NS Conservatives

This is exactly what i do not like about the republican party. they claim to be more about small government, but they really arent, both parties want control and power, just in different ways. i happen to disagree more with the democratic parties ways, mostly because i think the economic side is the bigger issue at this time, and the social side doesnt effect me personally as much.

and the reason i LEAN to the conservative side, is your exact reasoning but applied to economic (and some other) issues.

I dont want the government using my money for social programs im against, i dont want them to have access to my bank account, i dont want the government using my money so a 15 year old can get an abortion, i dont like the idea that my money is going towards drug addicts and fatties who eat 20 candybars a day's health problems.

I work in the auto industry and ive spoken a lot to a friend who is one of the main engineers at Honda America, specifically works on engine development. and all these new regulations and standards car companies need to meet in the coming years to "save the environment" are only slowing the progress of developing new and better ideas, instead of companies putting their funding towards developing new ideas and technologies. they are going to already disproven solutions i.e. hybrids, and finding loopholes around the regulations. he said the one thing holding him and his team back the most is these regulations, because all the funding goes into just "getting by" and finding a way to comply.

and any other industry i hear about seems to experience the same thing. the government getting in the way, trying to run an industry that should be run by the experts in that industry. and as a result, it has the opposite effect from the governments original intention.

and i feel the same goes with many social programs(to an extent). give a poor family welfare and enough to get by comfortably while they "find a new job" and they exploit it, they got their big screen tv, food and clothes, why work for a couple more bucks than they are receiving from government programs?

social programs for minorities aimed to create "equality" be essentially giving them more privileges than whites? how the fuck does that work? create inequality by promoting inequality? hmm..

the idea that the rich guy who creates jobs and pays a butt load in taxes needs to "contribute" and "pay his fair share" while the poor guy receiving that guys tax dollars gets no pressure to ACTUALLY contribute. and the fact that saying anything half negative about a poor person isnt PC and now im an asshole for even mentioning it.

the general idea that its greedy selfish and equal for a rich guy to want to keep his money, but its not greedy for someone to want to take and keep that guys money for yourself? how fucking backwards is that? where's the logic?

these are all reasons i do not like the democratic party. not really reasons i side more with the republican party. the republican party has its fair share of WTF? bullshit as well. these just bug me more, are more un-american imo, and i feel hold us back more as a country.
 
The bible does not promote racism or gay bashing. People promote these things. And anti abortion is not anti birth control. Ultimately its people who need to get rid of these problems.
 
this. i feel like unemployment will go down if they cut back on the amount of welfare they give out. the government should only give able bodied people on welfare the bare minimum to get by, and i think thats even pushing it. this will force them to get out and work if they want anymore than the basic necessities and keep tax dollars from being spent on supplemental things.
 
Because I hate working for lazy people. I support natural selection and I believe government handouts are fucked up. We need to ween ourselves off of that.
 
I had to write a paper on this so voila. For all of you questioning what this all is called, its Political Socialization

StartFragment

My

life in politics has been very sheltered. Neither of my parents identifies with

a particular party, but if they were to label themselves, they would consider

themselves more libertarian or republican if it came down to choosing between

the two main parties. I would consider my viewpoints extremely similar to

theirs, identifying myself as a cross between libertarian and republican. My

upbringing and sheltered political life has dictated much of my view on

politics and political issues.

Political

issues on the whole are very unimportant to me, but in recent years, their

significance has grown. With the economic collapse and slow recovery, I have

started to pay more attention to the political issues surrounding us today. For

me personally, I feel as if my life will be more affected by economic policies

than social policies. In my eyes, fiscally, my future is more at risk than it

is socially.

My

view on government is that each politician has a personal agenda that coincides

with a national agenda. I like to believe that every politician has the

country’s interests at heart, but sometimes may be overridden by their own

personal desires. No human is a perfect being, and politicians are not exempt

from this. Unfortunately, the media has the ability to blow comments, mistakes,

and actions out of proportion to vilify or turn politicians into celebrities.

Because of this, I have tried to shy away from reading, watching, or listening

to anything about political candidates and their personal lives.

My

political socialization has been a very unorthodox. My parents and family has

been my most prominent agent, due to living with them for most of my life. They

are at the heart of my lack of political knowledge, for politics do not get

discussed at the dinner table unless one of us kids has a question. However,

indirectly they have influenced us via their actions in certain situations

where it comes to money as well as social issues. My parents are firm believers

in a strong education, regardless of the costs on the family. Grandparents on

both sides of the family, dead and alive, instilled this upon my parents. My

father’s parents were both from well-to-do families who took a very firm stance

on a strong education. My mother’s parents both place a strong emphasis on

education due to their inability to complete theirs until many years after

WWII. This lead to both sides of the family being firm believers that anyone

can do what they want when they put their mind to it and apply themselves. This

in turn, creates their stance on economic issues that are more about freedom

than equality.

