55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 09:08 am
@parados,
Not only international agreements that the US have signed in on, but US laws make torture illegal.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 10:07 am
Letting the floors dry for a minute. This was in yesterday's WSJ. I don't know that all MACs are supply siders, but I suspect most probably are. But it would be incomprehensible that one could meet the definition of Modern American Conservative and also favor Keynesian economics.

Quote:
SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
The Keynesians Were Wrong Again
We won't see a return to growth without incentives for job-creating investment.
By PETER FERRARA

From the beginning, our representatives in Washington have approached this
economic downturn with old-fashioned, Keynesian economics.

Keynesianism"named after the British economist John Maynard Keynes"is the theory that you fight an economic downturn by pumping money into the economy to "encourage demand" and "create jobs." The result of our recent Keynesian stimulus bills? The longest recession since World War II"21 months and counting"with no clear end in sight. Borrowing close to a trillion dollars out of the private economy to increase government spending by close to a trillion dollars does nothing to increase incentives for investment and entrepreneurship.

The record speaks for itself: In February 2008, President George W. Bush cut a deal with congressional Democrats to pass a $152 billion Keynesian stimulus bill based on countering the recession with increased deficits. The centerpiece was a tax rebate of up to $600 per person, which had no significant effect on economic incentives, as reductions in tax rates do.

Learning nothing from this Keynesian failure, which he vigorously supported from the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama came back in February 2009 to support a $787 billion, purely Keynesian stimulus bill.

Even the tax-cut portion of that bill, which Mr. Obama is still wildly touting to the public, was purely Keynesian. The centerpiece was a $400-per-worker tax credit, which, again, has no significant effect on economic incentives. While Mr. Obama is proclaiming that this delivered on his campaign promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, the tax credit disappears after next year.

The Obama administration is claiming success, not because of recovery, but because of the slowdown in economic decline. Last month, just 216,000 jobs were lost, and the economy declined by only 1% in the second quarter. Based on his rhetoric, Mr. Obama expects credit for anyone who still has a job.

The fallacies of Keynesian economics were exposed decades ago by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Keynesian thinking was then discredited in practice in the 1970s, when the Keynesians could neither explain nor cure the double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment that resulted from their policies. Ronald Reagan's decision to dump Keynesianism in favor of supply-side policies"which emphasize incentives for investment"produced a 25-year economic boom. That boom ended as the Bush administration abandoned every component of Reaganomics one by one, culminating in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's throwback Keynesian stimulus in early 2008.

Mr. Obama showed up in early 2009 with the dismissive certitude that none of this history ever happened, and suddenly national economic policy was back in the 1930s. Instead of the change voters thought they were getting, Mr. Obama quintupled down on Mr. Bush's 2008 Keynesianism.

The result is the continuation of the economic policy disaster we have suffered since the end of 2007. Mr. Obama promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from climbing over 8%. It jumped to 9.7% last month. Some 14.9 million Americans are unemployed, another 9.1 million are stuck in part-time jobs and can't find full-time work, and another 2.3 million looked for work in the past year and never found it. That's a total of 26.3 million unemployed or underemployed, for a total jobless rate of 16.8%. Personal income is also down $427 billion from its peak in May 2008.

Rejecting Keynesianism in favor of fiscal restraint, France and Germany saw economic growth return in the second quarter this year. India, Brazil and even communist China are enjoying growth as well. Canada enjoyed job growth last month.

U.S. economic recovery and a permanent reduction in unemployment will only come from private, job-creating investment. Nothing in the Obama economic recovery program, or in the Bush 2008 program, helps with that.

Producing long-term economic growth will require a fundamental change in economic policies"lower, not higher, tax rates; reliable, low-cost energy supplies, not higher energy costs through cap and trade; and not unreliable alternative energy surviving only on costly taxpayer subsidies.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama seems to be wedded to his political talking points, and his ideological blinders seem to be permanently affixed. So don't expect any policy changes. Expect an eventual return to 1970s-style economic results instead.

