I don't know what politcal party I belong to

[resrchmnkygrl6]

I'm going to turn 18 next year, and I still don't know what party I belong to. Can someone point me into the direction of any literature?

[gloriousmuse]

I cant really suggest any books but I say watch the debates that are going on to get an understanding of what they stand for.

[brentford]

party lines have become so blurred in recent years. Its ridiculous that we are still operating on a simple two party system. Don't know any literature for ya, but I would wait to choose one until you are dead set on your political motives. Unless voting in the primaries is crazy important to you.

[senatorlamb]

While I suggest reading up on the issues and then looking at the party platforms, you can always do a fun little political test to get a head start.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)

[JayPnay]

You can do what I did and register as "decline to state." California now has a "modified closed primary system", which means unaffiliated voters (decline to state) are able to participate in the primary election if authorized by the individual party's rules. You can request the ballot of a political party from your county elections official or your polling place.

Ummm not sure what literature I could point you out to... If you want to know about certain candidates and what position they stand for on the issues, you can just go on their official websites to find out that information.

[Justin_stacy]

I cant really suggest any books but I say watch the debates that are going on to get an understanding of what they stand for.

The debates are probably the most confusing route to send someone new to the political game.

[Jarrodtexas]

you are 18 and you post on this site...chances are pretty good that you are a democrat or you are still at the point where "no party shares my values" which you would choose independent

[atticus1492]

You belong to the Green Party.

Hope that helps.

[lazzarat]

Yeah, many states, especially in the south, have open primary, so that even if you wanted to declare a party, you can't. You can vote for whichever party/candidates you want to in the primaries. Check and see your state's rules.

As for what party to join... if you're for lowering income inequality, fighting poverty and global warming, allowing everyone to get health care, and restoring America's image in the world, go Democrat. If you want more tax cuts for the richest Americans, a war with Iran, and more neglect of America's middle class and poor... go Republican. To put it objectively.

[Justin_stacy]

. To put it objectively.

or intelligently....

[thetrueblood]

I thought the Republicans did right by the Petite Bourgoiusie? Surely no amount of electioneering can win them elections appealing to the upper classes alone?

And then of course theres always the stupid people who are poor as hell and vote Republican anyway.

They don't mind staying poor as long as their leader has good Christian core values.

[EasySkankin]

or says he does

[lazzarat]

I thought the Republicans did right by the Petite Bourgoiusie? Surely no amount of electioneering can win them elections appealing to the upper classes alone?

And then of course theres always the stupid people who are poor as hell and vote Republican anyway.

Yeah without the coalition of "values voters" the Republicans wouldn't be in power. It's so ironic how it always works out. People are offended by, for instance, Britney Spears and Madonna kissing, so they put people in power who proceed to give Britney and Madonna a tax break.

[AP_Punk]

The Federalist Party.

[captainhampton]

Yeah without the coalition of "values voters" the Republicans wouldn't be in power. It's so ironic how it always works out. People are offended by, for instance, Britney Spears and Madonna kissing, so they put people in power who proceed to give Britney and Madonna a tax break.

yeah damn those tax breaks and the upper class which pay over 80 percent of our taxes.

[lazzarat]

yeah damn those tax breaks and the upper class which pay over 80 percent of our taxes.

Wealth in the United States is ridiculously highly concentrated - the top 1% has about 33% of our wealth and the next top 19% has about 51% (so... the top 20% has about 84% of our wealth). See table 1 - http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

There used to be something called "shared prosperity." By that I mean, as production rose - e.g. the GDP rose - Americans saw more income coming in. This is what you'd expect, right? Work harder, produce more, get more income. During the 1950s and even the 60s this was very true as the United States was very much a middle class society thanks to not only World War II which had set wage controls but also the New Deal which valued unionization and set in place high taxes for the mega rich.

