generous, but i wanted more spending money. i got older and realized that some people were getting ####### for free from the gov't and it pissed me off. i thought it was wrong especially since the people i saw doing it were "able" bodied. they were more about breeding and taking advantage of the system than trying to do anything good with their life.

i listened to the repubs talk about getting people off welfare and the heard the dems talk about keeping people on welfare, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk about lowing my tax (keeping my hard earned $$$ in my pocket) and heard the dems talk about raising my taxes, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk about reducing spending and heard the heard dems talk about increasing spending basically to support people on welfare and to allow yet more people on welfare, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk favorably about business and heard the dems talk against business, i went repub.

for me, being repub is all about finance. it isn't about church, abortion or gay people.

you don't have to come down on either side, more and more, people are signing up as independents.

[FortLaudy 10]

i don't care what gay people do and i can't firmly come down on either side of abortion yet i'm a repub.

i know why i'm a repub. growing up i had to work for everything, i mowed grass in the summer and shoveled snow off sidewalks in the winter. it was something to earn my own spending money. my parents were generous, but i wanted more spending money. i got older and realized that some people were getting ####### for free from the gov't and it pissed me off. i thought it was wrong especially since the people i saw doing it were "able" bodied. they were more about breeding and taking advantage of the system than trying to do anything good with their life.

i listened to the repubs talk about getting people off welfare and the heard the dems talk about keeping people on welfare, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk about lowing my tax (keeping my hard earned $$$ in my pocket) and heard the dems talk about raising my taxes, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk about reducing spending and heard the heard dems talk about increasing spending basically to support people on welfare and to allow yet more people on welfare, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk favorably about business and heard the dems talk against business, i went repub.

for me, being repub is all about finance. it isn't about church, abortion or gay people.

you don't have to come down on either side, more and more, people are signing up as independents.

Very Very good reasoning there, thanks!!!

the reasons that had me going at Republicans were the needless wars, George Bush, Glen Beck and their overall stand on abortion and gay rights which I thought were a little too conservative and interfering in people's personal lives where there's no need. So that's what I have against the Republicans.

And the Dems, for sure all the damn free handouts to people who as you say are able bodied and will just keep coming back for free handouts instead of getting a damn job -no incentive whatsoever do to anything productive with one's live if everything's handed to you freely.

I feel exactly the same as you, my dad moved to South Africa in the 1970's against his parent's wishes with nothing and built his life From scratch, even built a house from the ground up with mostly raw materials and the help of my brothers (no slave labor ok!!), so did I take on a job in the middle east against my parent's wishes and without their support or free handouts and now putting myself through college with my own savings, I just don't see how others can't do the same so I agree with you 100% on that.

I think a lot of young people are becoming independants rather than siding with either mainstream party, that's cool!

[alienlovechild 75]

the reasons that had me going at Republicans were the needless wars, George Bush, Glen Beck and their overall stand on abortion and gay rights which I thought were a little too conservative and interfering in people's personal lives where there's no need. So that's what I have against the Republicans.

And the Dems, for sure all the damn free handouts to people who as you say are able bodied and will just keep coming back for free handouts instead of getting a damn job -no incentive whatsoever do to anything productive with one's live if everything's handed to you freely.

I think a lot of young people are becoming independants rather than siding with either mainstream party, that's cool!

Obama has referred to Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" there's only one "unecessary" war left.

Obama also didn't advocate gay marriage either.

Pres. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress put time limits on how long someone could receive welfare.

Don't know about the current stats on more independent voters among the young but historically they didn't matter because they don't vote in the numbers that older voters do.

[Jenn! 918]

if you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative (libertarian), you don't really fit into either party. for most of those people at the end of the day, their wallet is most important, so they vote republican.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Jenn!

[scandal 951]

i don't care what gay people do and i can't firmly come down on either side of abortion yet i'm a repub.

i know why i'm a repub. growing up i had to work for everything, i mowed grass in the summer and shoveled snow off sidewalks in the winter. it was something to earn my own spending money. my parents were generous, but i wanted more spending money. i got older and realized that some people were getting ####### for free from the gov't and it pissed me off. i thought it was wrong especially since the people i saw doing it were "able" bodied. they were more about breeding and taking advantage of the system than trying to do anything good with their life.

i listened to the repubs talk about getting people off welfare and the heard the dems talk about keeping people on welfare, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk about lowing my tax (keeping my hard earned $$$ in my pocket) and heard the dems talk about raising my taxes, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk about reducing spending and heard the heard dems talk about increasing spending basically to support people on welfare and to allow yet more people on welfare, i went repub.

i listened to the repubs talk favorably about business and heard the dems talk against business, i went repub.

for me, being repub is all about finance. it isn't about church, abortion or gay people.

you don't have to come down on either side, more and more, people are signing up as independents.

