Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why I voted for GWB.

  1. Nov 4, 2004 #1
    I think it is very important that as a society we agree that understanding is not forgiveness!!! And this is where I think a lot of you and I differ on opinions.

    Just to be clear:

    Innate causation is not nor will it ever be a worthy excuse for someone’s actions!

    I do believe in having a social safety net to help people when they are down but that is not the same as supporting a family of three for 15 or more years. For that there is no excuse. I believe in helping people with education but not the same way you do. I believe in helping people deal with their problems in life but I do not believe giving them a free ride as I think think this is nothing more than enabling them to continue antisocial behavior.

    People need to take responsibility for there actions and the people who are responsible should not be punished for being responsible. Taxing people for being successful is socialism and unfair and detrimental to the well being of society overall. That is why I reject Kerry....and no I do not like Bush but there is no way the Libertarian party could win so what choices do I have? Neither the democrats nor the republicans stand for what I believe in as I believe in more personal freedoms and support the idea of letting gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people. But voting for Kerry would not have changed society’s perception on this, but it would have increased unfair taxes that would have gone to social projects that would have failed.

    Look, if you want to support socialism fine, I can understand and respect that. So why is it that you people cannot understand and accept who I support or who someone else supports? I think it is funny that liberals want to FORCE their belief system down people’s throats. I will tell you now, the more you push the harder you will be pushed back!!! And I can tell you also that I do not believe in giving my opponents a fair fight so if you believe that it’s just a pure numbers game that will eventually turn around you will lose every time. As minority groups gain wealth they will want to protect it and begin to see that the socialist perspective is all about the redistribution of wealth from who ever the haves are, to who ever the have nots are that that time.


    Regards

    :surprised
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 4, 2004 #2
    :approve:

    I agree with you completely.


    Edit: Just usually in a far more caustic, inflammatory manner. But I agree nonetheless. :devil:
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  4. Nov 4, 2004 #3
    what do you mean by Innate causation and "I think it is very important that as a society we agree that understanding is not forgiveness!!!"?

    I dont fully understand what your trying to say. (all i got was a rant against socialism)
     
  5. Nov 4, 2004 #4
    For a long time people used the SSSM, which says culture, is the reason why people are the way they are instead of people having been born with a certain amount of built in behavioral structure. Now more and more the idea of evolutionary psychology is gaining ground and people are using it incorrectly as a defense for some people’s antisocial behavior. While I agree with evolutionary psychology I do not believe that if we find a reason as to why some people are more likely to be lazy or to kill or whatever the bad behavior is, that it is an excuse for their behavior. Our moral philosophy may need to be revised a bit but in any case I reject the notion that people do not have free will and our actions are based on things we cannot control. In other words understanding peoples behavior is not to forgive their behavior.

    The idea that we are all responsible for our actions does not mean that mentally ill people should be rejected by society. I believe in giving people help when they need it but not to the extent that people no longer have to take any personal responsibility for their actions. Socialism is just that, as long as people know they will be taken care of by the government they do not have to concern themselves with their behavior. As long as that teenager is not held responsible why should he or she care about birth control? And now she is a single mother that cannot make it on her own and does not even have to worry about a job because welfare encourages people to continue to be uneducated and poor.

    Mean while it is getting harder and harder for me to build my wealth with more and more taxes hitting me where it hurts the most. Why am I being punished by the government for trying to be socially responsible for myself instead of reliant of the government for my needs?

    Do you understand that?
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  6. Nov 4, 2004 #5

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you saying we, as a people, aren't ready for socialism, yet? If so, I can understand your reasoning, however, it's not something that we shouldn't strive for in our future.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  7. Nov 4, 2004 #6
    I agree with your policy views, but think you should strongly consider voting for the libertarian party in 2008.

    First, the libertarian party doesn't get votes because they can't win, they can't win because nobody thinks they can win, according to my best guess, if everybody voted for the ideology closest to theirs, with no regards to who has the best chance of winning, at least 15% of the country would vote libertarian, while perhaps this is not enough to win an election, it is enough to give the party substantial sway in the goings on of the government as a whole, as Republicans and democrats play the insane election game and try to swing towards Libertarian views in order to pick up votes from what would become a large 3rd party voting block. Furthermore, at least voting for what you believe in, you can have a free conscience that is not bothered by having had voted for the lesser of two evils.

