“Is conservatism finished?” Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne asked in this op-ed piece. That sounds like wishful thinking, but Dionne cites the increasing divide among economic libertarians and social conservatives and the movement’s general self-destruction. His example includes the minimum-wage bill — which he says “put on display the central goal of the currently dominant forces of politics: to give away as much as possible to the truly wealthy” — the increasingly bitter debate about whether the war in Iraq made sense, immigration, stem cell research and government spending.
What do you think? Is conservatism dying, or are reports of its death greatly exaggerated?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- SolDevVB on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
107 Comments
Two words: Premature assertion
One can only hope and pray that finally some common sense will be brought back into politics. We need real leaders not some preachers trying to play God.
Could we have possibly come to the point where we’ve had enough? Can anybody honestly say we’re better off than 5 years ago? With the current administration, it’s just been one damn thing after another. Remember the comments about how the adults are in charge now?
More like somebody left the door open to the asylum and the inmates are in charge.
Remember the old saying “give them enough rope and they will hang themselves”. The only trouble now is – the rest of us will have to clean up the mess these Neo-Cons have made.
Everybody thought the Moral Majority left when Reagan left office. Nothing happened for a decade, until Lewinski(wrong spelling) came about. Some how they re-emerged big time.
Although many conservatives came in on the 1994 Republican takeover, after being out for 40 years, of what people would consider the most misearble 40 years in American history, most went in for the economic libertarian values, but made the switch to social conservativism in the late 1990’s to pander to a growing and re-emerging base of the Moral Majority.
This will wax and wane through out our history.
Although people look at the Republican Party as in trouble, they should look at the Democrats. They are being seperated by the ultra socalist leftist and the blue dogs.
And to think that there is strong evidence that the 2000 election went in favor of the other guy.
The right can no longer be trusted. They have not reached consensus on whether they will rule by religious fiat or feudalistic economic practice.
Neither of these are healthy for a representative democracy. Most of us are neither “saved” nor rich. We should not entrust our nations destiny to a party at war with itself over matters most Americans do not share.
When people talk about the “right” or “conservative”, they are really talking about the neo-cons! The neo-cons are judeo-trotskyites and not conservative at all. The neo-conartists have been thoroughly discredited but Buchanan/Ron Paul style paleo conservatism has merit.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
I wonder what Joe Lieberman’s scorched earth campaign is going to do to the “left” and the dems?
V.L.R.B!!
“to give away as much as possible to the truly wealthy”
This mindset puzzles me. If you are ‘giving away to the rich’who are you taking it away from to give it to them?
Not without a fight I am sure! The Neo-Con, Religious Right, P.N.A.C. cabal and alignment had worked to long and hard to given up easily. None of the three have the power by themselves to effect their will on the country. Though I have noticed not only a dissolving of their pact along with the rank and file of each member of the cabal. As a whole for them to slink back into the shadows would mean they would have to admit they were wrong in their individual goals.
The Neo-Cons would have to admit that they were wrong in their thoughts of how the party should act and that their desire to enrich the rich so that “trickle down economics” could be given another shot after it fail under Reagan.
The Religious Right would have to admit they were acting more the Pharisees then the true followers of Christ. And that they have forgotten that the Bible is a “Owner’s Manual” for the Christian and in order that the laws of the Bible to be compiled with first the person must except Christ. It can not be forced on to others that do not believe.
The P.N.A.C. who used the other two to gain control of the White House would have to admit that their ideas were dumb! That their goals were not in the best interest of the country but of themselves.That a country that is in a perpetual war is like a runner in a perpetual race. There can be no hope of winning only running yourself to death. To admit to the greatest fault of a democracy is that the majority will not except a total ruling class. The Ideals of Strauss would be doomed to failure given the majority as mindless as they maybe. Will overthrow the ruling class once they grow tired of being birds in a gilded cage. Human nature may very well be basically hostile, but it is also human nature to want to be free.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion, that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world.
Franklin D.Roosevelt
What I am seeing happen to the right is the same thing that happened top the left, and why they lost congress: Fragmentation. Divide and conquer. The Democratic party did it to themselves, and noe the Republican Party is doing it.
For the Democrats to retake, and hold, congress, they are going to have to assemble a platform all democrats can stomach. And, they should keep attacking the right wing on as many fronts as possible. Keep them in disarray. And hold on long enough to put some neutrality back in the Supreme court.