Interesting perspective.

I'm curious - can you cite me one instance, one actual quotation, from a leading Democrat who has called to "keep people on welfare"? Who has advocated staying on welfare, as opposed to using it as a bridge to gainful employment? I doubt that you can.

You seem to associate large government policies strictly with welfare. To me, the reason I'm a Democrat is that I believe government can and does play a beneficial role for ALL citizens. Government action is hardly limited to welfare programs alone. Government has aided the working man and woman in a playing field that left to its own devices will always favor those with big money and big power. The Democratic Party has, since at least the New Deal, stood firmly with the working person, the average Joe, the guy trying achieve his little piece of the American dream. The Republican Party has aligned itself with the corporate elites of America and the well-heeled class.

Under Democratic leadership, government in the past century or so has stepped into regulating health and safety standards in the workplace, has fought discriminatory hiring and employment practices, has championed environmental protection of the air and water and land and wildlife resources against the corporate interests who would pillage them, has

Like you, I've never taken a hand out. I never took a government check, I've worked ever since I left college, and I plan to work till I'm 67 or so. I've never reneged on a debt, I pay my taxes in full, I'm responsible with my credit and have a FICO over 800. I care that my tax money is used wisely, I don't want to see it squandered and wasted any more than you do. I believe the vast majority of people, left and right, Democrats and Republicans, feel this way about their taxes.

I do believe that government can act in the betterment of society by using public funds raised from taxes, combined with a sound borrowing plan, to invest in things that improve the quality of life for all of us. Roads, infrastructure, a new energy grid, schools, universities, etc. Emergency assistance (e.g. FEMA) to devastated areas. I also favor using the tax system for enlightened wealth-transfer programs such as having economically prosperous people and regions (e.g. Wall St. bankers and Silicon Valley tycoons) funding programs in chronically depressed areas (e.g. rural Appalachia, the Rust belt).

Contrary to the typical epithets of the right, Democrats are not brain dead. We don't want welfare for the sake of it, we don't want to stagnate the economy by raising taxes for needless and worthless programs. We DO understand that government can be the agent of wealth redistribution to efficiently improve the social and economic conditions throughout the country, and that this is in the enlightened self interest of all of us, no matter where we live or how fortunate we've been economically.

Today, this debate is no longer as extreme as it once was between the 2 parties, when Republicans were absolutely opposed to any form of social spending. Today, Republicans have generally accepted the wisdom in having some amount of government involvement in these matters. It's really become a question of degree, not of kind. How much taxes? For which specific programs? What debt levels? As opposed to ... none at all. The "none at all" camp is today best expressed by the Tea-bagger/Ron Paul crowd, not by mainstream Republicans.

I would also add here that members of both parties are guilty of using the cover of large-government social programs to fund a lot of shady projects that ARE wasteful and outrageous. I refer to the shameful practice of earmark spending in appropriations bills. BOTH parties have a lot to answer to in continuing this practice, and not supporting a line-item veto for the President to allow him to strike out such "Bridge to nowhere" projects.

[NickD 203]

If you are a democrat, you are pro-choice or for abortions, but they prefer being called pro-choice.

If you are a republican, you are against abortions, but you don't do a damn thing about it.

One thing for sure, no one is twisting your are to have an abortion, so if against it, don't get one.

Feel this abortion issue as well as gay rights are distractions, I don't give a damn if two people of the same sex get married, and if any friend or relative thinks they need an abortion, will do everything in my power to help them have the baby. Let's talk instead about these useless wars, our trade deficit, leveling the playing field for all Americans, and election reform.

[mawilson 2,133]

I want the federal government out of our lives completely, with the exception of the US Army,

Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, CDC, FAA and other federal

government entities aimed at preserving our security at home and abroad.

That's about it. I want everything else Federal gone. I want to see the top federal tax

rate reduced to 10-20% and see more of our tax money go to the state and local governments.

[Danno 1,228]

Interesting perspective.

I'm curious - can you cite me one instance, one actual quotation, from a leading Democrat who has called to "keep people on welfare"? Who has advocated staying on welfare, as opposed to using it as a bridge to gainful employment? I doubt that you can.

