Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Failure of Conservatism


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Failure of Conservatism Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 2:04:46 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

The health Care reform was a riot. All of you kept saying how you demanded a Public option or else. Obama did. Then he caved (to members of his own party) and you all did the 1984 turn like a bunch of sparrows, while declaring a great victory.



Well, youre a bit off on this one dawg, and recent developments are exactly what we predicted, albeit a year or two sooner than expected. The public "option" is alive and well..in fact its a fait accompli, and wont be an option at all.

It is cheaper for companies to drop their plans than to comply (McDonalds, 3M being the biggest recent examples).
Those employees will be dumped into the "exchange". With a smaller coverage base insurance companies must raise the premiums on companies that would have remained with their plans causing more to drop out. Voila, public option.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 2:10:46 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
   The big problem is plutocracy.  Under plutocratic regime we can not really improve progressive or conservative agenda. Warren Buffet said something like: "There is a war going on and we are winning".
End times?

"There will be hard times in the last days. People will love only themselves and money. They will brag and be proud, tearing others down. They will be without love, gratitude, respect, or forgiveness. They will tell lies and be out of control. They will despise what is good and betray friends. They will believe they are better than others, and will love only what pleases them. They will say they are serving God, but their actions will show they are not." 2 Timothy 3:1-5

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 2:13:36 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

do you eat retard pills?  There was no filibuster proof majority, there is no filibuster proof majority, and there will be no filibuster proof majority  when you get your 220-230 republicans in the house.



Are you actually so stupid you do not realise that a filibuster only exists in the Senate?

And that the dems held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate last session?

The house rules by simple majority, there is no filibuster.

An effective lead of one vote rules the house.

Though of course as was seen last session the dems only had a majority on papaer. It was not effective and they could barley lead.






< Message edited by luckydawg -- 10/7/2010 2:22:03 PM >


_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 2:32:02 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
again, no. are you so ignorant to believe they did?  and quorum calls and many other rules (hell bury in committee) can equate to the filibuster in the house.  Here is the simplified rules to report a bill out of committee.... lets see if there may be anywhere that an astute politician can hold it up long enough to make it go away.............

http://www.votesmart.org/resource_govt101_02.php

Here you are saying that we need you to tell us how to run a country?   You don't appear to be very adept at the political process......  Otherwise, when you had a majority, you would have actually did the shit you are talking about doing now.  Hey, how bout your tort reform..........couldn't do that in six years of majority.  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 3:00:08 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
That sure is a lot of words to show us all that you do not understand what a filibuster is.

And you apperantly do not understand quorum calls or how comitees work either.

Don't worry there are a few dumb as rocks people that think you are correct. They are referd to as "progressives".


How do you think Comitees are apointed and the leadership chosen? (hint it has everything to do with the working Majority in the House, and with nothing else)

One can look at you nonsense link and see that, nope, there is no way a minority politician can get a bill held up (in the house), In the Senate they just Filibuster.

This is perfect example of an intelectuall coward who refuses to admit when she is wrong. Tells lies, hurls insults, makes up facts, denies facts. Just a democratic in action.

The cream of the crop





Why are you so scared of the fact that the Dems had 2 years of Filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the House and held the presidency.

Where is this mythical 6 years where Republicans had full controll of the government?

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 3:06:22 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and quorum calls and many other rules (hell bury in committee) can equate to the filibuster in the house. 


Oh, come on Ron!

According to your logic, a "no" vote in the failure of a bill to get passage is a "filibuster"?

"Quorum calls and many other rules" and filibusters are all legislative maneuvers in order to block (or get approval of) bills, but they aren't all "the same thing".

A cow is an animal, and a tarantula is a animal:  Let's have tarantula steak tonight! (fail)

Just own up that you screwed up, and let it go.  It's so ungracious on your part and embarrassing to you to continue arguing when you have so obviously already lost the point.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 3:29:52 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline




So for the past 30 years we have followed what can only be considered the conservative agenda; we have cut taxes, reduced regulation, cut social welfare programs, and reduced the power of labor unions.