The words of a great man TRACY. A man who saved this country. Also a man whose great works have been almost completely erased by “the right”.
Ever since the disaster of Reagan, it has been like a snowball rolling downhill. Until now, Until now we have almost returned to the days of the robber barons.
I used to be a conservative. But no more. Let’s have the words of todays conservative. Not to pick on ya Joe. You just make it to easy.
Joe Williams:”Although many conservatives came in on the 1994 Republican takeover, after being out for 40 years, of what people would consider the most misearble 40 years in American history,”
See? Joe judges the period 1954 -1994 “the most miserablein American history” or at least he suggests it. Consider the advances in human rights during that period. Think of the advances in social services, infrastructure,tehnology, and to quote the Constitution “the general welfare”. 1954-1994 were THE BEST years of this nation. But Joe is a conservative. Some of the improvements I cite were not inherently good for those who make their living exploiting others.So to him, it was a negative. Some of those years were years of my youth when I still believed in this country. Those years are gone now and it is likely Americas best years ARE not to come but only to be remembered.
That is UNLESS the right is called back.
“The right” as they are now have forgotten thier core principle. Some on the right want to mine the government for a right to force their religious take on others or legislate lifestyles. Others loudly shout their conservatism from beneath their beds. They have been made to be afraid and now seek government to “protect them” by affording it ever more intrusive power to surveil and monitor “enemy activities”. They have forgotten that the real enemy is government unleashed. And it is a mix of the first to groups that make up the third. Those “conservatives” who rail against any government involvement in economics. These are typically folks who have “made it” and so the misfortune of others is only their gain. Minimum wage? Bah! The worth of a person is to be arbitrarily judged by the one dispensing the crumbs! Let the market be free! Til it isn’t free anymore except with the bucks to buy in or the willingness to do anything for them.And it is THIS mixed bag of religious zealots, faux patriots, and gold diggers that we have allowed to be in charge!
Yes for the good of America, it is time to send the right away to sort things out. Their are kernels of good in all their pursuits. But they need to go back and find them! America cannot afford their headlong pursuit of them dragging us all along anymore.
It must be recognized that the cause of all world unrest, of the world wars which have wrecked humanity, and the widespread misery upon our planet, can largely be attributed to a selfish group with materialistic purposes, who have for centuries exploited the masses and used the labor of mankind for their selfish ends . . .This group of capitalists has cornered and exploited the world’s resources and the staples required for civilized living; they have been able to do this because they have owned and controlled the world’s wealth through their interlocking directorates, and have retained it in their hands. They have made possible the vast differences existing between the very rich and the very poor; they love money and the power which money gives; they have stood behind governments and politicians; they have controlled the electorate; they have made possible the narrow nationalistic aims of selfish politics; they have financed the world businesses and controlled oil, coal, power, light and transportation; they control publicly or sub rosa the world’s banking accounts.The responsibility for the widespread misery to be found today in every country in the world, lies predominantly at the door of certain major interrelated groups of business men, bankers, executives of international cartels, monopolies, trusts and organizations, and directors of huge corporations, who work for corporate or personal gain.
Nope . . . too easy.
John F. Kennedy said, “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes now. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.”http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html
The tax rates were 90 percent when JFK took office (after years of Republican rule).
We can all agree that’s too high.
The trouble is that you Repukes never seem to have a bottom to “too low.”
You keep cutting taxes . . . how low is too low?
Never mind, just keep cutting–and throw the country into historically high debt (in raw numbers as well as percentage of GDP).
A family of four now owes–thanks to Bush and the Repukes–125,000 dollars.
As a financial analyist, what would you tell a family who had that much unsecured debt?
There currently are a higher percentage of millionaires among the Democrats serving in Congress than among the Republicans.Most of the wealth owned by members of Congress, based on published data, is held by Democrats.The raw number of total millionaires serving in Congress is pretty evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, but the Democrat members are, on balance, wealthier than the Republican members.Total wealth favors the Democrats, even though the Republicans are in the majority.—-OK Steve, have at it! Did I say anything above that you can disprove?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/bg1086c6.gif
Paul F. this is a graph from heritage. Kennedy dropped top rates from 91% to 70% What are the top rates today?