You seem to associate large government policies strictly with welfare. To me, the reason I'm a Democrat is that I believe government can and does play a beneficial role for ALL citizens. Government action is hardly limited to welfare programs alone. Government has aided the working man and woman in a playing field that left to its own devices will always favor those with big money and big power. The Democratic Party has, since at least the New Deal, stood firmly with the working person, the average Joe, the guy trying achieve his little piece of the American dream. The Republican Party has aligned itself with the corporate elites of America and the well-heeled class.

Under Democratic leadership, government in the past century or so has stepped into regulating health and safety standards in the workplace, has fought discriminatory hiring and employment practices, has championed environmental protection of the air and water and land and wildlife resources against the corporate interests who would pillage them, has

Like you, I've never taken a hand out. I never took a government check, I've worked ever since I left college, and I plan to work till I'm 67 or so. I've never reneged on a debt, I pay my taxes in full, I'm responsible with my credit and have a FICO over 800. I care that my tax money is used wisely, I don't want to see it squandered and wasted any more than you do. I believe the vast majority of people, left and right, Democrats and Republicans, feel this way about their taxes.

I do believe that government can act in the betterment of society by using public funds raised from taxes, combined with a sound borrowing plan, to invest in things that improve the quality of life for all of us. Roads, infrastructure, a new energy grid, schools, universities, etc. Emergency assistance (e.g. FEMA) to devastated areas. I also favor using the tax system for enlightened wealth-transfer programs such as having economically prosperous people and regions (e.g. Wall St. bankers and Silicon Valley tycoons) funding programs in chronically depressed areas (e.g. rural Appalachia, the Rust belt).

Contrary to the typical epithets of the right, Democrats are not brain dead. We don't want welfare for the sake of it, we don't want to stagnate the economy by raising taxes for needless and worthless programs. We DO understand that government can be the agent of wealth redistribution to efficiently improve the social and economic conditions throughout the country, and that this is in the enlightened self interest of all of us, no matter where we live or how fortunate we've been economically.

Today, this debate is no longer as extreme as it once was between the 2 parties, when Republicans were absolutely opposed to any form of social spending. Today, Republicans have generally accepted the wisdom in having some amount of government involvement in these matters. It's really become a question of degree, not of kind. How much taxes? For which specific programs? What debt levels? As opposed to ... none at all. The "none at all" camp is today best expressed by the Tea-bagger/Ron Paul crowd, not by mainstream Republicans.

I would also add here that members of both parties are guilty of using the cover of large-government social programs to fund a lot of shady projects that ARE wasteful and outrageous. I refer to the shameful practice of earmark spending in appropriations bills. BOTH parties have a lot to answer to in continuing this practice, and not supporting a line-item veto for the President to allow him to strike out such "Bridge to nowhere" projects.

Speaking of, did you see that report I posted where the "Head Start program" has spent over 100 Billion dollars.

Net result?

Research shows nearly all advantage is gone by the end of the 1st grade.

Why do Democrats keep championing this huge wastes?

Why did not one Big Gov VJer speak up to defend it or even act surprised?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=head+startised?

B)

The left lays the bait of misinformation all the time to increase these programs.

We just recently heard that 1 in 6 people in this country have a food shortage, some are even suffering from mental stress about food.

Of course I have to wonder; are all these people, Great Americans who are trying to tuff-it-out on their own?

I kinda doubt it because we never hear "why" they have these food problems... just that "We need to do more".

I googled and I found out that in my state, a family of three gets $526 dollars in food stamps a month, do you find that Shocking?

These same peoples children qualify for free lunch and breakfast at school ($50 per kid per month).

THese same people can get wic (not sure who much that is yet... anyone know?)

I spend between 3- 400 per month on food, I am insulted that I am told to "do more" for people who not only don't contribute a dime to feed themselves, they actually have a food bill twice what mine costs month.

This is just one example of billions and billions of tax dollars being wasted... not only wasted but they are in effect corrupting people and creating a parasite segment which is ever growing. (harsh words I know)

This is why poor people on foodstamps are more often fat... not because they just can't afford healthy food as we have been told by the defenders of such wasteful programs, but they simply get so much food allotment.

We can leap frog from this program over to medicare over to farm subsidies and section 8, it is the same repetition of waste and legal abuse.

Rather than claim Gov';t "should" be doing all these things, I would rather hear claims of how successful these programs have been?

We have more people in poverty now than when we started.... and at $526 a month in food stamps as a starting point... it's no wonder why.

[scandal 951]

I want the federal government out of our lives completely, with the exception of the US Army,

Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, CDC, FAA and other federal

government entities aimed at preserving our security at home and abroad.

