Are Liberals Mental?!

[pavman]

Read below and discuss...

When the Gallup pollsters asked Americans what they thought about their own mental health (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), they were intrigued by the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way.

The study was no surprise to D. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., a noted psychiatrist and author of a controversial book that makes the clinical case liberalism is a mental illness.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

By the way, the Gallup poll conducted late last year also found only 43 percent of independents describe themselves as in excellent mental health. While Rossiter thinks he understands the discrepancy in the state of mental health between Democrats and Republicans, the Gallup pollsters could only scratch their heads.

"The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican," the study concluded.

[Nausved]

"'The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican,' the study concluded."

Or, you know, it could be that liberals are simply more self-aware. :rolleyes:

This man appears to lack objectivity. Shouldn't he know by now that you have to take self-reported findings with a grain of salt? He is only hurting the field of psychology, which already has a rather shaky reputation among the sciences.

[brewmaster]

Total drivel.

Statistics can lead to all sorts of conclusions, many of which are coincidental.

Take this statistical fact: If you do not wear your hair with a part you are more likely to be a pot head.

[Haphazard]

Take this statistical fact: If you do not wear your hair with a part you are more likely to be a pot head.

Or this statistical fact: that as ice cream sales rise, so do murder rates.

OMG we need to stop selling ice cream!

Liberal and conservative are meaningless when it comes to mental health, it depends on how liberal and how conservatives. I find that those on both extreme ends of the spectrum tend to have questionable mental health.

The arguments for 'a leader who understands human nature' does not examine whether human nature is inherently a good thing. Just because a leader understands human nature doesn't mean they shouldn't try to go against it for change for the better.

Of course, this did not differentiate between social/economic conservatism and liberalism. While social liberalism defends the social rights of the individual, economic liberalism tries to economically support in a way that seems to many binding. Social conservatism seems to be more restrictive while economic conservatism leaves economic responsibility to the individual. They seem to be going in two totally different directions on these two issues, and while I, for example, may be socially liberal, I'm not economically liberal.

[Mountain Lion]

A psychiatrist not a psychologist, mind you. Only an MD could claim to know what human nature is... The fact that he claims to be a social scientist robs him of all credibility.

[Lights]

And here is just as unbiased a response to that article.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a psychologist who’s practiced for thirty-five years, in a book titled, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, maintains that liberalism is a psychological disorder. He asserts that liberals, “rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

Does Dr. Rossiter accept medical insurance? Oh, maybe it’s not an issue since most Americans can’t afford it. Liberals are nuts?!!

He characterizes the liberal agenda as preying on weakness and insecurities in the population by “rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.”

Has Dr. Rossiter treated any of Americans who feel we’d been tricked into going to war by an administration with its own agenda? Liberals are nuts?!!

Rossiter characterizes modern liberals as “whining about imaginary villains,” depicting them as neurotic. Were we not told by Bush & co., “You’re either with us or against us?” Wasn’t this conservative government repeatedly insisting they’ve been saving us from being attacked? Liberals are nuts?!!

His premise is that caring about others is infantilizing. If liberal can be seen as a psychological disturbance, would not the conservative agenda qualify as narcissistic? And if liberals are nuts, perhaps it’s a response to conservative policies.

An interesting point about insanity, in order to be considered insane you have to have lost the ability to know right from wrong. The fact that liberals question themselves whereas conservatives do not...may be indicative of something.

[integratedvelocity]

Just to brainstorm a few possible ideas for this:

Conservatives are better at negating cognitive dissonance.
Some core values of many conservative branches are independence from government and responsibility for one's actions, giving a stronger sense of agency.
Liberals are more concerned with equality, giving a sense of wrongness to America's present situation (and are more likely to view income equality as a chief goal).
Liberals have less confidence in the rationality of the general populace (though I'm conservative, and I still don't have much confidence :)).
Conservatives tend to see things more black and white, causing less uncomfortable vacillation between opinions, closure, etc.

These are only a few quick ideas, and I don't necessarily agree with them. Just a few things for you all to discuss.

[Latte]

While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way.

As stated above, self-awareness can be an issue. There is also more non-moderate religious people that are republican, including some groups where mental issues is very taboo.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

Already here he pretty much fails. He starts thinking in terms of "what is fair, unfair, normal, right and wrong" which is highly biased by subjective beliefs. He also thinks that "what stuff was founded upon in the past" means shit. He is arguing with sentimentality, pride in national history and a sense of what he thinks "things should be like", holding his personal beliefs as self-evident.

I'll agree with that quite a few probably do vote "progressively" partly due to neurosis, but a another important factor which i personally think is more important is protecting one's own self-esteem, and that has no direct link to the specific ideology one believes in. Nearly all people vote what they do based on flawed logic mostly believed for the purpose of making them look better to themselves.



"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says.

?

"A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

A person not biased by subjective beliefs in his analysis would realize that it's possible to think in terms of "what would work best given a specific objective?" and/or "what can i promise and/or appeal to in peoples minds so i can get to power?". He also speaks as if what he says is self-evident, and shows no signs of understanding how things work at all, but rather has ideas of "how things should be done" without giving any reasoning (if he did, judging from how he speaks, I'd be fairly certain it would be about what is justified or "right").


Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
It depends largely on the reasoning given for policies. But yes, some powerful politicians give reasoning that exploits such. This doesn't mean that the other "side" is right though.

Unrelated: adding the adjectives of "primitive" and "infantile" is pretty dumb if one wants to be taken seriously.

* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
Again, subjectivity. There is no "the" sovereignty of the individual. It is a human-created concept. The a large portion of the conservative voices wants a great deal of subordination as well, merely in different areas (ranging from gay marriage to stemcells to "national security measures").

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Victims and villains isn't something that is always entirely in the mind of the individual?
Again, he starts getting at something, but then trips in his own beliefs and makes a fool of himself.

"The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican," the study concluded.

Asking the question in itself of a cause-effect relationship reveals a lack of "how stuff works" thinking and more of a "what stuff is and why" thinking.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[pavman]

Fascinating discussion, even if its one-sided. Looks like the article I posted (ok, an email I had received) is a bit edited... for instance he clarifies the following:

Correlation is no proof of causation, of course. The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel).

[meanlittlechimp]

The reason republicans are happier is they are more likely to delude themselves that there all gonna be in heaven, hanging out with their friends; while the bad mud people people - burn in hell. Ignorance is bliss.

Democrats are more likely to question the nature of the universe (only because they have far less evangelical christians) and tend to include more of the disfranchised - minorities, gays, poor people, who tend to be less happy.

[deepFlow]

Self-awareness hurts.

[meanlittlechimp]

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
(you mean like using 9/11 to scare the US populace into justifying an attack on Iraq or having multiple "terror" alerts before the election which mysteriously vanish afterwards/)

* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
(in other words, social programs suck - anyone making arguments for higher spending on say..... education and less on say.... defense - is just being a big baby and probably has a disorder)

* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
(what is he even talking about here)

* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
(you mean like the Bush's domestic wiretapping program which sets back privacy laws to the pre-McCarthy era)


Hmm... I wonder what party this guy belongs too?

[Riverratt]

Liberals, tend to be "victims", and very dependant...

Just look at all the special interests that line up behind them, as a group, they are very weak.

Just look at the social programs they push..Like socialized medicine....(code for--I can't take care of myself, would you do it for me?!?!)

Liberals, and Democrats, tend to be the champions of the "down trodden" with an desire for the government "cradle to the grave" mentality....

The unsaid message in ALL, of their political speeches is..., Your far to downtrodden to be able to do anything for yourself, besides breed kids, so WE, will take care of it for you..

So naturally, any study of conservative people and liberal people, would deduce, that the Liberals, would have far more "issues" than conservative ones.

[pavman]

A psychiatrist not a psychologist, mind you. Only an MD could claim to know what human nature is... The fact that he claims to be a social scientist robs him of all credibility.

Not to burst your bubble here, putty tat, but...

Psychiatrists (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are doctors of medicine who specialise in treating mental illness using the biomedical approach to mental disorders.[3] Psychiatrists may also go through significant training to conduct psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, and/or cognitive behavioral therapy, but it is their medical training that differentiates them from other mental health professionals.[3]

Umm.... questions?

[INTJoe]

The reason republicans are happier is they are more likely to delude themselves that there all gonna be in heaven, hanging out with their friends; while the bad mud people people - burn in hell. Ignorance is bliss.


Does this mean you think they (Republicans) won't go to Heaven, or that the "bad mud people" will go to heaven? OR, better yet, that Republicans won't go to Heaven, and "bad mud people" will?

