55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:06 pm
@Debra Law,
And as long as they allow the twin factors of Greed and Social Intolerance to rule their lives, there will always be a lever which will be used to manipulate them into attacking someone else.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Oh, cunning, huh (good try) -- leave out the source and post a copy from a blog -- it's been on hundreds of them, pro and con, since it was published:

A political scientist with a PhD, Dr. Lawrence Britt wrote that in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2, June 2003.

This was after examining all the facist governments of the past.


cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, What is so amazing about the current crisis when thousands are losing their jobs and homes every day, the conservatives want to stick with their failed policies. That's what got us into this big mess today! I doubt very much they'll wake up any time soon.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Professorships and titles mean nothing; it's what they "produce" when they have positions of responsibility is what counts. Theories in economics is only second to realities in the marketplace. Economics is an art; it's not science. That's the reason why economists do no agree on what is the best way to solve macro-economic problems.

There is/was a professor at Harvard who believes blacks are not intelligent.

Go figure.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:27 pm
@Lightwizard,
Perhaps you could post his bio? I'm not getting one to come up though there's probably one out there. Had no trouble at all pulling up bios for Brooks, who seems to be defending President Obama's agenda, or Boskin, who definitely isn't.

And that would be the Free Inquiry Magazine of the Institute for Secular Humanism or something like that?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
He wrote the novel "June 2004" which is out of print and I have not really put the time into finding his bio -- it would be in the book. However, I believe the "Dr." was added by some overzealous blogs, although the bibliography for the article is considerable.

Doesn't matter -- fascism has never appeared in any ideological pure form anymore then democracy, but the history is that corporations were allowed to operate under the auspices of the government and continued to be separate entities. The labor force is completely socialized, so, of course, they could not form unions and took their directions from the corporation management.

There was some effort to prosecute Krupp at Nuremburg but he was too old and senile. We now purchased Krupp appliances, yet the corporation manufactured war materials in WWII, as you would know.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:02 pm
@Lightwizard,
Well, I've seen Mr. Britt's 14 points debated on several sites over the last couple of years, but I have yet to see anybody prove that he is a real person or that those 14 points originated anywhere but on that ultra-leftwing anti-GOP blog. Britt isn't listed with Amazon or Barnes & Noble, and most PhDs with any credentials at all are assessible via internet these days at least as to where they are working and usually with some sort of bio. This is even moreso the case if they have been published and/or are recognized as an authority in their field.

It doesn't really matter except that I think the 14-points of facism or whatever are a leftwing invention specifically for the purpose of trashing and demonizing President Bush and I'll stick with the more credible definitions of fascism that I posted. If you can come up with something more credible to support your opinion on this, I'll be happy to give it a fair chance though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Do you see it, LW? Foxie's source is more "credible" than yours, because?

You'll have to come up with something that satisfies her "credibility" standard.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:09 pm
Yes CI was just over on the Ecnomics thread putting me down because I 'ate up' the Hoover Institute putting down the President. It went right over his head that the Hoover Institute had absolutely nothing to do with that article but it was in the Wall Street Journal today.

And I haven't asked for anybody to meet my criteria for credentials. I've requested that any credentials or evidence to be presented at all for a Dr. Lawrence Britt. So far nothing. Zilch. Nada. And I'm not putting down LW either because I think he provided that information in good faith. It is all over the internet; unfortunately it has been discredited pretty much on all halfway objective sites.

It isn't the first time I've seen those 14 points and I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time they've been discussed on A2K. Hell I may have put them out there as a definition at some time or other, but I am now convinced they are bogus.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Britt isn't listed with Amazon


http://www.amazon.com/June-2004-Laurence-W-Britt/dp/1884962203

what Amazon were you looking at?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:13 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
The constitutional authority that you cite EXPLICITLY grants Congress the power to tax for the purpose of providing for the general welfare. In other words, CONGRESS has the power of the purse. CONGRESS has discretion to spend federal money however it sees fit for the general welfare.

My responses to your post are in purple.

Providing for the general welfare does not mean that "CONGRESS has discretion to spend federal money however it sees fit for the general welfare."

First, the complete clause is:
" provide for ... the general welfare of the United States."

Second, providing for the general welfare of the Uniited States is not a granting of power to transfer the wealth from those who earned it to those who have not earned it.

Third, the definition of "general" does not refer to the welfare of a specific set of citizens. Definition of "general":

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Main Entry: 1 gen·er·al
...
Function: adjective
...
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding <ladies, a general welcome from his grace salutes ye all -- Shakespeare> <those first assemblies were general, with all freemen bound to attend -- American Guide Series: Maryland>
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority : PREVALENT, USUAL, WIDESPREAD <the general opinion> <a custom general in these areas> <the conflict became general> <we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>
...