SilenceWhat JFK said is still true, tax rate cuts still increase total tax revenues!Is your position based on envy or is it based on compassion and common sense?Only wealth cures poverty.Dont make wealth the enemy.Also, there is such a thing as “efficient” taxation.At what tax level are the MAXIMUM taxes raised?What tax rate schedule produces the MAXIMUM benefits to society?There is a law of diminishing returns in economics.Envy seems to propel the Democrats to PUNISH success, even if the high tax rates only push the rich into tax shelters and less production and less job creation.Jobs are created by investment. Reduce incentives, reduce investment, reduce jobs!Part of my business is selling tax shelters.That portion of my business does better under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses.Tax shelters are not the most efficient way for our economy to operate — but high tax rates leave people with little choice but to do things they otherwise would not do.The rich are already Rich, taxes will NEVER make the rich “unrich.”High tax rates will make the rich avoid job creating decisions. High tax rates make the reward too small compared to the risk, when you raise tax rates.Again, is the point to satisfy your envy, or is the point to raise the most revenue you can without hurting the economy and job creation?
Paul,Of what possible significants does your data represent? Does it add anything at all to the problem today? No, it adds nada. our usual balloon head nonsense.
The problem in this country, besides the upper crust hidind 70 trillion dollars in off shore tax shelters, is the lack of direction, and the so-called, by the republicans, war on terrorism that has us in a country we have no business in, which is getting the best and brightest of this nation killed.
It’s not the democrats putting us in this position, it’s the republicans. Deal with it.
“They are being seperated by the ultra socalist leftist and the blue dogs.”txes= socialism?All these things are created with taxes:RoadsSchoolsLibrariesMilitaryCounty HospitalsPolice&Fire Dept.Should all these things be left to the free market. Purchased only when needed?
“This mindset puzzles me. If you are ‘giving away to the rich’who are you taking it away from to give it to them?”
The assets of the nation, Heckler. I know the standard simpleton propaganda puts everything in terms of wallet space (despite the fact that not even one’s personal wealth is determined that way). But what’s happening goes far beyond that.
The move to ‘privatize’ everything is just one example. The psuedo-libertarian view that the private sector always knows best and does best is turned on its head when natural resources like water are basically given away, and held hostage by greed.
The complaints about over-taxing the rich fall in the same category. Idiots routinely claim about “redistributing wealth,” as if the money went straight to the poor–or straight to anyone for that matter.
They’ve taken the argument about what government SHOULD do, and rendered it irrelevant. It would be close to anarchy, if they weren’t insisting on using the mechanisms of government to transfer the assets of the nation to its wealthiest citizens.
Theft-based economics (Enron, anyone?).
(Incidently, the hostility to public health is just one thing that will come back to bite these types on the ass. When the Plague hits the mansions, it will be too late. . .)
This could turn into a master’s thesis if I let it. Oh well. Have fun with my “vagueness,” righties; I’m too damn busy; the confirming facts are out there (ahem, wink, wink, to my folks!).
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/18/wage.gap/
jmorg,what was the top income bracket for the top rate? very few people were affected by the top rate directly, in 1962, but many were affected by the incentives provided by those top producers, when they quit sheltering money and began investing in productive activity.Incentives havent changed. Economics hasnt changed. Investor motivation hasnt changed.Your charts and rates do not state the number of people effected directly by each bracket on the chart.Furthermore, the JFK tax cuts, actually enacted under LBJ, saw explosive growth in revenues.The JFK Speach was read on the floor of the US Senate by Lloyd Bentsen, Democrat from Texas and former VP running mate to Dukakis.Democrat Bentsen rose to quote JFK in support of the Reagan tax rate cuts, which also caused an explosion in increased federal revenues.Tax rate cuts always work.Tax revnues are currently at an all time high.Again, are you motivated by envy our are you motivated by the public good?Those motives are mutually exclusive.
Paul – you demonstrate a misunderstanding and misuse of the Laffer Curve. While it is true that a cut from HIGH to MODERATE rates leads to a sufficient increase in activity to lead to an increase in overall revenues it doe NOT follow that further decreases in rates from MODERATE to LOW will accomplish the same thing. Taking your logic to its extreme I would conclude that doing away with taxes entirely would lead to infinite revenue collections. There is a tax rate that maximizes revenues and it is NOT zero.
N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics, Third Edition, page 170.
Heckler,
“This mindset puzzles me. If you are ‘giving away to the rich’who are you taking it away from to give it to them?”