Either way it is absurd that you would say "ignorance is bliss" here. You're begging the question for one, and then you are determining who will or will not go to Heaven or Hell. Completely silly statements. You continually make these unsubstantiated arguments out of left-field, and then viciously defend them as if truth.

Your E and P are neutralized here on the intrawebs, sir. This sh*t won't cut it here.

[Lights]

Does this mean you think they (Republicans) won't go to Heaven, or that the "bad mud people" will go to heaven? OR, better yet, that Republicans won't go to Heaven, and "bad mud people" will?

Either way it is absurd that you would say "ignorance is bliss" here. You're begging the question for one, and then you are determining who will or will not go to Heaven or Hell. Completely silly statements. You continually make these unsubstantiated arguments out of left-field, and then viciously defend them as if truth.

Your E and P are neutralized here on the intrawebs, sir. This sh*t won't cut it here.

I think what he said makes a lot sense. Republicans are typically religious and convince themselves that their actions are moral and therefore deserving of heaven, and the actions of others are immoral and therefore deserving of hell. Case in point, homosexuals who Republicans feel very happy to deny the rights of marriage and discrimination protection because they consider their actions to be immoral, and they of course can then convince themselves that they are moral for doing so.

[INTJoe]

But summing it up with "Ignorance is bliss" is just laughable, in context.

Do you see why?

[Zilal]

Wow. I think it's hilarious that someone would write a book like that. What's not hilarious is that there are so many people out there, I know, willing to believe him.

If he's so interested in citing surveys, I'm curious what his response would be to surveys that show liberals are consistently better educated and have seen more of the world than conservatives, or that conservatives who receive more education and travel more are more likely to turn liberal?

[INTJoe]

I'm curious what his response would be to surveys that show liberals are consistently better educated and have seen more of the world than conservatives, or that conservatives who receive more education and travel more are more likely to turn liberal?

Links?

[ginandsour]

I'll have to find the numbers, but in a survey research and public opinion class I was presented with figures that suggest that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to have a crystalized opinion of their political leanings, with the trend being that the population in general was becoming more conservative. Colleges are not the left-wing factories people sometimes claim they are.

Pew shows different numbers; I will see if I can track down my professor and see which studies were used, as they showed a trend toward conservatives.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From that study, re: "better educated" statement.

Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group 49%are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education. But the Enterprisers also include a relatively high percentage of college graduates (46%), although fewer Enterprisers than Liberals have attended graduate school (14%).

However, of people with a ph.d, the numbers I had showed a tendency to be more conservative. Remember, not everybody with a ph.d is a professor.

[INTJoe]

Please keep in mind that, in prior generations, getting a college education wasn't as important as it is today. I'm 28 and my parents did not get a College education, and neither did many of my friends' parents.

And if older people tend to become more Conservative (as compared to young folks), then I'm guessing there are a lot of old Republicans who never got a secondary education.

[Riverratt]

Their is an old saying, that rings true....

If your not a liberal when your young, your heartless, if your not a conservative, when your older, your brainless.

[meanlittlechimp]

But summing it up with "Ignorance is bliss" is just laughable, in context.

Do you see why?

I think you're spending way too much time analyzing, a somewhat joking comment. It's laughable in context, to me, because that's what you find the most egregious part of my post (the part without any content).

Re:education level. I've seen several studies and polls over the years that your chances of being democrat are directly proportional to education. College Professors for instance, are overwhelmingly democrat.

The student bodies of the most competitive institutions in the nation are overwhelmingly democrat. Most State Schools (except for the elite ones like Berkeley, Michigan etc), have a more conservative student body relatively. People that believe in creationism generally don't get into Harvard, not because of their belief, but because they probably tend to suck at things that require thought - the type of things taught at universities.

Does the concept that the education level correlates with "liberal" views really surprise you?


meanlittlechimp added to this post, 13 minutes and 6 seconds later...

This is the first thing I found when looking it up. There are plenty of other polls and studies that reinforce this I'm sure. It's actually more lopsided than I thought. 7 to 1 ratio (Dems to Republicans), 9 to 1 at Berkley and Stanford.

What percentage of the Republican party doesn't believe in the concept of evolution compared to the Democratic party. That should tell you something right there about education level.


"Several studies are cited. One of them, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences.

Another faculty study found a nine-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study included the hard sciences and engineering (where good sense is reputed to prevail)."

Full Article - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ginandsour]

Some thoughts:

I think some of the problem with this discussion is the free interchange of terms: conservative with Republican and liberal with Democrat.

One problem that comes from trying to place college students in one ideological bent over another is that most students don't know what they think, or when you sit down and ask them about issues that define what it means to be conservative or liberal (again, NOT party platform stuff) most of them have no idea where they land.

I do have some issue with equating religious faith or belief in creationism with stupidity. The problem many INTJs seem to have with faith is that it isn't falsifiable, which is the point. One of the most brilliant INTJs I know is a conservative Christian. Analysis of something unfalsifiable is a waste of time, but it doesn't make faith worthless.

And yes, as you get older and (I suspect) more educated, the tendency would favor conservatives simply because as we age, we have more invested in the system and have a greater interest in seeing that it functions. We see this express itself in voter turnout--people are already cheering over youth vote's so-called "surge" in the primaries, but they are still nowhere near the percentage you see from the general (older) population.

[mabts]

From Liberty Corner ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )...

"IQ and Politics

It's hard to find clear, concise analyses of the relationship between IQ and political leanings. I offer the following in evidence that very high-IQ individuals lean strongly toward libertarian positions.

The Triple Nine Society (TNS) limits its membership to persons with IQs in the top 0.1% of the population. In an undated survey (probably conducted in 2000, given the questions about the perceived intelligence of certain presidential candidates), members of TNS gave their views on several topics (in addition to speculating about the candidates' intelligence): subsidies, taxation, civil regulation, business regulation, health care, regulation of genetic engineering, data privacy, death penalty, and use of military force.

The results ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) speak for themselves. Those members of TNS who took the survey clearly have strong (if not unanimous) libertarian leanings."

Also from Liberty Corner ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) ...

"The Right Is Smarter Than the Left

INTP Bird has an interesting post on personality and politics here, which points to some data about personality type and political affiliation. The sample isn't representative of the population as a whole; the average age of respondents is 25, and introverted personalities are overrepresented (as you might expect for a test that is apparently self-administered through a web site).

The test assigns personality types according to the taxonomy of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), perhaps the most widely used personality indicator in the United States. In the MBTI there are four pairs of complementary personality traits: Extraverted/Introverted, Sensing/iNtuitive, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving. Thus, there are 16 possible personality types in the MBTI: ESTJ, ENTJ, ESFJ, ESFP, and so on. INTP Bird has a good explanation of the four pairs of complementary traits here.

The test takers were asked to state their political preferences, given these choices: Democrat, Republican, middle of the road, liberal, conservative, libertarian, not political, and other. Political self-labelling isn't terribly reliable. We don't know which "road" a middle-of-the-roader considers himself to be in the middle of, for instance. And many self-styled libertarians are libertarian on individual rights but definitely statist when it comes to government intervention in the economy. (See my post entitled "Left-Wingers Dominate the Blogosphere".) Nevertheless, I'm willing to assert that people who call themselves Democrats or liberals (the left) are quite distinct, politically, from people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives (the right).

Now, to the money question, are people (at least those people who took the personality test) smarter on the left or on the right? To answer that question, I applied some data about the personality types of members of Mensa, the high-IQ society, which I had unearthed earlier. (See this post.) I found that, given the distribution of personality types on the left and right, those on the right are 28 percent more likely to qualify for membership in Mensa than those on the left. So much for the canard that conservatives are stupid."

[ginandsour]

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;


You could make a case for this being part of the agenda of special interest groups, too.

Heh, I feel so random. Maybe I really AM an INTP...

[meanlittlechimp]

I do have some issue with equating religious faith or belief in creationism with stupidity. The problem many INTJs seem to have with faith is that it isn't falsifiable, which is the point. One of the most brilliant INTJs I know is a conservative Christian. Analysis of something unfalsifiable is a waste of time, but it doesn't make faith worthless.

And yes, as you get older and (I suspect) more educated, the tendency would favor conservatives simply because as we age, we have more invested in the system and have a greater interest in seeing that it functions. We see this express itself in voter turnout--people are already cheering over youth vote's so-called "surge" in the primaries, but they are still nowhere near the percentage you see from the general (older) population.

