AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I don't think that any of us are in a position to call others here condescending. Name-calling is all to common here: the phrase "ad hominem" is more often than not a deceptive euphamism for the word bombs hurled back and forth.

I don't think Foxfyre is any worse than the A2K norms in these areas. Indeed she is usually a good deal better: she attempts to explain herself and usually deals with the criticism that often results. She stubbornly clings to her views on the subjects being discussed, but who here can claim they don't do the same?

I try to have fun all the time.

Foxfyre wrote:

Williams teaches and lectures in the same manner that he writes. Blunt. To the point. Without equivocation. And without ambiguity. You wouldn't hire somebody who is like that you say. I cherish and value such people who are able to cut right through all the **** and get to the heart of the matter. Of course it does require considering a statement within its context instead of plucking it out and isolating it where it can be more easily attacked.

I have a certain sympathy for folks who are blunt and get right to the point and the heart of the matter. I'm often accused of that myself.

However, it isn't enough to be clear, direct, and forceful. One must also be right, and, in particular, careful to avoid sophistry and hypocrisy. This is where your professor fails the test.

If there is more relevant context to his remarks that I have missed, I will revise my opinion. However you didn't provide it: I reacted to what you presented here.

Foxfyre wrote:

Williams knew full well and pointed out that those who do not want to answer the question at face value would want to add all kinds of ambiguity, qualifications, and dance around it and do everything in their arsenal to avoid answering it. Once you acknowledge that it is immoral to force one person to involuntarily serve another--i.e. it is immoral to make one person a slave to another--then the whole dialogue of what government's role should be changes.

True enough. However Williams then went on to hypocritically add his own ambiguous qualifier with respect to constitutionally-mandated functions of government - not very bright, if you ask me.

Foxfyre wrote:

And that was the thesis. And so far not one single person commenting on it has understood that.

On the contrary, I believe I have understood it completely. Moreover I have pointed out the logical inconsistencies that immediately follow tha assertion of this categorical principle. You merely appear unwilling to accept their obvious implications.

Debra Law wrote:

You and Foxfyre engage in the same undeserved exercises of self-worship. While you pretend to be intellectually superior, you fail to see the obvious.

Gosh ! And I wear blinders too !

What did I miss? Did I fail to see the obvious enduring evil of Wallmart ?
Or was it my failure to appreciate your sweeping prejudgements??

Forgive me, but you have given me no indication that you understand the thesis. In order to do that, you have to be able to state what the thesis is. You have not done that.

She (Foxfyre) stubbornly clings to her views on the subjects being discussed

Please list all the legislation by ... Obama that you call "theft taxation?" ...

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
February 17, 2009 Getting to $787 Billion
After a month of wrangling, 246 House Democrats, 57 Senate Democrats and three Senate Republicans voted late last week to pass a compromise economic recovery package of spending provisions, tax cuts and aid to laid-off workers and their families. The 1,073-page bill, signed into law Monday by President Obama, contains hundreds of provisions. This is how they add up.