Fourth, all of Article I. Section 8. specifies what Congress has been granted the power to do with its revenues. Nothing in this about taking money from those that earned it and giving to those who have not earned it.
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.




0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:16 pm
@ehBeth,
I was looking for a Lawrence Britt and it didn't give me anything for him...You spelled it differently. Laurence Britt wrote a novel I believe and not a PhD political science kind of book as LW is referencing.

Edit Correction: LW DID say the book was a novel. It was an article he said that contained the 14 points.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
OPINION MARCH 6, 2009
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN


Quote:
Michael J. Boskin
Senior Fellow

Expertise: Public finance; tax, budget, and debt theory and policy; macroeconomics and monetary policy; applied economic theory

Boskin serves on several corporate boards of directors, including Exxon Mobil Corporation, Oracle Corporation, and Vodafone PLC, and several philanthropic boards and is a consultant to numerous other businesses and government agencies....



Michael J. Boskin, a credible source? Let's start our analysis by looking at his relationship to the Oracle Corporation:

Quote:
Ashcroft breaks with tradition by lobbying, has earned $269,000

(Chicago Tribune (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) WASHINGTON _ Less than three months after registering as a lobbyist, former Attorney General John Ashcroft has banked at least $269,000 from just four clients and appears to be developing a practice centered on firms that want to capitalize on a government demand for homeland security technology that boomed under sometimes controversial policies he promoted while in office.

* * *

In year-end filings, Ashcroft's firm, The Ashcroft Group, LLC, reported collecting $269,000, including $220,000 from Oracle Corp., which won Justice Department approval of a multi-billion acquisition less than a month after hiring Ashcroft in October.

One of the world's biggest software companies, Oracle makes large databases, including some used by intelligence services, and plans to use Ashcroft as a consultant for business opportunities on homeland security issues, according to a company spokesman.

As attorney general, Ashcroft sued Oracle in 2004 to try to block an earlier acquisition by the company.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/jan/1275410.htm

Oracle Corporation gained billions of dollars in defense and homeland security funding. Interesting.

Let's take another look backwards to the beginning of Bush's second term:

Quote:
2005
FOUR MORE YEARS:
Stay the Course"Except on Spending
By Michael J. Boskin

In his second term, the president needs to continue pushing for smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation.

. . . what should the second-term agenda be? Start with what is good economic policy. Economic policy should be aimed primarily at maximizing non-inflationary growth. That requires (1) the lowest possible tax rates; (2) continuously rigorous spending control; (3) reform of Social Security and Medicare; (4) regulatory and litigation reform; (5) trade liberalization; and (6) sound monetary policy.

Continuously rigorous spending control is vital. . . So redouble the good start finally made this year in slowing non-defense discretionary spending growth (after seven years of rapid growth). . . .

Modernize Social Security with a personal account component, but combine this with other reforms, such as future changes in retirement age, price- instead of wage-indexing initial benefits, at least above some threshold, and so forth. . . .

Continue the reform of regulation by redoubling the effort for serious scientific cost-benefit analyses and rigorous risk-benefit analyses. The first-term attempts at specific litigation reform (asbestos, medical malpractice, etc.) should be tried again, but also consider a modified loser-pays-the-costs system that would target the frivolous litigation explosion at its source. . . .

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2993746.html

Let's see, he recommended reduced spending (except the billions spent on defense for which Oracle greatly benefited).

He recommended the privatization of social security, creating individual accounts (that would have been wiped out under our current crisis), increasing the age of retirement, and insulating big business from being accountable to those they injure through tort reform.....

0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
I didn't realize the misspelling until all of a sudden Google put up a "Do you mean Laurence Britt?" There were so many blogs who had used the 14 points positively or negatively in arguing left and right, I have up trying to find anything on him. Amazon has some used copies of the novel.

Sure the article is from a humanist more-or-less leftist site, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's the retro-con that I coined that bothers me -- I think that is an oxymoron.

BTW, I've stated this before but y'all forget that all caps, but also huge Empire State Building high letters are shouting. There's no need to shout.
Italics or bold print is just fine. It won't make the person look so desperate to be seen (heard).
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:27 pm
@Foxfyre,
All quotes by Foxfrye
Quote:
I will consider if I would describe Brooks as a 'moderate conservative'. Based on his writings I had him pegged as a 'moderate liberal' albeit one of the more honest ones along the lines of work by William Raspberry, Michael Kinsley, and a few others whom I have admired, respected, and have read or read frequently.