I have met smart "creationists" as well, though I find it less likely to occur relative to evolutionists. I was being a bit simplistic in my categorization of them. I was more referring to group of many fundamentalist Christians, who actually believe the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived alongside humans. What I find FAR less egregious are creationists who believe in intelligent design and don't think God sprinkled around dinosaur bones to test one's faith.

There might be some correlation with age and political party, but it wouldn't account for all those college professors who tend to be older. I think as young people do get older, there probably is a small shift to conservatism, but I contend, it's usually more than offset by higher education.

I think this also carries over in Islamic societies, the youth AND the educated elites tend to be far more anti-religious and less conservative politically then the rest of the populace.


Political self-labelling isn't terribly reliable. We don't know which "road" a middle-of-the-roader considers himself to be in the middle of, for instance. And many self-styled libertarians are libertarian on individual rights but definitely statist when it comes to government intervention in the economy. (See my post entitled "Left-Wingers Dominate the Blogosphere".) Nevertheless, I'm willing to assert that people who call themselves Democrats or liberals (the left) are quite distinct, politically, from people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives (the right).

Now, to the money question, are people (at least those people who took the personality test) smarter on the left or on the right? To answer that question, I applied some data about the personality types of members of Mensa, the high-IQ society, which I had unearthed earlier. (See this post.) I found that, given the distribution of personality types on the left and right, those on the right are 28 percent more likely to qualify for membership in Mensa than those on the left. So much for the canard that conservatives are stupid."

I think most libertarians, which I consider myself as well, are actually far more likely to be aligned with the democratic party. Going to war on false pretenses is not exactly small government or lack of government interference.

Bush's rampant spending and running huge budget deficits is NOT small government. Clinton balanced the budget (and I think upholds libertarian views far more than Bush). Bush's forays into eroding privacy rights (wiretapping legislation under the guise of anti-terrorism). The right building creationist museums and allowing prayer in school in some states go counter to this idea of less government interference.

Re: Mensa. I would take the faculty at Stanford or Harvard over Mensa folks as epitome of smart. To me intelligence is a combination of factors (with IQ only being one part). Feynman only had a 125 IQ but did more original work in physics than anyone since Einstein.

The kind of people who join Mensa and get off on their IQs tend to attract a certain type. This is conjecture here, I admit, but the guys I knew that would brag about their IQs and get off on joining societies like that, maybe are more likely to vote republican or classify themselves as conservative. But I don't think intelligence (or even IQ) really correlates to being republican or conservative in a modern context.

[mabts]

I have met smart "creationists" as well, though I find it less likely to occur relative to evolutionists. I was being a bit simplistic in my categorization of them. I was more referring to group of many fundamentalist Christians, who actually believe the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived alongside humans. What I find FAR less egregious are creationists who believe in intelligent design and don't think God sprinkled around dinosaur bones to test one's faith.

There might be some correlation with age and political party, but it wouldn't account for all those college professors who tend to be older. I think as young people do get older, there probably is a small shift to conservatism, but I contend, it's usually more than offset by higher education.

I think this also carries over in Islamic societies, the youth AND the educated elites tend to be far more anti-religious and less conservative politically then the rest of the populace.



I think most libertarians, which I consider myself as well, are actually far more likely to be aligned with the democratic party. Going to war on false pretenses is not exactly small government or lack of government interference.

Bush's rampant spending and running huge budget deficits is NOT small government. Clinton balanced the budget (and I think upholds libertarian views far more than Bush). Bush's forays into eroding privacy rights (wiretapping legislation under the guise of anti-terrorism). The right building creationist museums and allowing prayer in school in some states go counter to this idea of less government interference.

Re: Mensa. I would take the faculty at Stanford or Harvard over Mensa folks as epitome of smart. To me intelligence is a combination of factors (with IQ only being one part). Feynman only had a 125 IQ but did more original work in physics than anyone since Einstein.

The kind of people who join Mensa and get off on their IQs tend to attract a certain type. This is conjecture here, I admit, but the guys I knew that would brag about their IQs and get off on joining societies like that, maybe are more likely to vote republican or classify themselves as conservative. But I don't think intelligence (or even IQ) really correlates to being republican or conservative in a modern context.

I agree that that the bloggers view that libertarianism is equated with "the right" more than "the left" is misguided. The blogger I quoted's main expertise lies in economics, so I think that's why he tends to equate libertarianism as closer to "the right" (although many on the right may profess smaller government and lower taxes, they almost always never act on this).

I think the most interesting post is that the extremely high IQ society tends to be mainly libertarian. This didn't surprise me one bit, but I think a lot of people would be surprised by it.

In terms of you thinking MENSA type people or people who get off on having a high IQ are more likely to classify themselves as conservative seems confused. I think it's intuitively obvious, and most would agree, that the type of people who join outside clubs and/or constantly try to show off their intellectual prowess tend to be liberal.

[meanlittlechimp]

This was interesting, the college graduate number is actually even.

It doesn't get more split until grad school. I would still contend the more competitive or elite the academic institution is the more likely it's overwhelmingly democratic. The less competitive schools out there, that pretty much accept everyone, is what is skewing the overall results to be even, in my opinion. Junior college in Missouri for example, are probably predominantly Republican.


VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%


Full link here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[mabts]

This was interesting, the college graduate number is actually even.

It doesn't get more split until grad school. I would still contend the more competitive or elite the academic institution is the more likely it's overwhelmingly democratic. The less competitive schools out there, that pretty much accept everyone, is what is skewing the overall results to be even, in my opinion. Junior college in Missouri for example, are probably predominantly Republican.


VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%


Full link here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Definitely. At the top colleges, the vast majority of the student body is liberal. And, I bet, within the humanities departments at top schools it is unbelievably high.

[SeaCzar]

Definitely. At the top colleges, the vast majority of the student body is liberal. And, I bet, within the humanities departments at top schools it is unbelievably high.


This may be the case now, but not always, at least as far as the students were concerned. When I started college, Carter had this country completely screwed up. Colleges and universities were overwhelmingly "Reagan Country". My friends' parents were appalled that their kids were Republican and (fairly) conservative. This was obviously a result of how bad things were from 1979-1980 (politics and the economy).

There was not the sort of religious conservatism that there is now. I consider religious conservatives, regardless of political stripe, meatheads: Dead from the neck up (a nod to Archie Bunker).

[INTJoe]

Because Republicans are greedy capitalist heartless bastards, could it also be that many get an undergrad degree, and get on with life, entering the workforce to go make some dirty, dirty money as soon as possible?

I'd imagine many liberals (who hate money), aren't dissuaded from attaining a higher degree, thus prolonging their entry into the marketplace.

It becomes more glaring when you take into account how much grad school costs. Dirty, greedy, heartless Republicans are possibly more likely to say "Why the hell would I do that? It's time to go kill innocent babies, and make filthy money."

OK so I'm being hyperbolic, but there may be a correlation.

Also, in some fields, a masters is of little use. In my field, almost everyone gets their Bachelors then begins their 3 year apprenticeship (which is sort of in lieu of a Masters I suppose). It seems like the only people getting a Masters up at my school are the Euro types who don't seem to be privy to the ways of the local industry.

[Sylvanus]

@Mabts

This reminds me of a Dilbert book I read a long time ago, I believe it was The Dilbert Future. He said that if you took a group of the smartest people in the country and left the voting up to them, there were only two likely options: Everyone would vote for one person, or it would be evenly divided. Both of these outcomes are scary because it either means that: Intelligence is important, but democracy negates it or that intelligence has absolutely no bearing on the outcome and is unimportant. Seems to me that democracy negates intelligence.

[pavman]

Seems to me that democracy negates intelligence.

Actually, if we look at the field of herbology...err... umm... you know, the one that studies groups vs individual decisions, groups tend to more right when aggregated than individuals. Which means there might be some truth to this whole free market/democracy thing. :thumbsup:

[Sylvanus]

Actually, if we look at the field of herbology...err... umm... you know, the one that studies groups vs individual decisions, groups tend to more right when aggregated than individuals. Which means there might be some truth to this whole free market/democracy thing. :thumbsup:

Good point, I should really know better to post when I'm exhausted and past due for bed...

My argument doesn't take into account the fact theat the MSM severely distorts election results by providing biassed coverage of the news. For the percentage of population they represent, the MSM has a huge effect on what the public believes to be true. I read somewhere (friesian.com I think) that most people are Libertarian, they just don't know it. They associate themselves with the Reps or Dems because they are ignorant of other options and what Libertarians truly believe.