Then someone came along named Ronald Reagan, who had this goofy idea called supply side economics, which said to cut taxes on the rich and they'll help the economy and actually lower the budget deficit. Well our budget deficit got to be the worst it ever has at that point in history and these much lower taxes (from 70% to 35% for the highest tax bracket - this 70% had only been on the top 1%ish, it wasn't this high for most of the rich) led to this concentrated wealth I talked about above, which had before been a hallmark of the Gilded Age leading to the Great Depression and we thought we'd never see again in the United States.

So, thanks to Reagan in the 80s and now W. Bush in the present, we have very much the opposite picture of the 1950s. While there was much higher production than in the 1950s thanks to technology, families didn't see their incomes rise - only the super rich. The average CEO's pay has ballooned to extremes - it used to be 42:1 in 1960 but rose to 531:1 in 2000 (!!!) - see Figure 6 on that site. Average median income, which tells us the annual earnings for the average American, is a trickier stat to look at. If you look at the raw numbers, it's increased by about 16% since the 1970s. But this is because now we have on average 2 family incomes, the husband and wife, whereas in the 50s-60s-into the 70s it was much less common for women to work and there was only 1 income coming in. But if you look at simple the head of the household's income, it's actually decreased by about 18%, whereas the CEOs have seen their incomes skyrocket. So there has not been shared prosperity for all the increased productivity.

Thus, the American family has been increasingly worse off, with lower incomes than 30 years ago yet skyrocketing health care costs, transportation costs, etc., which make them really need a higher income. So Bush cutting taxes I think was morally wrong, and almost inconceivably as we were going into war (usually you raise taxes during war). Now we're also back to a deficit whereas we had a surplus in the Clinton years. We need a higher tax rate on the super rich and go back to a society which has shared prosperity.

This is my political lesson of the day... thanks for reading. haha

[youcomebeforeyo]

Wealth in the United States is ridiculously highly concentrated - the top 1% has about 33% of our wealth and the next top 19% has about 51% (so... the top 20% has about 84% of our wealth). See table 1 - http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

There used to be something called "shared prosperity." By that I mean, as production rose - e.g. the GDP rose - Americans saw more income coming in. This is what you'd expect, right? Work harder, produce more, get more income. During the 1950s and even the 60s this was very true as the United States was very much a middle class society thanks to not only World War II which had set wage controls but also the New Deal which valued unionization and set in place high taxes for the mega rich.

Then someone came along named Ronald Reagan, who had this goofy idea called supply side economics, which said to cut taxes on the rich and they'll help the economy and actually lower the budget deficit. Well our budget deficit got to be the worst it ever has at that point in history and these much lower taxes (from 70% to 35% for the highest tax bracket - this 70% had only been on the top 1%ish, it wasn't this high for most of the rich) led to this concentrated wealth I talked about above, which had before been a hallmark of the Gilded Age leading to the Great Depression and we thought we'd never see again in the United States.

So, thanks to Reagan in the 80s and now W. Bush in the present, we have very much the opposite picture of the 1950s. While there was much higher production in the 1950s thanks to technology, families didn't see their incomes rise - only the super rich. The average CEO's pay has ballooned to extremes - it used to be 42:1 in 1960 but rose to 531:1 in 2000 (!!!) - see Figure 6 on that site. Average median income, which tells us the annual earnings for the average American, is a tricker stat to look at. If you look at the raw numbers, it's increased by about 16% since the 1970s. But this is because now we have on average 2 family incomes, the husband and wife, whereas in the 50s-60s-into the 70s it was much less common for women to work and there was only 1 income coming in. But if you look at simple the head of the household's income, it's actually decreased by about 18%, whereas the CEOs have seen their incomes skyrocket. So there has not been shared prosperity for all the increased productivity.

Thus, the American family has been increasingly worse off, with lower incomes than 30 years ago yet skyrocketing health care costs, transportation costs, etc., which make them really need a higher income. So Bush cutting taxes I think was morally wrong, and almost inconceivably as we were going into war (usually you raise taxes during war). Now we're also back to a deficit whereas we had a surplus in the Clinton years. We need a higher tax rate on the super rich and go back to a society which has shared prosperity.

