AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

They are all talk on this issue.

The two greatest increases in national debt came under Ronald Reagan...and under George W. Bush.

It like term limits. The conservatives go on and on about that...but whenever they get into power...they shitcan it.

They talk about smaller government...and they increase government all the time. They talk about balanced budgets...but they increase the national debt.

Conservatism is the phoniest political philosophy ever!

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

American conservatism had free reign in imposing its ideas over six of the last eight years, and this essentially brought the USA to its knees. More ideas from the right might finally destroy this country.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

American conservatism had free reign in imposing its ideas over six of the last eight years, and this essentially brought the USA to its knees. More ideas from the right might finally destroy this country.

We've had our disagreement lately, Advocate...but I am 5 x 5 with you here.

In fact, American conservatism has been in total ascendency from the time Richard Nixon took office in the early 1970's through right now. That is the better part of four decades...and we have been on a downward spiral the entire of that time. Even when Democratic presidents have been in office...or when there has been Democratic control of one house or the other...the fear of conservatives has been enormous. Liberals and Democrats have bowed down to them throughout these last four decades...and both have done a huge disservice to our country and the world.

I can only hope we finally are on the correct path.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your observation mirrors mine; the dems have failed to live up to their democratic policies too. They've bent with Bush too often, and lost the confidence of the American people.

0 Replies

MAC is the solution. MAL is the problem.

MAC requires and encourages self-reliance. MAL obstructs and discourages self-reliance.

Even when MAC is employed incompletely, it provides a partial solution.

Even when MAL is employed incompletely it provides a significiant problem.

FDR's version of MAL prolonged the depression. Unemployment began at more than 24% in 1933 (blame that on Hoover doubling the personal income tax in 1932 and FDR not subsequently decreasing it) and did not get below 10% until 1940 when the USA began to prepare for war.

MAC even when partially followed maintains individual freedom.

MAL when totally followed leads to and maintains individual supression.

0 Replies

Bunch of ******* nut cases!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bunch of ******* nut cases!

Frank, I think you're capable of a much more rational rebuttal than that to refute my comparison of MAL and MAC.
I recommend that first you provide your definition of MAL. Then explain based on that definition why you think I have mischaracterized MAL. Then explain what you think the positive attributes of MAL actually are. Then compare those positive attributes with what you think the attributes of MAC actually are.

That of course will then put me in the position of having to either justify both my characterization of MAL and my characterization of MAC, and/or refute your characterization of MAL..

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Frank, I think you're capable of a much more rational rebuttal than that to refute my comparison of MAL and MAC.

Of course he is. But why mince words when five sums up the argument perfectly.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Thanks, Cycloptichorn.

I thought I captured the spirit of things pretty well myself.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Republican does not equal conservative, cyclops. You have been told that dozens of times. When Reagan was in office, tax revenues ballooned, but one problem, government spending grew even faster. We had a Democratic congress, remember?

As a matter of fact, Reagan had a Republican majority in the Senate for 6 of his 8 years!

He could have vetoed any spending bill he wanted...and been upheld

HE TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT...and unless you are saying that he was not legitimately a conservatives...that speaks more to the efficacy of conservative practices than what you are saying.

Frank, if you look at party control of both the house and senate of Congress, Republicans have controlled only about 25% of those institutions since 1945. Most of the federal spending and debt has resulted from entitlements, I think, not discretionary spending, and who instituted those entitlements. And even when Reagan had Republican help in the Senate, the Democrats still controlled the house, and I seem to recall a guy named Tip O'Neil, a guy that exerted alot of power. And if you add in the country club Republicans, conservative policy has not all had the majority in Congress. The Freshman class in the 90's was the closest to anything like that, and the budget did in fact look much better, briefly, and Clinton deserves a little credit as well.

ttp://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Reagan voiced a conservative agenda, but even at the time, I recognized that a total conservative agenda, including budgeting unfortunately was not accomplished, spending continued unabated. It takes more than lip service, and unfortunately the people have learned they can vote for and demand the politicians give them more and more. I do not look for this to end. Obama is going to spend us silly, and if you wish to talk deficits, we may not have seen anything yet.

1 Reply

Were you to check the record, you would find that the amount of Reagan budgets were about the same as the budgets finally enacted. Reagan got his way on virtually everything.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Frank, if you look at party control of both the house and senate of Congress, Republicans have controlled only about 25% of those institutions since 1945.

Okie, I truly appreciate your feelings on this and I understand your wanting to defend your side of the political spectrum, but the plain fact is that when Republicans have had control...nothing has changed, EXCEPT FOR THE WORSE! That is my point!

Quote:

Most of the federal spending and debt has resulted from entitlements, I think, not discretionary spending, and who instituted those entitlements.

