What kind of country do Republicans really want?

In response to your questions...

Social Security - I feel and have always felt that it should be up to an INDIVIDUAL to provide for their own retirement. There would be no risk of loss, it is as simple as setting aside as much as you can afford, into a savings account or risk-free CD. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid. I wouldn't want the Government involved in either of these things, even if they did pay in a tiny little extra off of every cut of your check that goes into this whether you like it or not. It should be a personal decision, at the very least - but it is not, and there is absolutely no freedom in that. Whether or not an individual is responsible enough to take this into their own hands, is their business and if they don't pay themselves to provide for themselves later on, that is their fault and nobody else's.

I, personally, do not have any problems with those who are gay, trans or otherwise. It is none of my business, just like my bedroom life is none of their or anyone else's business. They will be the ones to answer to their maker for their sins, just as I will be to mine for my sins. They are human beings the same as me, and we've got to live together in this cesspool called the 'world' so we might as well just agree to get along and live and let live.

I, personally, do not agree with abortion. I know that a new life, a vessel for a soul, begins its life the very instant the sperm meets the egg and begins cell division. And I know that removing that life from the womb is murder of a person, preventing a soul from getting their go around in this life. And I believe adoption is the answer to this problem. Again, however, I would only be in favor for abortions should it be absolutely medically necessary to save the life of the mother in medical emergency, but under no other circumstance.

I, personally, do not like Unions and I have had some experience with them in my limited working life. They are, in my opinion, thugs that guzzle a large portion of your income for false protections, exactly as like the Mafia utilized and don't do anything else. They are every bit as corrupt and shrewd as the corporations that they purport to protect us from. It should not be necessary that we should have to pay them to be protected and have fair and honest working conditions and wages in the first place, and as such they should be abolished and a better solution put in place.

You clearly do not understand WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. It was never simply to give us the ability to hunt. It was to give us the means to enact our civic duty to abolish a corrupted and tyrannical Government that has turned its back on the people and trampled on the Constitution, and that is why the Government being the sole entity able to have all of the major fire-power, that which considerably dwarf's our own today, is such a problem. The fact that they are attempting to severely limit us in this right little by little (i.e. 10 round limits, single-action limits, assault-weapons limits etc.) is so very problematic and concerning. It should tell anyone that they are attempting to remove our power to subdue them should the need arise (and believe me, we are not too far from that point occurring).

As far as I am concerned with taxes, the Income Tax that did not even exist until 1913, is unconstitutional. And so is the so-called 'Federal' Reserve Bank, by mere fact that ONLY the Congress was given the power to issue and regulate this Nation's currency, not a foreign entity. And so is their 'fiat' money that is backed by nothing but perpetual debt and their mere word that it supposedly has value, if you want to know the truth of the matter.

As for other taxes, we are taxed multiple times over and that, again, is unconstitutional. We were to be taxed ONCE annually and no more than that. That means no Income Tax AND Sales Tax, and you get the idea.


And not least of all, this Nation needs to return to it's roots. I do not know when, why or how we became a "Democracy", but the fact is that this Nation was founded as a REPUBLIC. A Democracy and a Republic are radically different systems. A Democracy is where only the rights of the many are protected, whereas a Republic protects the rights of everybody, the majority and the minority both. Do some research on it. And in fact, I'd like you to do something... comb through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I want you to try and find the term 'Democracy' anywhere within both documents. And then I want you do to the very same exercise in search of the term 'Republic'. I assure you, the only term used within either to describe our system of Government outlined within either will be REPUBLIC. I am not lying to you about this, but you go on ahead and check it out and see what you find.

Since you asked:

Q. Do I really want to have Social Security privatized?

A. When it was implemented 77 years ago, life expectancy was 63. Today, life expectancy is 78. So people are collecting benefits MUCH longer that originally intended. In 1950, there were about 16 workers paying into it for every one retiree getting benefits. Today that ratio is down to 3-to-1. So it IS a Ponzi scheme of sorts....and it WILL go bankrupt.

Something drastic must be done with it. Privatizing may or may not be the answer but at LEAST the Republicans are talking about it. The Democrats refuse to admit there is anything wrong and say that it will not be touched when they know it's not true. Kick the can down the road and stick your head in the sand.


Q. How about Medicare and Medicaid? Do they want those programs gone altogether?

A. In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion

Spending for Medicare totaled about $560 billion in 2011. Now we hear from the CBO that the ObamaCare financial numbers are pure fantasy. These programs are bloated, corrupt and full of fraud. Again SOMETHING has to be done with them as they are unsustainable.

