55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:20 am
Okie- You are a pretty smart guy. Can you help me? I have read the post several times and I cannot figure out what Cicerone Imposter has said when talking about suicide rates--"And now outnumber the actual casualty rates of the war"????? Is he saying that there are more suicides among service men than deaths from action in Iraq?

I think he is senile, Okie!!! Have compassion for him!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:18 am

I thought I was having fun before...but listening to these good folks arguing that American conservatives are more compassionate and tolerant than other people...is almost ecstasy.

Amazing that the denial is that thorough...and that it goes that deep!

If ya just sit back and don't let it rattle you...you honestly can get enjoyment out of this nonsense.
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:56 am
@Frank Apisa,
**** the conservatives and **** the liberals. Both are too full or their own self serving agenda's that neither can be relied upon to objectively look at a problem and find a real solution.

Voters better wake up and realize both parties (Repub's and Dems) are not the answer. There are alternatives if voters have the balls to actually look for it.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 09:34 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

The interview of Arlen Specter by Hannity was very revealing. Basically he said he negotiated for a deal that he did not believe in, but he thought it was the best he could get. So he voted for it. So he in essence voted for what he thought was a bad bill. I think he has lost his way, and should be thrown out of Congress next time around, hopefully.

Sure.

I'm sure you're going to vote for the other guy... Republican's love you guys. They don't even have to stand for anything you believe in (or claim to believe in). They know you'll never voted for the independent or the other team to get them out.

They got you wrapped around their finger.
K
O


If you just kind of sort of pay attention, you figure out that the general election isn't the only election. We all have a vote to vote for the person of our party who SHOULD be elected to Congress when the one there now is not the one who SHOULD be there. That happens in the primaries.

Would I vote for an Arlan Spector over say a Harry Reid or a John Kerry? In a heart beat as he does believe in more MAC principles than a dedicated liberal does. Would I have voted for him over Barack Obama? Yes I would because while I believe Obama is a decent man, he is obviously in over his head and holds too many views that I believe will be damaging for our country if he is able to put them into practice.

Would I vote for Arlan Spector over a solid decent MAC with vision and ideas and his/her head on straight about what needs to happen to repair the systems and policies of this country to allow us to get back on track? No way in hell. Spector is no doubt a perfectly lovely man and his dog and grandkids probably adore him. But in my point of view, he has not supported or pushed enough MAC principles to qualify as a MAC. And I hope his state does boot him in the next election for somebody who does believe in more MAC principles than Spector apparently does.

When the only choices available to us are to choose the less worse of the two, the responsible citizen votes for the best available at the time. Once we've given our all to support the best and lose, that's all we can do really. To vote for the worst in the general election out of spite only validates that to which we object.

In his defense or at least in the benefit of the doubt department, Spector may have actually improved the bill and gotten some bad stuff out of it in return for his vote. So I'll reserve final judgment on that until I know whether he in fact did fall on his sword to make it better. I have no reason to think that's what happened--in the case of the Maine senators, especially Olympia Snow is far more liberal Democrat than Republican and has always been--but neither do I know that wasn't what happened.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 09:56 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

**** the conservatives and **** the liberals. Both are too full or their own self serving agenda's that neither can be relied upon to objectively look at a problem and find a real solution.

Voters better wake up and realize both parties (Repub's and Dems) are not the answer. There are alternatives if voters have the balls to actually look for it.


Don't be too quick to condemn the MAC ideology Woiyo though I'm glad to see you here and hope you'll stay.

So far the non-liberals on the thread have not objected to the defintiion established for Modern American Conservative (MAC) which is more or less the same as the original classical liberals as defined:

Quote:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government and object to the welfare state.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüüstow and Wilhelm Rööpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.


We have to know what we want government to be before we can know what policies and processes best accomplish that. The liberals here have so far not been able or willing to discuss ideas or concept but focus on bashing or demonizing or judging the opposition without being able to articulate any examles of how their opinion is valid.

One of the first things I was taught in management school was that you cannot fix a bad system by changing the people, and you can't fix bad people by changing the system. Perhaps we now have both bad (as in misguided or incompetent) people using a bad system to run the United States of America these days. Personally, I am of the opinion that it is the system that is broken and needs repair and, if we can do that, then the 'bad' people won't be interested in being a part of it.

It is that which I am most interested in discussing, but of course there has to be a valid rationale that can be articulated in order to support the most beneficial policies and processes by which we govern ourselves.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:13 am
@Foxfyre,
What "we want from government" is about the most ignorant statement I've seen on a2k. MAC and MAL has no real meaning as it's been pointed out ad nauseam; most voters have a varied mix of what they want from our representatives that ranges between the two parties, and the representatives themselves come with different ideas about what they want.

Some people's brain are stuck on cruise control no matter how much traffic is on the streets.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:30 am
@Foxfyre,
Text book definitions of MAC/MAL, and any resemblance to our modern day US Congressperson is purely coincidental.

Our political system is corrupt as is evidenced by the numerous criminal violates by elected officials, their ignoring criminal activity in the private sector and/or their involvement in this activity.