Mr. Ferrara, director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under the first President Bush.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400580004827114.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:11 am
@Foxfyre,
Quoting wsj-online Foxfyre wrote:

Rejecting Keynesianism in favor of fiscal restraint, France and Germany saw economic growth return in the second quarter this year. India, Brazil and even communist China are enjoying growth as well. Canada enjoyed job growth last month.


However, according to the IMF and what is published here, Germany’s actual stimulus package is quite substantial,comparable to that of the United States!

France, on the other side, has suffered a smaller slump, something like 3.1% in 2008.
France didn’t have a housing bubble, too, and they aren't dependent on durable manufactured exports as Germany.


But as a economy paper headlined here (they are in opposition to our Social-Democrat finance minister): "Keynes rettet Deutschland" ('Keynes saves Germany'). [I try to find a copy of that paper.]
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
[I try to find a copy of that paper.]


I don't have the print editions anymore.

But the conservative, national, daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote in a special about the German "Konjunkturpaket" ('economic stimulus package'):"" ('After all, the Federal Government is following with its economic stimulus packages the recommodations of the British economist John Maynard Keynes ...')
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And even more interestingly, The Wall Street Journal wrote in its European edition (on 20 August, 2009, page 14) that "Germany is totally followin Keynes ideas, especially with the reprehensible cash-for-clunkers program ..."

And on 24 August, 2009, in the same paper (WJS Europe, Opinion and Editorial, page 15), Alan Reynolds, senior fellow with the Cato Institute, wrote similar in his comment "Big Government, Big Recession"
http://i25.tinypic.com/1427hw1.jpg

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 01:57 pm
Quote:
CABLE NEWS RACE
THURSDAY NITE, SEPT 10

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,609,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,340,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,986,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,522,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,362,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,040,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,573,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,164,000
CNN KING 965,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 882,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 734,000
CNN COOPER 691,000
http://www.drudgereport.com/


And here is why Fox's ratings are so much higher than everybody else. Fox is giving the people real time information and isn't sweeping stuff under the rug that might be a problem for the Obama administration or the Republicans. It's just about the only mainstream source to get information on everything that is going on. This clip is from last year during the campaign:



I hope everybody will take the few minutes required to watch. And then perhaps we will have a better foundation to
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 02:33 pm
I have stayed out of most of this discussion, and I have totally stayed out of any discussion regarding ACORN, but I cant now.

I have seen several of you defend ACORN, saying they have never been charged with anything.

That may be true, but thie revelations about ACORN employees getting caught on tape telling people how to cheat on their taxes and how to hide child sex slaves and claim them as dependents on taxes is too much.

The ACORN employees are seem like they have done it before, based on how easy it was for them to do.
They didnt even blink when the undercover people mentioned bringing in about 13 girls, all under 16, to work in a brothel as sex slaves.

Apparently, it was enough to cause the US Census Bureau to sever their ties with ACORN, so now ACORN will not be allowed to work in any way regarding the next census.
I do have to wonder now if the complaints I have read about ACORN regarding other things might actually be legit.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 03:25 pm
@mysteryman,
i read about this yesterday on a friend's "liberal" blog.

the opinion may surprise y'all. and i'm in complete agreement

Quote:
ACORN is toast
Thu Sep 10 2009 10:25 pm by Bob Morris.


And deservedly so. What they did is not defensible, and there’s no way they will survive this intact. Nor should they.


http://polizeros.com/2009/09/10/acorn-is-toast/

now that they have been charged, there is a valid reason (other than politics) to go after them.

ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 04:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn, your allegations are false. Absent evidence from any sources, your allegations are vacuous. If your allegations were included with some sources, objective or biased, would at least indicate you have some basis for what you allege.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
[ican] know[s] for a fact that IBQ provides the absolute lowest-boundary numbers for the amount of civvies killed in Iraq; ...

It is a fact that many were tortured to death in US custody under Bush.