That's about it. I want everything else Federal gone. I want to see the top federal tax

rate reduced to 10-20% and see more of our tax money go to the state and local governments.

So you would also remove all federal involvement in the financial industry, yes?

You'd get rid of the Federal Reserve system, the SEC, the FDIC.

No FDIC - Deposit bank accounts would no longer be insured - a bank collapse would trigger instant forfeiture of deposits, and nervous depositors would run on their banks.

No SEC - there would be no mandatory reporting requirements for publicly traded companies. No 10-Q or 10-K filings, no requirment to adhere to accounting standards and have audited balance sheets.

No Federal Reserve - no independent monetary authority to be the lender of last resort and promote stable non-inflationary economic growth, sensitive to the business cycle but un-beholden to the electoral cycle.

Me? I'm rather fond of having those institutions. I'm rather glad that the Washington bigwigs see the wisdom in having them as well. They may need reform, they may need modernization in the current age of OTC derivatives trading. That strengthens the argument for government involvement, not weaken it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

if you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative (libertarian), you don't really fit into either party. for most of those people at the end of the day, their wallet is most important, so they vote republican.

To a point, I think that is generally true. However, because most voters are not ideologues, they will tend to vote for who they think is the better candidate, when one is clearly a stronger choice over the other one. State elections show this, especially with governors.

[DEDixon 39]

I'm curious - can you cite me one instance, one actual quotation, from a leading Democrat who has called to "keep people on welfare"? Who has advocated staying on welfare, as opposed to using it as a bridge to gainful employment? I doubt that you can.

nope, i can't and i wouldn't even try looking for one. it comes from a gut feeling based on what i've read and witnessed. i don't need a quote to know it is true.

by the way, i'm repub, but as i have said on here a few times (you might have missed it), i would not want 50 years of repub rule or 50 years of dem rule. putting all your eggs in one basket is plain stupid to me. which ever party is in power eventually goes too far to the right or left out of arrogance so the american people usually has to act to counter the arrogance and bring us back to center. to bring us back to center, it takes electing the other party, the problem is that eventually that party will sway too far away from center.

if it were not for arrogance, one party could rule for a very long time. currently, it took once than a year for dems to signaled a move to the far left so guess what, american people elected a repub from Mass (of all places) to bring us back to center. pelosi is as or more partisan than bush, she is beyond arrogant, the congress would be better off replacing her with a moderate who isn't from san francisco (again, of all places, the leader of the house should not be from a district that is more liberal than any other part of america... it sends a really bad message in my opinion).

if you can't find something that the repub party does that you think is good for america, i feel sorry for you. i value some of the things the dems do (civil rights, supporting gay people) so i hope you can find something you like about the other side. for example, i can't imagine a dem not appreciating repubs for their stance on taxes for if it were not for the repubs, the dems would go way too far.

the dems surely are known for throwing money social ills while ignoring root cause. for example, kids in the inner city doing poorly in school, the problem is at home, not in the classroom so throwing money at the classroom won't fix anything. teachers are not meant to be parents either. that is just one example of many where dems think throwing taxpayer money at it will improve results. trouble is dems don't want to offend their base so they ignore root cause instead of telling parents that their lifestyle is hurting their kids and unless they change, their kids will suffer. dems are the kings and queens of PC. repubs are more likely to tell someone or a group to shape up or you'll fall behind. i like that, because in some ways, i shaped up so i feel others can do it too.

[mawilson 2,133]

No FDIC - Deposit bank accounts would no longer be insured - a bank collapse would trigger instant forfeiture of deposits, and nervous depositors would run on their banks.

I'm ok with that. FDIC encourages moral hazard and irresponsible behavior on the part of the

banks. A bank will take more risks with depositors' funds if all or part of it is guaranteed to be

repaid by the FDIC than it would if they had to be responsible for paying any losses. Getting rid

of FDIC "insurance" would subject banks to the same market discipline as any other business.

No SEC - there would be no mandatory reporting requirements for publicly traded companies. No 10-Q or 10-K filings, no requirment to adhere to accounting standards and have audited balance sheets.

The SEC falls under "law enforcement" which I'm ok with - that's what governments are

supposed to do. I'm all for transparency and accounting standards.

No Federal Reserve - no independent monetary authority to be the lender of last resort and promote stable non-inflationary economic growth, sensitive to the business cycle but un-beholden to the electoral cycle.

Yes, I would get rid of the Federal Reserve.