(Dollar amounts are specified in millions of dollars.)
...
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts $400 payroll tax credit for workers earning up to $75,000; married couples filing jointly get $800 for income up to $150,000 $116,199
Aid Healthcare Federal aid to states for Medicaid spending $90,044
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts Middle-income taxpayers get an exemption from the alternative minimum tax of $46,700 for an individual and $70,950 for a married couple $69,759
Aid Aid to states Aid to states to balance education budgets, prevent cutbacks and modernize schools $40,600
Spending Transportation Grants for highway improvements $29,000
Aid Individual aid Extension of jobless benefits for up to 33 weeks $26,960
Aid Individual aid 65% subsidy for laid-off workers to continue paying premiums for former employer's health plan for nine months $24,749
Aid Food 13% increase in food stamp payments $19,991
Aid Healthcare Incentive payments to hospitals and physicians who computerize medical-records systems $17,559
Aid Education Increase in Pell Grant to $5,350 in 2009 and to $5,550 in 2010, and other increases to student aid $17,114
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts Increased eligibility for refundable child tax credit, with all income over $3000 qualifying $14,830
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts One-time payment of $250 for retirees, disabled people, SSI recipients, railroad retirees and disabled veterans $14,225
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts Tax credit of up to $2500 for tuition and college expenses $13,907
Tax provisions Energy tax cuts Extending by three years the placed-in-service date for renewable energy investments $13,143
Spending Education Funding for 'Title I' education programs for disadvantaged children $13,000
Spending Education Grants for special education programs $12,200
Tax provisions Infrastructure tax cuts $22 billion in new tax credit bonds for construction or repair of public schools $9,877
Spending Health and Services National Institutes of Health biomedical research $9,500
Aid Individual aid Increase in weekly unemployment benefits by $25 $8,800
Spending Transportation Public transit improvements and infrastructure investments $8,400
Aid Aid to states Aid to states for public safety and critical services $8,000
Spending Transportation Grants for capital investments in designated high-speed rail corridors $8,000
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts A tax credit for first-time homebuyers increases from $7500 to $8000, and will not have to be repaid $6,638
Spending Energy Money for federal power marketing administrations in electric power transmission systems $6,500
Spending Outdoors Loans for communities to upgrade wastewater treatment systems and drinking water infrastructure $6,400
Spending Energy Energy efficiency grants to states and local governments $6,300
Spending Government Construction, repair and energy alterations to federal buildings and facilities $5,550
Tax provisions Infrastructure tax cuts $25 billion of bonds for investment in economic recovery zones will be created $5,371
Spending Energy Cleanup of former nuclear defense sites $5,127
Tax provisions Business tax cuts Businesses will be able to more quickly deduct the cost of investments in plant and equipment from their taxable income $5,074
Aid Aid to states Aid to states in form of bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education $5,000
Spending Energy Home weatherization grants to low and middle-income families $5,000
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts $2400 of unemployment benefits will not be subject to federal income tax $4,740
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts Increase in earned income tax credit for working families with more than three children $4,663
Spending Energy Modernization of the electric grid $4,400
Spending Commerce Grants to provide wireless and broadband infrastructure to communities, including public computer centers and sustainable adoption of broadband service $4,350
Tax provisions Infrastructure tax cuts 35% credit to bondholders for infrastructure bonds, 35% refundable credit to issuers of bonds $4,348
Spending Outdoors Flood control and water management construction, regulation and investigations $4,125
Spending Housing Repairs and modernization of public housing projects $4,000
Spending Energy Loan guarantees for standard renewables $4,000
Spending Defense Restoration and modernization of Defense facilities in U.S. and territories $3,840
Tax provisions Infrastructure tax cuts Rules affecting state and local government bonds will be changed to improve marketability $3,789
Tax provisions Business tax cuts Some companies restructuring may not be subject to those tougher rules $3,163
Aid Individual aid Grants for states modernizing unemployment compensation coverage among low-wage, part-time and other workers $2,975
Spending Energy Research and development of renewable and efficient energy technology $2,500
Spending Science National Science Foundation research $2,500
Spending Farming Broadband grants to rural communities $2,500
Aid Individual aid Aid to states for temporary assistance to needy families payments (TANF) $2,418
Spending Housing Funds for building and rehabilitating low-income housing using green technology $2,250
Spending Housing Energy efficiency retrogrades to low-income housing, including new insulation, windows and furnaces $2,250
Spending Justice Grants to state and local law enforcement $2,225
Tax provisions Energy tax cuts 30% cap on tax credit for energy efficiency purchases by homeowners, up to $1500 per residence $2,034
Tax provisions Energy tax cuts Tax credit for plug-in electric vehicle conversion $2,002
Spending Housing Funds for communities to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed and vacant properties $2,000
Spending Health and Services Extra money for Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology $2,000
Spending Health and Services Grants to states for childcare services for low-income working parents $2,000
Spending Health and Services Renovation and health IT purchases for community health centers $2,000
Spending Energy Transmission loan guarantees $2,000
Spending Energy Advanced batteries manufacturing grants $2,000
Tax provisions Individual tax cuts Taxpayers earning less than $125,000 can deduct sales and excise taxes paid on new cars $1,684
Tax provisions Business tax cuts Facilities making advanced energy property may be able to claim a new 30% investment tax credit $1,647
Tax provisions Business tax cuts Companies will be allowed to defer taxes for five years on several transactions aimed at restructuring balance sheets, and repay the taxes over the following five years $1,622
Aid Individual aid Two-year extension of program providing income support and training benefits for workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing overseas $1,600
Spending Energy Physics research including high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy sciences $1,600
Spending Energy Grants for industrial carbon capture and energy efficiency improvement projects $1,520
Aid Housing Grants for short-term help with rent and housing relocation for homeless families $1,500
Spending Farming Grants for rural waste and waste disposal $1,380
Spending Military Defense hospital construction $1,330
Spending Transportation Grants to Amtrak $1,300
Spending Labor Grants to states for dislocated worker employment and training activities $1,250
Spending Labor Grants to states for youth training, including summer jobs $1,200
Aid Individual aid Waiver on interest payments and accrual in interest on loans held by state unemployment trust funds $1,100
Spending Transportation Grants for airport improvements $1,100
Spending Health and Services "Early Head Start" programs for low-income infants $1,100
Spending Health and Services Funding for research comparing effectiveness of treatments funded by Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP $1,100
Tax provisions Infrastructure tax cuts $2.8 billion of bonds for schools working with businesses $1,045
Aid Individual aid Extra funding for child support enforcement $1,000
Spending Housing Grants for community and economic development projects $1,000
Spending Veterans Renovations and energy efficiency improvements to veterans medical facilities $1,000
Spending Health and Services Funding for community preventative health campaigns, vaccination programs, healthcare-associated infection reduction strategies $1,000
Spending Health and Services Grants for community employment, food, housing and healthcare projects $1,000
Spending Health and Services "Head Start" programs for low-income preschoolers $1,000
Spending Homeland security Explosive detection systems for airports $1,000
Spending Energy Fossil energy research and development $1,000
Spending Outdoors Water reclamation and reuse projects $1,000
Spending Justice Grants to state and local law enforcement to hire extra police officers $1,000
Spending Commerce Extra money for Census $1,000
...

