Here is my input on your post, guy.
thatmfguy wrote:I'm really just curious how many people on both sides would agree with my views. So here goes:
This is a more Libertarian position. Both conservatives and liberals have grown govt beyond the bounds the Constitution intentionally placed on the federal govt, over the past century. However, I believe with the popularity of the Tea Party's values and their influence have driven conservatives and Republicans more to the side of pro-Constitution and limited govt. Let's hope it takes. (Agree, I'm pro-Constitution)
thatmfguy wrote:Pro-life, but I think it should be a woman's choice to have an abortion (except in for contraceptive purposes) HOWEVER...the taxpayer should not be required to pay for it.
This is a solid conservative view-point. The extreme conservative view is no abortions ever. However, the majority of conservatives have little problem with abortions for rape, incest and safety of the mother. Regardless, most conservatives seem to agree that tax payer money shouldn't be involved. (Agree, limited use of abortions (not birth control replacement) & no tax dollar funding, period)
thatmfguy wrote:Military: I believe in a strong national defense. I agree that we have some treaties to uphold but I don't agree we need multiple bases in 130 countries. I feel we should have joint bases in a few strategic locations. I do not think we should police the world nor be part of the UN. I think we should only go to war when there is an imminent threat against the US and go to war by vote, with what we need to kill the enemy quick and come home.
This is a conservative value. Extreme libertarians (like Ron Paul) don't want a strong military. While this has merit in the Constitution, it is not realistic in light of the dangers of today. Agree we need presence in strategic locations and that the scope of overseas bases need review. Yep, need to get out of the UN (this will save tax dollars as well) since it is corrupt and spends most of its time attacking the US. Disagree that we go to war by vote (assuming in Congress). That would result in no wars since Congress can't even get a budget passed. It only takes a few to derail the process and it wouldn't be timely. Totally agree to use our military to destroy the enemy, not to nation build. (Agree somewhat.)
thatmfguy wrote:Foreign aid: Should only be given for famine, etc. No arming other nations (unless they plan to pay us, in full) no nation building, etc.
This seems to be a libertarian position versus conservative. Arming other nations is one of the ways we get money for the govt. Israel buys weapons from us as well as multiple other countries. These sales should be limited to nations that share our interests. However, this is more complicated than can be discussed here. Sometimes, it is necessary to pick the lesser of two evils in a foreign conflict. As far as nation building, that can have positive effects (Japan, Germany, Italy) if done correctly. However, it is not the military's role. (Disagree somewhat)
thatmfguy wrote:Taxes: I think a tax on personal earned income is involuntary servitude and quite frankly, theft/extortion. You already pay a plethora of other taxes and income tax makes up roughly 40-45% of govt revenue. Therefore, I think citizens both rich and poor should not pay a tax on money they earn. If anyone else besides govt did it, it would be extortion. This loss of revenue can be offset by getting rid of duplicate govt agencies, a sensible, fiscally conservative foreign policy and cutting waste.
This is a libertarian position. Over taxation is definitely servitude and theft/extortion. However, the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. I disagree with the progressive tax scale and the thousands of pages of tax code that have built-in breaks/goodies for the politically connected (R & D). It needs to be one flat tax rate across the board (to include business) for income at a reasonable level like 10%-15%. So a person that earns $50K would pay only $5K-$7.5K and someone who earns $3M would pay $300K-$450K. Even a 5-yr old can see that the rich guy pays more (hence, paying his fair share). Do away with inheritance taxes (if grandpa earned it and already paid taxes, he should be able to give it to whoever he wants). Also, do away with all capital gains taxes. Very few people make all of their income via investments, most already paid income taxes on that money before it gets invested. For them, the govt gets 2 bites of their money. Besides, investment money helps businesses grow and create jobs. A chainsaw needs to be sent through the govt to reduce waste. (Agree mostly)
thatmfguy wrote:State sovereignty. The states should make most major decisions themselves, overseen the the Federal govt. The role of Federal govt is defense and settling disputes between states.
Conservative view. The Constitution establishes this concept in Article X. It's been eroded by all 3 branches of govt over time. (Agree completely)
thatmfguy wrote:No corporate welfare. No bailouts. No unions, corporations, etc involved in politics, just people.
Libertarian view point. Both liberals and conservatives have been involved in corporate welfare and it needs to stop. As far as union/corporation involvement in politics, they should be allowed to pool their money in support of a candidate they agree with, but they should never get tax dollars/political favors from the politician if he/she gets elected. I feel that their ability to buy campaign commercials is protected under freedom of speech. The corruption/kickbacks is the problem, not the involvement in politics, IMO. Maybe a new law prohibiting federal tax dollars going to non-federal programs would reduce the corruption. (Agree somewhat)
thatmfguy wrote:The Federal Reserve should be ended. No more fiat currency. Currency should be reasonably backed by it's worth in gold/silver/etc...not printed out of thin air.
Libertarian issue being taken up by more and more conservatives (Tea Party influence, again). However, I'm not sure what impact backing our money with gold/silver/etc. would have. The growth of our economy would be limited to what could be dug out of the ground, which could result in stagnation. The financial pie would end up being a finite thing (as liberals seem to believe it is today). Right now, wealth can be created and grown for many people without taking wealth from others (again, liberals ignorantly believe that is going on today). Definitely, needs a good review to see what should back the dollar, but the Fed Reserve has to go. (Half agree)
thatmfguy wrote:Gay marriage. As our rights come from humanity (or Creator) NOT govt, the govt should have no say in the marriage business, period.
Libertarian view (liberals support gay marriage but want the govt to have its say to legalize it). As I stated, this is set in the Constitution as a state issue, not a federal one. I do think civil unions are a good idea because people in a committed relationship should get the same legal protections. The conservative concern on legalizing a form of marriage that is outside traditional definitions is the slippery slope. If gay marriage is legalized, then religious groups like extreme mormons and muslims will claim they have a right to marry multiple wives (which, in extreme cases has women treated as property/slaves). Maybe then, others will wish to marry relatives, or farm animals. I can see the pros and cons of both arguments. Therefore, give it to the states and let them decide what is right. That's the great thing about states rights (when not destroyed by the Fed govt), they are 50 models for experimentation. We can learn what works and what doesn't.