AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

On what basis do you assume that Williams' argument rests on Madison's interpretation of the Constitution other than he used Madison's argument to support his own opinion?

I am giving Williams the benefit of the doubt by assuming that his constitutional authority is Madison, not himself. In principle, Madison's view of the constitution matters a lot to what we should consider constitutional. On the other hand, Williams's personal opinions are of no consequence. I defer to Madison's authority when it comes to the constitution, and when it's not contradicted by Hamilton, or some other founding father of standing equal to Madison's. I do not defer to Walter Williams's authority, though. As you say yourself, his credentials in this field are comparable to mine.

Quote:

Madison, Hamilton, Williams, and I all do seem to be pretty much in agreement that it is not the intent of the Constitution to authorize provision of welfare to specific individuals, groups, or constituents however, and I think you will have a difficult time making a good case to the contrary.

In all due respect, Williams and you are no authorities on interpreting the constitution. Madison and Hamilton are -- and although Madison's interpretation would rule out bailouts, emergency loans, and the like, Hamilton's doesn't. Although Hamilton didn't talk about our current situation, his general interpretation, which I cited above, would clearly cover it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Every President and every Supreme Court Justice swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution stipulates that it is the duty of every Senator and Congressperson to uphold the provisions of the Constitution.

Whether any of these choose to do and/or fail to do that is pretty much the subject of this line of discussion don't you think?

Sure it is. And the answer is, "yes, they are upholding the constitution." You can oppose the measures politically, but if you lose the discussion and the subsequent election, the constitution will not bail you out. And neither will any judge on the Supreme Court -- not even the conservative ones.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

What's amazing is that the forefathers, especially the authors of the Constitution, achieved anything at all since they were actually a bunch of drunks.

Could also explain the American auto industry where the executives are obviously stupid white guys who believe they do their best work after two or three martinis.

0 Replies

Thomas writes

Quote:

In all due respect, Williams and you are no authorities on interpreting the constitution. Madison and Hamilton are -- and although Madison's interpretation would rule out bailouts, emergency loans, and the like, Hamilton's doesn't. Although Hamilton didn't talk about our current situation, his general interpretation, which I cited above, would clearly cover it.

Again, unless you can show some credentials in Constitutional law, I suspect Williams and I are as much authority on interpreting the Constitution and/or evaluating the words and intent of Madison and Hamilton as you are. Our authority comes from being able to read and correctly assess what is actually there. Could we be wrong? Of course, but I think you'll have to provide a more credible argument than you have thus far to make that case.

The primary differences in philosophy between Madison and Hamilton was in how much power should a central Federal government have and not so much what role the Federal government should have. While study of Madison and Hamilton are useful in evaluating the original intent of the wording of the Constitution, in all due respect I do not agree with your interpretation of what Hamilton intended or even in what the Supreme Court ruled. I do not think Hamilton would be in favor of any form of federal government charity any more than Madison was.

Further I think both would be horrified at the current suggestion that the government can use monies that it does not have to spend us out of our current economic downturn most especially when a lot of those monies become charitable contributions to constituencies.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, this is where I rest my case on the constitutionality of the new New Deal legislation going through Congress. I have already made my case as clearly as I'm going to, and I'm not interested in going round and round on it. When I have something new to say about the question, I will.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

That's cool. Agreement to disagree is always an acceptable way to end a cordial difference of opinion.

0 Replies

ANOTHER REMINDER

Wisdom circa 1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747 " 1813)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

0 Replies

I haven't seen a single new idea from conservatives on how to get this country moving. Have you?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Nothing wrong with an old idea "on how to get this country moving again" if its a practical idea that has previously worked and/or there is available valid evidence that it will work.

Liberal socialists on the other hand are advocating old ideas that have not worked to accomplish what they say those old ideas will accomplish.

A conservative idea that has worked in the past is reduction of taxes on the wealthy promotes job opportunities for those not wealthy.

