AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Okie wrote

Quote:

:"Leftist ideologies require more force to maintain, just a fact of life."

This is a gem of a statement! It is the main symptom towards which MACean arguments must be directed. Those arguments naturally follow the question of "Why do Left/Liberal ideolgies require more effort, more special pleading, indeed, more and more governmental legislation to support, yes more laws to force people to do the 'right thing'?" They must show the ignorant, the greedy, the selfserving (themselves excluded) the path to rightgeousness. The leftist ideology must be nurtured and protected from, well, reality! As I have said before the left's political gyrations are like those of religions. The ideology is so important, so overarching, so demanding of its converts that all empirical data, reasoning, and logical forces must be rejected, damned, and/or ignored. IT IS THE BELIEF IN THE BELIEF that must be maintained. Those who point to historical failures (or even present ones) of liberal/progressivism are evil or selfish. Those (like myself) who profess a conversion after skeptical examination of all facts, both economical and historical, are either morons or apostates. The very intolerance the left accuse conservatives of is continually and constantly directed towards the latter and applauded by the former. The list of disrespect and the history of invective the lefties have for those who respectfully disagree is long and legendary.

The founding fathers' gift to us was to point to the wisdom of using the natural rip currents of human nature to the county's advantage: don't heuristically continue to ban human nature after human nature after human nature. Let it assert itself concurrent with the rule of law to guard against picking favorites. Let Darwin's concept of competition allow to work so that those human faults work against each other until the best results for all finally rise to the surface.

Liberalism is the geocentrisim of politics: We as humans are the answer to all that is good and pure. The world revolves around us. We are so smart and so evovled that we now have the answer to self government of peoples. Strangely enough, liberalism's most devoted followers, when asked specifically who should govern, reply: "Well, THE government! Isn't it obvious?"

Conservatism/Skeptisim, in contrast, doesn't eschew the real world; it looks to it for answers. It asks why must the planets have such complicated orbits? Why does this liberalism take so much special pleading so much revision? Isn't there an easier answer? Indeed, lets look at a number of explanations and apply Occam's razor and see what we get and try to verify it in the REAL WORLD (sure the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was problematic via Newtonian explanations ,but we eventually solved the problem, but not by fiat, by the same objective methods).

Even the Catholic Church finally accepted the truth about our solar system so maybe I am being to unkind, to religion.

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Like the conservatives in congress, just say "no."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I read the whole letter, and it's pretty clear that the writer is simply an asshole. He typifies the worst stereotypes of the Greedy Conservative.

Cycloptichorn

Now there's a carefully reasoned, rational argument, suitably backed up with fact and precedent, and a delivered with a balanced perspective on opposing points of view !!

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I read the whole letter, and it's pretty clear that the writer is simply an asshole. He typifies the worst stereotypes of the Greedy Conservative.

Cycloptichorn

Now there's a carefully reasoned, rational argument, suitably backed up with fact and precedent, and a delivered with a balanced perspective on opposing points of view !!

Oh, did you think I was attempting to do that, George?

It would be a waste of my time. It doesn't deserve a long-winded response.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

The above is to PBS's Frontline.
Click on the Program: "Ten Billion and Counting"

It shows how the nation is so deeply in Debt. It will not come as much a surprise that G.W. Bush did not help. The sad part is that in the Future: by 2019 the Federal Deficit will be greater than GDP. Simply put, Congress can tax every red cent made by everyone and will still not be able to pay off the debt. Those familar with the song "96 tears" will be relieved since the video is only 54 odd minutes long. Crying or Very sad

JM

0 Replies

Thinking about the President's press conference tonight,

I'd like to hear any Conservative here explain why lowering the deduction on charitable giving will cause rich Conservatives to donate less money to charity. Specifically. For some Conservatives here have pretended that the charitable giving done by their group is evidence of some sort of higher morality, and surely that would not be affected by tax rates.

We are also talking about the very rich; it isn't as if they won't be able to afford to give either way.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:"

Quote:

No, I do not think that he is. I think he is focused as much as he is able on promoting a grandiose agenda with little understanding of the probable consequences of that agenda. I don't think he understands the problem or even knows what it is, much less is addressing it. "

I fear that Obama's natural tendency is to rely on a higher authority to pull his chestnuts from incendiary disaster. But this time what he has relied on in the past to help him and his constituents is now 'Here'. 'Here' in the Truman sense of where the buck stops. Perhaps, he will finally realize the true limits of socialism. But then, perhaps he will retreat even further into the BELIEF IN THE BELIEF.

JM

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican posted:Madison No. 45

Quote:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. "

You shan't forget, as someone posted on this thread, Madison also commented that taxes RE the 'General Welfare' clause were only relevant and legal when that general welfare fell under the few Constitutionally enumerated powers of a limited central government: National Defense,yes...Free room, board, and healthcare for citizens, no.