This is my political lesson of the day... thanks for reading. haha

Pretty sure you will be the only person in this thread to use facts to make a political argument. Watch as you get debunked in rhetoric but no facts!

[The_kok]

youn could also be a non-partisan


like me

[lazzarat]

Pretty sure you will be the only person in this thread to use facts to make a political argument. Watch as you get debunked in rhetoric but no facts!

yeah, I had a REALLY boring morning today, haha. hey, maybe I can use it for some school assignment someday

[resrchmnkygrl6]

You guys make me giggle.

Anyway, I did that politcal compass thingy and I was like (-1, -2). I was really close to the origin of the graph. Hahaha. I wonder what would have happened if I actually did get (0,0). "/

And the long post about the tax cuts and what they do to our economy made me think a lot. I didn't realize cutting taxes screwed up so much. And it sounds so nice...

[resrchmnkygrl6]

So you're basically on the moderate left of the democrats.

A Liberal in America, a moderate everywhere else.
I'm not going to get shot am I? I hear people don't like liberals.

[Trestles]

you are 18 and you post on this site...chances are pretty good that you are a democrat or you are still at the point where "no party shares my values" which you would choose independent

Are you serious? Do you think that this site represents the tormented youth? Making them most likely to be democrats? Also INDEPENDENT is a political party not a state of mind. Jarrod - go to wikipedia and do some research on political parties in the United States, I am sure that you will soon be surprised that there is more then 2 parties.

[absolutecrunk]

Whig

[Trestles]

Yeah, many states, especially in the south, have open primary, so that even if you wanted to declare a party, you can't. You can vote for whichever party/candidates you want to in the primaries. Check and see your state's rules.

As for what party to join... if you're for lowering income inequality, fighting poverty and global warming, allowing everyone to get health care, and restoring America's image in the world, go Democrat. If you want more tax cuts for the richest Americans, a war with Iran, and more neglect of America's middle class and poor... go Republican. To put it objectively.

Or stereotypically! It is time to look at the facts lest we be led astray. Lowering income inequality... it is a joke to think that the Democratic Party in America has had any success with this what-so-ever. I think that the best thing that has been done to help this problem is to instill "Personal Responsibility for your actions and decisions" this is something that the Republicans have taken to heart. Take for example Rudy in NY, the people of that city love him... not because he dressed in drag, but because he nearly eliminated welfare from the city and made the citizens responsible for themselves and their economic decisions. NY is one of the healthiest cities in the nation now - less crime, better socio-economic, and better more livable environment.

Global Warming.... Give me a break! Stop drinking the Clinton/Gore Kool-aid!

And as far as Americas image in the world... I think that pre-9/11 we told everyone, including Al-Queda that you can bitch slap us around, bomb our boats, embassies abroad, the parking structure of the former WTC and it is ok... we are going to write you and Kim Jong Ill a mean letter and tell you not to do it again because we are to PC to take action and stand up for ourselves. That is a healthy image!

Tax cuts for the richest Americans? Tell me if you consider your high school teacher who is married to another high school educator rich? Those are the people who received tax cuts. According to liberals if you make - in a combined income, 100,000 or more per year you are RICH. Really, I know people who make that money and they struggle to get by. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GET TAX CUTS! This is the annual income of two married teachers. Neglecting the middle and lower classes, how? Sounds like opinion? Give some fact please.

Are we waring Iran? Do you think that we would really? This country is not in a state to handle a war. Although it might help to boost the dollar... Maybe we should. WTF, lets war with everyone. N. Korea is killing humans by the thousands monthly by starving them. Lets kill the N. Koreans. China is still a communist country - lets war them. Really though, think about the propaganda that the liberal media machine spits out... choose to balance your intake of media - check out the liberal NY Times or LA times then counter it with the Washington Times... and make your own decision. Balance the TV news with talk radio.

I will answer your question - if you want some conservative literature let me give you some authors:

Classics

Moral - CS Lewis
Economic Adam Smith - father of the invisible hand
Political Structure - Locke

other authors: Irving Kristol, Larry Elder

If you want a basic example of how this works in government - read the federalist papers - the feds being democrats and the anti-feds being republicans....