It is also a fact that warrantless wiretaps were used to gather evidence used in court, as well as spy on a gigantic number of people...


I know for a fact that IBQ has been providing and is now providing both a low and an high estimate of civilians killed in Iraq since January 1, 2003.

I know for a fact that no more than three prisoners who were in US military custody died while they were in US military custody. None of these prisoners died because they were tortured to death by the US military.

I know for a fact that no warrantless wiretaps were used to gather evidence subsequently used in court to convict anyone. However, there were warranted wiretaps used to gather evidence subsequently used in court to prosecute alleged murderers.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 04:35 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
I don't recall looking at the ACORN website before today. It was really quite fantastic how little they actually said with so many words. I'd love to know what's really going on re funding - and when/where it started.

It seems like an odd little organization - lots of reasonable goals, but that whole "we don't ask for funds, we just work with the people who get the funds" thing ... hinky.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 04:39 pm
@ehBeth,
I read today that the census bureau cancelled their contract with ACORN, because of evidence that the workers were associated with illegal activities - the promotion of prostitution.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 04:43 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra, your quote of what I wrote is a disgustingly distorted excerpt from what I actually wrote.
Debra Law wrote:
All three of the things I said I would defend [torture, killing civilians, warrantless surveillance] are not UnAmerican and they are defensible. Their defense is their effectiveness in significantly limiting total civilian casualties.


All three of the things I said I would defend are not UnAmerican and they are defensible. Their defense is their effectiveness in significantly limiting total civilian casualties.

I wrote I defend the torture--but not the killing, maiming, crippling, or injuring--of prisoners who murder civilians, advocate the murder of civilians, or tolerate the murder of civilians.

I wrote I defend the killing of civilians, who facilitate or do not try to prevent those persons in their midst deliberately murdering civilians.

I wrote I defend warrantless wire tapping for the purpose of detecting and preventing the deliberate murder of civilians, but not for the purpose of collecting evidence for trial.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 05:08 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
I defend taxes (including the taxation of ican's income) to provide a minimum level of support to needy families with children and basic healthcare to all American citizens because of the effectiveness of taxation in significantly limiting human suffering.

I defend taxation "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," where the word common is as defined here:
and the word general is as defined here:

I oppose taxation that is not "uniform throughout the United States," where the word uniform is as defined here:

I believe each and everyone of us who should provide via private charity contributions a minimum level of support to needy families with children, and basic healthcare to those American citizens who cannot otherwise afford it, because of the effectiveness of private charities in significantly limiting human suffering.

When government tries to act like a charity, it inevitably becomes corrupt to the point that it increases, and not decreases, the number of needy families and those who cannot afford their own healthcare.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 05:15 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

I don't recall looking at the ACORN website before today. It was really quite fantastic how little they actually said with so many words. I'd love to know what's really going on re funding - and when/where it started.

It seems like an odd little organization - lots of reasonable goals, but that whole "we don't ask for funds, we just work with the people who get the funds" thing ... hinky.


i agree they don't do detail well. although "activists for hire" has been the impression i've gotten since they first got spotlighted. that could be what they mean. who knows? they do have an online donation page.

if you check out the videos, they are pretty damning. however, now that the thing is puffed up, it has come out that the "film maker" is a right leaning kind of guy. and i do know from experience that with the right footage, voice talent and editing skills and equipment, you could present a clip of Jefferson stepping of off a Vulcan ship and murdering an old granny with a hammer and sickle before giving a statement endorsing Marx. it would look 100% authentic.

however, in this case, i'm inclined to believe it. maybe because i find the idea of child prostitution so disgusting.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 05:55 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Doesn't the fourth amendment require the government to obtain a warrant if it wants to wiretap someone's phone? Aren't you, in fact, arguing that the government should violate the constitution when you say you favor warrantless wiretaps? And isn't advocating a breach of the constitution tantamount to treason? So that makes you a traitor, right ican?