My

education however, was and still is on the other end of the spectrum. In my

early childhood years before high school, I attended a small private day school

in Massachusetts. Many of the teachers originally being from Massachusetts, had

a very strong liberal stance on things. Politics in the later years of Middle

School became a prominent subject as well. In 8th grade we studied

the Massachusetts election and had a debate over which liberal or conservative

policies we believed were better. As I reflect, there was a severe difference

between the amount of conservatives and liberals where the liberals outnumbered

the conservatives 3-1. In my high

school years, I attended a boarding school in New Hampshire, where the

situation seemed to be opposite to that of earlier years. Again, the teachers

were very liberal, but this time the students seemed to be more on the

conservative side. It was very easy to figure out where students came across

their beliefs. Many of the more affluent, white, Christian students were

conservatives, much like their parents. The liberal students were the less

affluent, minorities (occasionally), and Jewish students, which is not very

different from the way Janda et al write about it. At this age however,

politics became a much more common subject, and occasionally caused friction

between students. This led to me attempting to abandon conversing in it as to

preserve my friendships.

Other

methods of socialization have been very scarce in my life. I was not allowed to

watch TV until I was around the age of 12, so I missed out on large portions of

TV for younger children that often have underwritten political issues. My

ability to watch the news as I increased in age declined once I went to

boarding school where the only TV was in the student lounge and often had

Sports Center. I did however, find myself reading more news, but rather than

focus on domestic issues, I found myself reading BBC, due to its ease of access

on my computer and simple navigation. Movies and videogames have been prevalent

in my life, but I never looked at them as any sort of teaching method. Being a conservative in MA and NH

sometimes worked to my disadvantage when talking politics to friends, so as I

grew older and learned more about the touchiness of the subject, the topic

declined during conversations.

I

believe that my parent’s ability to instill the lack of politics in my house

has led to my ability to have room to be able to organize my own ideas on

politics. However, much like them, I have very little interest in following it

due to the nature of conflict it brings about. If a conversation does arise and

I am required to talk about it, I have learned that reading up on subjects is

often in my best interest, and if I am uninformed of a topic, I would prefer

not to talk about it rather than spew secondhand information.

EndFragment

 
Forgot the sparknotes version

Sparknotes

Secluded life from media+parental units teaching us kids about individual responsibility and achievements+other factors=conservative (fiscally) me.
 
I agree with this completely. I think for whoever we nominate (hopefully Christie or Rubio) for 2016 to win, the party needs to give up on abortion, and many of the other social issues. Roe v. Wade was passed in the 70's and theres no indicators that a large group of Americans want it overturned. Despite my differences with the party platform on social issues, I couldn't be anymore conservative economically. If you lower corporate tax rates, corporations will feel more secure, and higher more people. By raising them, you take money from hard working people, and give it to a government that throws billions of dollars into ineffective spending programs. I truly believe its asinine to think that money is better in the hands of the government than the people. America was founded on beliefs the individual could make his own way, and the government must stay small to enable the individual. With hard work, anything is possible in America, and thats what makes us the greatest nation on earth. I don't like how we're shifting towards policies similar to Europe, where many countries have no money left (France, Spain, Greece, Italy) This video kinda explains my beliefs:

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
this. im religious, straight, and wary of black dudes in alleys, but idgaf about what people do with their love lives, fetuses, or careers. let people do what they will, but the government should NOT be involved in terms of paying for abortions or birth control. don't encourage one way or the other.

I think government spending is ridiculous, and there are thousands of government jobs/programs/subsidies we could do without, and "dog earing" or piggybacking bills with small unrelated projects should be eliminated. (i.e.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/gop-finds-pelosi-pork-stimulus-deal/ )

as for immigration, i don't like illegal aliens working illegally, but it would be easy enough to make a new expanded visa system for migrant workers (since they're over here anyway, why limit visas), but if they want to stay permanently, become a citizen.

drug tests should be required for welfare, and food stamps should not be accepted as payment for alcohol, cigarettes, etc. only necessities.

Voter ID should be required, as long as (as was promised in my district) voting ID cards can be obtained for free. regardless of how much/little voter fraud you think exists.

 
I consider myself a REAL conservative. Also tend to be fiscally conservative.

I don't view the "conservatives" out there as being very conservative.

I'm a registered republican even though I'm against just about everything the majority of the modern republican party passes.
 