JM

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

:"But once it's a done deal; once the people realize what they have lost and how much it has cost them, the President won't enjoy anywhere nearly as much support as he does now"

Yep

JM

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thinking about the President's press conference tonight,

I'd like to hear any Conservative here explain why lowering the deduction on charitable giving will cause rich Conservatives to donate less money to charity. Specifically. For some Conservatives here have pretended that the charitable giving done by their group is evidence of some sort of higher morality, and surely that would not be affected by tax rates.

We are also talking about the very rich; it isn't as if they won't be able to afford to give either way.

Cycloptichorn

Well, in the first place the rich include both liberals and conservatives - as do the middle class and poor. To the extent that people, rich or poor; conservative or liberal are aware of just how much of their incomes they keep after taxes and charitable giving, and sensitive to that value any increase in taxes can be argued to create downward pressure in charity. In particular, the marginal "cost" of any gift is its value less whatever tax break is involved. Any reduction in the tax break is an increase in the cost of the gift. It stands to reason that if the cost goes up the total giving will likely go down.

In addition the President indulged in a bit of sophistry in his explanation today. Even folks of moderate income find their itemized deductions - all of them, from taxes to interest, medical and charity - reduced by a stipulated fraction of their adjusted gross incomes. Someone in the 36% tax bracket today finds his deductions, including charity already reduced by a substantial margin. Obama is simply proposing to further limit the charitable and mortgage interest portions of these deductions. The net result is their "tax break" will be a good deal less on a percentage basis than that of a person in a lower bracket.

I don't think there is any question of virtue here -- the Democrats are (in this issue and others) simply further squeezing private initiative out of our lives and replacing it with more government.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Irregardless of how the charitable contributions are calculated, 95% of workers will see a reduction in their taxes. That's not sophistry; it's the facts. And that includes democrats, republicans and independents.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:"

Quote:

I'd like to hear any Conservative here explain why lowering the deduction on charitable giving will cause rich Conservatives to donate less money to charity. Specifically. For some Conservatives here have pretended that the charitable giving done by their group is evidence of some sort of higher morality, and surely that would not be affected by tax rates."

Perhaps your answer lies in liberals asking why lowering the deduction would be causal in the increase of charitable donations, given that an actual answer is the intent of your above statement. But then the whole point of this fiscal policy is to regulate charitable giving. Assumed only in this policy is the Madisonian recognition of human nature. The only result of lowering the deduction that matters to the charities they have already recognized and voiced ;and that opinion differs from yours.

Quote:

We are also talking about the very rich; it isn't as if they won't be able to afford to give either way.

What is the admins definition of rich now? Obama at one point said 250K then Biden said 200K, will it slide further down or did Biden misspeak or what?

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

The charities will fight against anything that they fear will decrease their donations.

If you (and this goes for you too, George) believe that this means Conservatives will donate less money, does this not give the lie to the concept that Conservatives donate out of some inner goodness? I thought Obama put it quite well earlier tonight: that people will be able to deduct the same percentage no matter what level of taxation they pay. Nothing unfair about that.

You proponents of the stupid 'MAC' theory have argued many times that Conservatives are more generous than Liberals. Well, prove it. Keep giving the same amounts even after your tax cuts are taken away. I highly doubt that they will. But who knows? Surely you guys remember Reagan did the same thing back in the 80's. Is there any data showing that charitable giving plummeted?

Quote:

What is the admins definition of rich now? Obama at one point said 250K then Biden said 200K, will it slide further down or did Biden misspeak or what?

Obama has consistently said 250k per year. I don't know when we got into the habit of holding the VP responsible for setting policy; or maybe, I do know: it was when the guy your side championed for years abdicated the job to his VP and people started expecting him to be in charge.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Why would you want to do that though Cyclop? Because you believe government does more good with the money than the private sector? Why would Obama or you want to reduce the hundreds of billions of charitable contributions that are given to help our fellow human beings both here in America and all over the world?

Why wouldn't it make ever so much more sense and would be so much less expensive to provide even more incentive to people to give to charity and increase those contributions instead of trying to knock them down and divert more money and power to government?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Why would you want to do that though Cyclop? Because you believe government does more good with the money than the private sector? Why would Obama or you want to reduce the hundreds of billions of charitable contributions that are given to help our fellow human beings both here in America and all over the world?

Why wouldn't it make ever so much more sense and would be so much less expensive to provide even more incentive to people to give to charity and increase those contributions instead of trying to knock them down and divert more money and power to government?

We need the tax monies to cover our deficits and debts. Now, I know you would argue we should cut funding of programs to make up that difference. But that's not going to happen. Obama and the Dems are not looking to make significant cuts and the truth is that the Republicans have shown they are not either. You have nobody supporting your position in Washington.

Therefore the only option is to raise the tax monies. So that is likely what will be done. Now, you can go on and on about how this will doom our society in any number of ways; but I am unconvinced by this caterwauling about high taxes.