You take it away from the entire nation.You cut research programs that benefit everyone, and helped make people like Bill Gates Sr. “truly wealthy”.Or you raise taxes on the not “truly wealthy”.Go argue with Gates about it, he’s an advocate for the tax.
By the way, I predict some will look at the link I grabbed and yell “Clinton!”
And of course, the Republican congress had nothing to do with it. . .
Yeah, cosmos, it’s shirking responsibility. Watch your state and municipal taxes go up up up–until the Karl Peterjohn types get their way, then watch your roads disintegrate, libraries close etc.
morg!
“All these things are created with taxes:RoadsSchoolsLibrariesMilitaryCounty HospitalsPolice&Fire Dept.Should all these things be left to the free market. Purchased only when needed?”
Who builds the roads? Who mines the ore, arregrate, and sand? Who pumps the petroleum to make asphalt and to drive the heavy machinery? Who builds the machinery that makes it possible to build roads, schools, fire stations, police stations. Who writes the books and publishes the books for the libaries? Who builds our military equipment? Who makes the medical equipment and the pharmacuticals for the county hospitals?
I don’t see government doing it. That’s all free market buddy. So no! Those things you said were not created with taxes, they were created by private companies competiting in a market place.
You guys want the government to own everything.
BenCorrect me if I am wrong, but I believe you, yourself, once told me that you supported a cut in the Capital Gains rate, and you thought Clinton would go along with that. I believe I had that conversation with you at a Pachyderm Club lunch right after Clinton was first elected.Ben, I am not advocated a “rate of zero” am I?I think we are very close to the “efficient tax rate” now in respect to income taxes.However, I also believe that the death tax produces innefficient economic decisions and we need to eliminate that tax.
I am not “advocating” a rate of zero, sorry
Great, Joe, if you want your route to work paved in the future, call up a private contractor and pave it yourself. You might object that others use the road–hey, no problem! Get some investors and BUY the road. Then you can keep those damn laggards off of it.
Moron.
The estate tax is a joke. The few honest people that pay it doesn’t bring in all that much money.
Wealthy people accumlate and hide their money. They don’t let the tax man take it. When Hieze died, did Treasa pay any estate tax? Nope! How come the Kennedy Family never paid a cent in estate taxes?
You’re not going to touch the very wealthy or the well connected on estates tax. It’s just not important.
The only way to fairly tax the rich and to obtain more money from them is to go to a fair tax system. There will be no need for them to shelter it. They can never benefit or cheat the system.
The estate tax is just the leftist way of punishing those who are very wealthy. Only problem is, it’s just on paper. But it makes them feel good.
Rage!
Touched your hot button, didn’t I!
Don’t you hate it when I win one over you. Cause you know I’m right. That is why you’re so angry, because you can’t stand the fact that I’m just smarter than you. It’s ok! It’s a gift I possess!
Gawd it feels goods. :)
And Rage! You’ll be surprised how many roads are privatly owned. Many turnpikes are!
Next?
“The estate tax is just the leftist way of punishing those who are very wealthy.”
Since Joe’s gone into his own private little world, I thought I’d have a little fun.
Tell, me, Joe, why do leftists want to “punish” the very wealthy?
Just exactly what is the right selling?Taxes bad,spending goodRich goodSocial programs badBig Military very expensive one goodBig intrusive government that spies on it citizens goodFreedom of speech bad
BTW, Joe, thanks for making my point. When the commons are all privately owned, they will privately controlled. Lords and serfs.
Feudalism.
.morg:Power for me goodMoney for me goodStuff for me goodGo USA!Don’t care about the rest
“You’ll be surprised how many roads are privatly owned. Many turnpikes are!”Hey why ya think that is? Could it be because the tax base is shrinking? Google Indiana+ Turnpikes
I love it. Paul doesn’t know the first thing about me, but he “knows” that the only reason I oppose more and more tax cuts for the wealthy is “envy.”
I’m not going to talk about my personal financial situation except to say that I envy no man his wealth.
Why don’t you answer the question I put to you plainly?
What would you as a financial investor say to a median income earning family of four carrying 125,000 dollars in credit card debt?
And how is the debt that the Bush mis-administration and its congressional lackies any different than that?
The national debt is 8.5 TRILLION and growing by a billion and one half dollars every single day . . .
PAUL!!
THANK YOU, for quoting John F. Kennedy and omitting the 91% tax rate — and misinterpreting the Laffer curve.