First fiscally. less taxes and welfare? what are you on about? people who are making 250 000 plus have most likely had an education that could not have been provided for by poor parents. To cut taxes is just furthering social poverty and growing what is a self perpetuating cycle. SELF PERPETUATING. and fucked if the free market system is going to fix that. And on top of that, generally, the higher your income, the more disproportional it is with your hours worked so if someone earns 5 million a year, they wont work anywhere near as hard as a teacher who earns 50 000. thus he nedds that money to be taken the fuck away.

THE MORE MONEY SOMEONE HAS DOES NOT EQUATE TO INCREASED SPENDING. infact any person with more money than needed for basics is going to start saving more than they spend because what can they buy? its called the marginal propensity to save and its higher than that to consume. more equality means more growth because more people are spending on lifes basics and not importing excessively or buying hugely value added goods which offer no benefit. i ask you what can you do with more than one million a year? all you do is live excessively and that creates social division and inequality that is unfairly passed on to the next generation

im from australia and you conservatives need to get your economic theory straight before you go calling prejudices "fact"

 
Lol at anything coming from somebody who's saying things like "And on top of that, generally, the higher your income, the more disproportional it is with your hours worked so if someone earns 5 million a year, they wont work anywhere near as hard as a teacher who earns 50 000. thus he nedds that money to be taken the fuck away."

The government really does wonders when they get involved in our lives. They don't waste any money, and everything they do is wonderful with no consequences.

We should def start taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor. That's brilliant. That definitely wouldn't do any damage to the American dream or keep people from coming here for chance of success.

Welfare and the abuse of it has helped to cripple far to many people. It's a cycle that will continue. I'm not saying that we haven't had problems with the economy, just that keeping so many people on welfare is ridiculous.

We need to start booting people off welfare, cutting back a large part of our government, and give people some freedom and responsibility.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid. Just felt like replying while my pizza cooked in case you actually hold these views.
 
you are so fuckin wrong about everything it's comical. i am going to bet you don't have a job or any substantial income. and if you do not personally know someone with money than you have no basis to make these retarded assumptions. "marginal propensity to save" what the fuck? what liberal professor taught you that? replace that loaded term with something more simple like "financial responsibility" because no shit rich people do not go out and spend all their money to temporarily boost the local economy. wealthy people go to great lengths to find to safest place to put their money that will provide a desired return. aka investing, which does so much more for the future of a business or organization than simply receiving tax money that is dispersed by the government.
 
Because I believe:

The government should play a smaller roll in our lives.

A flat tax rate.

A strong military.

That if you have sex with a girl and she is pregnant that you are a man enough to raise that kid.

In the private sector.

Choosing my healthcare.

Freedom of religion.

The 2nd amendment.

Those are the main ones. I have some more personal reasons I won't post on the Internet.

Also first time using the return button on mobile ns. I hope it works.

 
Does having a strong military mean we have to spend a ridiculous amount of money on it and be constantly occupying a bunch of countries and pretty much always at war with at least one?

I'm not by any means for a weak military, I just feel there is a difference between a strong solid military and a completely overkill military.
 
Well, you, sir are very wrong in your first statement. My grandfather moved from Germany to Canada without speaking more than a few sentences of English with no money to his name. He managed to raise 3 children, send them to (good) colleges, and two out of the three are living very comfortable lives. The other if you are curious, was bipolar and killed herself last year. Anyways, the two successful ones managed to further increase their social standing by marrying people who were able to do the same thing, that being, working hard and increasing social status. (Ironically one is Australian) Therefore sir, it is QUITE possible to work your way up in social standing even if you come from a poor family. It takes dedication, smart spending, and overall, HARD WORK.

This country is about equality, but since when has the hard work of one been used to allow others to become "Free-riders". You seem to know about economics, so I assume you know all about the free-rider issue that arrises in most situations. In what economic system is free-riding even beneficial? Every time it has come up in my education, it was the problem that was trying to be solved.

And please, do not EVER use the word generally when applying statistics to a statement. My father works and makes above $250,000 and works between 10-12 hours a day for 5 days a week. If that isnt hard work, I do not know what is. Even when he isnt officially working on the weekends, he still takes time to make sure he is well prepared for the upcoming week. Same can be said about my aunt and uncle. You seem only to apply this statistic to the management and CEOs of large corporations. I am almost certain you wouldnt last a week in their positions due to the stress and difficult decisions they must make in todays economy.