[Dreamer]

It doesn't get more split until grad school. I would still contend the more competitive or elite the academic institution is the more likely it's overwhelmingly democratic. The less competitive schools out there, that pretty much accept everyone, is what is skewing the overall results to be even, in my opinion. Junior college in Missouri for example, are probably predominantly Republican.


There are idiots in all walks of life, and college/university is no exception
(except that they have more self-confidence and are generally more unaware of what they DON'T know).

The level of education has little to do with the validity of a political or theological view.

Einstein and Von Braaun were theist,so was Newton and the author of the Turner diaries had a Ph.d in physics. Yasser Arafat had a degree in Civil Engineering. Remember the men who stormed the American embassy in the name of "Islam" were university students.

If you judge the validity of a man's opinion by his education level,it should give you something to think about.

It becomes more glaring when you take into account how much grad school costs. Dirty, greedy, heartless Republicans are possibly more likely to say "Why the hell would I do that? It's time to go kill innocent babies, and make filthy money."

I also heard that the Republicans sacrificied unbaptized black children in honor of Belzebub. And that Monica Lewinsky was a succubus.

[meanlittlechimp]

There are idiots in all walks of life, and college/university is no exception
(except that they have more self-confidence and are generally more unaware of what they DON'T know).

The level of education has little to do with the validity of a political or theological view.

Einstein and Von Braaun were theist,so was Newton and the author of the Turner diaries had a Ph.d in physics. Yasser Arafat had a degree in Civil Engineering. Remember the men who stormed the American embassy in the name of "Islam" were university students.

If you judge the validity of a man's opinion by his education level,it should give you something to think about.


I never said the level of education validates anything. I only found some research because someone else brought up education level in this thread in the first place. I do think, however, higher education does have a net benefit overall regardless of your Arafat example (and yes I think it's obvious not everyone educated is "smart" or "right").

BUT... it doesn't mean there isn't correlation for higher education and participation in religious and political groups. It does tend to steer the "educated" towards certain ideas and philosophies and away from others (religion for one).

If you look at the civil rights movement, I would bet anything the educated were far more likely to support it than the non-educated. Once many of the ideas became more ingrained in society both culturally and legislatively, most of these tenets have indeed been adopted by the general populace.

[Dagmar]

Because Republicans are greedy capitalist heartless bastards, could it also be that many get an undergrad degree, and get on with life, entering the workforce to go make some dirty, dirty money as soon as possible?

I'd imagine many liberals (who hate money), aren't dissuaded from attaining a higher degree, thus prolonging their entry into the marketplace.

It becomes more glaring when you take into account how much grad school costs. Dirty, greedy, heartless Republicans are possibly more likely to say "Why the hell would I do that? It's time to go kill innocent babies, and make filthy money."

OK so I'm being hyperbolic, but there may be a correlation.


LOL!!

I think liberals don't like competition, completing higher levels of education is their way of feeling superior.

[Lights]

LOL!!

I think liberals don't like competition, completing higher levels of education is their way of feeling superior.

Being liberal does not mean you are anti competition. It means you value social justice. It just so happens that capitalism fosters prejudice and oppression.

[Dagmar]

Being liberal does not mean you are anti competition. It means you value social justice. It just so happens that capitalism fosters prejudice and oppression.
I don't agree. Liberalism may value social justice. I would argue, though, that social justice fosters prejudice and oppression.

[Lights]

I don't agree. Liberalism may value social justice. I would argue, though, that social justice fosters prejudice and oppression.

You argue that the belief that every individual and group is entitled to fair and equitable rights, fosters prejudice and oppression? Are you on crack? :suspicious:

[Dagmar]

You argue that the belief that every individual and group is entitled to fair and equitable rights, fosters prejudice and oppression? Are you on crack? :suspicious:

Social Justice translates into no one in a group being allowed to succeed or fail beyond the accepted societal norm. Any one individual who strives to rise above that norm is penalized. Therefore, oppression is fostered. Individuals who would normally fall below the societal norms are falsely elevated. Therefore, prejudice is fostered.

Try to think it through instead of throwing insults.:rolleyes:

[Lights]

Social Justice translates into no one in a group being allowed to succeed or fail beyond the accepted societal norm. Any one individual who strives to rise above that norm is penalized. Therefore, oppression is fostered. Individuals who would normally fall below the societal norms are falsely elevated. Therefore, prejudice is fostered.

I think you are talking about economic justice, or the belief that there should be a fair and equitable distribution of resources. That is a socialist's view.

Social justice argues that in a perfect world all citizens would have identical rights, protection, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits, regardless of their ethical, racial, religious, etc. backgrounds.

[Dagmar]

I think you are talking about economic justice, or the belief that there should be a fair and equitable distribution of resources. That is a socialist's view.

Social justice argues that in a perfect world all citizens would have identical rights, protection, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits, regardless of their ethical, racial, religious, etc. backgrounds.

Well then I would say that liberals are looking for economic justice not social justice then, at least modern liberals in the US.

[Lights]

Well then I would say that liberals are looking for economic justice not social justice then, at least modern liberals in the US.

I think that might just be your personal prejudice toward liberals.

If you hadn't noticed, the socioeconomic gap has been bipolarized over the last 10 years. Liberals have not made any great strides toward economic justice in this country in quite awhile.

[Dagmar]

I think that might just be your personal prejudice toward liberals.Although I do have a personal prejudice towards liberals I do not think that I am wrong in my assessment.



If you hadn't noticed, the socioeconomic gap has been bipolarized over the last 10 years. Liberals have not made any great strides toward economic justice in this country in quite awhile.

That's debatable.

[Lights]

Although I do have a personal prejudice towards liberals I do not think that I am wrong in my assessment.

I think many liberals are becoming more socialistic in their views. But don't equate liberalism with economic justice.

That's debatable.

How is it debatable? The top 1% now own 33% of the wealth of this nation, whereas the middle class is shrinking at extraordinary rate, and the number of poor continue to rise. The rich are getting super rich, and the middle class's quality of life is decreasing steadily each year to the point that this country may eventually end up with a two class society.

Don't get me wrong. I'll leave the country long before I push for economic reform. :laugh:

[Dagmar]

I think many liberals are becoming more socialistic in their views. But don't equate liberalism with economic justice.
Well one problem is that we are substituting the words liberal and conservative for political affiliations.
So I will say this, the people in this country that identify themselves as liberal.
Yes they have turned to socialism and one of their main goals is economic justice.



How is it debatable? The top 1% now own 33% of the wealth of this nation, whereas the middle class is shrinking at extraordinary rate, and the number of poor continue to rise. The rich are getting super rich, and the middle class's quality of life is decreasing steadily each year to the point that this country may eventually end up with a two class society.

Don't get me wrong. I'll leave the country long before I push for economic reform. :laugh:

What's debatable is lumping this trend as being the fault of capitalism.

[Lights]

]What's debatable is lumping this trend as being the fault of capitalism.

Yes, I'm sure that electing a President who gave tax cuts to the top 1% helped a great deal in closing the socioeconomic divide. And also when he increased the size of the government through Homeland Security spending, and stripped social welfare programs so as to pay for the increased defense spending going toward the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

I definitely agree that capitalism alone is not to blame.

Although if you need some current examples of capitalism at work, I would say that the credit companies providing unregulated credit to people who could obviously not pay for it, banks providing home equity loans at market price during a real estate bubble, and the increasing energy costs, haven't been that great of a help.

[Dreamer]

You argue that the belief that every individual and group is entitled to fair and equitable rights, fosters prejudice and oppression? Are you on crack? :suspicious:

Hey,cut him some slack, he doesn't know public officials will never take more than their fair share under an anti-capitalist system.

[deepFlow]

Up is down, day is night, and caring for other people's well-being is equal to MASS MURDER.

[meanlittlechimp]

Here is an interesting article related to the discussion. They're claim is that liberals and conservatives actually are hard wired differently.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sylvanus]

Up is down, day is night, and caring for other people's well-being is equal to MASS MURDER.

Kruschev said:
We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

Lenin said:
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
and
The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.


The key concept here is encroachment, the liberals of today are fundamentally no different than these mass murderers, only in degree that they can push their power. It took 150 years to get from the Declaration of Independence to the New Deal. Since the tyranny of FDR, every president since has consolidated more and more power to the presidency. It stands to reason that this will continue. As the country becomes more and more sozialist and consolidates more power, we are more and more likely to have mass murderers for leaders.