You proved the point I was going to make — today’s “right” needs Rush, Coulter, Faux, etc., and a DYSFUNCTIONAL media to survive.
Paul, did you know that Kennedy lowered the marginal tax rate to 70%, but Clinton raised (sic) it to 39.6%?
Rush, Laffer, Hannity, and Kennedy.http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010603.shtml
Use the search box, archives at DailyHowler for more info.
By the way, here’s what a real president sounds like–one who can put two words together without needing a translator:
FDR–
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”
***** Other brilliant observations by the greatest president in the modern age:
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
In our seeking for economic and political progress, we all go up – or else we all go down.
Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the only real religion.The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
“Who builds the roads? Who mines the ore, arregrate, and sand? Who pumps the petroleum to make asphalt and to drive the heavy machinery? Who builds the machinery”The MexicansThe ArabsThe ChineseWhat’s your point?
Correction the last quote should read–”becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.”
Ah, that link reminded me, Cosmos, how federal receipts actually DROPPED by $17 billion dollars in FY ‘83 (the second year of the Reagan tax cuts).
Amazing how ideology trumps grade-school mathematics.
Joe, you are so FUNNY!
(to .morg)”Those things you said were not created with taxes, they were created by private companies competiting in a market place.”
Uhhhh… and who paid those companies? They “created” for free? Donations? Bake sales?
Joe: “The estate tax is a joke. The few honest people that pay it doesn’t bring in all that much money.”
Yeah, its only about $30 billion a year, and probably going higher.
Thanks for the FDR quotes, Silence.
Paul – what I advocated for cap gains was and is indexing – then tax gain above index (’real’ gains) at ordinary income rates.
If we are currently at ‘efficient’ then how would further cuts raise more revenue? We would be on the downward side of the curve. I think we are already there; further cuts will result is less, not more, revenue/
Joe Williams the day you best Rage is the day “compassionate conservatism” is real and pigs fly.
Rage if you are still about, the remarks of the great Teddy Roosevelt as to the estate tax would look good here. Like we did before.
And back to Joe.
Joe does not apparently know what feudalism means. If he doesn’t then perhaps he should ask it explained for him.
Too there are concerns of society as opposed to a group of self serving individuals.
Consider the ULTIMATE form of socialism. Consider the military draft.
Why would I fight to preserve a society devoted to getting the rich richer? No stake for me! I teach my son much the same! This may be problematic if the right stays in power and continues their current imperialistic bent. We get overrun so what? I got nothing to lose.
No Joe, most turnpikes are owned by the states.
hehe, JR.
Joe remains a legend in his own mind.
JR,with your permission. That’s going on a T-shirt.
“Why would I fight to preserve a society devoted to getting the rich richer?”
Joe gets on a roll and ya never know what he will let fly. I guess the reason he believes in privately owned roads is because he is often on one all alone!
Joe I don’t know that there are ANY privately owned roads. Can you name one? Can anyone?
Turnpikes JOE are usually government built roads paid for by bonds! The bonds are paid off by the collected tolls.
Hey Ben I got a question for you on the Save water thread.
JR – lets go beyond socialism to communism: State Ownership of the Means of Production. Gander Mountain. WaterWalk. Arena. Downtoen Hilton. Joe supports all of those.
“Wishful thinking”, Brownee? Surely you meant extremist conservatism, and you would equally dis extremist liberalism. Wouldn’t you?
Probably a better way to word it .morg. but it is all yours and thanks!
Well I’m all for some civic projects Ben. I wouldn’t want EVERYthing to be privately held. Quality of life and attractions. Of course those have to funding. This is something ever diminishing public funds makes problematic.
Joe is kinda a confused guy aint he?
I agree JR – parks, schools, roads. I guess I could be called a socialist in that regard. But, I tend to oppose government ownership of stores, casinos, shopping malls.
ID
Conservatism is effectively dead.
Extreme conservatism killed it.
Consider recent issues.
Coservatives are in power and accumulating power. At odds with conservative principles.
Legislating morality (abortion, gay marriage) is NOT conservative
Restricting speech(flag amendment) is NOT conservative.
Launching wars of aggression is NOT conservative.
JR:”In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a federal inheritance tax, saying, “The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.” Roosevelt recognized that wealthy citizens benefitted particularly from government protection of wealth and property rights.”
http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETHistory.html
Ben, hehe, that’s good. And I wonder, was the great Penis in the Sky going to be built entirely with private funds?
