AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

Did the Conservatives in Canada win recent elections by stating that the would reduce the size, power, and scope of government, reduce or eliminate government contracts, and scale back or eliminate the Canadian welfare and healthcare system? If so, then you have a point.

The Conservatives' consistent position is reduction of size/power/scope of government, reduction/elimination of government contracts, and significant changes to welfare/healthcare (insofar as there are federal components - most of that is dealt with provincially and locally, not federally).

ehBeth wrote:

so here's what Steyn "actually" said

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.

the problem is - no evidence

Okay, to return to the previous questions.

So again. Do you say that those conservatives ran on a platform of intending to reduce the size and power of government, reduce or eliminate some or a lot of the benefits or programs or projects that many Canadians depend on? Or did they simply promise more efficiency and effectiveness but didn't presume to privatize much?

Foxfyre wrote:

Tell me how it hasn't happened in Canada.

What party/group has a permanent electoral majority in Canada?

You seriously need to look elsewhere. You're not going to make the point you're hoping to make using Canada as an example.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

Quote:

Can you provide examples of where this has happened?

Again he was not referring to a party or group. He was referring to a principle of how a party or group keeps itself in power. The people may change over time, but the principle remains. Those who would stay in power dare not violate it and those who would increase their own power and influence use it to that advantage.

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

Can you provide examples of where this has happened?

Did the Conservatives in Canada win recent elections by stating that the would reduce the size, power, and scope of government, reduce or eliminate government contracts, and scale back or eliminate the Canadian welfare and healthcare system? If so, then you have a point.

Even though I continue to believe that George W. Bush is an honest, compassionate, and good man,

No, because he's talking about an electoral majority within a competitive model. Here our competitive model is the two party system. There's no current competition on overthrowing entitlement programs within our two party system. Those of us who would like to do so can bitch and moan all we want but until the writing on the wall gets filled in with bright red lipstick (so as to be obvious) it's not going to happen. Change comes slow. Slower than I would like in this case, but it's only a matter of time before the next generation says, "What a minute, all you folks taking from and no longer putting into the system..." Then, and probably only then, will we see the major overhaul that I think is necessary.

I've yet to hear anyone with any plan or explanation as to how a smaller workforce can support the needs of an aging demographic with an increased life expectancy.

"Once the people are sufficiently dependent, then whatever those in power call themselves doesn't matter so long as they can convince the people that they are "A" and not "B"."

this is the big republican fear.

(hence, stop healthcare)

Rockhead wrote:

"Once the people are sufficiently dependent, then whatever those in power call themselves doesn't matter so long as they can convince the people that they are "A" and not "B"."

this is the big republican fear.

(hence, stop healthcare)

You still haven't named a single Republican, in or out of power, who opposes healthcare. When you can post a verifiable statement to support your opinion about that we might have something to discuss . Until you do, I will continue to believe that all Repbublicans in or out of power that I know or have ever heard of are 100% in favor of healthcare.

And the more dependency "A" can create among the people, the more power "A" acquires.

Rockhead wrote:

"Once the people are sufficiently dependent, then whatever those in power call themselves doesn't matter so long as they can convince the people that they are "A" and not "B"."

this is the big republican fear.

(hence, stop healthcare)

You still haven't named a single Republican, in or out of power, who opposes healthcare. When you can post a verifiable statement to support your opinion about that we might have something to discuss . Until you do, I will continue to believe that all Repbublicans in or out of power that I know or have ever heard of are 100% in favor of healthcare.

How tendentious; you know he meant 'health care reform.'

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

And the more dependency "A" can create among the people, the more power "A" acquires.

Example please.

Great lip service in great sounding generalities.

I'll refer to the examples Steyn used and add the examples in the USA already stated.