It doesn't matter which party controlled the White House or Congress; relentlessly, the key items of the conservative agenda were promoted and passed, while not one piece of liberal lawmaking has been introduced or passed in the past 30 years.

The American public largely followed this path on the promise that if we did this, if we unleashed the power of the marketplace the rich and the corporations would create jobs, and prosperity would flow to the middle class.

So my question is, where is it? Is the America middle class stronger, more secure than we were in say, 1980? Who here has a more secure job, who has a more secure retirement, than they did in 1980?

By any measure, the American middle class is poorer, less secure than ever. The middle class used to be able to live on one income, but now we need two; we pay endlessly for things that used to be offered free- school busses, driver's education, school lunches, work training programs, community colleges...the list is endless of the things that the middle class now has to pay for, even as the top 1% pays ever less in taxes.

This may be the first generation in American history to live with a lower standard of living than our parents.

This is why I could no longer call myself a conservative- even if you can set aside the liberal arguments about compassion, or the poor, even when you only measure it against its own standards, conservatism has failed in its most basic promise, to deliver prosperity and economic security to the middle class.

 
What a bunch of failures and pathetic little punks liberals are.  I have to tell you, you people really disgust me.  Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.  France is a failure; a once-world-power that is now meaningless in the world.  So too for the Brits (Sorry guys, my allegiance to your country is as steadfast as ever.)  So too is Italy and Greece and Germany walks a thin, fucking line.  Animus Dishonestus says that we have been following conservatism for the past 30 years.  Let's put this issue to bed, shall we?  Animus is either STUPID or he is a LIAR.  I think the latter.  The last "somewhat" conservative president we had was Ronald Reagan...only somewhat conservative.  HW Bush was NOT  a conservative and for Animus Dishonestus to say he was reveal either his ignorance or his duplicity....you decide.  HW was a globalist and a centrist.  He increased the tax rates modified by Reagan.
 
Clinton was a liberal and a globalist.  He increased the tax rates above what HW increased them to.  At the time, Clinton's increase caused the largest post war tax increase in history.  Four years of globalism under HW and 8 years under the rapist, perjurist Clinton.
 
W Bush was not a conservative.  He did not cut spending, he reduced taxes only to the rate that his father had them after increasing Regan's tax rates.  He did not secure the border.  He did not reduce government.  He, like his father and like Clinton, was a "New World Order" Globalist scumbag piece of shit.
 
Now we have O'scumbag.  He, like the rest since Reagan is a globalist and an arch liberal piece of dog shit.  Our deficit has quadrupled under this failure.  In the past week alone, 450,000 Americans sought unemployment benefits.  We have not been pursuing conservative theory, we have been pursuing a country of liberal-socialist-entitlement theorty.
 
Animus Dipshitimus is stupid or dishonest.  You decide.  But I will tell you what he actually is.  He is a proponent for economic and opportunistic slavery.  Listen to me, fuckers...you will not touch the super rich: Rockefellars, Rothchilds, Morgans, etc.  You will not touch the next tier down: Buffets, Gates, some Saudi Sheiks, etc.  You will not touch the next three tiers after that.  Got it?  Please do not tell me that you are too fucking stupid to cogitate those simple facts.  The people that are going to be touched...raped...savaged...decimated...mutilated...destroyed...bankrupted...etc. are the one million dollar per year crowd and under.  Those are the people that will be wiped out.  The others will move away, consolidate their investments into non-taxable vehicles, so forth and so on.
 
Here is the real question for you.  Are people like Animus and other liberals our ENEMIES?  Are they the failures and pussies that are arguing for government to come in and limit what you can earn, what you can keep, where you can send your kids to school, how you educate your kids, what kind of health care you are entitled to receive and much more?  Are these the type of people that our countrymen fought to overthrow in places like Nazi (socialist) Germany?  Facsist (socialist) France?  Totalitarian (predominantly socialist in nature) Japan?  Socialist U.S.S.R.?  Aren't these people our age old enemies?  I'm not saying to take up arms against them.  Nope....that will get you in trouble, Sparky!!!  But these ARE the people that, once you have identified them, you don't go to their houses.  You don't patronize their businesses.  You don't refer them clients.  NOTHING.  This is a war.  We are fighting those that want to slam the door on our futures and the question I ask of you is "what are you going to do about it." 

