When will White Christians realize

That the only reason the Republicans say they are Pro Life and the party of the Christian right is to get their votes. If it wasn't for White male Christians in this country, the GOP wouldn't have a chance of getting voted into office

 

I think you under estimate the number of fiscal conservatives in this country. To equate the Republican Party of being the party of only male white Christians is the same as equating the Democratic Party to being the the party of only blacks. Trying to stereotype anything is wrong and usually a whole lot wrong when looking at the entity you just tried to stereotype.

 

Reagan doubled the debt and increased the size of government.
Bush doubled the debt and increased the size of government.

Equating Republicans with fiscal conservatives is just plain wrong. That's why I left the party.

 

If "fiscal conservative" means someone who wants a balanced budget then why would a fiscal conservative vote for a Republican? The Republicans don't balance the budget. All the little Reds can chant in unison that they're the fiscally conservative Party but there isn't any evidence to support that at all. The Republican Party is a deficit Party. In fact, it was Deficit Ronnie Reagan that started the really big budget deficits that continue to this day.

The Farm Bill is indicative of how the Republicans budget. They cut SNAP, the food stamp program that is part of the Farm Bill. But I'm sure we've all heard that they cut food stamps. We hear it and then are supposed to think the Red Party is lowering our debt. But they didn't lower our debt. They increased our debt. They increased the crop insurance program and rural benefits so much that even though they cut SNAP they still passed the largest Farm Bill in our nation's history.

Republicans don't balance the budget. The cuts they make come from areas they think voted against them and those cuts are used to give an even bigger free check to areas they think voted for them.

So I guess whenever we hear the term "fiscally conservative" we should no longer associate it with someone who wants a balanced budget since there is no evidence that a fiscal conservative supports a Party that balances the budget. The evidence shows that when we hear the "fiscally conservative" it is referring to someone who wants to rob other so he can get an even bigger free check for himself.

 

not all republicans are religious fanatics, only probably 25% of them, but they need that voting block to win the election

that is why the crazies will never be a valid GOP candidate, maybe a vp pick at most

the gop will never reverse row vs wade because it's the carrot they wave in front of the religious right to get their votes

.

 

We need each other neither of us has any chance to get what we want without the other.

 

You're right when it comes to rhetoric on the debt. Since Carter the only president that ever came close to a balanced budget was Bill Clinton in his last year, a deficit of some 19 billion. But there is also no doubt the Democrats are the party of tax and spend.

But Reagan adding 1.873 trillion over 8 years looks like a pittance today. He could have done that without the full cooperation of Tip O'Neal and the Democratic House. Bush the first added 1.484 trillion in only 4 years and his rate was much worse than Reagan who added his in 8 years. Again Bush the first had the cooperation of a Democratic congress, both House and Senate. Clinton added 1.418 trillion, but he tried to balance the budget and he deserves tons of credit for doing so. Bush the second added 4.684 trillion over 8 years. But out of that 1.782 was added during Bush the second's first six years with a Republican congress. 2.902 was added his last two years with a Democratic Congress under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid. When Bush the second left office the national debt stood at 10.413 trillion. Obama has added 8 trillion and counting.

Look at the numbers and I am a numbers guy, it reinforces my statement that Clinton was the only approachable fiscal sound president since Carter. Clinton added 627 billion in his first two years with a Democratic Congress, he added 791 billion his last six years under a Republican Congress.

I suppose the bottom line is that Reagan, both Bush's and Obama weren't and aren't with a plug nickle when it came to fiscal responsibility. Although Clinton wasn't very good either, he was the best of the worst. You have to go back to Eisenhower who had two years of surpluses when the national debt actually went down. I grew up under IKE and I consider him the best president of my lifetime. But neither party really cares about fiscal responsibility, I suppose the Democrats are more truthful and they never said they did. Only the Republicans has spouted off at the mouth about it while doing nothing about it.

 

That is true. But in a Washington which has become polarized with each party putting their party ahead of everything else, one has to wonder. Compromise has become a four letter word and the motto of "My way or the Highway," has replaced good governance. Both parties in my opinion really suck today.

 

The more accurate question is why any one who believes in fiscal responsibility vote for either of the two major parties candidates. Both political parties are more than willing to let our children, grand children and future unborn to bear the deeds and debt we have racked up over the last 30 years or so. No thought at all is given to them.