Is conservatism dead? Looking at the way every conservative with enough influence is busy looting the treasury and running off to offshore banks with it, I assume they think so. One of those self-fulfilling prophesies?
Thank you again Rage.
TR was the last good Republican. And HE quit the party!
Well Joe’s tower is……interesting. I remember how I was struck that such a big idea like that could come from Joe.(No Joe I am not calling you small minded……just…..confused)
Anytime, JR!
BTW. I thought the draft analogy was particularly apropos. Have these folks ever heard of “taxation without representation”? You and your family’s lives are about the biggest tax you can pay.
The Founders gave us a country where you can be elected (in theory, at least) without wealth or property, or being in the right family. Damned rich-hating leftists!
And a century before Marx.
There will always be a right and there will always be a left. Right now the right is in charge. The tide began turning toward conservatism with Ronaldus Maximus and has been advancing since. The movement may be in for a rough patch with the the illegal immigration problem and the Iraq war.
Fortunately for conservatism, America is populated with a lot of independent, can do people who aren’t looking to the government for a handout or to make outcomes equal.
Thanks Rage.
Hey Outlander? I don’t buy that rugged bone headed everyman for himself was the founders intention.
Proof?
WE the people
Union
Justice
Domestic tranquility
COMMON DEFENSE
GENERAL WELFARE
ourselves and our posterity
There seems a bit of an eye toward a society in those words don’t ya think?
Silence,To your national debt question, I can only answer that raising tax rates would make the debt worse, not better.Debt is only important in relation to income and net worth.Nations and individuals should strive towards increasing cash flow and net worth.Anything that hurts the economy hurts income and net worth.Raising tax rates hurts the economy.Therefore, your question HAS been answered.”Deficits are caused not by wild-eyed spenders, but by periodic recessions” JFKW inherited a recession from Clinton.http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html
http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm
Looks like Paul’s slept thru the past 25 years.
“”Deficits are caused not by wild-eyed spenders, but by periodic recessions” JFK
There IS some truth to that – IN CONTEXT. PERIODIC deficits during hard times with intervening surplus years during good times is what JFK was referring to. “VooDoo Economics” has given us PERMANENT deficits.
Paul – I would refer you to Professor Mankiw’s book for that as well. And, before you dismiss him as a “liberal economist” I would note that he served on Bush 1’s Council of Economic advisors.
“W inherited a recession from Clinton.”
How do you justify such a comment Paul?
As I recal, Wichita had record employemnt and record tax recievables during the Good Ol Clinton years…
We have seen what it means to have ‘conservative’ right-wingers running the country for the last five years. Everyone has seen the disastrous results of right-wing ideology in action: the results ain’t pretty. Maybe, in this way, the presidency of Bush II will have been a secret blessing: the American people have finally realized what true ‘conservative’ governance looks like, and are turning away in disgust at the staggering failure that is right-wing ideology in action. With the cancer of right-wing governance excised from our body politic, maybe we the people can actually get things done, rather than peddle hate, intolerance, ignorance, and the destruction of the middle class.
Okay, thanks, Paul.
I wondered how you’d spin that, and I found your answer very entertaining.
Laughable, even.
Maybe in JFK’s time what he said was true. But it sure isn’t today.
Today, it’s the Bush & Co. spending like Reaganites while fighting a war and cutting taxes that is fueling the growth of national debt.
You can’t spin the obvious even though you try–tax cuts aren’t working now, they didn’t work under Reagan, and the national debt is growing like an alien slime cancer rotting out our financial foundations.
You as a financial planner know this–one cannot spend more than one earns indefinately.
Neither can the federal government.
But George W. Bush and his lackey Congress have been doing it like there’s no tomorrow.
You’re plan has failed. It has failed miserably. And for someone of your background to claim it hasn’t is a damned lie.
And you sir, are a damned liar.
JR: I, for one, am glad you’re not being exploited by capitalists.
I wouldn’t bother trying to explain anything to Joe.Tara’s the only one who’s figured out how to draw pictures on this blog.
Hmmm. . .it’s not a question of how, Mr.C, but whether the hassle is worth it.
{Thinking about it}
Hey Outlander? I don’t buy that rugged bone headed everyman for himself was the founders intention.