The entitlements...which I prefer to think of as safety nets...are there because the vast majority of the people want them there. I am sure the conservatives would throw them out if they could...but they cannot.

Quote:

And even when Reagan had Republican help in the Senate, the Democrats still controlled the house, and I seem to recall a guy named Tip O'Neil, a guy that exerted alot of power. And if you add in the country club Republicans, conservative policy has not all had the majority in Congress. The Freshman class in the 90's was the closest to anything like that, and the budget did in fact look much better, briefly, and Clinton deserves a little credit as well.

Reagan didn't (have help in the Senate), Okie, the Republicans had a majority. And when Reagan was in office...the Democrats were afraid to wipe their asses without first checking with him.

Republicans promise that they will do a better job fiscally...and they notoriously do not do anywhere near as good as the Democrats. It is just that way.

Quote:

Reagan voiced a conservative agenda, but even at the time, I recognized that a total conservative agenda, including budgeting unfortunately was not accomplished, spending continued unabated. It takes more than lip service, and unfortunately the people have learned they can vote for and demand the politicians give them more and more. I do not look for this to end. Obama is going to spend us silly, and if you wish to talk deficits, we may not have seen anything yet.

With the mess this last administration has left him, you may be correct. In fact, I'd probably bet on it. But think about what you are saying here. You folks hold Reagan up to be a model of what a president should be and do.

So...if Obama triples our national debt over the next eight years...he will be living up to your standards.

2 Replies

From Wiki:

Quote:

Economic performance

Recent findings by Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels show that since World War II, Democratic presidents have generally been more successful in both spurring overall income growth and creating a more equitable distribution of income than opposition leaders. After allowing for a one year time lag between assuming office and the effects of policies, and accounting for several economic events that could have caused such a development, such as oil prices and labor force participation, the correlation with a Democratic presidency and higher income growth remains significant. He concludes that correlation between higher and more equally distributed income growth and the incumbency of Democratic presidents is likely not a mere repeated coincidence.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okie, I truly appreciate your feelings on this and I understand your wanting to defend your side of the political spectrum, but the plain fact is that when Republicans have had control...nothing has changed, EXCEPT FOR THE WORSE! That is my point!

Good point. From my perspective, at least Republicans give some lip service to fiscal responsibility and have tried at various points to do it, last significant point, Gingrich's contract with America, wherein that was one part of it, and with Clinton they actually came close, briefly, but it didn't last. The larger point, from a historical perspective, the Democratic Party is without a doubt the party of bigger government, which results into more expenditures. Alot of this effect is masked by years of growth after the bureaucracies are created, so that the immediate effect is not always clearly seen, and it is also masked by economic cycles which affect spurts of tax revenue and government growth.

Quote:

The entitlements...which I prefer to think of as safety nets...are there because the vast majority of the people want them there. I am sure the conservatives would throw them out if they could...but they cannot.

Okay, understood Frank, but this does not deny the fact that entitlements do not and never will cost nothing, they cost alot of money. I have posted the graph at the end of this post to illustrate the expenditures required to fund entitlements. We would love to have bigger and more lavish safety nets for everything imaginable, in fact it would be nice for none of us to work at all, and perhaps use your suggestion, let the robots do everything, but reality just does not cooperate with liberal policy. Eventually, no matter how nice these entitlesments are and how many people vote for them, they will eventually have to be paid for. You may wish to ponder that?

Quote:

Reagan didn't (have help in the Senate), Okie, the Republicans had a majority. And when Reagan was in office...the Democrats were afraid to wipe their asses without first checking with him.

Republicans promise that they will do a better job fiscally...and they notoriously do not do anywhere near as good as the Democrats. It is just that way.

So Democrats institute entitlements, get everybody on board, so that Republicans cannot win without pandering to the same stuff, then it is the Repbulicans fault for not balancing the budget? Right now as we speak, Obama is plotting a way to institute nationalized health care, and are you so naive as to believe this will end up costing the government less?

Quote:

With the mess this last administration has left him, you may be correct. In fact, I'd probably bet on it. But think about what you are saying here. You folks hold Reagan up to be a model of what a president should be and do.

So...if Obama triples our national debt over the next eight years...he will be living up to your standards.

At least Reagan gave great speeches, espousing fiscal conservatism, but I agree, and I knew it at the time, it slipped from our grasp simply because too many people and bureaucrats constantly harangue for more, more, more. More, more, more, it gets tiresome, this country has lost its soul, and pride in self sufficiency and work, and instead its the nanny state, the government, the beloved unions, the lawyers to sue anyone and everyone for anything and everything, its always somebody elses fault, and somebody else's responsibility to give us something. Frank, do you get my drift of what I am about?