I maintain that there are essentially two types of liberals: ones that know what they are doing and the effects it will have and ones that don't know what they are doing but are well meaning. The former are usually referred to as 'politicians', the latter as 'voters', collectively they are 'Useful Idiots'. There is nothing wrong with caring for othe well being of others, it is an entirely different thing to con the government into taking care of people.

It isn't readily apparent where my quotes from Lenin are associated with my point. It is just more proof that the fifth columnists in the US are trying to destroy us from within by devaluing our currency with stagflation.





Sylvanus added to this post, 5 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Here is an interesting article related to the discussion. They're claim is that liberals and conservatives actually are hard wired differently.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's another interesting study on the differences between the two.

Moral Intuitions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Nausved]

The key concept here is encroachment, the liberals of today are fundamentally no different than these mass murderers, only in degree that they can push their power.

Since the tyranny of FDR, every president since has consolidated more and more power to the presidency.

I'm rather confused by this. Are you saying that conservatives are actually liberals, or are you saying that just about everyone (liberal and conservative alike) is "fundamentally no different than these mass murderers"?

[thegnat]

You know I can't believe this is still a subject. And how many voted "yes".


Did anyone else hear that ignorant people were happier?

You know...if you're liberal, you're going to be liberal for life. Or conservative for life. Like, political opinion never changes.

If anything, the more rational and more "myself" I've become, the more liberal I've become.

Sylvanus: I could respond with a cutting remark about conservatives, but I'll be nice and hold myself back. Because that remark you said about liberals being "Useful Idiots" and the whole "the ones that know what they're doing and its effects are politicians" etc are huge generalizations based on personal bias and no fact. Alright...I'll stop talking...I have to go to class to get edumacacated anyway. To be one of those liberal wacko scientists...

[eternaltriangle]

I'm rather confused by this. Are you saying that conservatives are actually liberals, or are you saying that just about everyone (liberal and conservative alike) is "fundamentally no different than these mass murderers"?

Jimmy Carter killed a man in Reno once, just to watch him die.

Seriously though, as to the argument that liberals and conservatives are wired differently, it tends to fail to resonate with me. The thing is that people are liberal or conservative for different reasons.

How would being more resistant to change, for instance, make one more likely to be a liberal in a very liberal society? The assumption underlying that argument is that history is a long train of progress towards more liberalism. This is not really true.

Secondly, people are liberals and conservatives for different reasons, as both ideologies have different appeals. For bleeding heart types, liberalism has a natural draw because of all the save-the-whales stuff. At the same time, the religious and spiritual aspects of conservatism can also appeal to touchy-feely types.

At the end of the day, I think interests drive ideology. People subscribe to the ideology that benefits them most. For most of history, this works out pretty well, but in the present there is a disconnect - the educated affluent elite tends to be liberal, while the working class tends to be conservative.

I think a core element there is the onset of post-material values that is seen among wealthier people. More money, beyond a certain point doesn't get you much happier, so quality of life starts to become more important. I would include educated but not necessarily rich people in this category since, given their abilities they COULD be wealthy, but have foregone potential wealth in order to obtain life experiences, etc. (usually these are people that grew up in privileged families). So if there is a point at which you stop caring about more money, tax cuts don't buy you quite as much any more.

[Sylvanus]

I'm rather confused by this. Are you saying that conservatives are actually liberals, or are you saying that just about everyone (liberal and conservative alike) is "fundamentally no different than these mass murderers"?

I can see how what I said can be misunderstood. My main point is that modern day liberalism is an intellectual cousin to communism. Even the great Thomas Jefferson was tempted to overstep his boundaries (boundaries that he was instrumental in setting in place in the Constitution) for the good of the nation. Things that would have benefited the US that he could have gotten away with but realized it would set a bad precedent. Any president will naturally be tempted to abuse and consolidate his power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely). My standards for any politician are really high, most republicans aren't even conservative enough for me. On top of that, the republican leadership is weak, and most don't stick to their guns because they want to be seen as a nice guy (compassionate conservative). From that standpoint it could be argued that both sides are fundamentally no different than mass murderers. However, one of the core philosophies of conservatism is small government, the opposite is true of liberals, they love big government. What ends up happening unfortunately is that when republicans are in power, the government still grows, only slower.

I hope this is clear, I really should be getting to bed, goodnight.

[Nausved]

However, one of the core philosophies of conservatism is small government, the opposite is true of liberals, they love big government. What ends up happening unfortunately is that when republicans are in power, the government still grows, only slower.

You are mistaken. The government (or at least the national debt, which is a pretty good indicator of government size) grows more under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If Roosevelt was a tyrant, what would that make Reagan?

(Post modified to include a more up-to-date graph.)

[Dreamer]

Reagan didn't exactly have his way. Had the rest of the politicians followed his budget propositions, the US would actually have had a budget SURPLUS.

[meanlittlechimp]

You know I can't believe this is still a subject. And how many voted "yes".


It's one of the reasons I was fascinated with the site to be honest, and made me want to post here. I've read and heard that INTJs were the most likely to be republican by a far margin to other rationals (and was true in my small sample size). I didn't put that much faith into it at first, but it made me want to find how true the phenomenon was and what might be reasons that cause it.. I know if I posted the same poll elsewhere (different MBTI groups), it would be significantly different.

You are mistaken. The government (or at least the national debt, which is a pretty good indicator of government size) grows more under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents.


I think if you showed a budget deficit chart, it would support your argument further. Clinton inherited a budget deficit form Bush Sr, he passed on a budget surplus to Bush Jr, and the next president is going to inherit a serious budget deficit from Bush Jr.

In light of these numbers, I don't see how anyone could claim republicans are the small government party.


Seriously though, as to the argument that liberals and conservatives are wired differently, it tends to fail to resonate with me. The thing is that people are liberal or conservative for different reasons.


I don't put a lot of faith in the article I posted either. It's less silly or more valid than the article in the original post, however, but not by that much. I do think SOME liberals and conservatives might actually be wired differently, and chose party on that basis. The majority, however, vote for other reasons than open mindedness. I do think open minded people tend to be more liberal, however.

Also, the neo-cons in both Bush administrations are very different from what I consider true conservatism, which I mostly agree with. The Barry Goldwater kind of conservatism or fiscal conservatism. True conservatism is closer to Libertarian economic policy (without the individual freedom and civil rights). Prescott Bush ran on a Eugenics platform when he originally got crushed for his bid to public office. He probably told his son to drop this lovely little idealogy from his future campaigns.. This is more akin to the neo-conservative administration we have now, that does NOT believe in small governments but rather aggressive and imperialistic foreign policy with increased state power over the individual.

George Bush Sr. ran against the civil rights act in 1964 (the single most important act in terms of equality for all it's citizens, since the abolition of slavery) - which shows you what him and his family really think, but that sort of thing probably doesn't bother the folks here, who support him and his duncecap son.

[Sylvanus]

Like I said, the elected republicans rarely follow the wishes of their constituents. But their can be some explanation for some of these recent trends.

Reagan: Cut taxes, revenues exploded. Unfortunately the Cold War got really expensive, I'm not sure who's to blame for this, but we outspent the Russians and Communism collapsed.

Bush Sr: "Read my lips,no new taxes" He tried really hard, but the democratic congress kept spending and spending and eventually we started going into debt so he was forced to sign into law higher taxes.

Clinton: Republican congress, kept spending under control. Also, to get re-elected he pulled off a lot of economic policies the republicans wanted, like shifting welfare from the federal government to the states.

Bush Jr: Neo-conservative, I won't even bother defending him. But I will say that after this last election when the dems took congress, they increased federal spending by $700 Billion within the first hundred days.

(BTW, going on 24 hrs without sleep, I really am going to bed this time)

[meanlittlechimp]

LOL!!

I think liberals don't like competition, completing higher levels of education is their way of feeling superior.

LOL!!

That would actually be funny if it wasn't for the fact that becoming a professor at a top university is one of the hardest jobs to get and is therefore extremely competitive. Probably the most competitive and highest paying and jobs to get out of college is on Wall Street at a top I-bank, Hedge fund, mgnt consulting firm, etc which are almost all predominantly liberal/democrat.

Where are these conservatives competing? I've been to the red states, and I didn't feel like competing at horseshoes or bible hymns. LOL!!

ps. I know you were kidding, I am too.

[Nausved]

You've mentioned Congress several times in your post. Please look at the graph again. I specifically added the Congressional information to show that the makeup of Congress isn't actually all that important when it comes to the debt. It ultimately comes down to the party of the president.