 
 
 
 
 
 






Profile  

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 3:32:49 PM   
peacefulplace


Posts: 157
Joined: 8/22/2010
Status: offline
Unlike the rest of you Republiturds, I'd like to post statistics and facts that prove that Animus Rex is 100% correct (and he IS), but the prevailing statistics and logos appeals fall on the deaf ears and blind eyes of those who would not believe that, say, the earth is round, just because Ronald Regan or some equally offensive shit said it wasn't. However, I've learned that "conservative" is usually a synonym for "denier of the truth" so I won't bother.

Animus Rex speaks the truth. It's sort of like the theory of gravity. Sure, it's just a theory, but if you deny it, you're going to fall on your ass.


_____________________________

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
~~Emma Goldman

One thing is clear to me: We, as human beings, must be willing to accept people who are different from ourselves.
~~Barbara Jordan

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 3:36:52 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
if someone eats tarantulas then its fine.

No, bullshit Firm, they are an equivalence.  

I do not want you to do something.  So, in one case I tie you up and gag you, and you don't do it, in another I hit you in the head with a baseball bat. It doesnt get done that way either.

The idea is wrong to say, 'filibuster proof majority' aint even a valid concept, even if it was over 60 teabaggers in there. 

a filibuster (one meaning) is to impede legislation by irregular or obstructive tactics, esp. by making long speeches.  (note especially, not exclusively)  in fact far as I am concerned regarding Iraq, W is a filibuster (pencil that shit out, you are clever enough, perhaps only one here of the latest of posters in disagreement)  

Robert's rules of order (is someone going to have the effrontery to descry that our congress does not base their system on RRO?)  has plentiful delaying and squashing tactics.............hmmmmmmmmm. weren't we just arguing a  deal where there was a republican vote (extremely dishonorable imho, that refused pay for troops in Iraq because they were not allowed to attach a anti-wetback amendment to it?) on up or down they failed it.  (that was money, so it was house)  now you are telling me that it wasn't a filibuster? nothing impeded? nothing irregular?  why was it news, then?  arcana and obscura is the meat and potatos of filibuster, I am sorry that conservatives can only see it as nothing more than blowholing, it is like saying the whole of King Lear can be described as 'he fell into a little pout'.   I have no problem saying that filibuster is limited (in one aspect) in the house by a rule that limits time.  Hell, even in the senate there are suspensions of rules limiting time occasionally, to prevent a legal filibuster by speechification.

Nope, not all republicans are bathroom cocksuckers and not all filibusters are performed by a side talking endlessly in turn by after another.  (Otherwise the public option would be fact today).

Just like the bathroom cocksuckers, you can't take one example (hyperbole though it may be) and use it as synecdoche for the whole. 

Otherwise, we may say that Nixon was impeached, should we have to agree to the inchoate arguments, including pretending and lying presented by ucky, et al.

  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 3:53:47 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: peacefulplace

Unlike the rest of you Republiturds, I'd like to post statistics and facts that prove that Animus Rex is 100% correct (and he IS), but the prevailing statistics and logos appeals fall on the deaf ears and blind eyes of those who would not believe that, say, the earth is round, just because Ronald Regan or some equally offensive shit said it wasn't. However, I've learned that "conservative" is usually a synonym for "denier of the truth" so I won't bother.
Post them.  But either post them from a truly non-biased source or post them from both liberal and conservative sources.  Like many others on here...including myself on occasion...Rex loves to post "facts and figures".  But when those "facts and figures" come from a left-wing organization or the dominant liberal mass media, forgive us for not accepting them at first presentation.

quote:

Animus Rex speaks the truth. It's sort of like the theory of gravity. Sure, it's just a theory, but if you deny it, you're going to fall on your ass.

Because his ideas coincide with your own?  That doesn't make something true...that makes it agreeable to you.