I fear we will not compete in the world economy because we no longer have the cahonies to do it, we have lost our desire, we are too soft. I think we are in great danger of worshiping at the feet of almighty government. And it won't be pretty.

1 Reply

@okie,

Is "giving lip service" while your house is burning down the best strategy for conservatives?

0 Replies

Reagan ran on a three-point platform. He didn't promise a bunch of goodies from the national treasury. He didn't presume that government was the agent of prosperity and opportunity. Rather just the opposite. He put great faith in the American spirit, initiative, and capability and made people believe that yes THEY could. People responded to that message in great numbers.

What he did run on was
1) Lower taxes so that people would be better able to generate their own opportunity and prosperity.
2) Rebuild the military that had been decimated so that nobody would presume to challenge us.
3) Oppose the spread of communistic totalitarianism that presumed to deny people freedom to chart their own destinies and threatened our peace.

He initially agreed to a tax increase on the promise of Congress that they would cut spending. They didn't. So, he pushed for a reduction in the overall tax rates and got it despite a hostile House.

Because he believed the peace through power is the only option in a hostile world, the deficits he authorized were to rebuld the military. The only way that hostile House would go along with that was to add on government goodies for their constituents and the deficits did swell.

What did we get for that? The economic and subsequent political destruction of the USSR which freed hundreds of millions of people to chart their own destinies and removal of the threat of nuclear annihilation from the USA and others. Was the cost worth it? You bet it was.

To state a fact of history without the modifiers that put that history into proper perspective distorts history. To do it intentionally to create a different impression than the reality is dishonest. I am biased of course, but I think MACs do that a lot less frequently than MALs do.

Here is one of the most effective campaign ads run by Ronald Reagan. No promises that big brother will take care of you cradle to grave. No inference that the American people need government programs in order to prosper or do the right thing. A clear message, however, in what good government policies are supposed to accomplish.

and this one. No exaggeration or sugar coating or pschobabble. Just a clear and simple message defending the prudence and necessity for the military buildup as the best way to prevent need for hostile use of that same military.

Reagan did believe in prudent and effective use of the military to protect US interests, however.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Reagan raised taxes 7-8 times over the course of his two terms. Revenues didn't begin to rise until he did that. Hard to believe that Conservatives cannot recognize and admit this simple point.

Quote:

What did we get for that? The economic and subsequent political destruction of the USSR which freed hundreds of millions of people to chart their own destinies and removal of the threat of nuclear annihilation from the USA and others. Was the cost worth it? You bet it was.

Of course, there exists plenty of evidence that the USSR would have collapsed due to massive internal problems irregardless of what we did. Yet you give all the credit to Reagan. Tell us, did our 'rebuilt' military ever get used against the Russians?

No?

Then how was it directly responsible for the collapse of Russia?

I think you are seeing correlation where no evidence exists. But then again, Conservatives do that more than Liberals - to use your level of argumentation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Pelosi: Democrats will be accountable for spending

Quote:

Holy mackeral; the dems are willing to take "responsibility" for their actions.
What's wrong with this picture?

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 29, 7:31 am ET

WASHINGTON " House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that while critics may quibble with some elements of spending in the $819 billion economic rescue plan, Democrats were willing to act " and Republicans were not.

Discussing the plan that the House approved on a strictly party line vote, Pelosi acknowledged Republican criticism that large sums of money are set aside for favored Democratic programs such as aid to education and Medicare. But she said "we are definitely stepping up to the plate to say we'll be accountable."

The California Democrat also said that Republicans are failing on the policy aspects of reviving the struggling economy.

In an interview broadcast Thursday on CBS's "The Early Show," Pelosi said Republicans "have had their chance. They decided to oppose. That's their choice."

0 Replies

The MALs are currently in charge of rescuing the USA from past RINO, CINO, and MAL mistakes. But the MALs are expanding their mistakes previously made in their alleged attempt to rescue the USA's economy from its recession.

The MALs are advocating expansion of the illegal give-aways of tax dollars to private individuals and organizations by the previous Congress and President. The MALs are also advocating that the current illegal non-uniform and discriminatory rates of income taxation be expanded. Repeating the errors of the past to allegedly correct the current results of the same errors is insanity, or stupidity, or fraud. The MALs are also advocating further limitation of our ability to become independent of foreign oil, instead of advocating expansion of our own domestic drilling for domestic oil.

The MALs are bad for the country. MALs currently possess few if any redeeming qualities and appear incapable of ending their distructive policies and correcting their past errors.

Our new president is conforming to MAL principles by expanding their past applications and adding new ones.

By the way, I think it strange, to put it mildly, that MALs are unwilling to define and defend what they think MAL is, and instead define and attack what they think MAC is. Do they too think MAL is indefensible?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

More like CRAP; Conservative Republican Astray Party. They don't know whether they're coming or going.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know