Another conservative idea that has worked in the past is reduction of government purchases given to those not employed by government reduces the size of government deficits.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

The things you mentioned didn't spur the economy a jot.

0 Replies

So what does spur the economy, Advocate? Government jobs? Who will pay the salaries when everybody works for the government? Of course by that time the government will own all the income producing businesses and industry in the country and we will have pure socialism.

Short term jobs paid at taxpayer expense? That's an excellent recipe for swelling the unemployment rolls in a relatively short time.

Do you think that will be better?

Let's consider Boetcker's principles again. Is there any one of these with which you (or anybody else) disagree? Can you see how one or more of these might be in conflict with the current 'liberal' plan to spend us out of our current recession?

Quote:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

In the conservative point of view, the best way to deal with a recession is to use it to regroup, and know that if you tend to business it will resolve itself. The government should be focusing on removing government deterrants to hiring, expansion, and investment instead of seeing government as the means of achieving the desired goals. Liberals are more likely to look to government to save them. Conservatives are more likely to think that for all than Constitutionally mandated functions of government, the people will use their money more wisely than the government will spend it for them.

Unfortunately we don't have enough conservatives in leadership positions to call the shots right now.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The government should be focusing on removing government deterrants to hiring, expansion, and investment instead of seeing government as the means of achieving the desired goals.

What government deterrants to hiring, expansion, and investment do you see that weren't there during the Clinton expansion? Or the Reagan expansion or the Bush II expansion, for that matter.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I think that O has it right. He would give tax cuts to the middle class, which would spend the extra dollars. (The wealthy squirrel the money away or ship the dollars overseas.) Similarly, public works would put money in the pockets of the middle class, which, again, would spend the money. Moreover, the public works are sorely needed and would lead to commercial spinoffs.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The current energy policy for instance requires mandates for increased bio fuels and removal of all sulphur from diesel fuels. That has not increased jobs but it has increased costs that have stifled jobs by raising costs and creating an instability that is conflusing the agriculture industry that doesn't know whether to raise corn or wheat. Consumers are seeing a dramatic impact at the grocery store which cuts into the profits of non-essential products. And since the government has done little or nothing to alleviate dependence on foreign oil and provide incentives and increased ability to energy producers, nobody knows whether the price will be above $100 again in a matter of months which hampers planning and expansion.

The government has required banks to make risky and/or stupid loans to people that could not qualify under practical and sensible lending criteria. Those rules are still in place. As a result the financial system collapsed and lending institutions have essentially frozen monies available for lending. The resulting collapse of the housing market has had an enormous effect on all commerce and industry that depended on that.

The liberals in Congress are pushing ahead to make secret ballots illegal which will greatly strengthen the unions and significantly create problems for some businesses. Until that is resolved, some are choosing not to expand or hire.

With the volatility in the market, much available venture money is sidelined and unavailable to anybody to use. It is not helping when government is creating and even embracing trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

All of these conditions have a ripple effect on other businesses until the whole system slows down or stalls.

These are just a few things off the top of my head that are apparent to me, and every single one of them resulted at least in part from fuzzy government policy or meddling.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiativ...

It's absolutely stunning, the hypocrisy, oh the hypocrisy, that you can place these here and not see just how hypocritical you are.

Quote:

Unfortunately we don't have enough conservatives in leadership positions to call the shots right now.

Yeah, that's worked out well over the past 8 years. What a grand idea.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I think that O has it right. He would give tax cuts to the middle class, which would spend the extra dollars. (The wealthy squirrel the money away or ship the dollars overseas.) Similarly, public works would put money in the pockets of the middle class, which, again, would spend the money. Moreover, the public works are sorely needed and would lead to commercial spinoffs.

You don't 'give tax cuts'. You rather allow people to keep more of their own money. If that was his plan I would be 100% in favor of it. His plan however includes a considerable amount of taking my money and your money giving it to those who did not earn it. That is not a recipe for lasting economic growth or prosperity.