When Schmucky Schumer can stand before Congress (on TV as usual) and say WITHOUT BLINKING AN EYE, that "The American People do not care about the Pork", he say that knowing it is a lie he believes.

When Conservative loudmouths like Limbaugh or Michael Steele stand before you and say ONLY TAX CUTS CCAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM.....

Well, the working man is screwed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:37 am
@Woiyo9,
I never thought I'd say this, but "thank you, Woiyo."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:45 am
@Woiyo9,
Well first, I don't think Limbaugh or Steele have ever said that ONLY tax cuts can solve the problem. At least I haven't seen anything either have written nor have I heard them say that. That's what the leftwing media and MALs accuse them of saying though.

They both have offered opinion, however, that reasonable and justifiable tax cuts are a far better method of stimulating a stalled or eroding economy than massive government spending bills that will be at best limited in scope and that will greatly increase the deficit and therefore the national debt.

They both believe that the only fix for the economy is to get business and commercie up and running and healthy again so people wanting jobs can get back to work and extra money in the bottom line goes a long way to accomplish that. It also requires people having confidence that they can safely utilize what business and commerce has to offer again and more money in their pocket each paycheck does a whole lot to accomplish that.

Of course our liberal elected leaders don't want to do it that way because it reduces dependency on them and therefore reduces their power.

I agree that our government currently bears no resemblance to the definition of MAC (Classical liberalism). I do believe there is plenty of historical evidence as well as rational logic that MAC principles are the way to go to fix the problem as much as it can be fixed.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:46 am
@Foxfyre,
Too bad the vast majority of economists agree that tax cuts are the worst way to stimulate the economy.

I also would note that 36 out of the 41 Republican Senators voted to strip all spending from the stimulus, leaving only tax cuts.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:50 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

When Conservative loudmouths like Limbaugh or Michael Steele stand before you and say ONLY TAX CUTS CCAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM.....


Provide a quote to prove your allegation, woiyo. I don't think you have a shred of evidence. And Michael Steele a loudmouth, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Limbaugh, a loudmouth, probably, but do not misrepresent what the man says. Taxes are one of many costs of doing business. Add in government regulations, bloated union wages, bloated benefit packages, and a few other things, and you might get closer to what they would believe, woiyo.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:54 am
@okie,
Hey, okie, you ask and you shall receive.
http://qna.live.com/ShowQuestion.aspx?qid=F065474301FA424D8620AD3C2B3CE65E&ctx=Browse.aspx%3Ffilter%3D2&pUrl=
BigTexN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:02 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Too bad the vast majority of economists agree that tax cuts are the worst way to stimulate the economy.


Well, I've gotta agree with you there!

That extra $13 a week from these tax cuts ain't gonna stimulate anything!
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:02 am
@okie,
In regard to tax cuts vs public works, taxcuts for businesses help all businesses across the board in the entire country, now that is a stimulus undoubtedly, not a cure all for a sick economy, but it does stimulate. Public works, it affects a business or a few businesses, not an entire country,but when the work is over, its over. Democrats probably believe they are more targeted, but essentially they are nothing more than somebody's pork, somebodys pet project, some of them might be needed but a huge amount are not. Taxcuts give businesses to produce what customers want, which is much more efficient than central planning, a bureaucrat deciding what needs to be done.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:04 am
Shrub failed to create his 2.4 million jobs in the private sector with his trickle down tax cuts. Where did it trickle? Well, pee usually tries to find it's lowest level.

Government projects updating and repairing our antique infrastructure will last indefinitely. The jobs will go to construction companies and subsequently they will be buying goods and services from the private sector. Who do the wingnuts believe these projects are going to be built by? Politicians?
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:05 am
@cicerone imposter,
Uh, ci, the link tells me nothing. He proposes taxcuts, not a surprise, but that does not at all indicate it by itself can fix the underlying problems. If you would listen to the guy, you would know he talks about all manner of other problems that affect business besides taxes. Come on, ci, get serious.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:06 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

In regard to tax cuts vs public works, taxcuts for businesses help all businesses across the board in the entire country, now that is a stimulus undoubtedly, not a cure all for a sick economy, but it does stimulate. Public works, it affects a business or a few businesses, not an entire country,but when the work is over, its over. Democrats probably believe they are more targeted, but essentially they are nothing more than somebody's pork, somebodys pet project, some of them might be needed but a huge amount are not. Taxcuts give businesses to produce what customers want, which is much more efficient than central planning, a bureaucrat deciding what needs to be done.


Trickle-down doesn't work

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:07 am
Quote:

Consumer spending typically equals two-thirds of GNP. As you would expect, lowering taxes raises disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend additional sums, thereby, increasing GNP. (To learn more, read Economic Indicators To Know.)