To be truthfully, the mindset of any president is after I am out of office it is not my problem. Let some future generation/s worry about it and pay for what we did in running up the national debt. What is important is getting reelected for another two years, four years or six years, after that time period who really gives a heck.

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans while both parties are walking this nation hand in hand towards that financial abyss and their smiling and whistling along the way. If we want to get a handle on our debt and not hand future generations a country deep in depression with little or no hope for the future, perhaps we need to send someone else to Washington besides a Republican or a Democrat. They just make matters worse.

 

No the reason most republicans say they are pro-life is because they are pro-life and they are socially conservative, regardless of their gender or race becaus they drank their koolaid just like we have. While some may be posturing to make their base happy, especially in the northern states where more moderate views can be heard in some churches and precincts, for the most part, I don't doubt their sincerity.

 

This is part of the reason I like NEITHER party. Because both parties I feel make awful decisions. Bush's decisions like the war in Iraq were moronic and Hillary agreed. Obama has Obama Care and the Big Government mentality but then Mitt Romney also did. Hillary is for corporate America and so is Jeb Bush.

This is why little by little I am tending to lean more and more towards the Green Party and/or Libertarian Party. Because if it does come down to Hillary vs. Jeb Bush I don't believe in either of them or that they will care at all about the American people.

 

This thread was simply in response to the thread titled When will Blacks realize. The Democratic party doesn't just need the Black vote to win elections, but the GOP Certainly does need the Christian Right and Gun nuts

 

another liberal obsessed with race, sex, and religion.... If it wasn't for them white male christians, America would be a communist utopia lead by en-lighted liberal oligarchs by now fo sho

 

I have been correct on many things because I am an Independent. I do not see things thru an ideological lens. I have been correct many times. Here is something that I see plain as day: Game over liberals.

Your ideology is on its way out and will soon be rejected by society.

 

Just keep bowing down to "nothing" ....I'll keep my "egg's" in Christ's basket. ....and before you call me delusional...think about respect! ....unless you feel insults are your best play.

 

I think they both care, but that caring will rarely interfere with their primary objective which is to stay employed. they will severely limit risk taking as an element of their job performance. But we can all share the blame because we so rarely reward risk-takers as an attribute on its face, and never punish media for promoting caution as the only value for success in politics. In short, it is a reflection of our values when they do their cowardly and obstructionist dance. We just whine about it when they accurately reflect our overabundance of caution.

Instead these days, we mistake outrageous and provocative speech a la Trump for real guts or risk in policy.

 

Just curious my Athiest friend... how do you equate what a republican "Christian" fanatic is? In your mind if I believe in Christ does that make me a fanatic? Just curious where you are coming from? Please clarify what you consider to be crazy Christian fanatics?

 

Conservative voters do this all over the Western world: wishfully think their party stands for something other than selling out.

 

It could go on for hundreds of years.

 

Sorry...I smell bigotry all over this post.

- - - Updated - - -

The liberals were the majority party for 6 yrs...guess how many budgets they submitted?

ANSWER : 0

 

Nice post.

As it is the house and senate that control the purse strings, you adequately proved that it is conservatives that perform better at not overspending the peoples money.

 

The Republican party is "fiscal conservative" in name only.

Any real fiscal conservative, such as myself, gave up on the GOP claim to that title long ago.

 

Perhaps, but there has to be cooperation as congress can't do it alone and neither can the president. The threat of Perot and where his voters would end up, which party I think kept the attention on the debt and the two major parties adopted a lot of his ideas. An outside influence if you will.

- - - Updated - - -

The Republican Party is no longer the party of traditional conservatives, it is the party of neoconservatives. From fiscal to social.

 

Neo or new conservatives is just another nickname the left adopted to extend their hatred of all things not liberal. Being conservative is about holding to principles and values...It's hard not to notice how you ignored the number 1 influence during that Perot era, Newt and his way of getting things done, even with liberals who do not negotiate well.

The very last thing the tax n spend liberals are is adopt/utilize any form of fiscal responsibility.

 

Since when has "being conservative" been about simply holding principles and values. What a bunch of platitude. What principles, what values ??

That can be said about any party ... what party does not have "principles and values". Talk about verbal diatribe without actually saying anything other than demonize the left while ignoring the topic which is "GOP are not fiscal conservatives".

What are we supposed to call this new crop of GOP wing nuts ? The certainly are not in keeping with what this "Grandfather of Conservatism" had to say.

This guys name was Barry Goldwater.

What principles of Conservatives were you referring to ?