AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

I stand by my impression of the most common rebuttals from the Left. And you yourself have given them in various ways if you use the full context of my statements.

Well, you attribute our actions to 'envy and ignorance,' whereas they are in fact eminently practical ones; but if it makes you feel better to demonize us, go right ahead.

Cycloptichorn

It is acceptable to take the Marxist view that spreading misery equally produces the greatest good.

Nobody is demonizing you but you.

The "transfer of wealth" is defined herein to consist of taking property from those persons who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those persons who did not lawfully earn it.

Generally, any law that involves the expenditure of money does not transfer wealth as I have defined it, because most such laws take money from persons who lawfully earned it and give it to other persons WHO LAWFULLY EARNED IT: for example, they transfer money to government employees or to government contractors that lawfully earned it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I stand by my impression of the most common rebuttals from the Left. And you yourself have given them in various ways if you use the full context of my statements.

Well, you attribute our actions to 'envy and ignorance,' whereas they are in fact eminently practical ones; but if it makes you feel better to demonize us, go right ahead.

Cycloptichorn

No, YOU are attributing your actions to envy and ignorance. I used nor implied neither word. Nobody is demonizing you but you.

1) If we don't do this, those who do not earn their bread will have none. I think many on the Left cannot conceive of any way to feed the hungry if the Federal government does not do it.

2) if we do not do this the rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer. To many on the Left, the only way to make the poor richer (or at least feel less bad about being poor) is to make the rich poorer. It is acceptable to take the Marxist view that spreading misery equally produces the greatest good.

Many on the Left have no problem with forcibly confiscating property from Citizen A who ethically and legally acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B who has much less property. Many on the Left feel righteous when they do this because they honestly resent the most successful and they feel more righteous by playing Robin Hood than by giving of their own property.

Try again and use the exact wording I used. And then tell me if you do not believe the statements I used to illustrate your rebuttal.

Define "lawfully earned". If I collect unemployment insurance, how did I earn it?
If a CEO gets money for a home from the corporation, how did he lawfully earn it compared to money going to someone else to pay for their housing?
If the CEO provides a "service" then how can you ignore "services" that others provide when you claim they didn't "lawfully earn" something?

Part of the money that I earn in Illinois goes to pay federal taxes. Some of that tax money is then spent by congress on a public works project in Texas. That project enhances your ability to earn a living, thus, in effect, transfering my lawfully earned money to you, even though you didn't do anything to earn it. Is that unconstitutional?

(1) "lawfully earned" money = money obtained from others who agreed to provide it without being forced to provide it by illegal means.

Transportation and housing.........$61,795......................$61,051



The items in red are a "transfer of wealth."

I'll assume your money spent by government on a public works project in Texas is "lawfully earned" by those people who work on the public works project.

I'll assume your money spent by government on a public works project in Texas is "lawfully earned" by those people who work on the public works project. If those people in turn spend what they have lawfully earned without being forced by illegal means to spend it, that money is "lawfully earned" by those people who receive it. In my personal case, if a public works person had wanted to pay me to teach them to fly and I agreed to do that, and did do that for a mutually agreed fee, I would have thereby lawfully earned that fee.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is acceptable to take the Marxist view that spreading misery equally produces the greatest good.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody is demonizing you but you.

Well, yeah. I'm sure that to you, accusing "the Left" of being keen on "spreading misery equally" is a fair representation of a progressive point of view....

Yes, since the beginning of summer we have been busy here what with the garden, redoing the kitchen and two bathrooms (I did a little research into Obama's foreign policy, which I posted on another thread, in order to find some ideological insight into Obama's thinking but no luck. Most here is ad hoc measures whose main impetuous stems from being either anti-Bush like or disguised Bush policy). Tomato season is finally wrapping up (we make our own sauce or gravy as my Italian babe of a wife calls it) and broccoli will be harvested and put in the freezer as the end crop in another few weeks. Meanwhile I've been spending a lot of time in the woods felling, bucking, and splitting the fire wood for winter. Trying to get the wood done early so we can go south for a few months in the fall.

It’s a simple but very good life for us. This country has afforded me and mine the personal liberty that has created our successful pursuit of happiness and I wish the same for my and their children (and every American) and that's why I have decided to try to get politically involved, especially in the upcoming 2010 elections even if it is only licking stamps--any suggestions on who I might contact? Though they be only midterms I think all MACs agree that they are absolutely critical for this country (here in Jersey Chris Christie(R) is trying to unseat Governor Corzine(D) ,Corzine is trying to link Christie to Bush and himself to Obama--we will see if this tactic still has legs or not). You and others have pointed out how valuable Republicans in grown-up mode are to some presidents and the country in general and if there is enough of a conservative shift in congress perhaps this will go a long ways towards a virtual impeachment of the Obama ideology, which generally seems to be, at least, socialistic. I think that, perhaps, even Ican may be pleased with such an outcome.

JM

CABLE NEWS RACE
MONDAY, AUG. 24, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,440,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,937,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,810,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,450,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,066,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,860,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,114,000
CNN KING 1,063,000
MSNBC MADDOW 885,000
CNN COOPER 827,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 640,000

5PM " P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck" 2,136,000 viewers (524,000) (969,000)
Situation Room"802,000 viewers (206,000) (319,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews"688,000 viewers (189,000) (308,000)
Fast Money"238,000 viewers (92,000) (135,000)
Prime News"264,000 viewers (121,000) (141,000)