The only public works that have long range positive effect on the economy are those that naturally follow the economy; i.e. business is exanding into sector A and therefore roads, sewers, and water mains need to be provided to that area. Make work public works that are not dictated by economic growth are simply short term depletions of the national treasury or increase in the national debt and do not provide positive long term benefits that spur the economy.

Again, is there any one of Boetcker's principles with which you disagree?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

thomas

Calls to the number I had for you ring and ring and "memory full". Better call me again. Frank, Jonathan, Kicky, Jane and I are on for Monday night about 7 at 330 7th ave (between 28th and 29th)

0 Replies

FDR's version of socialism did not work.

Why assume BHO's more extreme version of FDR's socialism will work?

Quote:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/01/the_new_deal_an.html
January 10, 2007
The New Deal and the Great Depression
Rates of Unemployment
1929 -- 3.2% Hoover era begins, March
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9% (20.9%) Roosevelt era begins, March
1934 -- 21.7% (16.2%)
1935 -- 20.1% (14.4%)
1936 -- 16.9% (10.0%)
1937 -- 14.3% ( 9.2%) Recession begins, May
1938 -- 19.0% (12.5%) Recession ends, June
1939 -- 17.2% (11.3%)
1940 -- 14.6%
1941 -- 9.9%
Numbers in brackets correct for employment in New Deal programs.

Michael Tanner in [u]The Washington Times[/u], Friday, July 25,2008 wrote:

Peter Orszag is no conservative ideologue. The head of the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) was a scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution before being picked for his current position by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet Mr. Orszag recently warned that the rising cost of federal entitlement programs, particularly Medicare, Medicaid,, and Social Security, poses a grave threat to America’s economic future.

According to Mr. Orszag, without dramatic reform, the cost of those three programs alone will rise from 18 percent of GDP today to 28 percent by the middle of the century and as much as 35 percent soon thereafter. That means that just three federal government programs will be consuming between a quarter and a third of everything the country produces. Paying for those programs would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35 percent to 88 percent, the current 25 percent tax rate for middle income workers to 63 percent, and the 10 percent tax bracket for low-income workers to 25 percent. The impact on workers, businesses and the economy at large would be catastrophic.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

The statements were meaningless BS the first time you posted them and still are.
The statements are vague bromides. They have no real meaning.
1. Does this mean that conservatives are wrong when they urge people to shop more? The consumer is the driving force of the US economy. Encourage them to stop shopping and we get a recession. Yes, thrift is important but thrift at the expense of everything else is no good either.
2. Complete nonsense. In some instances you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. It depends on how you do it. Let's look at a simple chemistry problem as an example. If you have a 100% acid solution and a 2% solution you can make the weak stronger by simply pouring the two together. If you merely subtract from the 100% without adding to the 2% then it doesn't work. You can sometimes strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. No one is proposing "destroying" the rich. Destruction has a meaning that you seem to want to ignore Fox. If the rich person has only 3 billion instead of 4 billion were they "destroyed"?
4. Vague beyond extreme. "class hatred" is what? Taxation of the wealthy isn't class hatred, it is sound fiscal policy. Only a fool would call it class hatred.
5. This is true but the statement is vague in how you take away their initiative. Make someone poor, don't give them a job or an opportunity to get one and what have you done with their initiative?
6. I guess that means that no one will be helped by sending Madoff to jail so we shouldn't do it.
7. Meaningless statement because it is so vague. How is the wage payer pulled down by paying a living wage? Any good businessman knows the key to profit is employees.
8. False statement. Future earnings and wealth are not factored into the statement. Income has meaning. Wealth has meaning. If I have $10 million, a mortgage, and no income because my investments all lost money in 2008, I can easily pay my mortgage and stay out of trouble without an income.
9. Also false. How many people borrow to buy a house?
10. Perhaps not, but you can help the children.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Perhaps you should have considered this before you attempt to tear down liberals Fox

6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know