(in reply to peacefulplace)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 4:18:24 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peacefulplace

Unlike the rest of you Republiturds, I'd like to post statistics and facts that prove that Animus Rex is 100% correct (and he IS),



Stop it. all he has managed to do is show that he doesnt understand conservatism, was never a conservative, and when he posts nonsense like there having been no liberal laws passed in 30 years and that statement is shoved up his elitist ass, showed is very adept at attempting to move the goal posts.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to peacefulplace)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 8:00:08 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex





Looking at the graphic, what is the one expense that has increased out of proportion to all the other?

Taxes. From $9,288 (24%) in 1973 to $22,374 (33%) in 2003.

It is the only expense category that went up, except for the new category of "Daycare" that did not exist in 1973.

I theorize that the wife had to take a job in order to pay the increased taxes, and thereby also had to pay the additional child care cost.

The total tax burden (direct and indirect) would therefore be $22,374 (taxes) plus $9,670 (Daycare) for a total of $32,044 or roughly 47% of what the family earned.

This would still leave the family with a second car, and the insurance to cover it.

So, the proximate cause of the income gap between 1973 and now is ... increased taxes.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 8:18:09 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

... nonsense like there having been no liberal laws passed in 30 years and that statement is shoved up his elitist ass, showed is very adept at attempting to move the goal posts.


OK, lets focus here-

If I said that there have been NO liberal laws in the past 30 years, I was wrong...we have seen small bits of liberal legislation passed. I was exaggerating, because the conservative victories- Repeal of Glass Steagal, reduction of investment taxation, ending welfare- were huge, while the liberal victories- like ADA, No Child Left Behind- were puny and marginal.

My point was that the conservative agenda- defined by 4 major goals:
1. Lower tax rates, especially for investment;
2. Weakened power of labor unions;
3. Less government regulation;
4. Shrinking social safety net

has been the overwhelming agenda of the federal government; it doesn't matter if it was a Democratic or Republican Administration or Congress, these goals were consistently advanced, while the liberal agenda has shrunk.

I guess we can ask the question from a different angle- Since we agree that the middle class is shrinking and suffering a reduction of income and economic security, is the cause too much conservativism, or too little?

If your answer is "too little", then what is the missing piece of conservatism that will restore middle class prosperity? What bit of the conservative agenda was not tried, what big liberal program has caused the 30 year decline of the middle class?
What is the conservative plan for restoring the middle class, what do they plan to do differently than has been done the past 30 years?

Does anyone really think that if the capital gains tax is decreased, then good middle class jobs will come flooding back?
Does anyone think that if only those labor unions didn't exist, then we would go back to an era in which a mechanic could support a middle class household?
Does anyone think that if we only cut off food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment assistance, then we would all be prosporous and have financial security?
Does anyone think that if we only stopped inspecting meatpacking plants and conducting safety inspections of big rigs, our lives would be better?

I think it is telling that none of the conservative candidates for office are even bothering to talk about "middle class prosperity". No one is even pretending that the Pledge to America will make the lives of the middle class any better.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 8:36:00 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
Now see, consider this woman here.

Clearly, what she is thinking is, "Damn, if only I could get a reduction in the capital gains tax..
Or at least a reconsideration of the passive loss carry forward. Then we would be on easy street!"




Attachment (1)

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 8:42:04 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
Or these gentlemen-

They obviously are not Galtian producers, because they are out of work. If only they had their unemployment benefits taken away as Sharon Angle suggests, they would be motivated to look much harder than they are!

Work harder, you lazy slackers! Why should Rick Santelli pay for your mortgages?

Maybe they could get jobs trimming Lou Dobb's hedges or cleaning his toilets- uh oh, it looks like illegal aliens DID take those jobs away!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 8:48:42 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

Now see, consider this woman here.

Clearly, what she is thinking is, "Damn, if only I could get a reduction in the capital gains tax..
Or at least a reconsideration of the passive loss carry forward. Then we would be on easy street!"





