AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But he too is disgusted with the level of argumentation and the direction of conversation that is used in the Republican party nowadays. I have no doubt that he pulled the lever for his guys in this last election, but he's always talking about how disappointing it is that the face of the party can't make intelligent arguments for things and in many cases rely upon emotional exhortations and overblown cries of Socialism to get people riled up.Cycloptichorn

I found your post interesting about your brother, cyclops, but I had to stop here on this paragraph. Shultz just today talked to, I think, Bernie Sanders, or had a tape of stuff he said about the election. It was as if Bernie Sanders is the poster boy for the Democratic Party, but for crying out loud the guy is an avowed and staunch Socialist. He and other socialists in Congress might as well be communists, they often advocate their would be policies. I would disagree with your brother, in that the cries about Socialism are not overblown, they are real and they are serious. What do you think single payer universal health care is, if it isn't socialist, cyclops?

I am proud to say I am not a socialist, and therefore I will not vote Democrat, period.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Rightest approve stealing from our children and grandchildren by transferring current government spending to them, and not taxing those who can afford to reduce the deficit while they are able.
It's okay to steal from our children according to the conservative view.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The last time the budget was balanced was when Newt Gingrich and a Republican congress did it, ci. If Obama will quit spending, and if Republicans can gain control over both the House and Senate, maybe there is hope of it happening again someday?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quit spending on what? Please be specific, because your global "spending" doesn't mean anything. Do you mean quit spending on the war in Afghanistan?

You need to provide detail on what you mean by spending.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Tough issue, ci. Yes, I think we have to at some point realize we simply cannot afford to keep fighting wars in too many places. I agree with both Bush and Obama when they have said that at some point, the Iraqis and the Afghanis will have to step up to the plate and govern themselves. I think we have already gone the extra mile. I don't know what I would do if given the responsiblity of making the decisions in regard to those wars, but we need to exit as soon as it is practical to do so.

Maybe we should just get out, with the promise that if any terrorist hits us again, on the scale of a 9/11 or worse, and is operating out of their countries, we will blow them to smithereens. Not a real sanitary solution, but it is one to consider.

1 Reply

@okie,

The wars are only one spending issue. We need to look at every line item, every department and examine the spending in detail. Some of the departments that come to mind are Department of Interior, Agriculture, Education, Energy, HUD, all of them. I would also look at wage freezes across the board in the federal government, starting at the top with political offices. After all, if they cannot balance the checkbook, they do not deserve a raise.

And the real tough reality is that entitlements are killing the budget, including Social Security and Medicare to start with. Their growth is out of control, with no end in sight.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am proud to say I am not a socialist, and therefore I will not vote Democrat, period.

When are you going to say that you are dangerously misinformed?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Will somebody please ask okie, who in the US government is a socialist?

Quote:

so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You keep saying that the rich should pay more in taxes, because they "can afford it".
But, even if you were to confiscate every penny of wealth, income (present and future), and property the wealthy own, just how much do you think that would reduce the deficit, and how long till we had another deficit?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mm, I'm have never suggested that we tax the wealthy at 100%. There are two sides to this issue; one is living within our means, and the other is to make every effort to control our growing national debt that our children will be responsible to pay.

The wealthy in our country are getting wealthier while the middle class and poor are losing jobs, homes, and security at current tax rates. There is nothing unethical or wrong about taxing the high income earners more to reduce our deficit.

Americans are mad, because they blame Obama for the increasing deficit, but they also don't understand what was needed to save the banks and financial institutions (that was needed to save our economy from bankruptcy), to help keep shelter and food for those who have lost jobs (dependents must be sheltered, clothed, and fed), and to keep paying for a war half way around the world. These problems are not the creation of Obama; he inherited these problems from GW Bush.

However, they wanted Obama to perform (more) miracles, even as he cut taxes for the majority of the middle class during his two years in office.

The American people are disengaged from reality, and blame a president who essentially saved our economy from going into a depression, and continued to save families from starving.

You want miracles? You're not going to get it from the GOP; all they want to do is cut more taxes without cutting spending.
However, you'd better hope they don't cut off your social security and Medicare, because that's what they've been suggesting this past year.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

mm, I'm have never suggested that we tax the wealthy at 100%. There are two sides to this issue; one is living within our means, and the other is to make every effort to control our growing national debt that our children will be responsible to pay

I didnt say you were suggesting that.
I simply asked what you thought the effect on our economy would be if we did.
As for the rest of that statement, the only way we can do both, live within our means AND control the debt, is to cut spending on the govt level.

No matter how much you increase taxes, if govt keeps getting more money, without some sort of mandated controls on their spending, they will continue to run a deficit.

Quote:

These problems are not the creation of Obama; he inherited these problems from GW Bush.

That doesnt work now.
Obama has been President long enough that he owns the problems now.
He could have ended our involvement in Afghanistan already, saving billions of $$ right there.
He has passed his budget at least once.
He could have made spending cuts in his budget, and he didnt.