. . . .

And I must say, the presumption that all who disagree with one's position simply do not understand said position; that is the very definition of condescending...

Cycloptichorn

Predictions:
. . . .
4 The MACeans will read and understand the thesis.

5 If the MALs read the piece at all, most will not understand it or will intentionally misrepresent or misstate what it says

In her predictable response to georgeob's post, Foxfyre wrote:

Forgive me, but you have given me no indication that you understand the thesis. In order to do that, you have to be able to state what the thesis is. You have not done that.

Now this ought to get interesting.

Cycloptichorn

Give Foxie an inche, and she'll take a mile. georgeob seem oblivious to Foxie's games. Foxie is the smartest "thing" on a2k. The funny part of all that is that Foxie gets more challenges than liver pills.

One of the most familiar of all trade names was booked for a major operation last week. The Federal Trade Commission told the manufacturers of Carter's Little Liver Pills to cut the word "liver" out of the product name. The tiny, white-coated globules, FTC found, are an irritative laxative (with one of their ingredients described as "drastic"), and have no medicinal effect on the liver. . . .

Please Debra, one more time will you point out the hypocrisy of "modern American conservatism." That is, will you please list and describe two or three hypocritical positions you believe MACs (i.e., modern American conservatives) have taken.

From my limited perspective, one common trait among all the MACs I have communicated with is their respect for and obedience to the rule of law in general, and the rule of the Constitution of the USA in particular. Of course, I realize my limited perspective limits my evidence that supports my view to anecdotal evidence. That is, none of the behaviors of MACs with whom I've communicated have shown them to be hypocrites about their respect and obedience to these rules.

Please, anyone else who would like to join in and point out the specific hypocrisies of MACs they have encountered, please feel free to do so.

I'm not aware of any generally accepted definition of the term "MAC", and I think that most such efforts to attach labels to people, whether one supports or opposes them, are at best, superficial & relatively without meaning and, at worst, foolish, even stupid.

I presented a complete thesis written by Walter Williams without comment on the thesis.

Forgive me, but you have given me no indication that you understand the thesis. In order to do that, you have to be able to state what the thesis is. You have not done that.

ican711nm wrote:

Please Debra, one more time will you point out the hypocrisy of "modern American conservatism." That is, will you please list and describe two or three hypocritical positions you believe MACs (i.e., modern American conservatives) have taken.

From my limited perspective, one common trait among all the MACs I have communicated with is their respect for and obedience to the rule of law in general, and the rule of the Constitution of the USA in particular. Of course, I realize my limited perspective limits my evidence that supports my view to anecdotal evidence. That is, none of the behaviors of MACs with whom I've communicated have shown them to be hypocrites about their respect and obedience to these rules.

Please, anyone else who would like to join in and point out the specific hypocrisies of MACs they have encountered, please feel free to do so.

I'm not aware of any generally accepted definition of the term "MAC", and I think that most such efforts to attach labels to people, whether one supports or opposes them, are at best, superficial & relatively without meaning and, at worst, foolish, even stupid.

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 Rüüüüstow and Wilhelm Rööööpke 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.

The popular conceptions of left and right wing political positions in this country involve some occasionally odd mixtures of conservative and social democratic viewpoints - on both sides. Individuals on both sides vary as well, adopting views supported by one side and the other in our popular political divide. Most of the sweeping generalizations being bandied about here are absurd and unworthy of serious consideration -- even by fun-loving, intellectually pretentious asses wearing blinders.

There is no logically consistent and defensible principal, derivable from the founding principals of this country, that makes absolutely immoral the forcible compulsion of one person to aid or fund through taxation the benefit of another. One can certainly assert this principle as a postulate of his/her own making - anyone can do that. However, there is no argument that logically compels anyone else to accept such a principle , based on our common values.

Hypocrisy, in my experience can be as often found on both sides of the political divide. One can strongly disagree with the opposing view, but that doesn't necessarily make one who holds it a hypocrite.

I agree whole heartedly. I have been called every uncomplimentary name in the book here on A2K so many times I long lost count. I have never in my life either in real life or on any other message board been subjected to that kind of treatment to such an extent and I have to believe that it is because the numbnuts reinforce each other to a much greater extent here and operate in packs that gives them courage. It is usually the oh so compassionate, tolerant, open minded left who regularly spew out that kind of abuse.

I am sorry that you were subjected to it on this thread

And I would like to see your rationale for this statement. "There is no logically consistent and defensible principal, derivable from the founding principals of this country, that makes absolutely immoral the forcible compulsion of one person to aid or fund through taxation the benefit of another."