Reducing taxes, therefore, pushes out the aggregate demand curve as consumers demand more goods and services with their higher disposable incomes. Supply side tax cuts are aimed to stimulate capital formation. If successful, the cuts will shift both aggregate demand and aggregate supply because the price level for a supply of goods will be reduced, which often leads to an increase in demand for those goods. (To learn more, read Economics Basics.)
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp


Quote:
Tax Cuts and the Economy
Tax cuts, when used properly, have stimulated the economy. Many credit President George W. Bush's tax cuts for moving the economy out of recession. Similarly, in 1964, Congress enacted an 18% cut in personal taxes to spur growth. The legislation was designed to encourage consumer spending - many believe that it succeeded admirably as consumers delivered a textbook reaction.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp

The first question about tax cuts is, exactly how do they stimulate the economy? This is not a stupid question! Remember, if the government gives us a tax cut they'll still have to make up the budget shortfall somehow, chiefly by selling more bonds to American citizens (who happen to be the same people getting the tax cut) or foreigners (who will raise the money by selling us more of their goods and services, or buying less of ours). In other words, government spending will keep sucking money out of the private sector, only the payment method will be different.

Yet most economists seem to agree that tax cuts really do provide a stimulus. The real reason may be that they provide flexibility: people who want to consume more can use their tax cut for that purpose; people who want to save more can use theirs to buy up the new government bonds. This is the perfect scenario during a recession, when prior over-investment has resulted in bloated inventory levels and poor private investment opportunities.
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ/tax_cuts.htm


Quote:
The letter "Tax cuts for the wealthy won't help economy" (Jan. 28) couldn't be more wrong. In the 1920s, '60s, '80s and, most recently, in 2003, taxes were cut across the board.

In each case, the economy was substantially and immediately stimulated. Millions of new jobs were created. This also resulted in massive increases in tax revenues to the Treasury. IRS data show that across-the-board tax cuts resulted in greater tax payments, especially by those in the highest tax brackets.

During the Depression, President Herbert Hoover actually increased taxes and began a modest work program, which President Franklin Roosevelt greatly increased. A recent study by two UCLA economists shows that FDR's policies actually prolonged the Depression. It was World War II that ended the Depression "" not demand-side stimulus programs, as claimed by those on the left.
http://www.twincities.com/letters/ci_11584155


Quote:
January 10, 2008
Tax Rebates Will Not Stimulate The Economy - Tax Cuts Do
by Brian M. Riedl

With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with talk of economic stimulus plans. President Bush may offer a stimulus package, and congressional leaders are discussing a proposal centered around tax rebates.

Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Cutting tax rates does.
To explain, let's take a step back. By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.

Economic growth requires four main factors: 1) a motivated, educated and trained workforce; 2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; 3) a solid infrastructure and 4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts.

High tax rates reduce economic growth because they make it less profitable to work, save and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment and capital -- and that results in fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate workers to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more plants and equipment, as well as better technology.

By contrast, tax rebates fail because they don't encourage productivity or wealth creation. No one has to work, save, invest or create any new wealth to receive a rebate.

Critics contend that rebates "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy (and even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports). No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

The same critics respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (where it finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality, isn't it more responsible for the saver to keep that money and save for a new home or their children's education, rather than have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy?
Simply put, low tax rates encourage new wealth creation. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.

Take the 2001 tax rebates. Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, consumer spending temporarily rose, and capital/investment spending temporarily fell by a corresponding amount. This simple transfer of existing wealth did not encourage productive behavior. The economy remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002.

It was not until the 2003 tax cuts -- which instead cut tax rates for workers and investors -- that the economy finally and immediately recovered. In the previous 18 months, businesses investment had plummeted, the stock market had dropped 18 percent, and the economy had lost 616,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate reductions, business investment surged, the stock market leaped 32 percent, and the economy created 5.3 million new jobs. Overall economic growth doubled.

Thus, both economic theory and practice show the superiority of tax rate reductions over tax rebates.
http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed011008c.cfm


From Mitt Romney who fiscally is a MAC
First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
How to boost the economy Mitt Romney talks about the stimulus plan on "American Morning."Friday 6 a.m. ET see full schedule »» Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.
As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/index.html

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
How many poor people provide jobs, cyclops. Trickle down does work, obviously, and always has. Cut costs of business, make them more efficient, and they can become more competitive. Taxes are just one piece of the many pieces of that puzzle, obviously. Trickle up does not work, we know that. Give people money to spend and they will spend it, but it might be for junk made in China, it has nothing to do with making U.S. businesses more competitive. And when the money is spent, the little blip of spending is over. You must fix the foundation of a healthy economy, and that starts at the bottom, which includes labor, regulations, business taxes, and all the rest.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:18 am
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Too bad the vast majority of economists agree that tax cuts are the worst way to stimulate the economy.


Well, I've gotta agree with you there!

That extra $13 a week from these tax cuts ain't gonna stimulate anything!


Do the math. $13/week isn't enough for most people to think about much so they will probably spend it. $13 x 52 weeks = $676/year. $676/year x 150 to 200 million people or so adds up to a massive amount of change. And when you figure that every dollar spent in the private sector is multiplied several times by the time it works through the process, are you SURE than even a modest tax cut would not be a significant stimulus throughout the economy when compared to a trillion dollars of government spending targeted at a limited amount of projects and will require money being withdrawn from the private sector to pay for it?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 06/14/2025 at 05:34:03