    Secondly, I'm sorry to say, but the republican party no longer stands for the ideals you represent. The party has been captured by social conservatives such as Rove, Falwell, and Bush. Think of the major policy measures which the republican party is pushing, very few of them are economic, and besides the tax cuts, which I'll get to in a moment, the few economic issues that were passed, Medicare and the largest federal budget deficit in history, do not reflect your views either. The major republican measures being pushed are instead, gay marriage bans, restrictions on abortion, invasions of non-hostile nations, tougher restrictions on drug policy, further measures to enforce the patriot act, etc. None of which support the libertarian framework either.

    The tax cuts passed by the president are another sham of true libertarian policy. It is not that I don't believe that the rich should pay taxes equal to the poor (in terms of percentage), it's the fact that I do and they don't. Currently, republican tax code usually results in the rich paying a tax percentage less than the poorest of the poor, (Teresa Kerry, for instance, only payed 8% of her income to taxes last year) Tax code has become a monster only those with enough money to higher multiple tax lawyers can overcome. However those who have lawyers do not have to pay a dollar in taxes if they don't want. 25000 pages of tax code exist, and most of those are dedicated to write-offs. Envision 25000 pages of tax code, the whole system is that insane. As a staunch believer in flat taxes, the entire code could easily be cut down to 20 or so. (I believe until the first income tax was proposed, in the late 19th century/ early 20th century, tax code hovered under 10 pages total.) In effect Republicans no longer believe in capitalism, it is too threatening to the establishment. In true capitalism the poor can become rich quickly, and the rich can become poor quickly. Thus the republicans have devised the perfect system for keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, designing a tax code with huge percentage taxes for anybody becomming rich, thus preventing anybody from obtaining that level, but also allowing so many writeoffs that those who already have attained the highest levels can stay by using capital to prevent them from paying taxes.

    Sadly, the republican party no longer fits either your social or economic beliefs, the democratic party may currently be worse economically now, but the republicans are never far behind in chasing them toward socialist party, just with a pro-rich twist. The libertarian party is now the only standing bastion of freedom, economic or social.

    ~Lyuokdea
     
  8. Nov 4, 2004 #7
    I agree that it would be nice if socialism worked as well as people would like but I do not think it will ever work. There is no incentive for me to go to work if I can get things from the government for free. Espically if I get taxed more for every extra dollar I earn. I believe people will naturally take the easy road in life and therefore instead of working to build their wealth they get it all for free. Eventually this type of system will fail and the average person will be worse off. The US GDP is a reflection of its capitalist market system. The people own the factors of production and the consumer is the one who gets to decide what and how much should be produced. The end result of this system is the wealth of the average person increases and eventually even the poorest of society are not so bad off. History has shown that governments cannot manage people’s money for them as well as they can for themselves. That is why I do not think socialism will ever work.

    Regards
     
  9. Nov 4, 2004 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Clearly, Bush is pushing for a flat tax. So, I disagree with your characterization of the GOP in this context.
     
  10. Nov 4, 2004 #9
    After reading your post I will in fact vote libertarian in 08. Thanks for that post.
     
  11. Nov 4, 2004 #10
    how many thousands of loopholes and tax evasion mechanisms will this "flat tax" have? My guess it will add pages to tax code, not get rid of them.

    ~Lyuokdea
     
  12. Nov 4, 2004 #11

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree with most of this, but I don't think you could really say that socialism will 'never' work. That attitude insures that socialism will never be as succesful nor as fair as you and I would like it. Indeed, I can agree that we as a people are not ready for a socialist form of government - too many people would take advantage of it. A question we should be comtemplating is why would those people take advantage of it. Most of the answers you could list are somehow related to poverty in some way, and not all of those cases you could list are specifically that person's fault.
     
  13. Nov 4, 2004 #12
    People will inherently take advantage of socialism regardless of the context becuase it becomes in people's best interest to take advantage of the system. Furthermore the system does not discourage this behavior but instead breads it by blurring the line between "right" and "need" In a socialist society, "needs" come first, the problem though, is that everybody define "needs" differently. Joe "needs" to eat, but Pam "needs" an airplane. Although the situation presented is outlandish, the point exists that there is no objective criteria for proving that Joe's "needs" should come before Pam's. And subsequently, who's "needs" are weighed first becomes a matter of how much pull you have with the person who dispenses aid to fulfill people's needs. Getting somewhere in life becomes dependant on who you know, not what you know or what you have. Unjust deals become a way of life, as people with the ability to fulfill needs trade with each other because it supports the mutual benefit of both. And because their can be no objective quantitization of needs, there can be no claim that the traders have done anything wrong. Consequently, socialism will always lead trading between those who have, and between those who have "pull" the poor will be kept down, forced to give what little they have to the system in hope that the voluntary benevolence of the leaders at that time will include them.