Fox, how do you square the drop in contributions you believe this will bring about, with your theories that Conservatives are naturally more charitable than Liberals? This is your great chance to be proven right or wrong; under your theory, the level of giving will not significantly drop.

also,

'More money to charities' in many cases means 'more money to churches.' No thanks.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

BELIEF IN THE BELIEF

This is exactly the problem Fox has, and larger, most Republicans I know. Remember "Stay the course?"

Meanwhile, I see the Democrats at each other's throats trying to come up with new ideas. Some aren't the best, but at least it's not some lame ass contest to see who is the best at being a democrat or a liberal. Being a moderate liberal or democrat is not treated like being a traitor amongst democrats. At least, I've yet to see it. The belief in the belief is less important than the product. Meanwhile, Foxfyre posts a damning essay from Thomas Sowell about how moderate republicans are a problem. Democrats aren't trying to re-indoctrinate, Republicans however...

Democrats are a big tent party, while the GOP has continued to make itself more and more exclusive. The idea of a belief in the belief is a contradiction in terms. There is no concerned effort with making democrats a ideological homogeny.

So, you can ramble about "the belief in the belief" if you like, that's a left-right fight you're not equipped to win.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Conservatives are NOT more charitable. However, they are more religious. The Internal Revenue Code lumps gifts to the church with other gifts to true charities. But, in reality, a church is not a charity, and little of what is given to a church goes for nonspiritual help to people. In fact, much of what is given to churches are sub-rosa church-school tuition payments.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

But the tax money apparently isn't going to be used to cover deficits and debts. It is crystal clear that the money is intended for new spending even as deficits and debts increase to unprecedented levels no matter what basis is used to calculate that. From a MACean point of view, this is fiscal insanity.

The reason that contributions can be compromised is that there are three reasons that the Americans are among the most generous and charitable of all people:

1) They are genuinelly charitable> As I have posted quite credible evidence of this, I will remind the reader that I have also posted evidence that those of more conservative leanings are on average far more charitable than are those of more liberal leanings no matter how many do not wish to believe that. So far the liberals have denied it without being able to present any evidence of their own that this is not the case. But whomever gives, conservative or liberal, s/he gives from his/her income. Take away some or all of that income by limiting their opportunities or creating an economy that takes away jobs, and they will reserve most cash to ensure that they can pay their mortage and light bill and feed their families. Charity begins at home.

2) They have the free money to give. People do give property and things of course--the Salvatation Army, Humane Society, and Good Will trucks come by our house at least once or twice a year to pick up a bunch of stuff that is still good but we don't need any more and also frequently visit the homes of our neighbors. But people give from what they have to give. No matter how generous people are, if the government reduces their expendable income, they will naturally or of necessity give less.

3) The wealthy, small business, etc. give for altruistic reasons and also because it is sometimes to their advantage to do so by reducing their taxable income or for advertising purposes. If the tax man is going to confiscate all or most of the money, they would rather direct it to a worthy cause. Reduce their bottom line or make it less justifiable to make the contribution, and they may not be able to fiscally justify funding a scholarship or contributing for that new hospital wing. As punative taxes force business to again begin sheltering their income and making it less available, there will be less money available for charitable giving.

Okay I answered your question. Now please answer mine.

Why do you think the government is better able to use the money for the general welfare than what all those billions in private charitable contributions has been accomplishing? Why in the world would our government want to reduce or diminish or discourage charitable giving?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox, you do realize that Obama is proposing lowering the deduction level on the top tax bracket only - that is, less than 5% of Americans?

Your reasons 1 or 2 are invalid. Being able to write off 10% less from charitable donations will not affect the bottom line of the rich in the slightest. The wealthy have plenty to give no matter what tax rate we have.

Reason 3 gets to he heart of the matter. I assert that 90% of giving by Conservatives is for tax reasons and very little is out of the goodness of their heart. If they truly were giving b/c they considered it a good thing to do, and they are not bound by fiscal constraints, then their level of giving should be unaffected by taxation.

Quote:

Why do you think the government is better able to use the money for the general welfare than what all those billions in private charitable contributions has been accomplishing? Why in the world would our government want to reduce or diminish charitable giving?

We need the money to settle our deficits and debts. I am uninterested in your arguments against new spending, they are just predictable ideological complaints from the minority party. I am equally uninterested in subsidizing churches with tax breaks.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think you are dead wrong Cyclop. History has proved it. Studies have proved it. Statistics have proved it. I know it from my own experience. El Stud and I budget a percentage of our household/business income for charity every year. Those contributions are a hell of a lot more in good years than they are in the not-so-good years. Increase our bottom line and we give more. Decrease it and we give less because we have less to give.

Again, there is abundant evidence that the current administration does not intended to pay down debts or cover deficits with the money but intends huge amounts of new spending.

So let me ask the question again. Why would a government who pretends to be working for the best interest of the people want to reduce charitable activities/giving? Why do YOU want the government to reduce charitable giving? Why do you think the government can spend your money more efficiently, effectively, economically than what those charities are doing with those contributions?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know