AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

I would appreciate a vote from the MACs

I'm kinda curious who those folks are.

ehBeth wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I would appreciate a vote from the MACs

I'm kinda curious who those folks are.

It's quite simple really. It is anybody and everybody who believes, supports, and is likely to be willing to defend the ideas, ideals, principles, and values that have been defined as MAC on this thread. It is not (yet) a group that anybody joins or that defines a particular demographic. Do I need to post that definition again? Admittedly it does seem to be a concept that is completely over the head of all the numbnuts and some others as well.

So you think the illustrations he provided re Wales, Scotland, and Canada are irrelevent to the point he was making? Do you think any one of those countries would vote into office people who would campaign on intent to privatize a lot of their respective government social service networks or does only a party who will keep them intact stand a chance of being elected?

Do I need to post that definition again?

Admittedly it does seem to be a concept that is completely over the head of all the numbnuts and some others as well.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority..

if that's the case, the Republicans shoulda definitely won big last time round

Job Growth Where Bush Didn’t Want It

Quote:

Under the current president, federal job growth has averaged 0.73 percent per year, but employment rolls at state and local governments have grown even more rapidly, at rates of 0.88 percent for state governments and 1.21 percent for local governments.

(curent president in this case'd be Bush II)

http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

Quote:

Source: The 2008 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census Bureau

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

Quote:

By any measure, there has been an explosion in government spending in both the defense and non-defense categories. Not surprisingly with the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, defense spending has risen during the Bush Administration by 61 percent in constant dollars.

But “big government” domestic expenditures also have gotten a lot bigger during the presidency of George W. Bush. Welfare state spending has increased by 32 percent in constant dollars from what it was at the end of the Clinton Administration.

Medical Care expenditures by the federal government (which includes Medicare, Medicaid, hospital and medical care for veterans, substance abuse and mental health services) has gone up by 54 percent in constant dollars under the current Republican administration.

Not far behind, Food and Nutrition Assistance (which includes food stamps, child nutrition, and special milk programs, supplemental food programs) has increased 43 percent since 2000.

Social Security and related payments have risen by 19 percent. Public Assistance (which includes family support payments to states, low income home energy assistance, earned income tax credits, legal services, payments to states for daycare assistance, payments to states for foster care/adoption assistance, and other related services) have gone up 17 percent. Housing assistance has increased by 12 percent. Federal student loans and related programs have increased by 129 percent.

The incoming Obama administration will have to work very hard if it wants to exceed the Bush administration in growing the welfare state during its term in office.

Foxfyre wrote:

So you think the illustrations he provided re Wales, Scotland, and Canada are irrelevent to the point he was making? Do you think any one of those countries would vote into office people who would campaign on intent to privatize a lot of their respective government social service networks or does only a party who will keep them intact stand a chance of being elected?

You wouldn't be asking these questions if you followed Canadian politics. Or you'd at least leave Canada out of the questions.

How likely is anybody to vote against whatever produces income and benefits that you have become dependent on?

How likely is anybody to vote against whatever produces income and benefits that you have become dependent on?

Foxfyre wrote:

Do I need to post that definition again?

No.

I'm looking for people who self-identify as these fantastical MACs

So you think the illustrations he provided re Wales, Scotland, and Canada are irrelevent to the point he was making? Do you think any one of those countries would vote into office people who would campaign on intent to privatize a lot of their respective government social service networks or does only a party who will keep them intact stand a chance of being elected?

Here is a thought provoking essay from one conservative Canadian that will probably ring true with most MACs, might inspire some critical thinking among intelligent non-MACs, and will probably be totally over the head of the peanut gallery and numbnuts who don't even understand what a MAC is, much less are bright enough to discuss ideas, issues and/or concepts.

We can always agree to disagree if we chose not to presume to judge others based on nothing more than our own prejudices. Would you agree with that?

How is Steyn, a Canadian himself by the way, wrong about Canada?

I am absolutely a MAC.

Again these are concepts that are incomprehensible to the numbnuts. Can you understand it?

Foxfyre wrote:

So you think the illustrations he provided re Wales, Scotland, and Canada are irrelevent to the point he was making? Do you think any one of those countries would vote into office people who would campaign on intent to privatize a lot of their respective government social service networks or does only a party who will keep them intact stand a chance of being elected?

Well, to the extent that there is a broad consensus in places like the UK and Canada in favor of social welfare programs, including socialized medicine, that transcends partisan boundaries, then I suppose there's a permanent electoral majority in favor of keeping them. Of course, that's not what Steyn was really talking about, since it's surpassing strange to claim that rival parties have, among themselves, a permanent electoral majority. One might just as well say that the Democrats and Republicans together have a permanent electoral majority in the US.

Foxfyre wrote:

How is Steyn, a Canadian himself by the way, wrong about Canada?

How? because he's wrong.

Geez Louise, are you suggesting that because cyclo is American, I should think he's right about everything he posts about America?

So is it completely out of the question that those very social programs have created a dependency? A dependency on benefits that people are reluctant or afraid to give up for fear their life will be even worse if they do?