    ~Lyuokdea

    ~Lyuokdea
     
  14. Nov 4, 2004 #13

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Socialism does not work, cannot work, will never work. The EU nations have all adopted socialism to some degree or other and for several generations had good results. All now have major to minor problems in sustaining the financial burden passed down to the present work force. A few must support the many. The few are becoming fewer, the many slowly growing. The French have no less than 20 percent of their work force employed by the government. Four Frenchmen must support each government worker. The average EU worker earns 15% less than the average American worker but apparently works harder as the productivity per hour is greater. The horrific unemployment rates are likely higher in EU countries than their governments admit to as some hide the real figures via a variety of ploys.

    One way to fight terrorism is to follow the money. One way to determine the economic strength of a nation is to follow the money. 40% of the US debt is financed by foreign money because that is the safe investment, the sure growth investment, the smart investment.

    Governments cannot create wealth, not now, not later, not ever. If you’re contemplating a government-supported retirement where you lie on a beach sifting sand you better buy a metal detector and start sifting now. If you hate your great-great-grand daughter, you will love socialism.

    ...
     
  15. Nov 4, 2004 #14
    does it really make a difference who you vote for, will the majority of the planet care who you vote for, will it make any difference to them or you?

    50/50 who cares (ignoring the physcological factor)
     
  16. Nov 4, 2004 #15
    Socialism does not say that whatever you do you will not be held responsible for your actions, it does not say you can live your life as a bum and live comfortably by support of the government. There are many drug addicts in my town who are living on the street because the government refuses to support people who won't do anything. They don't even get full medical treatment if they need it. They will be supported by the Government under certain conditions and if they go through rehab but not otherwise. Unemployed people will not be supported by the government if they can't get jobs (They are now, but we're going through a small recession and its hard to get a job - this will change soon).

    I can't speak for Europe but I will never believe that the Government should not be held responsible for the welfare of the people under its laws, and I am not ready to believe that Socialism cannot work, it's working in many places in many ways and not working in others, what we need is to find a proper way to implement it, not abandon it completely.
     
  17. Nov 4, 2004 #16

    A 5 page thread,now locked, of enraged tempers seems to make me believe others care.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51408
     
  18. Nov 4, 2004 #17
    Why is it that I think that most of Scandanavia is Socialist?

    They have the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

    They have a low birth rate, so people aren't just laying back and expecting to get paid for having babies. If the country wants more babies, they will make it financially favorable to do so.

    I think Dads get maternity leave too, in Scandanavia.

    They have universal health care.
    They are the healthiest people in the world.
    They are productive, and happy.
    They are peaceable, and have low crime rates.
    They author great technology, and educate their young.

    I think that socialism, is alive and well to some extent in all of the European Countries.

    It seems to work well, I might add.

    We forget that we have to find a way to come to stasis, economically, and population wise. If we can get the whole world to a state of good social health, then there would be no push at our borders from anywhere, everyone would be happy to stay at home, and we would have to figure out how to live, rather than continuously grow.

    I didn't vote for George Bush, I am not into the Dogma, eat Dogma thing.
     
  19. Nov 4, 2004 #18

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Conservative Americans insure that all citizens can get medical treatment without restrictions
    Conservative Americans insure each citizen is provided a security blanket with some restrictions.
    Not with your present system!
    Conservative Americans most definitely hold the government accountable for the welfare of the people. That is it’s most important function. That is what our soldiers are dying for.
    Where?


    ...
     
  20. Nov 4, 2004 #19
    Townsend and Franz: if you two love Bush so much why don't you fight for "freedom and democracy" in Iraq? loudmouths!
     
  21. Nov 4, 2004 #20
    What makes you think I have not?

    I have spent eight and a half years in the US Navy. I have friends from all over the world and I have been around the world twice. I have been to Bahrain, Dubai, Kuwait and a host of other places. I personally believe that the US should have ousted Saddam during operation Desert Fox in which I was there on board the USS Carl Vinson with CVW 11. Three of my good friends are Marines over there right now!!!!

    I just recently successfully completed my obligations with the Navy and I want to get a degree and then return to Active Duty as an officer. I felt I would better serve my country this way and that is the only reason I am now back home in South Dakota attending SDSU pursuing a degree in mathematics.

    Do not question my patriotism you will lose miserably!!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why I voted for GWB.
  1. Who is GWB to you? (Replies: 19)

  2. Why bother to vote? (Replies: 139)

Loading...