Freerepublic is privately owned and it also is set up as a Conservative forum. DU posters have been banned in the past but most of the Liberals can stay.
On to health care. The preventitive idea is a good one in theory. I could work with it. Yet, socialized medicine has never worked. For some Conservatives, who are reality based and study Economics, it is an unworkable concept. EVERY free health care system in the world is bad. Not just some, but ALL of them.
Look at some of the European systems. They are wretched. We had a near perfect system here in the seventies which changed when Ted Kennedy introduced the current model of the Health Care system. It was not really his fault. Some Doctors got very greedy and were ripping off the insurance companies. If I had the power at the time, I would have increased oversight on the doctors to prevent them from defrauding the insurance industry, as opposed to putting the Insurance industry in charge.
In other words, I would have let the medical people stay in charge but made sure that they stayed honest. After all, there really was no reason to cheat, they were very wealthy anyway.
On to Corporate subsidies. You might be surprised but most true conservatives disagree with the concept strongly. A group of Republicans that is referred to here as the "Rockefeller Republicans" do not. Also, quite a few Dems indulge in this practice, here in Mass, they do it so business will stay. Like I said if they leave, that leaves the state in a worse situation.
I do not consider less taxation as Corporate Welfare. It IS thier money after all. They are not getting it fro the public coffers. Subsidies DO come out of the public coffers though and that is what WE call Corporate Welfare. If a business cant make it on its own, it should fold.
Now, imagine this scenario, using Mass as the state. Here, we have several large Corporations that receive subsidies and tax breaks to stay in the state to provide jobs. Because of favortism to about fifteen corporations, they can operate here while staying profitable.
Imagine if Mass lifted all subsideis and reduced the Corporate tax. Instead of fifteen Corporations, we would have hundreds. So, while they would pay a lower percentage, we would have FAR more revenue. A lot more jobs as well. Conservatives are not opposed to taxation per se... well, you can see my point above. You may not agree, but it is worth a thought.
In another example, Russia recently instituted a 13% flat tax. Tax revenues have increased 40% since it has been initiated. The reason is people no longer operate in the black market. They also are getting very rich, so even though the rate is lower, the revenue is higher. This is in fact happening in the Russian Economy. This principle was also quoted in a speech by JFK.
I was just listening to Robert Reich on NPR last night and his prescription for Mass was lower taxes and more federal money for social programs because Mass cant run a deficit(It is against the Constitution of MAss, which I do not agree with. Not running a deficit that is.), this is an example of Keynesian economics. It advocates government money to stimulate local economies. It does work, but only temporarily. It was the foundation for the MArshall plan after WW2. I wont go into it here.
One thing you have to realize, and is also a reason many Conservatives are angry is that we honestly believe that our policies will help society as a whole. Thats why we get mad when we are called Mean, uncaring, fascist or a host of other things. To be objective, perhaps we are wrong, but while we question liberals grasp of the issues, they question our basic humanity. I am sure you can see where that would lead to some ruffled feathers.
Believe it or not, the GOP has moved towards the center. Conservatives, and this website as a whole have not. Of course, we are right-wing. :D Amazing as it may seem to you, a lot of folks here are furious at quite a lot of Republicans.
Personally, I realize that most of the country is in the center. Compromise can be good. I tried to tell that worker that the Dems should not elect Pelosi to the Minority Leader position because veering left will destroy them. She got mad. Oh well, from a selfish viewpoint, I am glad the Dems are propping her up.
Compromise... I was talking to some Liberal Dems about medicine for the elderly and although I can never agree with socialized medicine, I capitulated and said I will agree to give free meds to seniors who are poor.
Two months later, this bill passed in the house but was fillibustered by my own Senator, Mr. Kennedy. His rationale was that it did not give EVERYONE free medicine. I watched this one myself and was quite angry, since I had talked to Libs before about the same thing and they agreed. I hate to gloat, but this bill will make it this time, and I know it will pass because any dem that opposes free meds for poor elderly will be doomed.