Good Luck!

[resrchmnkygrl6]

Or stereotypically! It is time to look at the facts lest we be led astray. Lowering income inequality... it is a joke to think that the Democratic Party in America has had any success with this what-so-ever. I think that the best thing that has been done to help this problem is to instill "Personal Responsibility for your actions and decisions" this is something that the Republicans have taken to heart. Take for example Rudy in NY, the people of that city love him... not because he dressed in drag, but because he nearly eliminated welfare from the city and made the citizens responsible for themselves and their economic decisions. NY is one of the healthiest cities in the nation now - less crime, better socio-economic, and better more livable environment.

Global Warming.... Give me a break! Stop drinking the Clinton/Gore Kool-aid!

And as far as Americas image in the world... I think that pre-9/11 we told everyone, including Al-Queda that you can bitch slap us around, bomb our boats, embassies abroad, the parking structure of the former WTC and it is ok... we are going to write you and Kim Jong Ill a mean letter and tell you not to do it again because we are to PC to take action and stand up for ourselves. That is a healthy image!

Tax cuts for the richest Americans? Tell me if you consider your high school teacher who is married to another high school educator rich? Those are the people who received tax cuts. According to liberals if you make - in a combined income, 100,000 or more per year you are RICH. Really, I know people who make that money and they struggle to get by. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GET TAX CUTS! This is the annual income of two married teachers. Neglecting the middle and lower classes, how? Sounds like opinion? Give some fact please.

Are we waring Iran? Do you think that we would really? This country is not in a state to handle a war. Although it might help to boost the dollar... Maybe we should. WTF, lets war with everyone. N. Korea is killing humans by the thousands monthly by starving them. Lets kill the N. Koreans. China is still a communist country - lets war them. Really though, think about the propaganda that the liberal media machine spits out... choose to balance your intake of media - check out the liberal NY Times or LA times then counter it with the Washington Times... and make your own decision. Balance the TV news with talk radio.

I will answer your question - if you want some conservative literature let me give you some authors:

Classics

Moral - CS Lewis
Economic Adam Smith - father of the invisible hand
Political Structure - Locke

other authors: Irving Kristol, Larry Elder

If you want a basic example of how this works in government - read the federalist papers - the feds being democrats and the anti-feds being republicans....

Good Luck!
Wow, that was a lot to take in.

[lazzarat]

Or stereotypically! It is time to look at the facts lest we be led astray. Lowering income inequality... it is a joke to think that the Democratic Party in America has had any success with this what-so-ever. I think that the best thing that has been done to help this problem is to instill "Personal Responsibility for your actions and decisions" this is something that the Republicans have taken to heart. Take for example Rudy in NY, the people of that city love him... not because he dressed in drag, but because he nearly eliminated welfare from the city and made the citizens responsible for themselves and their economic decisions. NY is one of the healthiest cities in the nation now - less crime, better socio-economic, and better more livable environment.

Actually, lowering income inequality has only very recently become just a Democrat issue. Used to, Republicans and Democrats agreed on this, and income inequality was much lower in the 50s and 60s. I think you're confusing income inquality with poverty; they're related but that's not what I'm talking about. Please read my other post, because you haven't addressed a single one of my points, and in fact you thought I was talking about something else. Then when you want to disagree with the U.S. census, feel free.

Direct link to my post: http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=8067717#post806771 7

Global Warming.... Give me a break! Stop drinking the Clinton/Gore Kool-aid!

Please tell that to every Republican Presidential candidate now, because every single one (at least the major ones) agrees with me that global warming exists and that there should be action against it (though only some, like Mike Huckabee, propose caps, etc - that makes Democrats better). So replace Clinton/Gore with Romney/Giuliani/McCain/Huckabee, please.

And as far as Americas image in the world... I think that pre-9/11 we told everyone, including Al-Queda that you can bitch slap us around, bomb our boats, embassies abroad, the parking structure of the former WTC and it is ok... we are going to write you and Kim Jong Ill a mean letter and tell you not to do it again because we are to PC to take action and stand up for ourselves. That is a healthy image!