Republican presidents are big spenders, plain and simple. Democratic presidents are big spenders, too, but they're nothing like their more "conservative" counterparts. ("Conservative" is in quotation marks, as fiscal irresponsibility is not a traditional American value.)

Reagan: Cut taxes, revenues exploded. Unfortunately the Cold War got really expensive, I'm not sure who's to blame for this, but we outspent the Russians and Communism collapsed.

Soviet communism would have collapsed anyway; it's not a sustainable form of government. And if FDR was wrong for increasing government spending during World War II and the Great Depression, Reagan was extremely wrong for escalating what wasn't even a real war at all.

Also, don't forget Reagan's various government programs—most notably his War on Drugs, which continues to be a significant drain on our economy and personal liberty.

Bush Sr: "Read my lips,no new taxes" He tried really hard, but the democratic congress kept spending and spending and eventually we started going into debt so he was forced to sign into law higher taxes.

He did try to avoid new taxes, but it just wasn't realistic with the sort of spending that went on under his administration and under the previous Reagan administration. The recession of the 1980s (thanks, Reaganomics!) certainly didn't help. Neither did Bush's military exploits—an economic mess which, like the War on Drugs, lingers on.

Clinton: Republican congress, kept spending under control. Also, to get re-elected he pulled off a lot of economic policies the republicans wanted, like shifting welfare from the federal government to the states.

As mentioned above, it's not Congress that matters so much in this day and age. It's the president.

Besides, Clinton wanted a balanced budget. He bragged about it—called it "the end of an era (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." (Oh, how wrong he was. :( )

Bush Jr: Neo-conservative, I won't even bother defending him. But I will say that after this last election when the dems took congress, they increased federal spending by $700 Billion within the first hundred days.

They increased spending because they were under a Republican president bent on war—despite the fact that they were elected to control the president. Yes, this disgusts me, too, but it's hardly unusual for Congress to bow in to presidential pressure. Compare the Democratic Congress between Ford and Carter... the Republican Congress between Clinton and Bush... the Democratic Congress between Roosevelt and Truman.

And now our next election will come down to McCain and either Obama or Clinton. The conservative conservatives will align with McCain, even though he's another big-government neoconservative who aims to follow in Bush's war-spending footsteps, and they'll neglect the anti-war Democratic candidate—a candidate who, admittedly, would probably do much too little to decrease the size of the government (for my taste, anyway), but who is nonetheless much more likely than McCain to provide a trade surplus and a passable economic policy by the end of his or her term.

I guess the true conservatives are still too afraid of liberals to realize that we're really not that different after all—especially when we compare ourselves to all the Reagans and Bushes out there.

[Sylvanus]

You've mentioned Congress several times in your post. Please look at the graph again. I specifically added the Congressional information to show that the makeup of Congress isn't actually all that important when it comes to the debt. It ultimately comes down to the party of the president.

Republican presidents are big spenders, plain and simple. Democratic presidents are big spenders, too, but they're nothing like their more "conservative" counterparts. ("Conservative" is in quotation marks, as fiscal irresponsibility is not a traditional American value.)



Soviet communism would have collapsed anyway; it's not a sustainable form of government. And if FDR was wrong for increasing government spending during World War II and the Great Depression, Reagan was extremely wrong for escalating what wasn't even a real war at all.

Also, don't forget Reagan's various government programs—most notably his War on Drugs, which continues to be a significant drain on our economy and personal liberty.



He did try to avoid new taxes, but it just wasn't realistic with the sort of spending that went on under his administration and under the previous Reagan administration. The recession of the 1980s (thanks, Reaganomics!) certainly didn't help. Neither did Bush's military exploits—an economic mess which, like the War on Drugs, lingers on.



As mentioned above, it's not Congress that matters so much in this day and age. It's the president.

Besides, Clinton wanted a balanced budget. He bragged about it—called it "the end of an era (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." (Oh, how wrong he was. :( )



They increased spending because they were under a Republican president bent on war—despite the fact that they were elected to control the president. Yes, this disgusts me, too, but it's hardly unusual for Congress to bow in to presidential pressure. Compare the Democratic Congress between Ford and Carter... the Republican Congress between Clinton and Bush... the Democratic Congress between Roosevelt and Truman.

And now our next election will come down to McCain and either Obama or Clinton. The conservative conservatives will align with McCain, even though he's another big-government neoconservative who aims to follow in Bush's war-spending footsteps, and they'll neglect the anti-war Democratic candidate—a candidate who, admittedly, would probably do much too little to decrease the size of the government (for my taste, anyway), but who is nonetheless much more likely than McCain to provide a trade surplus and a passable economic policy by the end of his or her term.

I guess the true conservatives are still too afraid of liberals to realize that we're really not that different after all—especially when we compare ourselves to all the Reagans and Bushes out there.

I will try to answer this more in depth later when I have more time. But my question to you is: Who controls the increases/decreases in spending, is it the President or Congress? Bear in mind that both branches have means of bullying each other, it's not a one way street.

[eternaltriangle]

It's one of the reasons I was fascinated with the site to be honest, and made me want to post here. I've read and heard that INTJs were the most likely to be republican by a far margin to other rationals (and was true in my small sample size). I didn't put that much faith into it at first, but it made me want to find how true the phenomenon was and what might be reasons that cause it.. I know if I posted the same poll elsewhere (different MBTI groups), it would be significantly different.


Interesting - I have often wondered the same thing (and found it to be true within my own unrepresentative sample, plus it is true for me - I'm not a Republican, but I have always had conservative leanings). Certainly, among the professions that tend to attract INTJ's: business people, software folks and engineers, a conservative/libertarian slant is more common than among say, linguists and anthropologists.

I think there are a few reasons we INTJ's are more conservative than other rationals. As TJ's we highly value competence. The idea of a free market which rewards the best and the brightest is probably appealing to us. As J's we are more likely to accept the validity of hierarchy and certainty about better and worse. TP's are much more forgiving, as are the F's. When I see working class folks complaining about their working conditions, I see the same kids that got drunk and skipped class in high school (it may not be fair of me, but that's what I see). Unlike more extroverted people, we were less likely to socialize with that kind of "fun guy", and probably more likely to have been teased by him (I think a lot can be explained by who sat where in grade school).

Next, libertarianism (and authoritarian communism, incidentally my early development shifted from the first to libertarianism) is much more internally consistent than either the socially conservative right, or the social democratic left. As NT's we are not that interested in nuances and details, we care about the big picture. It doesn't seem to make sense that the best and brightest are great at making financial decisions and yet morally unable to make decisions about who to sleep with (or vice versa). The internal consistency of libertarianism was something I found compelling - a parsimonious few principles can be applied effectively over a wide range of issues (and unlike communism, it rewarded the best, which I tended to think of in terms of myself). Perhaps it also has to do with who we think of when we think of government... boring, slow ISTJ's!

The left has not been very good at thinking big over the past 40 years. Their policy innovations, and it shows if you look at either Clinton or Obama's platforms (Edwards is even worse, and was running as LBJ). On the economy, by contrast, Conservatives found a real groove in the 80's and 90's, with pro-market ideas being fairly well articulated by Reagan and Gingrich.

But in summary it is the combination of an introvert's lack of community ties, an intuition-y preference for big, internally consistent ideas and a judging preference for hierarchy that makes us more libertarian-conservative (in political systems where classically liberal parties survive, I suspect that is where you would find the INTJ's).

[meanlittlechimp]

I think there are a few reasons we INTJ's are more conservative than other rationals.

The suspicion I have that many INTJs lean more conservative is the idea of welfare. Even though welfare is a tiny fraction of gov't spending relative to say defense spending, the idea that someone is getting a free ride - just irks the hell out of them, and really gets under their skin.

I think it's usually the single biggest issue that makes them choose the conservative party in the first place and occasionally get indoctrinated into the others, once they become active.

Just a theory though.

[eternaltriangle]

The suspicion I have that many INTJs lean more conservative is the idea of welfare. Even though welfare is a tiny fraction of gov't spending relative to say defense spending, the idea that someone is getting a free ride - just irks the hell out of them, and really gets under their skin.

I think it's usually the single biggest issue that makes them choose the conservative party in the first place and occasionally get indoctrinated into the others, once they become active.

Just a theory though.