The Democrats do their normal demagoguery/ fear-mongering "Medicare is just fine. The mean Republicans want to push grandma off a cliff". When behind the scenes, they know that something has to be done. As Bill Clinton tells Paul Ryan here: "I'm afraid that the Democrats will use it as an excuse to do nothing." And Ryan says: "You know the math" http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


Q. Do the really have a problem with people who are not sexually straight?

A. Personally, I have no problem with gay people. I work with them, have friends that are gay and have a gay cousin. I have a problem with the gay agenda.

I would have no problem if they could have civil unions with all the legal rights of a marriage. But they wouldn't be satisfied with that. They want to redefine the word "Marriage" so that they can push for gay marriage to be taught in schools as morally and socially equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. And I'm sorry but it will NEVER be equivalent to what I have with my wife: a union blessed blessed by God with the task of creating the next generation.


Q. Do they want to make abortion illegal again and put women in prison for that?

A. Nobody needs to go to prison, but I would like to see it outlawed again. It's very simple: I believe that life begins at conception when the full DNA blueprint for a new human being is complete. Everything after that is just gestation. To say that a fetus is legal to abort at 23 1/2 weeks and a few days later it miraculously turns into a "human being" and to abort it is murder....how can you justify such a thing?


Q. Do they really want all unions outlawed and to overturn the right to bargain for a decent living wage?

A. Unions were needed at one time....that time has passed. You can't reward excellent workers - you can't fire bad ones. All they do now is price American labor out of competition.

Public Sector unions should NOT have collective bargaining rights. They give their dues to the union, the union donates to the Democrat politician's campaign, the politician gives them huge raises and benefits.... and the cycle starts again. Even FDR was against it (look it up). http://www.professorbainbridg...


Q. What motivates someone who has nothing in common with corporations and the truly wealthy(especially those born into wealth) to vote for the same things.

A. Simple. They're rich because they (or someone in their family) worked, saved, took risks, etc. We don't HATE them because they're rich like you do. We work for corporations, we work for wealthy people and we aspire to be one some day. I'm going to vote for things that allow me that opportunity if I work hard enough.


Q. Do you really need machine guns to hunt animals?

A. No. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting. The populace should be armed to keep the government from being the only one with all the guns.


Q. Do you honestly think that the tax system is fair when money can be hidden overseas to avoid paying tax.

A. We have a highly progressive income tax. The tax code rewards the non-workers and punishes the productive. Russia has moved to a 13% flat tax. So we have Karl Marx's tax system and Russia has Steve Forbes'.


Q. You honestly believe that allowing the tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes?

A. Of course. When you are allowed to keep more of your own money for a few years you paid less (your taxes were lowered)....and when you suddenly have to give it to the government (your taxes were raised). What's so difficult to understand?

Limited Government.

Honoring the Constitution

Individual rights and government butt out.

Limited spending.

Pay down the debt.

People know what to do with their money more than the government does. Social Security was never to be a saving account for retirement. It was never to be used in the general funds. It is unsustainable in the current form so either it fails for all or those that can have a private account can eventually weened off the government.

NO ONE WANTS TO PUT WOMEN IN PRISON FOR AN APPORTION. PROOF YOU ONLY LISTEN TO LEFT WING TALKING POINTS NOT FACTS.

People should have a right to choose to be in a Union or not. It's a fact that Unions now are bankrupting businesses and many have gone overseas as a result. States are being dragged into deep debt due to Unions outrageous pension plans that the private sector doesn't have yet have to pay the bills.

It is fair to earn your money overseas and not pay 2nd taxes here in the USA just because a person is still a citizen but lives in another country for years on end. It's not the USA's money. It's theirs.

Guns aren't all about Hunting. Guns also protect your freedom along with mine, and you bet I want more than one bullet against a government trying to take my freedoms away.
Best learn about Guns you idiot as you sure are clueless.
Do you know why Japan didn't attack the mainland USA? Because we were armed to the teeth.
Every single Dictator took away the citizens guns first. Sorry, ain't gonna happen in America.

I earn the money if you tax me more or you take away my money.

The poor don't create jobs but the rich or middle class do. The rich already pay the most taxes how about getting the 51% that aren't paying a dime in Federal taxes to start paying their fair share.


Hey, Obama's buddy G.E. didn't pay a dime in Taxes....how about asking Obama why he let them off the hook.

How about getting Tim Geithner to pay his taxes.


You sure are a lefty with lefty talking points but sure are clueless to facts.

Anything a true conservative Republican really wants... is in the U.S. Constitution!