On a final note, you seem to strike me more as a moderate Democrat then a Left Wing type of person. I have lurked on DU lately and have even seen them accuse NPR and the New York Times of a right-wing bias. That is insane. Brit Hume of Fox News had Dick Gephardt on and actually congratulated him on a victory. Do I think Fox News is Left-Wing? Of course not.
In the DNC's official website, I was actually liked, even though my views were barely tolerated. The reason I left was this question...
"WHy did the Democrats vote against rasing the limits for the IRA's? No super rich people use IRA's so why did you all vote against it?"
I cant remember the exact bill as this was four years ago, but I never got ONE straight answer. All I got was "Rich people are working off the poor", etc. In other words, slogans. I am not some automaton. I wanted an ANSWER. I never got one in six months, although I would ask the question again and again.
Well, at least you can see where I am coming from. Feel free to ping me on any list that your on. The reason I frequent the DNC sites is to keep my mind fresh. When one listens to nothing but things that reinforce thier viewpoints, it is called something... brainwashing. :D
That applies to all sides, my friend. Including my own.
One last thing, about alocation of resources to help the unfortunate. There are 6000 homeless people in Boston. We have a 22 billion dollar budget. The Republicans here are just as guilty as the Dems. I could easily fix the problem. I donate frequently to such programs but I find it humorous that my state can not solve this problem with a few billion dollars. I could solve it with less. :D
http://www.ctj.org/itep/corp00pr.htm
Note, these numbers are from 1998. They're also from Citizens for Tax Justice, which is a left-progressive advocacy group, but the numbers themselves come from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
One thing you have to realize, and is also a reason many Conservatives are angry is that we honestly believe that our policies will help society as a whole. Thats why we get mad when we are called Mean, uncaring, fascist or a host of other things.
Well, since my own father is a conservative with whom I've had many an enjoyable debate, I'm not one for calling them "mean" or questioning their humanity. At least not those I call real conservatives. But there IS a "wing" or "group" --whatever-- among the Republican party that strikes me as mean-spirited, judgmental, ruthless, and excessively greedy. And there is also (again, IMHO) a cadre of people in the Republican party that are fascist-leaning, chief among them Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney. Maybe Wolfowitz and Perle too. I can't believe those in your party who believe in "less government" can agree with what they're doing, at least in terms of secrecy and citizen surveillance. (Note, I do believe that these are extremist elements, not the mainstream Republicans. And I've always believed that ALL extremists are fascists at heart. Every one of them, left or right, would like nothing better than to force *everyone* to do things "their way.")
I tried to tell that worker that the Dems should not elect Pelosi to the Minority Leader position because veering left will destroy them.
Veering too far left probably would. How many self-identified socialists (or Greens, for that matter) do you see in Congress? But I think you're probably underestimating Pelosi. She's personally liberal, but when she has her "Minority Leader" hat on, she has to build concensus in the *whole* party, and she knows that. And, too, there are more moderates in the congressional delegation than there are progressives. What I like about Pelosi being Minority Leader is that she will let the left wing have a "seat at the table" when the consensus is being built, and Gephart never did. Partly because he's from a fairly conservative state, but mostly (IMHO) to serve his own ambitions, not to serve the party. He has a personal stake in presenting himself as a moderate, and not doing anything (HA! Ain't that the truth!) that would endanger his hoped for run at the Presidency. The party - in terms of the Congressional Delegation - is NOT going to take a huge lurch to the left with Pelosi at the helm of the House Democrats. But the left WILL have more of an opportunity to influence policy positions than they did under Gephart. And the left's positions will be more clearly articulated - or maybe I should say, just articulated, period.
On a final note, you seem to strike me more as a moderate Democrat then a Left Wing type of person.
I actually think of myself as a political orphan. I have some progressive beliefs, some libertarian beliefs, and some moderate beliefs. I used to call myself "liberally moderate" or sometimes "moderately liberal." (Sometimes, I just called myself "confused"!) Probably my one constant is a desire for balance. Balance of power, balance of sacrifice, balance of rewards. I think Government has a role in maintaining that balance, and indeed, in the case of power, it's the only thing that *can* provide balance between the rights of the strong and the rights of the weak. Otherwise, all you have is a "might makes right" society, and that is both unbalanced and inhumane. In my opinion, of course.