Again, your theory about marginal propensity to save is a THEORY. Im pretty sure every economy class I have ever taken were prefaced by "these are theories, they are not perfect nor do they predict every outcome". You can study one case and look at it a million different ways IE the GM vs. Fisher Bodies Vertical Integration study. Many well known economists looked at it, and NONE came to a sufficient conclusion which they could all agree on. You also seem to be forgetting that todays economy is on the verge of collapsing, so who wants to frivolously spend money on wants when they should save it for needs, especially when the government wants to take more of it away.

You want to know what my family does with more than $1,000,000 a year?

Pay a lot to taxes, pay for three kids to go to college, pay for needs, and then attempt to save the rest incase this economy continues on the downward spiral.

So you sir, need to get your head out of your theoretical ass and realize theories dont explain the REAL world.

And again, to finalize it, if you took a basic american political science class you would understand the differences between Democrats and Republican values. Republicans value social freedom, Democrats value social equality. This explains our ideas. You dont align with them. Thats what makes America great. You dont have.

Sparknotes-Theories dont explain the world. Our parties are different due to values
 
@.ryan66 - I agree but the republicans show time and time again they dont care about states governing themselves or peoples religious views.

so your religion doesnt believe in abortion so I cant have one...

marijuana was legalized in 2 states and you know the feds are gonna crack down on that, guess who will back them? The republicans.

btw wtf is going on with quoting people, its been telling me something about part of the original post missing a lot, anyone else experiencing this?
 
The world that I have some respect. That is what's wrong with our generation is that their is no responsibility.
 
Solid post.

The way I see it, conservative social values are terrible. They only reason anybody believes them is due to religion. And while I disagree with conservative fiscal beliefs, I can at least see reason behind them on occasion. I just hope that in the future the political parties will agree on more issues and that we will return to having lots of conservative democrats and liberal republicans in positions of power, instead of the highly polarized politics of today.
 
Every conservative out there should read this book.

The mainstream media and policymakers in Washington like to frame the debate as conservatives are against government intervention in the market and liberals want government intervention in the market. The conservative Nanny State refutes this myth and shows how modern "conservative" policies use government power to redistribute income to the top. It shows how liberals can stop playing into the "big government" myth and use markets to promote progressive outcomes.

Also best of all, it's pretty short and free for download.

the-conservative-nanny-state.jpg


/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
and the way I see it, government intervention in the MARKET is different from expanding the government(making it larger).
 
Wait so are saying that what the conservatives are doing is bad, and the liberals should stop playing into big government myth and be more conservative?

Or are you saying that the liberals should use big government to impact the market?

 
What he's saying is that the "big government" vs "small government" paradigm is a myth and that modern conservatives actually use lots of "big government" interventions to send income to the top. His thesis is that we need to point out this fact if liberals want to have a chance of convincing anyone and then ask if we really want to simply make the government smaller, including the parts of it that benefit the rich, or if we want to change the debate to what do we want the government to do and what outcomes do we desire rather than just asking how big is it.

It's a really interesting read if you're into economics and politics.
 
Liberals have already convinced everyone that a bigger government is better, thats why Obama was re-elected two days ago... But really does a bigger government help the liberals who need things... NO.

I dont need to read a book to tell me this.
 
I agree. My point is, just because we responsible adults have this standard doesn't automatically mean the masses, which quite frankly are stupid as fuck, are capable of living up to it.

People should be responsible, but you have to face the reality that they won't. Just accept it.
 
Seriously dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop.

I highly recommend the book but if you're not going to read it stop trying to argue about it. Didn't your teachers ever tell you you can't write a book report on a book you didn't read?
 
Yeah but that book won't simply reaffirm what he wants to think, therefore it is a non option.

/conservativethinking101
 
How does what I say not make sense... its what you said this book is about just in different words.

smartthinking101

 
I passed many classes by writing book reports about books I never read... jesus man did you never cheat in high school or middle school.
 
What you're saying doesn't make sense because it doesn't even apply to the argument in the book. The author is saying that liberals SHOULDN'T be arguing for bigger government because it's false and it doesn't work. Most Americans say that they don't like big government. Liberals should recognize that fact and change the way they debate because it would both make more sense and it would be convincing to a lot more people.
 
Yes, it does. Now, the debate between the two ideologies is really what the government is supposed to provide for the people, whether or not those services are within the bounds of the law, and whether or not they infringe on an individual's rights.
 
big government or small, it doesnt matter. it will always be used the wrong way and bought by the biggest bidder.

do you understand that?
 
Thats exactly what I am saying in a sarcastic way but you arent picking up on that. I guess thats my fault for not being serious.
 
Agreed but the way it helps them is by giving them a place to live and some food but really the government is just trying to keep them happy and held down. If that makes any sense at all.

basically they dont want to you to die, they want you to have food and a place to live but they dont want you to better your life anymore than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top