I'm certainly not against attacking al-Qaeda. Straw man argument. I'm against the war with Iraq, as with 75% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans now.

Read my recent essay on the war in Iraq here if anyone is interested: http://jonathancoley.pbwiki.com/Iraq:+The+Wrong+War

And what you don't understand is that our image in the world, which has been damaged by the Iraq war, is very important in the war on terror.

Tax cuts for the richest Americans? Tell me if you consider your high school teacher who is married to another high school educator rich? Those are the people who received tax cuts. According to liberals if you make - in a combined income, 100,000 or more per year you are RICH. Really, I know people who make that money and they struggle to get by. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GET TAX CUTS! This is the annual income of two married teachers. Neglecting the middle and lower classes, how? Sounds like opinion? Give some fact please.

Yes, you are rich if you make 100,000. What you're saying is absolutely dispicable. 1.2 billion people in the world live on less than $1 a day; another 1.6 billion live on less than $2 a day. And you mean to tell me $100,000 a year ($274/day) isn't rich? And the median income in America is in the $40,000s; that's over double the average American.

Average median household income info: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

Are we waring Iran? Do you think that we would really? This country is not in a state to handle a war. Although it might help to boost the dollar... Maybe we should. WTF, lets war with everyone. N. Korea is killing humans by the thousands monthly by starving them. Lets kill the N. Koreans. China is still a communist country - lets war them. Really though, think about the propaganda that the liberal media machine spits out... choose to balance your intake of media - check out the liberal NY Times or LA times then counter it with the Washington Times... and make your own decision. Balance the TV news with talk radio.

You're right, we aren't in a state for another war. Please tell that to Bush, Giuliani, etc., because they are banging the drums for war pretty loudly right now. And for your information, I have a subscription to the very conservative National Review and read it every time. And I don't watch TV news or talk radio - way too shallow. I don't need two people yelling at eachother to get me to believe something.

I will answer your question - if you want some conservative literature let me give you some authors:

Classics

Moral - CS Lewis
Economic Adam Smith - father of the invisible hand
Political Structure - Locke

other authors: Irving Kristol, Larry Elder

I have read literally over half of C.S. Lewis' books and have them on my bookshelf at home. Chronicles of Narnia, Science Fiction Trilogy, Screwtape Letters, Great Divorce, Mere Christianity, God in the Dock, etc., etc. I've read all of those.

And yes, I actually have read Adam Smith, have you? Adam Smith advocates government intervention in markets pretty strongly, most conservatives forget that.

Irving Kristol, I've read bits and pieces, and his idea of neoconservatism is one of the worst things ever to happen to America. I used to read his son's magazine, though.

I used to be conservative, so almost any author you can throw at me I've read. My advice to you is to read both sides (try Paul Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal to start), and to avoid TV shows and talk radio shows (get your news from the internet - faster, with less of the spin; books are always better for getting opinions; and watch the Sunday morning talk shows like Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, etc. - they're infinitely better than O'Reilly).

If you want a basic example of how this works in government - read the federalist papers - the feds being democrats and the anti-feds being republicans....

Good Luck!

I actually took a class on the Federalist Papers. And I would actually HIGHLY disagree with your assessment. The Federalist were against protections of civil liberties, etc; the anti-Federalists were for. And if you want to make the case that Republicans aren't big spenders, like Federalists were believed... go ahead and try to make the case. The biggest deficits have always been by Republicans, not Democrats, and Bush is the highest spender in history. We are arguing Democrats vs. Republicans, after all.

[Jarrodtexas]

Are you serious? Do you think that this site represents the tormented youth? Making them most likely to be democrats? Also INDEPENDENT is a political party not a state of mind. Jarrod - go to wikipedia and do some research on political parties in the United States, I am sure that you will soon be surprised that there is more then 2 parties.



Yeah, what you are saying is completely obvious and I undertsnad that, however my generalizations pretty much sum up this website.