You cannot continue to blame Bush, Obama now has to accept the blame as well, since he has been POTUS for almost 2 years now.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
I am proud to say I am not a socialist, and therefore I will not vote Democrat, period.

When are you going to say that you are dangerously misinformed?

POMade is clueless

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

MM,
Obama has been having to deal with the economy Bush left us.

Which do you want? Jobs or a balanced budget. In an economic downturn you can't have both and you will be lucky to get one.

2 Replies

@parados,

To a large extent that's true: some level of deficit spending in selected areas can indeed be either a spark to economic recovery, or a beneficial way to alleviate the economic pain while keeping things going until recovery occurs. However creating vast new top-down regulatory structures that govern huge sectors of the economy and stifle precisely the new innovations and enterprises that are indispensable for a recovery; and providing very large politically motivated payoffs to the Labor Unions that are in major part responsible for the runaway costs of government at all levels as well as the loss of major manfacturing industries in this country ..... is not the way to do it. These issues were - in my view - major factors in the rerversals the Democrats experienced in the recent elections.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However creating vast new top-down regulatory structures that govern huge sectors of the economy and stifle precisely the new innovations and enterprises that are indispensable for a recovery; and providing very large politically motivated payoffs to the Labor Unions that are in major part responsible for the runaway costs of government at all levels as well as the loss of major manfacturing industries in this country ..... is not the way to do it.

Really? And you can provide evidence of Obama doing this? Or are you so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see reality?

What "top down" regulatory structures that govern huge sectors of the economy were created in the last 18 months? Be specific. I doubt you can come up with any that meet what you just said. I doubt you can even come up with any that meet half of what you said.

1 Reply

@parados,

Evidently you are unaware of the provisions of the legislation addressing health care, financial reform and the other Administration initiatives to expand the regulatory reach of the EPA a potential new consumer "protection" agency; alter the interpretation of existing law by the National Labor Relations Board, and many other matters.

Your blanket denial and truly stupid (indeed petty and laughable) demands for citation don't merit any additional response.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

... However creating vast new top-down regulatory structures that govern huge sectors of the economy and stifle precisely the new innovations and enterprises that are indispensable for a recovery; and providing very large politically motivated payoffs to the Labor Unions that are in major part responsible for the runaway costs of government at all levels as well as the loss of major manfacturing industries in this country ..... is not the way to do it. These issues were - in my view - major factors in the rerversals the Democrats experienced in the recent elections.

Can you explain that part of your statement, too?

According to: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MANEMP.txt and http://blog.american.com/?p=8593

Quote:

From the peak manufacturing employment of 19.5 million jobs in 1979, the American manufacturing workforce has shrunk by more than 40 percent, as almost 8 million manufacturing jobs have been eliminated over the last 30 years, with almost 6 million of those losses taking place just since 2000.

How is that Obama's or the Dems fault?

If you read further in the second link:

Quote:

But here’s where the news about the manufacturing sector gets a little better. According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars), which translates to $234,220 of manufacturing output for each of that sector’s 11.6 million workers, setting an all-time record high for U.S. manufacturing output per worker (see chart below). Workers today produce twice as much manufacturing output as their counterparts did in the early 1990s, and three times as much as in the early 1980s, thanks to innovation and advances in technology that have made today’s workers the most productive in history. So at the same time that manufacturing employment has been declining to record low levels, manufacturing output keeps increasing over time, and the amount of output that each manufacturing worker produces keeps rising almost every month to new record high levels.

That, to me, indicates innovation isn't being stifled as you claimed.

Am I missing something?

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

Am I missing something?

Yes you are. The incentives for innovation precisely to reduce or eliminate the need for labor in manufacturing are made much higher by the exploitive, obstructionist behavior of Labor Unions. (I have had extensive direct experience with these issues.) They resist beneficial changes in workflow and process management, and demand an ever higher share of the revenues, for ever less value-added work in the face of increasing price competition from foreign manufacturers. Indeed in most manufacturing industries in this country the only way to survive in increasingly competitive and global markets is to invest heavily in expensive automation precisely to avoid large labor forces and the disruptions associated with parasitic unions. The last strike by the UAW against General Motors was precisely over this issue. GM wanted to improve the automation of their plants in Michigan to make them more competitive interms of both coat and quality with non union Toyota plants in Kentucky and other areas, and the UAW went on strike at a carefully chosen critical time in the product cycle and won. GM collapsed a few years later. This wasn't the only cause, but it was a core element of what brought the company down for every one. A similar story could be told about the now departed U.S. textile industry.

Your research is admirable, but you have drawn the wrong conclusion from it.

2 Replies

Allowing the wealthy to spend their money the way they want will do far more for the unwealthy than allowing the government to decide how to spend the wealthy's money. Allowing the government to decide how to spend more of the the wealthy's money will not only reduce the wealthy's money. It will reduce everyone's money except the government's.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Your research is admirable, but you have drawn the wrong conclusion from it.

Well, she can't compete with your assertions, because you just claim you're right no matter what and never provide any evidence. How can anyone know for sure that her conclusions are wrong and yours are right? You certainly provide no reason for them to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know