NO! The fourth Amendment doesn't say that. The 4th Amendment says this:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Tapping the phones of Americans for the purpose of providing for their common defense against those who have declared their objective is killing Americans whereever they can be found, is helping to secure American lives, houses, papers, and effects against enemies who would kill them and/or make unreasonable searches and seizures of their property.

Also, merely tapping someone's phone line is not perpetrating an unreasonable search or seizure of a person, a person's house, or a person's papers, and effects.

However, the 5th Amendment says among other things:
Quote:
No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Consequently, wiretaps for the purpose of convicting a person of a crime are unlawful if such wiretaps were obtained without a warrant. But remember, the 4th Amendment says:
Quote:
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 06:07 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
NO! The fourth Amendment doesn't say that.

Sorry, my mistake. It was the US Supreme Court that held that the fourth amendment requires the government to obtain warrants for wiretaps, not the editors of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I forgot that the latter are the only authoritative interpreters of the constitution.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 06:12 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Debra, your quote of what I wrote is a disgustingly distorted excerpt from what I actually wrote.
Debra Law wrote:
All three of the things I said I would defend [torture, killing civilians, warrantless surveillance] are not UnAmerican and they are defensible. Their defense is their effectiveness in significantly limiting total civilian casualties.


All three of the things I said I would defend are not UnAmerican and they are defensible. Their defense is their effectiveness in significantly limiting total civilian casualties.

So then if the USA threatens civilian casualties in another country, these methods would be an acceptable to use on our soldiers? On you?

These things aren't defensible. Well, they are, but not if you mean to be taken seriously.
ican711nm wrote:

I wrote I defend the torture--but not the killing, maiming, crippling, or injuring--of prisoners who murder civilians, advocate the murder of civilians, or tolerate the murder of civilians.

So you defend torture, but not torturous things. No free lunch ican.

ican711nm wrote:

I wrote I defend the killing of civilians, who facilitate or do not try to prevent those persons in their midst deliberately murdering civilians.

Dumb argument to make. This would make you utterly executable. Or does Merrian-Webster only define civilians as being Americans?

ican711nm wrote:

I wrote I defend warrantless wire tapping for the purpose of detecting and preventing the deliberate murder of civilians, but not for the purpose of collecting evidence for trial.

Now knowing that liberty and freedom are not things you value, I won't try to appeal to those ideals when addressing you in the future.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 07:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Good plan. Their data, if they can provide it, will probably be as good as anybody else's. But I would like to know not only what source of funding they receive--that information is sort of available on their website--but how much funding they receive from each source.

There is this on FoxNews online today. I am sure this is just a very small portion of their operation, and I think their operation has numerous tentacles into acquiring funding, including taxpayer supported from various bureaucracies. I think the potential for good investigators to really find tons of corruption in this organization is huge. I think we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/census-victory-conservatives-target-hud-funds-acorn/

After Census Severs Ties, ACORN May Face Scrutiny of Housing Grants
ACORN Housing Corporation received $1.6 million in federal money to provide housing services to low-income communities in this fiscal year.

...

ACORN Housing Corporation received $1.6 million to provide housing services to low-income communities in this fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, according to USASpending.gov, a federal government Web site for tracking government grants.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development Grants has given $8.2 million to ACORN in the years between 2003 and 2006, as well as $1.6million to ACORN affiliates.

HUD could not be reached for comment.

....
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 07:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
NO! The fourth Amendment doesn't say that.

Sorry, my mistake. It was the US Supreme Court that held that the fourth amendment requires the government to obtain warrants for wiretaps, not the editors of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I forgot that the latter are the only authoritative interpreters of the constitution.


but that only makes sense to people that respect the complete triangle of the american government. there's a portion of the populace, some of whom spent a time stomping around yelling stuff in d.c. today, that do not respect or accept the role of the supreme court.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 07:20 pm
@okie,
that part isn't that strange. that hud would give grants to a neighborhood redevelopment org.

they may do a lot of good work, i dunno. but i certainly don't care for people using it to set up scams and cat houses.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 02/13/2025 at 08:07:22