In my personal ideological journey (this is me from about age 8-15), there were a few particular issues that made me lean to the right (especially when I was younger). Welfare was definitely one of them, combined with a dislike of unions. I came into being as a conservative, intellectually, after the election of Mike Harris as the premier (like a governor) of my province. He slashed welfare, and funding for social programs, and galvanized teacher's unions against him (they went on strike for two weeks). More union-leaning teachers (usually the worst old dinosaurs) would never address the fiscal mess the province was in (low economic growth, high debt and deficit) in their arguments, which really bothered me. Sure, education is nice, but how does spending more work? Moreover, I couldn't see where the purported decline in services was taking place (in fact the government made the curriculum tougher and improved academic performance). They would complain about specific things about the changes (oh no teachers have to get re-certified), but had no over-riding argument.

The death penalty was another big divider for me. I am naturally inclined to think of things in utilitarian terms. In class debates about the death penalty (it was a popular topic) I was never really convinced by the "innocent man might die" argument (especially since people always followed that up with "prison is actually worse than execution" - so, lets assign possibly innocent people to a WORSE fate). To me it made sense that there would be cost-savings (I wasn't really familiar with the appeals process), and a deterrent effect. I also inherently like the idea of harsh retribution, and have a soft spot for hanging, Canada's traditional method of execution.

The other big issue for me was the environment. Two things in particular drove me - one, the irrational dislike of nuclear power on the part of environmentalists. And two, while I saw the need for some changes, I reasoned that it was unlikely a disaster would happen for 50 years, and that technology would probably solve the issue by then. Moreover, the value aspect of the environmentalism thrust upon me in school was something I found bothersome. Nobody made a rational argument for biodiversity, they just said "tree frogs are pretty, if will be bad if they die." That and they would pepper us with stupid fun-facts, "a third of the rain forest is destroyed every year for fun by wealthy businessmen."

All of these things built a caricature of what a liberal was in my mind, namely, a bunch of SF's that don't get the big picture and follow their hearts not their heads. I think those are the sentiments that drive the poll in this particular thread.

[Nausved]

On the economy, by contrast, Conservatives found a real groove in the 80's and 90's, with pro-market ideas being fairly well articulated by Reagan and Gingrich.

On the contrary, I think that Reagan's economic plans were horrendous. I am a liberal (albeit quite the libertarian as well), but I base my opinion more on the economic ramifications of his presidency than on my ideology.

I disagree with their social views (especially in regards to race, etc.), but I sure miss the paleoconservatives of the 70s and before. At least they were fiscally responsible, if nothing else. The neoconservatives have virtually nothing I can agree with.

[Sylvanus]

You've mentioned Congress several times in your post. Please look at the graph again. I specifically added the Congressional information to show that the makeup of Congress isn't actually all that important when it comes to the debt. It ultimately comes down to the party of the president.

You didn't answer my question earlier, about who actually copntrols spending, so I'll answer it myself: Congress are the ones that have the power to raise and lower taxes and to increase/decrease spending. The President can veto it, but it can be overridden. If the President does veto it, then the democrats go to the media and make it sound like the evil republicans are trying to starve the children of America. "Won't somebody think of the children!"


Republican presidents are big spenders, plain and simple. Democratic presidents are big spenders, too, but they're nothing like their more "conservative" counterparts. ("Conservative" is in quotation marks, as fiscal irresponsibility is not a traditional American value.)

I do admit that republicans can be bad spenders too, especially whn they have to look good to get into the good graces of the American people because the MSM paints them as evil. To quote several democrats:Dem. Rep. Charles Chumer after 9/11: Big Government Is Back in Style...

Jimmy Carter: Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom.

Hillary Clinton: Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

FDR: The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the goverment.

and to counter that statement
Ronald Reagan:The kind of government that is strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything that you have.




Soviet communism would have collapsed anyway; it's not a sustainable form of government. And if FDR was wrong for increasing government spending during World War II and the Great Depression, Reagan was extremely wrong for escalating what wasn't even a real war at all.


I agree that communism is not sustainable, but it will not collapse without an external force. The internal government was too strong to allow it to collapse from an internal threat.

Of course there was no real war between the USSR and the US. And the Cuban Missile Crisis is just a figment of our collective imagination.


Also, don't forget Reagan's various government programs—most notably his War on Drugs, which continues to be a significant drain on our economy and personal liberty.

Agreed




He did try to avoid new taxes, but it just wasn't realistic with the sort of spending that went on under his administration and under the previous Reagan administration. The recession of the 1980s (thanks, Reaganomics!) certainly didn't help. Neither did Bush's military exploits—an economic mess which, like the War on Drugs, lingers on.

Recessions are part of the natural business cycle. The are exacerbated by government intervention and increased taxes (democratic congress).



As mentioned above, it's not Congress that matters so much in this day and age. It's the president.

Besides, Clinton wanted a balanced budget. He bragged about it—called it "the end of an era (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." (Oh, how wrong he was. :( )

He wanted a balanced budget, he also wanted a larger budget. He wouldn't sign the budget into law (and almost shutdown the whole government bacause of it) because there wasn't enough money being spent.



They increased spending because they were under a Republican president bent on war—despite the fact that they were elected to control the president. Yes, this disgusts me, too, but it's hardly unusual for Congress to bow in to presidential pressure. Compare the Democratic Congress between Ford and Carter... the Republican Congress between Clinton and Bush... the Democratic Congress between Roosevelt and Truman.

The spending has nothing to do with the war, it is completely unrelated.


And now our next election will come down to McCain and either Obama or Clinton. The conservative conservatives will align with McCain, even though he's another big-government neoconservative who aims to follow in Bush's war-spending footsteps, and they'll neglect the anti-war Democratic candidate—a candidate who, admittedly, would probably do much too little to decrease the size of the government (for my taste, anyway), but who is nonetheless much more likely than McCain to provide a trade surplus and a passable economic policy by the end of his or her term.

I guess the true conservatives are still too afraid of liberals to realize that we're really not that different after all—especially when we compare ourselves to all the Reagans and Bushes out there.

As an ultra-conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. Not all conservatives are so shortsighted that they will only vote for a republican no matter what their voting record is. McCain is a RINO, and this country will be worse off with him as president bowing to the democrats and the republicans not opposing him just because they are (theoretically) on the same team.

[Nausved]

Congress are the ones that have the power to raise and lower taxes and to increase/decrease spending. The President can veto it, but it can be overridden.

Now if only we could get Congress to recognize its own power and stop kissing the president's feet. In the meantime, we're just going to have to accept that who we choose as president is of paramount importance to the budget.

If the President does veto it, then the democrats go to the media and make it sound like the evil republicans are trying to starve the children of America. "Won't somebody think of the children!"

What, exactly, are you referring to in the latter?

And of course people complain when the president vetoes a bill they support. If you're saying Republicans are less inclined to complain than Democrats (which I don't believe), this sounds like an excellent reason to vote Democrats to Congress; they'll actually fight for their bills, rather than automatically turn over and let the president walk over them.

I do admit that republicans can be bad spenders too, especially whn they have to look good to get into the good graces of the American people because the MSM paints them as evil.

What does "MSM" mean?

To quote several democrats: ...

This is what bugs me about modern Republican leaders. They talk about small government left and right, yet are secretly huge proponents of big government. At least the Democrats are honest about where they stand.

I predict that within our lifetimes, there will be a major flip between the Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party will essentially become libertarian—favoring not only personal liberty, but also small government. The neoconservatives will push the Democratic party into this position as alienated "paleoconservatives" switch sides.

I agree that communism is not sustainable, but it will not collapse without an external force. The internal government was too strong to allow it to collapse from an internal threat.

So why make it collapse? If it can stand on its own, we should let it do just that. Just because we're capitalist doesn't mean we should destroy everything that happens not to be. That should be the choice of the people living under that system.

Of course there was no real war between the USSR and the US. And the Cuban Missile Crisis is just a figment of our collective imagination.

No, the Cold War was not a real war. It was a preparation for a potential war that, fortunately, never happened. It began in World War II, as communism spread through several countries and the U.S. sought to contain it—even where it was widely supported by the local population.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a dangerous time. It was—especially when Reagan came into office and escalated it. What I am saying is that it was a wholly stupid thing for us to get so involved in. So what if some little country in Africa or Southeast Asia or wherever else decides to go communist? How, precisely, is communism a threat to us?

Isn't it odd how other capitalist nations didn't seem to have missile crises of their own?

Recessions are part of the natural business cycle. The are exacerbated by government intervention and increased taxes (democratic congress).

Actually, the ideal system would not have recessions at all. Recessions come about as a result of growth that is too rapid. At any given time, there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. Every time we overshoot that wealth, we have to fall back down to it—and often fall below it.