Actally shes trying to figure out why Obama isnt paying for her satellite tv bill so she can get better use of her HDTV.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 8:56:27 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

... nonsense like there having been no liberal laws passed in 30 years and that statement is shoved up his elitist ass, showed is very adept at attempting to move the goal posts.


OK, lets focus here-

If I said that there have been NO liberal laws in the past 30 years, I was wrong...we have seen small bits of liberal legislation passed. I was exaggerating, because the conservative victories- Repeal of Glass Steagal, reduction of investment taxation, ending welfare- were huge, while the liberal victories- like ADA, No Child Left Behind- were puny and marginal.

My point was that the conservative agenda- defined by 4 major goals:
1. Lower tax rates, especially for investment;
2. Weakened power of labor unions;
3. Less government regulation;
4. Shrinking social safety net

has been the overwhelming agenda of the federal government; it doesn't matter if it was a Democratic or Republican Administration or Congress, these goals were consistently advanced, while the liberal agenda has shrunk.

I guess we can ask the question from a different angle- Since we agree that the middle class is shrinking and suffering a reduction of income and economic security, is the cause too much conservativism, or too little?

If your answer is "too little", then what is the missing piece of conservatism that will restore middle class prosperity? What bit of the conservative agenda was not tried, what big liberal program has caused the 30 year decline of the middle class?
What is the conservative plan for restoring the middle class, what do they plan to do differently than has been done the past 30 years?

Does anyone really think that if the capital gains tax is decreased, then good middle class jobs will come flooding back?
Does anyone think that if only those labor unions didn't exist, then we would go back to an era in which a mechanic could support a middle class household?
Does anyone think that if we only cut off food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment assistance, then we would all be prosporous and have financial security?
Does anyone think that if we only stopped inspecting meatpacking plants and conducting safety inspections of big rigs, our lives would be better?

I think it is telling that none of the conservative candidates for office are even bothering to talk about "middle class prosperity". No one is even pretending that the Pledge to America will make the lives of the middle class any better.


You have an incorrect understanding of what modern conservationism is:

Modern conservativism is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, constitutional limitations of government, the protection of civil liberties, an economic policy with heavy emphasis on free markets, and individual freedom from restraint.

It places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the conservative argues against direct democracy "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."

Modern Conservativism holds that rights exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

For modern conservatives, rights are of a negative nature — rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas modern liberalism holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.

Many modern conservatives have allied with social conservatives, due to the belief that the emotional, spiritual side of humanity must be addressed in any rational society, and in support of the freedom of individual conscience that all men should be able to exercise.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 9:00:53 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
"My point was that the conservative agenda- defined by 4 major goals:
1. Lower tax rates, especially for investment;
2. Weakened power of labor unions;
3. Less government regulation;
4. Shrinking social safety net "

This is what you said, right?  Well, like just about everything else, you are wrong.  Yes, conservatives want lower taxes.  And that is for obvious reasons.  None of us was put on this planet to serve a government or to support someone else who is not willing to work.  Yes, we want weakened power over labor unions.  Unions have revealed themselves to be the corrupt bodies that we have always known them to be.  The useful function they once served can be replaced with comprehensive labor laws.  Unions are a farce.   Less government regulation; No...you can't make a ignorant blanket statement like that.  Conservatives supported Glass Steagal and 100's of other reforms so your argument is WRONG.  Have the integrity to understand that.  Try not to deal in absolutes.   Shrinking social safety net.  Wrong...conservatives and MOST OTHER PEOPLE would like to see social security survive.  It was the ultimate ponzi scheme and it had not risk of failure providing the funds were never misdirected to another purpose or extended beyone their original intent.  Most conservatives did not want medicare but they have come to live with it without begrudging anyone.  They just don't want to see it extended because the extension is 100% unworkable.  Look at what is happening with the folly ObamaCare and the waivers being sought by business.  No...what most of us want to see is an end to welfare and no new money for any new children.  And I think that is reasonable, don't you?

You also said this, right?