Good point well taken. Much of my ,initially, limited exposure to Brooks was contrasted with the opinion of Mark Shields on PBS's News Hour who I view as an honest liberal who's opinion I respectfully listen to. Their discussions are admirably respectful but firm. I have a lot of respect for the show but think it rather liberal leaning. I wonder whether a truly objective viewer, say from Mars, would find both Fox News Sunday and PBS's News Hour both as balanced and fair as it gets on the third rock from the sun? Brooks' immediately preceding column was rather hard on the Obama administration. All in all it will come as no surprise that I still feel that the best that can be said for the present admin is that it has the best of intentions. It still remains, at best, a mystery to me why such an educated man refuses to acknowledge the economic wisdom of the ages--communism doesn't work because socialism ignores human nature. Your post of Williams' example of the complexity of multiple variables illustrates this point quite well. MAC principles work because they recognize and utilize that same reality of mankind (as does the founders' Madisonian wisdom in both limited government and economic self regulation). But then perhaps ACORN has had a more far reaching and pernicious affect then we have realized. I am starting to feel how R. Reagan must have felt about those communists infiltrating SAG.

Quote:
But it was a good article and does contribute effectively to the debate. Were you reassured?


Mod Liberal or Mod Conservative it matters little to me at this point as long as they are willing to slow down and take a harder look at what Obama is proposing for our economic future. Again, I see the "Best of Intentions" thing rearing its ugly head. Whether the program is health care or energy "independence" (I don't believe in this, we should be talking about energy "security") the question in the beginning, during, and in the end is simply and always: WHO WILL PAY FOR IT? Macs say...whoever consumes it; liberals seemingly obfuscate and say...the "government". I personally would prefer to pay my own bills rather than push them down the road where my grandchildren will have to pay, not only the bill, but the interest on it...seems like bad form to me. No, I was not reassured.

Quote:
But I confess to a certain amount of pessimism when I see the lack of confidence in the leadership so far among those who work with the economic indicators and consumer confidence. Perhaps I should probably look for anything positive offered?


I think I, okie, ican, and others here would tend to disabuse you of such optimism. Best case scenario is that some of the Democratic Senators that you mentioned are asking for a closer look at the proposed budget (Menendez just got a little more respectable in my eyes, but not much overall). The longer the American public digest this ,the better. Not that they can do anything about it, if the old guard wants to pass this pig they will. But, ican's laments not withstanding, we MACs will have to wait until 2010 to remind the public of Obama's folly. But will the GOP have credibility then? I think Steele should not appear to abdicate leadership to Rush L. His (Rush's) comments are too easily taken out of context by the Liberals.

JM




cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:34 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JM, What exactly is Obama's folly?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:48 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Yes, I agree that Rush is too controversial and too polarizing a figure to allow prominent status, even if in endorsement only, among the GOP leadership. As it becomes more and more difficult for the left to demonize President Bush, it wouldn't be smart of us to give them such an easy target as Rush. Smile

But man oh man, did Rush lay it out there at the CPAC convention. I hunger for a genuine GOP leader with as solid a grounding in the fundamentals involved and with the ability to communicate them so well. I had great hopes for Michael Steele--he has been terrific on the talk show circuit and is a gifted commentator. But as we have been seeing so much of among the GOP leadership, he seems to operate under the delusion that if he just plays nice with the Democrats and is reasonable and concilitary, they will reciprocate. They won't They never have. President Bush 41 found that out the hard way. President Bush 43 found that out the hard way. And Michael Steele won't have any better luck being Mr. Nice Guy.

Rush knows and understands that. He knows that if the GOP doesn't develop a backbone and soon, we have no chance to regain enough power in 2010 to be able to undo some of the damage that has been done and will likely have been done by then.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
Rush is controversial, but he seems to be the conservative voice for now; he has more of a following than any elected conservative in congress - or any place else.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
James, I'm offering this piece as a rebuttal to Brooks. I hope at least some will read thoughtfully what Brooks writes and I hope at least some will read thoughtfully what Boskin writes:

Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I hoped for. I took issue with the Admin's reasoning also, but thought that their side should be dutifully heard and if necessary, rebutted. This is the style of discourse that is healthy and informative.

If I was a Civics or American History teacher I would like to have my students read both NYT and WSJ op/ed's over a long period of time and see their reactions. I know if given both sides of the argument I would feel much better about their political choices. Ya know, the WSJ also has a regular very liberal columnist, Thomas Frank. I make it a point to read his column. Afterwards I feel like a masochist, but I read him, as painful as it is. Got to give the WSJ a lot of credit here. Wink

JM
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 09:02 pm
@JamesMorrison,
The WSJ news desk is as liberal as any in the country but does report mostly responsibly. The editorial division is decidedly mostly conservative but of the MACean variety who call it as they see it and who aren't reluctant to criticize their own when warrented. I will pay more attention to Thomas Frank though. If you see him as left leaning, he will provide some great balance as the WSJ doesn't invite just anybody to write there.

I would PAY to participate in an on line forum in which all or most members had the ability and inclination to critically analyze both sides of an issue and discuss it on its own merits without needing to demonize anybody. If you ever run across one, would you promise to let me know about it? Smile
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 09:47:29