Do you think Republicans believe in personal responsibility to the point they will destroy society.?
Do you think they believe the world is the way they want it to be rather than how it is. For example, they stress abstinence only programs, but studies have shown that they actually have the opposite of the intended effect. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con... Also they stress that the corporations will self regulate. Have they figured out that that doesn't work yet? We would spend less tax money if we had a socialized medical system, and those systems work. Ask a Canadian, I've never met one who doesn't like their system Their government pays out 1/3rd the money for healthcare that ours does. This is not including the money that the rest of us pay for doctor visits or to our HMO's. (in france you can even get a free face transplant)
Why do American liberals compare themselves to Europeans, when American liberals are nothing like them?
The thing about Europeans that makes their entitlement programs work is that most Europeans know their place in life. There is no social/economic mobility in Europe. European young adults don't go to college hoping to live in a big house and drive fancy cars and keep up with the Joneses the way young American adults do. In fact most Europeans know they'll probably never own a big house (even the wealthy live in small houses because of a lack of space), they don't drive cars (too expensive to pay for insurance and gas) and won't go after liberal arts degree hoping to make money (because they know there's no money to be made from that). Most Europeans never see themselves as joining the upper class or being in nobility, they don't even try. In contrast, Americans seem to set high goals, that most people will probably not be able to achieve (in case you haven't noticed). Most young adult Europeans don't go to college, live home with their parents, many don't get married, don't have cars, and love working and saving up money so they can party and go clubbing. That's great, as long as it's self-sustaining. That's workable because Europeans know their place in society and don't try to be what they're not. Most Europeans get 40-50% of their wages taxes by the government and pay more in taxes for everything including electronics and food. Basically, Europeans live within their means. They're realistic, which is what American liberals are not. American liberals want to have it all. They want a great private sector and a heavily taxed system at the same time. If you want to get something, you pay for it, but if you give all your money to the government, then you won't have money left. What I'm saying is, Europeans are for social entitlement, but they are also a people who understand living within their means and their place in society. The idea of sustainability and real world applicability is missing from the whole American liberal equation.
How did the "Robber barons" help America if capitalism always works better?
http://mises.org/daily/2317 Market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not. Liberals, as usual, are unable to see the vast differences. They erroneously lump the 2 together. In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad. Rockefeller for instance devised means of eliminating much of the incredible waste that had plagued the oil industry. His chemists figured out how to produce such oil byproducts as lubricating oil, gasoline, paraffin wax, Vaseline, paint, varnish, and about three hundred other substances. In each instance he profited by eliminating waste. One of Rockefeller's harshest critics was journalist Ida Tarbell, whose brother was the treasurer of the Pure Oil Company, which could not compete with Standard Oil's low prices. She published a series of hypercritical articles in McClure's magazine in 1902 and 1903, which were turned into a book entitled The History of the Standard Oil Company, a classic of anti-business propaganda. The fact Standard oil was so efficient allowed them to have lower prices. The lower prices forced it's competitors to retaliate the only way they could: Government anti-trust legislation. They assumed Standard oil and companies like it, were able to reduce prices due to a war chest of profits. However, this wasn't true at all. Common sense tells us with lower prices, they couldn't possibly have enough of a war chest to force competition out of business. In the 1930's the American Petroleum Institute (an industry trade association) lobbied for various regulatory schemes to restrict competition and prop up prices; it did not even pretend to be in favor of capitalism or free enterprise. The institute even endorsed the use of National Guard troops to enforce state government production quotas in Texas and Oklahoma in the early l930s. To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity. SO ... This begs the question; who were the real robber barons? Government or capitalists?
Why do many people believe the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes in the US?
My father knew a man once who increased his earnings (he owned his own company, as did my father) until he entered a new tax bracket. For the first time, he hired a tax lawyer to see if he could pay less. By the time this lawyer was done with corporate dodges, shelters, exceptions, exemptions, and write offs, he was paying less than half what he should have been paying. Every person who can afford a tax lawyer pays little or not taxes. Look at how Trump and Hillary both did not have to pay taxes.The liberals want to jack the tax rate on the rich up to 80% max or even more, but it will do no good as long as the rich can use these tax exemptions to their advantage. (Besides, it’s unconstitutional, IMHO) A better way would be to eliminate these tax dodges. The easiest way to do this is to put in a flat tax rate, but, despite their claim that they are not protecting the interests of the rich, the Democrats are the ones who are fighting against it the hardest. They say it’s because they want a “progressive” tax (an euphemism for taxing what ever they feel like), but the real reason is that, like the Republicans, they are dominated by wealthy people like Clinton and the Kennedies who like the laws the way they are.
As someone economically conservative but socially liberal, whom should I support, Democrats or Republicans?
Others have claimed your views are libertarian. This isn't completely accurate. The views you mentioned certainly lean libertarian but the libertarian position on these subjects is more nuanced.You say you support gay marriage. Many religious Republicans would seek to prevent homosexuals from ever marrying. Many Democrats don't just support gay marriage they want to use law to force people to accept it and even force participation in gay weddings. Libertarians question why the government is regulating marriage at all. Many people don't realize that prior to the mid 19th century marriage did not require a license and the state's only interest was in documenting dates marriages were established or disolved. The first states that required licensure did so to criminalize interracial marriages, a practice now ruled unconstitutional.As for antidiscrimination, most libertarians feel antidiscrimination laws should apply only to government because it has been the worst offender. It was not business owners that made an exception for slavery in the constitution or enacted laws requiring free states to return escaped slaves to their owners or passed Jim Crow laws that made it illegal for black Americans to drink from the same water fountains, eat at the same tables or sit in the same section of a bus as a white person. These were all actions of government.It should be noted that consumers are allowed to discriminate against businesses for any reason whatsoever. Anyone suggesting a consumer should be compelled to purchase from a business because it is owned by a protected class would be verbally attacked by both parties. Why shouldn't business owners have the same freedom consumers do?Make no mistake. Discrimination is childish and counterproductive and any business owner would be risking profit loss by engaging in it. But it is systemic discrimination by government that causes the most harm.Neither of the two major political parties is blameless when it comes to violating the natural rights of individuals. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the institution of government is little more than violence and theft perpetrated under the guise of moral necessity. A growing number of libertarians share this view.