You might be interested to learn that economists and ecologists use a lot of the same mathematical formulas to illustrate this process. The rise and fall of our economy is like the rise and fall of a population of deer that, in the absence of predators, overshoot the carrying capacity in times of plenty and ultimately drive each other into starvation.

The fix for the deer problem? Increase hunting quotas or reintroduce natural preadators. The fix for the economy problem? The same thing, essentially—some sort of intervention (whether by the government or the people) to ensure that economic growth is sustainable. We used to be better about this, back in the day when an individual would run his business until retirement. Now, in the age of the corporation, nearly all goals are short-term, and the heavy reliance of the consumer upon credit only exacerbates the issue.

He wanted a balanced budget, he also wanted a larger budget. He wouldn't sign the budget into law (and almost shutdown the whole government bacause of it) because there wasn't enough money being spent.

Source please?

The spending has nothing to do with the war, it is completely unrelated.

Oh, is it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? Why don't we look at the latest budget (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), too?

As an ultra-conservative, I'm voting for Hillary.

Out of curiosity, what will you do if Hillary does not get the nomination?

[Sylvanus]

Now if only we could get Congress to recognize its own power and stop kissing the president's feet. In the meantime, we're just going to have to accept that who we choose as president is of paramount importance to the budget.

Agreed.



What, exactly, are you referring to in the latter?

And of course people complain when the president vetoes a bill they support. If you're saying Republicans are less inclined to complain than Democrats (which I don't believe), this sounds like an excellent reason to vote Democrats to Congress; they'll actually fight for their bills, rather than automatically turn over and let the president walk over them.

I'm referring to the liberal demagogues in general that use any one of the many "victims" in their bag of tricks to make it seem that they are the good guys, but the conservatives are the bad guys in order to get their way.

I can't say I have any knowledge either way of whether dems or reps are more or less likely to roll over. Do you have any proof?




What does "MSM" mean?
The overwhelmingly liberal Main Stream Media.


This is what bugs me about modern Republican leaders. They talk about small government left and right, yet are secretly huge proponents of big government. At least the Democrats are honest about where they stand.

If we the people kept them accountable it would be a non-issue.



I predict that within our lifetimes, there will be a major flip between the Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party will essentially become libertarian—favoring not only personal liberty, but also small government. The neoconservatives will push the Democratic party into this position as alienated "paleoconservatives" switch sides.

I foresee the dem party alienating a large amount of their constituency, these people will likely become libertarians. There are movements to form a conservative party, leaving the neo-cons with the republicans. I'm not sure if anything will come of this, but they may also join the libertarians. None of this would upset me.



So why make it collapse? If it can stand on its own, we should let it do just that. Just because we're capitalist doesn't mean we should destroy everything that happens not to be. That should be the choice of the people living under that system.

No, the Cold War was not a real war. It was a preparation for a potential war that, fortunately, never happened. It began in World War II, as communism spread through several countries and the U.S. sought to contain it—even where it was widely supported by the local population.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a dangerous time. It was—especially when Reagan came into office and escalated it. What I am saying is that it was a wholly stupid thing for us to get so involved in. So what if some little country in Africa or Southeast Asia or wherever else decides to go communist? How, precisely, is communism a threat to us?

The communists posed a real threat of expansion. The Russians funded the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. If it weren't for their aid (and the fifth columnists back home) we would have had a much easier time over there. Communism took over country after country, causing over 100 million deaths. The liberals of the time went over there and came back telling us it was a modern day utopia. Ignoring the gulags and starvation and economic crises. If they would have had their way our country would have followed suit and who would stop the flow of communism then with the two major world superpowers being controlled by communists.

The people under the system had no choice. They were duped into a revolution, and by the time the new government was installed they were in a place where they could do nothing to change it. They were indoctrinated so they wouldn't know any different. Private citizens had no guns. Free speech was forbidden, the government controlled all thought. Dissent was punished by imprisonment or death. They were taught that us capitalists were in extreme poverty, and it was their duty to help us. In the meantime, the government was being willfully beligerent. The people were completely unable to help themselves, it could only happen with a push from an external source. Bear in mind this applies to all communist countries, I can't think of a single exception.



Isn't it odd how other capitalist nations didn't seem to have missile crises of their own?

We are the only capitalist country (with the exception of Israel, but there problems come froma different source).



Actually, the ideal system would not have recessions at all. Recessions come about as a result of growth that is too rapid. At any given time, there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. Every time we overshoot that wealth, we have to fall back down to it—and often fall below it.

You might be interested to learn that economists and ecologists use a lot of the same mathematical formulas to illustrate this process. The rise and fall of our economy is like the rise and fall of a population of deer that, in the absence of predators, overshoot the carrying capacity in times of plenty and ultimately drive each other into starvation.

The fix for the deer problem? Increase hunting quotas or reintroduce natural preadators. The fix for the economy problem? The same thing, essentially—some sort of intervention (whether by the government or the people) to ensure that economic growth is sustainable. We used to be better about this, back in the day when an individual would run his business until retirement. Now, in the age of the corporation, nearly all goals are short-term, and the heavy reliance of the consumer upon credit only exacerbates the issue.

The fed was supposed to ease the cycles, turns out it just exacerbates them. I don't thing we've ever been better, part of the problem was people would get scared over a silly thing, pull their money from banks (a run on the bank), bank goes bankrupt. Economic cycles are caused by compounding effects. We might have steady growth, then some random action causes a slight bump up or down. People see the bump, they sell (or buy) their stocks, the bump gets bigger. People lose (or gain) faith in the system, they fear job loss (or expect a raise), they buy less (or more) , the bump gets bigger. These actions happen millions of times a day, every little action causes another. Eventually we get a bust or a boom.

I do agree though that the reliance on credit in our country is a major problem. Up until a year and a half ago I had absolutely no debt, and I liked it. Then my significant other opened up several credit cards in my name without my knowledge and it's been an uphill battle since then.





Sylvanus added to this post, 60 minutes and 51 seconds later...


Source please?


When Republicans assumed control of Congress in 1995, their foremost goal was to keep a promise they made to the American people: To balance the federal budget and to cut their taxes. However, standing between Republicans and the fulfillment of their promise was the President. Now after more than two years of refusal, President Clinton has finally agreed to a balanced budget that reduces taxes.

Getting to this point has not been easy. Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion. Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year.

For more than two years, President Clinton has blocked all of the Republicans' efforts to eliminate the deficit and reduce taxes. Today for the first time, President Clinton has joined Republicans in its goal and agreed to his first balanced budget.

Senate Release (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)




Oh, is it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? Why don't we look at the latest budget (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), too?

In their first 100 days, House Democrats have compiled a dubious record of failure on behalf of American workers and families, undermining strong economic growth and new job creation. They’ve failed to propose a balanced budget that doesn’t raise taxes on middle class families and small businesses. They’ve failed to protect workers’ rights by approving a massive payback for union bosses that exposes workers to intimidation and retribution. And they’ve failed to provide college cost relief for students and families struggling to afford a higher education.

And while Democrats ignored the unintended consequences of raising the minimum wage in their “Six for ‘06” rush, House Republicans managed to force Democrats to pass a bill providing tax relief for small businesses, blunting the increased costs that eliminate job opportunities and benefits for American workers.

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT DEMOCRATS’ FAILURES ON BEHALF OF WORKERS & FAMILIES

House Democrats’ budget proposal (H.Con.Res. 99) saddles middle class families and small businesses with the largest tax hike in history, just days before they file their taxes:

“Assuming tax cuts go away is a key to House plan for boosting domestic spending”
- Associated Press Headline, March 21, 2007

“Personal and business income tax rates will climb. Capital gains taxes will go up. The death tax will have new life. The marriage penalty will once more punish husbands and wives. Child tax credits won’t continue. And the AMT (alternative minimum tax) will hit more and more middle-income workers. ... What will the average American family get after it starts paying this extra $2,641 each year? The revenue is being treated as a spending windfall -- enabling a $3.3 trillion spree of new and expanded government programs during the next 10 years. The goal of balancing the budget takes a back seat.”
- Former Representative Ernest Istook, Washington Post, April 11, 2007


0 for 6 in '06 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

With the war going on I'm not incredibly surprised he can't balance the budget. This war is just as much congress' doing as it is the President's. However, they should not be raising taxes, which is proven to reduce revenues (especially in the middle of a recession) and passing more spending bills.




Out of curiosity, what will you do if Hillary does not get the nomination?

I think her chances are pretty good, but I will vote for McCain. Obama seems like a nice guy, but the disaster he would inflict on this country is more than I can take, even if it drastically improves the chance for a conservative next time around.