<p>
[quote]
Republicans prefer less government -- which translates into things such as, No, we don't want government-provided health care; No, we don't want to regulate industry with environmental restrictions; No, we don't want government to provide welfare to poor people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In principle, yes, but it's the Republicans who want the government to have all sorts of power a la the Patriot Act and other like-minded laws, as well as having government interfere in the private lives of citizens with the Federal Marriage Amendment. So this "small government" crap from the Republicans is just a lie; they're just as for big government, if not more, than the Democrats. They want to be social policemen while letting big business do whatever they want.</p>
<p>I'm from a pretty well-off family of liberals. Neither my parents nor I have any problem giving away some of our money, either through taxes or donation, to people who "didn't earn it". It's simply social responsibility. And, honestly, most rich people didn't work any harder than those working minimum-wage. They just got luckier. Plenty of wealthy people recognize how lucky they've been and have no problem giving away some of their wealth to others. From what I've seen, the rich can easily be liberal. </p>
<p>It's not as if democrats are pushing total communism and rich families are expected to give away all their money. Balancing the gap isn't such a bad thing, even in the mind of the wealthy.</p>
<p>I was going to mention more socialistic (no, not Marxist, just more egalitarian principled) policies of much of western Europe. Honestly, who really needs to make millions of dollars a year--or even more than half a million? Do we really need that? No...I'd much rather have a country with no millionaires and no one making under 50K a year than a bunch of Rockefellers and Jurgis Rudkus'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i live in an affluent area in northern New Jersey, and I would say 90% of my classmates identify themselves as being liberal.
[/quote]
Hehe, I am from an affluent area of central New Jersey (Monmouth County/Jersey Shore area) and I would say that 90% of my classmates are conservatives. This is also because Monmouth county is one of the few overwhelmingly Republican counties in NJ. However, I swear to you I was in a class of 30 and the only 1 other person was on the same boat as me (the liberal boat) when it came to politics.</p>
<p>"They want to be social policemen while letting big business do whatever they want."</p>
<p>Oh and the Democrats are so much better. You act like none of them are at the top of the social ladder. </p>
<p>Here is my theory about Rich Repubs/Dems. I am a moderate and have no bias towards one party:</p>
<p>Rich Republican politicians want to find anyway to make themsleves richer than they already are. They are insensitive to anyone who isn't in their economic class. They promise lower taxes as a way to get elected, yet very often these proposed "tax cuts" are a way of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.</p>
<p>Rich Democratic politicians want to give the world to the poor at the expense of the middle class, who usually are the people who end up paying for programs like Welfare. They preach generosity, yet come up short in that virtue themsleves. Why don't they pay for some of these programs themsleves instead of taxing the middle class to do it?</p>
<p>Both groups are wrong and hypocritical.</p>
<p>We need a person, not a politician running this country 2008, Rudy is a moderate and sees the issues through his point of view, not through his party's partisan viewpoint like most other politicians (ie: Hillary Clinton).</p>
<p>Your argument is precisely why we need Russ Feingold in the presidency. A nice Midwestern middle class guy who gives his pay raises back to the treasury is one of the most frugal congressmen, AND is known as a budget hawk. And not only that, but while a democrat senator, his reputation is being a bit of a maverick.</p>
<p>Yes, I'm using this chance to toot my horn for my ex-possible candidate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they're liberal because they arn't getting a paycheck/paying bills on a large scale yet.</p>
<p>give them a few years for reality to set in and see if they're still liberals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. Why else do you think that people turn into conservative liberals, moderates, or conservative altogether after leaving the "Ivory Tower" of academics?</p>
<p>Giuliani is the guy we need. He was a great mayor and effectively led the largest and one of the most diverse cities in the country. The crime rate, % of people on Welfare, and unemployment rate all shrunk during and after his tenure in office. He is also a moderate, so he isn't bounded by his party's views like most politicians. It gets old and annoying to see your typical Democrat or Republican who won't stand up for what they believe in and are merely drones for their party. We need a person who won't let parties and politics tell him/her what to do. That person is Rudy Giuliani IMO. I lived in NYC during his mayor years and this guy knew what he was doing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another good reason to be socially liberal and economically conservative
[/quote]
Libertarianism ftw</p>
<p>Rudy has much less of a chance of getting past primaries than Obama does of getting elected. Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigrant, pro-gun control, and pro-stem cell research. He's riding on a wave of popularity from his handling of 9/11 right now but as soon as mainstream Republicans find out what his stances on the issues are his popularity ratings will walk off a cliff.</p>
<p>Though most people aren't too crazy to identify themselves as one.
[/quote]
It's really a shame that the Libertarian Party's current platform is so dogmatic and uncompromising that no LP candidate has a realistic chance of winning.</p>
<p>Anyway, the only reason that many people become conservatives instead of libertarians as they age is that society changes extremely quickly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why else do you think that people turn into conservative liberals, moderates, or conservative altogether after leaving the "Ivory Tower" of academics?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because the world you describe is over generalized.</p>
<p>"Rudy has much less of a chance of getting past primaries than Obama does of getting elected. Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigrant, pro-gun control, and pro-stem cell research."</p>
<p>Obama isn't as popular as many people believe. According to this poll, which asked a group of Democrats who they liked the most amongst the Democratic candidates, Hillary got 41%of the vote while Obama got 17%. Edwards got 11%, Gore got 10%, and there were a bunch of other Democratic candidates who got smaller percentages.</p>
<p>When it comes to Republicans, Giuliani is leading the field with 34% of the Republican vote. McCain is a close second with 27%, and no other Republican got more than 10%. </p>
<p>While Giuliani isn’t exactly you’re typical conservative Republican, this could be what the party needs. The Republicans didn’t exactly have a strong showing to say the least at the 2006 midterm elections. The War in Iraq is incredibly unpopular and people are getting sick of a Republican in the White House. Giuliani would gain a lot of Democratic votes and would probably win NY, a typical democratic stronghold. He would be a break from the typical Republican candidates and according to the poll, he is their most popular guy.</p>
<p>There was a fascinating chart in the Sunday NY Times (Week in Review section) about two months ago. It showed who was president and how popular he was and tracked the views of people who were young while he was president. There was an amazing degree of persistence in political views.</p>
<p>Let me explain with examples:
-- People who were 18-25 when Reagan was president (and he was overall a pretty popular president) tended to be fairly Republican and conservative from then until now.
-- People who were 18-25 when Clinton was president (and he was overall a pretty popular president) tended to be fairly Democratic and liberal from then until now.</p>
<p>The conclusion--Views are formed in youth, in response to what presidents do and how they are evaluated at that time, and these views persist.</p>
<p>Now, check this out: Young people are coming to age with a very unpopular president and they are about the least approving of President George W. Bush. Given the history of how this dynamic works, a great deal of these folks are going to be Democratic and liberal far into the future.</p>
<p>Exactly. I was just thinking about this the other day: the biggest "broad" memory from my high school life will be of Bush being president, and that is not a happy thing, needless to say. Adolescence is when the majority of people form the beginnings of their politics, atleast those who care. To have that during this Administration is something mighty.</p>
<p>oh, and this thread reminds me of something i do dislike: the two party duopoly. Everything is always Republican or Democrat. Libertarians can identify themselves as liberatarians, but what can socialists call themselves without being chastised and having the horrors of Stalin shoved down their throat? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, check this out: Young people are coming to age with a very unpopular president and they are about the least approving of President George W. Bush. Given the history of how this dynamic works, a great deal of these folks are going to be Democratic and liberal far into the future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At last, a silver lining in this dark cloud. I hope..</p>