Proof? -WE the people-Union-Justice-Domestic tranquility-COMMON DEFENSE-GENERAL WELFARE-ourselves and our posterity-
There seems a bit of an eye toward a society in those words don’t ya think?
Dang JR, you make it tough to copy your posts. Let’s just post the entire preamble. Everyone should have that committed to memory anyway.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The authors of those words WERE rugged individualists, self-made men. I don’t see a hint of socialism in those words.
The greatness of America lies in the opportunity that abounds in it. Why anyone would not work to sieze those opportunities is beyond me. But nowhere in those words does it guarantee equal outcomes.
Ah, Outie! Not a hint of socialism in the Preamble. . . ah, yes, let’s play word games! Great way to avoid the substance of the debate!
Okay, Out. Without deciding the question, let’s assume it’s not socialism.
But that wasn’t what JR said. He said this:’There seems a bit of an eye toward a society in those words don’t ya think?’
That’s what you need to address.
Unless, of course, you think keeping ‘a bit of an eye toward a society’ is socialism.
The conservatives own the White House, the Senate, The Congress and the Supreme Counrt.
An the Liberals ask if the right is finished?
No wonder they can’t win an election. They live in a fantasyland.
Hint: That young family in Indiana. The one with the 4×4, an American Flag decal in the back, and a Nascar emblem in the bumper. This is the the type of voter which will return you to power.
Now ask yourself, what matters in this guy’s life?
Another hint: Nothing that matters to his life is found in the liberal dogma of the democrats.
Who said anything about equal outcomes Out. Although I would argue that equal outcomes under the laws and according to Justice IS SUPPOSED to be guaranteed. It is no longer thus. Money buys justice. That the founders did not intend. Yet conservatives work hard every day to make it so. (Tort reform, loser pays)
I speak more of an equal place to start! In the laisez-faire system such as conservatives are pursuing, there would be NO flow of money in any but one direction. Namely toward those that already have it. Take out the minimum wage as conservatives so want to do and people become the equivalent of slaves desperately climbing over one another to please the master. This is already too much the case. I do not trust that left to their own “judgement” employers would likely be any kinder than they are now. Conservatives seem to be working toward such a feudal society. (tying minimum wage increase to TOTAL elimination of estate taxes for the 8,000 wealthiest Americans)
And then there is the matter of equal chance to succeed even though you may be different or think differently. Conservatives are working to homogenize America. Marriage is THIS or family is THAT. One nation under God whose blessing they see falling only on the deserving. And THEY get to define the deserving! The others? God helps those who help themselves. (Faith based initiatives)
And in that vein but far from finally, where is the equal start for a child born under pain of law to a mother who does not want it and cannot care for it? Oh that child is very important to conservatives! BEFORE it is born. They work to make sure that it has every right to come into the world but once it gets here those same conservatives say “Welfare? HEALTH CARE??! Those are yours to go get kid! Pull yourself up by your bootystraps! Someday come on over to my house! Bring your little friends! You all can lowball each other for who gets to mow my lawn!” (Attempts to ban abortion, the gutting of welfare, “right to work” laws)
Ya gotta have some socialism Out. Without it you abandon the chance for society.
Socialism has never worked. Would you rather live in North or South Korea? Would you rather live in Jamaica or Cuba? Would you rather have lived in West or East Germany? Don’t mention Sweden or the other Nordic countries. They can’t sustain their cradle-to-grave system anymore either.
Rage: Absolutely! I didn’t even infer that the government didn’t have its place in society. The extent of which is a whole different topic.
My point was that, due to the kind of folks I described earlier (independent, can do people), conservatism as a potent politcal ideaology is here to stay.
LRB is a typical “angry white man”…………………watch him cry when the conservative house of cards collapses in around the first Tuesday in November. Oh, I forgot………..they got their collective asses kicked in the primaries here last week!
“The conservatives own the White House, the Senate, The Congress and the Supreme Counrt.
An the Liberals ask if the right is finished?”
For once, I almost agree with LRB (it’s not “liberals,” lerb, it’s just E.J. Dionne). Even if conservativism became permanently discredited in the political arena, federal judges are appointed for life.
I’m not a conservtive. I didn’t vote for Bush or his son.
Sorry, find another lable. The angry white man conservative one is incorrect on about 7 different levels.
