parados wrote:
First of all, these are NOT in the law so they don't support your previous statement.
I didn't say they were in the law as what is in the law does not determine what is and is not a conservative principle. And they do support all the applicable statements I have made in this thread re what I consider to constitute conservative values.
Quote:Please explain how those 4 ideas are conservative ideas and not universal ones.
Please give examples of "conservatives" actually acting on those ideas.
We are back to the same vague statements from you, that are not supported in any fashion other than your say so.
In the past your statements have been so vague they could be applied to any political movement or they are so narrow that no one other than you considers them "conservative
."
What is to support? Are you really so uneducated to have never taken a thought or concept at face value and argued for or against it? Why do you suppose such a process seems to alien or 'vague' to you? Could it be that you are so brainwashed in liberalism that you have lost your ability to think independently on your own?
It should be obvious to anybody even casually scanning this thread that all conservatives do not agree on every issue nor do I claim to be the final authority on conservatism here. I do think there are some basic ocncepts on which we do all agree at least in the broadest sense.
Repeating the four principles in question here: (which are by no means the only principles that could apply)
Some conservative principles that would reduce or eliminate a lot of corruption in government:
1) No elected federal official should be able to vote himself/herself a single benefit or increase in income nor vote on any law or regulation that would in any way materially benefit him/her personally.
You said
Quote:Hardly a conservative concept.
It was democrats that have pushed for the latest lobbying reform to stop the enrichment of politicians. "Conservative" Republicans blocked such reform in 2006
.
It certainly is a conservative concept and I doubt seriously that ‘conservative’ Republicans or any other conservatives blocked any meaningful or sensible lobby reform. But whomever might have blocked lobby reform has absolutely nothing to do with the principle itself. It has not been conservatives who schedule sessions late in the night after the reporters go home in order to vote themselves higher salaries, a better pension plan, an improved health plan, a bigger expense account. If lawmakers were forbidden by a sense of ethics or by law from using their votes to benefit themselves through lobbyists or by using their office to grant favors to selected entities or voting themselves goodies directly from the public treasury, we would have a much different Congress than we now have.
Example: In New Mexico, state legislators are not paid but rather work on a per diem basis for the time the legislature is in session each year. The taxpayers vote on whether that per diem should be increased. If the federal government worked on a similar basis, we would again have public servants as our elected representatives rather than people who will do anything to stay in office where they are enormously enriching themselves.
2) The federal government should not be a source of charity to any group, organization or individual.
You said:
Quote:"Charity" is a vague term. Find me a single politician that has never pushed for a law to benefit someone. Even a targeted tax cut is charity if everyone doesn't get the same cut. This may be a conservative principle in your mind but there is no evidence of there ever being a conservative politician supporting it in deed.
Charity is not a vague term at all. As it pertains to government largesse, charity is a gift for public benevolent purposes. In other words, the recipient does nothing to merit or earn it but receives it purely because the government deems that he or she needs it or should have it. He or she is not expected to return it to the treasury. It does not matter which politicians push for whatever laws to benefit anybody as that does not change the principle involved in any way.
Example: Up to FDR, American Presidents and Congress took the view that there was no Constitutional authority to administer humanitarian aid or any other benevolence from the public treasury and other than on an extremely narrow and limited basis, they didn’t do it. Result, Congress focused on policies to help the people prosper but was unable to use the people’s money to buy their votes or favors.
3) No federal taxes should be collected other than to fund functions of government mandated by and within the intended scope of the Constitution.
You said
Quote:This is an interesting argument since it requires the scope of the constitution be defined. All current taxes and spending ARE within the scope of the constitution. None of them are "unconstitutional." How would it prevent corruption since corruption occurs even with all being constitutional?
If our federal government focused on Constitutionally mandated functions and restricted the federal government to only that which cannot be accomplished more effectively or efficiently at the state level or in the private sector, we would have a small, efficient, effective conservative government in which it would be far more difficult to be corrupt or to hide corruption.
Example: A conservative government would never have agreed to those hundreds of billions of chunks of taxpayer dollars to bail out failing banks and industries. A conservative government also would never have required lending institutions to make unsecured loans or impose regulations that hurt and hamper industry which led to the current problems in the first place.
4) Government should lead or drive people out of poverty rather than make them comfortable in it. (apologies to Ben Franklin)
You said
Quote:The welfare system has never made people "comfortable". It might allow them to live but it doesn't make them comfortable. It is a RW myth that all those people are getting rich on welfare. I am unclear how this would prevent corruption.
For most willing to live on the public dole, that way of life is quite comfortable or they would do something about it. Whole generations have grown up expecting subsidized housing, government healthcare, and various other forms of welfare on demand, and this is not healthy for them or for the country. A humane society takes care of the truly helpless, but it does not encourage helplessness among the people no matter how well intended.
Now then, you seem to think that one or more of these are universal principles and cannot be claimed by conservatism. Please provide a rationale for that with examples if you can think of some.