"Does anyone really think that if the capital gains tax is decreased, then good middle class jobs will come flooding back?
Does anyone think that if only those labor unions didn't exist, then we would go back to an era in which a mechanic could support a middle class household? 
Does anyone think that if we only cut off food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment assistance, then we would all be prosporous and have financial security?
Does anyone think that if we only stopped inspecting meatpacking plants and conducting safety inspections of big rigs, our lives would be better? "

This was a bunch of stupidity, really.  

"Does anyone think that reducing capital gains will cause middle class jobs to come back?"  Wow...and this is why I accuse you of being duplicitious.  You know that a reduction in the capital gains tax only provides more money for people selling things at a profit that they owned for 6 months or more.  That could be the guy that lives in the trailer park selling his corvette or the multi millionare selling his stocks or someone selling real estate.  The PURPOSE of a low capital gains tax is to allow the seller to retain the lion's share of what he sold.  What will he do with that money, Animus?  Will he hire someone?  Maybe.  Maybe he will invest it in municipal bonds and help a city build a stadium or a hospital.  Is that a bad thing?  If he does that, doesn't that make that American more financially independent so we don't have to support him?  Isn't that a good thing?  You are ENORMOUSLY dishonest in framing the argument that way because you KNOW reducing capital gains taxes results in more money to the individual that could be used in a variety of different ways.

You said this: "Does anyone think that if only those labor unions didn't exist, then we would go back to an era in which a mechanic could support a middle class household?"   More duplicity.  How many garage mechanics do you know that are members of unions, pal?   Do you mean people making the cars?  The answer to that question is "yes" depending on what the new labor laws and wage scales are.   If you did away with unions and yet the wage scale for a guy sinking a rivet a thousand times per day on an assembly line was $50.00 per hour for, essentially, a $10.00 per hour job then NO, the jobs would not come back.  Isn't that simple, Animus?  Most of those jobs are already gone.  Do you realize that it is cheaper to open a factory in Taiwan, import your raw material, manufacture it and ship it back to the U.S. than it is to make it in the U.S.?  And you are telling me this isn't symptomatic of a country on the brink of death? 

And you said this drivel:  "Does anyone think that if we only cut off food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment assistance, then we would all be prosporous and have financial security?"  Yes and No.  There is a huge amount of money that gets spent in food stamps, utility vouchers, transportation vouchers, rental assistance, and much, much more.  Our entitlements are destroying us and the people who receive them have no right to them.  I have an idea!  What if we made receiving that monthly check DIFFICULT!!!!!!  Sure....in order to get paid, you have to work.  You pick up trash, sweep streets, plant bushes, whatever.  What if we actually got some bang for our buck and MADE PEOPLE THAT SUCK AT THE PUBLIC TIT EARN AN HONEST DAY'S LIVING.    

And more tripe; "Does anyone think that if we only stopped inspecting meatpacking plants and conducting safety inspections of big rigs, our lives would be better?"  No...nobody thinks that.  But do we think that a school principal should not have 5 assisstant vice principals?  Yes...most of us do.  Hey...what if being a principal was a rotation where the most senior teacher got a salary bump of $50,0000.00 for a year and served as principal and then the next year the second most senior teacher served and so forth and so on?  Ever think of that?  In New Jersey, we have principals and vice principals earning well over $100,000.00 to $750,000.00 per year.  What if we did AWAY WITH ALL OF THAT.  C'mon, Animus...what if???? 



(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 9:01:56 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
Modern liberals, on the other hand:

A US "liberal" today generally believes in: multiculturalism, increased government control, group versus individual rights, the hatred of Christianity, anti-free market, and a distaste of Western culture, institutions and history among other things.

Firms



_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The Failure of Conservatism - 10/7/2010 9:07:36 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
Firm-
What you are writing is the broad philosophical underpinnings of conservatism; and as far as that goes, they are fine and well meaning.

But the American conservative movement has specific policy goals- the four I named above are the mainstay of the movement. I could list others, like the cultural issues, or add more economic ones, but the main domestic policy of the conservative movement are those four.

So the question remains- what wasn't tried, that would make things different?

What will the conservatives do to restore the American middle class?

Smart money will be on anything that rhymes with "Ax Butts".

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Failure of Conservatism Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078