THAT, and these points... courtesy of R.J. Saulnier:

What Republicans Stand For
On Principle, v3n3
June 1995

by: R.J. Saulnier
Editor’s Note: In an effort to promote serious discussion, ON PRINCIPLE encourages its readers to submit articles outlining what they think are the fundamental principles for which the Republican Party ought to stand. The following article by R.J. Saulnier represents what I hope will be the first contribution to this continuing dialogue.

As in any political party, there is room under the Republican tent for differences on tactical questions, and even at times on matters of strategy, but on basic questions of principle Republicans stand together. What follows is an attempt to state briefly what I believe are the most important of those principles. Needless to say, it is entirely a personal statement.

1) What Republicans stand for derives from their adherence to individualism, the philosophy that perceives of the individual as a self-disciplined, basically self-reliant person who has rights and freedoms that it is the duty of government to respect and protect, who respects the rights and freedoms of others, and who feels an obligation to attend so far as possible to his/her own individual and family welfare. It is this embrace of individualism that sets Republicans apart from those who favor government that is big, centralized, intrusive, and increasingly paternalistic. What Republicans stand for is precisely the opposite--government that is limited, noninterventionist and decentralized.

2) In economic matters, Republicans are unequivocal and unwavering in their support of the private enterprise system, for the market as that system’s organizing and directing force, and for the institution of private property that is basic to it. They give this support in part because they see the enterprise system as, on purely technical grounds, the most efficient and equitable arrangement there is or can be for the production and distribution of goods and services; but also, and more importantly, they support the enterprise system because they believe it is the only economic system truly and lastingly compatible with political and civil liberties.

3) It further distinguishes Republicans that they have a definite, unambiguous position on what it takes in government policy to make the enterprise system work. You make it work not by intervening directly in it, but by creating an environment favorable to its operation. Within such an environment, enterprise can be safely left free to produce and distribute goods and services according to what the market--ultimately, the consumer--demands.

4) Creating an environment favorable to enterprise commits Republicans unalterably to the support of competitive markets achieved through vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws (and by the avoidance of government regulation), a stable price level (achieved through noninflationary management of the money supply), and sound fiscal and financial policies. The last-named of these is achieved by maintaining a relationship between federal budget receipts and outlays such that the accounts are in balance or shows surplus whenever the economy is operating satisfactorily and certainly over the period of the business cycle.

5) Calling as they do for sound fiscal and financial policies, Republicans insist on rigorous expenditure restraint by federal, state and local governments, are constantly alert to opportunities to reduce the burden of taxation, and want taxes that are visible (not hidden) and have as little blunting effect as possible on incentives to work, save and invest. Tax measures designed to "soak the rich" are opposed as basically demagogic, punitive, and economically self-defeating.

6) Republicans support all steps taken constructively to promote high and sustainable economic growth, but they oppose setting numerical growth goals. They view the latter as having no utility in the actual achievement of growth, as potentially harmful by inviting policies that risk being inflationary, and in any case as unlikely to create self-sustaining employment.

7) Republicans hold that the proper object of government is to do for people what they need to have done but cannot do adequately for themselves, either as individuals or through private groups, and accordingly they will work assiduously to eliminate activities of government that people do not need or that can be better provided privately.

8) Paralleling this attitude toward the size of government--in matters having to do with the structure of government Republicans want wherever possible to have local problems handled locally, within a system of shared federal, state and local responsibility. They want this because it is basic with Republicans to stand for the diffusion of power, and to be opposed to its concentration.

9) In social programs, Republicans strive for a balance between what government undertakes to do and what government can afford to do: in other words, a balance between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Benefit programs should not be available automatically on application but should require proof of actual need, and should wherever possible be designed to promote the skills and habits of work that will make beneficiaries ultimately self-sufficient.

10) In trade policy, Republicans are internationalist and antiprotectionist, supporting multilateral agreements that look to the reduction of barriers to trade. Programs under which government would intervene in import/export markets to "manage" trade are viewed as doing nothing to alleviate whatever is at the bottom of a trade-deficit situation, even tending to perpetuate and possibly worsen trade restrictions.

11) Because Republicans believe that the first duty of citizenship is to have regard for the community as a whole, they have to be persuaded when presented with the agenda of a special-interest group that what is sought will not be harmful to a counterbalancing extent to other groups. Lacking that assurance, Republicans will oppose special-interest demands.

12) Because Republicans believe that inflation can be prevented only through monetary and fiscal restraint, they reject the use of direct wage and price controls for that purpose. Experience shows that when adequate monetary and fiscal restraint is lacking, direct controls are ineffective in preventing inflation, are counterproductive in the distortive effects they have on production and distribution, and can have a demoralizing effect on the whole community by promoting widespread evasion.

Dr. Saulnier is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Barnard College, Columbia University and was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors throughout President Eisenhower’s second term.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publi...