Listen I would like to see democrats win some elections. I like a balance in the goevernment. But the trouble is, as tour post demonstates, you all are so dense.
Out,I doubt conservatism will dry and blow away, but I will continue to fight for a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty, not just for myself, but for posterity.
Great Rage! You sound like a true American. But the devil is in the details isn’t it? Otherwise we would have nothing to discuss here.
LRB is typical………….”the angry white man” is obviously figurative, stemming from the loss of the south to the Democratic Party due to support for the Civil Rights laws…………….DUH!
How about democrats fighting for jobs, safe neighborhoods, economic prosperity, secure borders, and families.
Leave the bi-lingual reproductive health centers (abortion clinic) being federally funded for each and every grade school initiatives and other stuff you now favor for the Marxists. Rid yourselves of the crazy socialist poity-heads in your party and return to your roots of being for the working family. Then you’ll get my support.
Until then I will continue to seek the lone voices of reason on election night.
“LRB is typical………….”the angry white man” is obviously figurative, stemming from the loss of the south to the Democratic Party due to support for the Civil Rights laws…………….DUH!”
Both Geroge Wallace and Robert Byrd, the two biggest racists that ever graced our electoral system, were democrats.
Lincoln was a Republican.
JR: I tend to agree with you on the estate tax issue and on a reasonable minimum wage increase. The estate tax issue affects very few, and it has been too long with the minimum wage at the same rate. Maybe it should be indexed to inflation in order to eliminate it as a political football?
I only have a sec right now. I will be back later.
LRB? I say it is way past time to end the coy games. You keep saying what you are not. But you never quite get to what you are. I’ve no interest engaging a Cheshire cat.
By the way? Feudalism has never worked either. Except for the masters. I’ll become a brigand before I’ll be a serf.
“LRB? I say it is way past time to end the coy games. You keep saying what you are not. But you never quite get to what you are. I’ve no interest engaging a Cheshire cat. ”
The problem is – you liberals are as dumb as the conservatives.
“If you’re not a *insert your political party* you must me a *insert other political party*.”
Sound familiar? You said it. George Bush said it. You two are more alike than you care to acknowledge. You demcrats and republicans are like two scorpions locked in a death embrace.
I am not a liberal. I am not a conserative. I am not a democrat. I am not a republican.
In many way I represent the future of American politics. The third party.
Kid is in bed and I am back.
Good to see some reasonableness in ya Out. Better get to cleaning up your “side of the fence”. The nuts are in charge.
And to LRB
LRB? I was the first poster to notice you. Apophis obviously is not as familiar with you as I am.
Let’s us better get to know you shall we?
I promise to be fair and it may even be fun. I’ve got one helluva toothache on. And with no dentist open and anbesol not working, I’m relying on alcohol.
S: (adj) conservative (resistant to change)S: (adj) conservative (opposed to liberal reforms)S: (adj) cautious, conservative (avoiding excess) “a conservative estimate”S: (adj) button-down, buttoned-down, conservative (unimaginatively conventional) “a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business”- NewsweekS: (adj) bourgeois, conservative, materialistic (conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class) “a bourgeois mentality”Socialism “economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.”(n) liberal, liberalist, progressive (a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties)S: (n) liberal (a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Well done .morg. What you left out is that in the current vernacular, “liberal” is a dirty word and the definition of “conservative” is conserved to anyone claiming to be one.
I’ts bedtime for me. I’ll be here tomorrow.
Thanks JR,This has been an interesting thread. It’s always fun to see how much people think they know about things like taxes and such.
JR, you are a good person. That needs to be said.
Night.
Night LRB. Careful the compiments! You’ll ruin my rep.! I WILL get to the bottom of you!
Thank you also .morg. You’re a good poster keep it up.
JR,Check the open thread above left some info for you hope it helps.
Seen and acknowledged .morg thanks!
That’s right. The gov’t did not build the new hwy 400.Mr. Beachner did because he’s really wealthy and his wife didn’t like the old road.
When pushed into the corner by Democrats, even Greenspan had to admit that tax cuts never generate enough tax revenue to make up for the cuts. Rosell’s using the old ‘tax voodoo’ argument.The Republican party needs the “value voters’, else the value of their Haliburton and Oil stocks will decline! (this is an original contribution for the cause of Rino enlightenment).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0808/p16s01-bogn.html
A need for religious reawakening from within. Political baggage only muddies the moral message of guidance.