How well do the New Conservative "Principles" really work?

Great question !! Long live Reaganomics & Thatcherism.

Too many logical fallacies for me to address before rushing off to work.

You think those are new conservative policies?

Great question but I don’t think that the neo-conservative will the see the irony in your comments.

I stopped being a Republican when Regan was running. That’s where they showed their true colors and started the “trickle down” theory. After 30 years we have found that wealth trickles up and government does indeed not work when the leadership embarks on a program of dismantling it.

Reagan said that he wanted to shut down the government and they finally succeeded except for the parts that make money for politicians. Now they say that the government can’t run health care, They are probably right. The bureaucracy needs to be revamped and streamlined. Bush hard liners need to be replaced and the policy of privatizing everything needs to be rescinded. Then maybe government will work and we can progress.

@JLeslie Admit it; the GOP is rather fractured. There are still many old-school Conservatives but most of them are not radical enough for the likes of people like Limbaugh, Cheney, and Glen Beck. Then there are the Neo-Conservatives who, IMO, are just bat-shit insane.
Personally, I think that that growing rift is going to lead to either a three-party system with a weaker Conservative side since they are split or the entire nation moving to the Right like many dictatorships. I can only hope that the former turns out to be the case since, as much as it would suck, it would be the lesser of two evils.

@Nullo I can’t see it. I mean, it sounds exactly like a lot of Conservatives I’ve heard from, and I wish that there was some humorous exaggeration there but I’ve met/seen too many people who actually think that way! It gives the more moderate Conservatives a real bad name too.

@jerv Pretty good guesses about what may happen. The wealthiest 1% of Americans have doubled their share of the nation’s total wealth since Reagan instituted his Trickle Down economics. Slowly, the middle class is being drained to the point that the economic engine that kept things running with manufacturing off-shored, the American consumer, has run out of gas. The next Republican dream is a flat tax. It’s seductive, because it’s so simple to figure out what you owe. But if it ends far higher for the avcerage wage earner than their current tax bracket, Republicans would have hell to pay for instituting it. So naturally, it has to be set lower than the current middle-income rate 0f 25%. So it’s going to equal yet another massive tax cut for the rich.

The only way such a massive cut in revenue can be sustained is to eliminate all entitlement spending or eliminate the Defense Department. You can just guess which the GOP would target. So trickle down will finally mean the rich pay almost no taxes and the poor get no assistance of any kind. There will be no safety net. Trickle down is a lie. It’s a plan to transfer all the wealth of the nation to the richest of the rich, who can then move somewhere in the world where there is still a thriving economy.

@ETpro , I completely agree, We now know where the money “trickles” but I have republican friends that still think that the government just had to get out of the way for the economy to improve. I am constantly amazed at how they can look the facts in the face and completely ignore them.

@jerv I kind of think of the long time ago conservatives as being conservative on money stuff. Not thrilled about welfare or social systems in general. They were for protecting individual rights, and liked minimal government interferance. It is the NEW Republicans who I think are crazy conservative about religion. The old south/bible belt was mostly Democrats, and then switched later on. The movement for “family values” was driven home with Bush Jr. on the heals of Clinton’s liasons. Although, as far back as Reagan/Bush we certainly had the Christian right show their influence.

I think there are many Conservatives who want to get back to the old way as they see it, and dump the crazy religious right wingers.

@ETpro I think a flat tax is a great idea. The Republicans are the ones who don’t want it, at least the republicans around me. I can find you a link to an article if you are interested that I think was reporting by the IRS for 2006 that the top 400 income earners in the US (I think it was 400?) who make $200million and more, pay an average of 17% tax. This is of course not including if there is any hidden money over seas. You probably know that Warren Buffet has been arguing that the tax system is completely unfair, that his secretaries pay a higher percent than he does. I don’t think he has pushed a flat tax, but certainly something more fair, taxing the rich more. It is not so much taxing them MORE as it is taxing them as much. They get away with paying less because of loop holes, capital gains, etc. Most of the people I know against raising taxes on the “rich” are not close to rich and have no idea how the tax write-offs really work, they just listen to the bullshit, eyes glaze over, and nod yes. They actually say to me the rich pay more, meaning total dollars, and don’t care about the percentages. What kind of sense does that make?

@JLeslie I think that the conservatives are more concerned about their money, not the nations. The ultra conservative neo-conservatives spent Clinton’s surplus and dumped all the money into tax breaks for the rich, reducing government services, and building a military ready to fight the Soviet Union but unable to battle guys riding on donkeys and camels.

Frankly, I wouldn’t have minded them spending the money if it actually benefited all of us. Mostly it was used to kill people and start wars on ideologies.

I can’t think of a bigger waste of money and lives.

@Ron_C And you think that is a change from the Reagan Years? That previously they were not concerned about their own money? Reagan super cut taxes on the rich. Or maybe we are agreeing?

@JLeslie I think we are agreeing. I used to be a republican until Reagen’s campaign. I never thought “trickle down” was sound economics. To me it sounded like a feudal system and I don’t want to be a serf.

I just want some reasonable balance, these extremes are just awful. Someone mentioned that a third party might develop, which I would look forward to, but I think it is more likely the Republican party, if they want to change, will let go of the conservative stance with gay marriage and maybe choice (although abortion is a tougher subject) and reign in government spending.

@JLeslie Unfortunately, it seems that “Conservative” and “balance” do not go together, at least not in the public eye. Would you call Colin Powell or John McCain “Liberals” and kick them out of the GOP? That is exactly what Rush and Cheney did on the air!

Regardless of the truth of the matter, Conservatives are seen as being associated with extremism just like stink on shit.

@JLeslie I think I’ve been a progressive too long. I believe that citizens deserve certain thing by the virtue of just being a citizen of the country. One thing they deserve is the right to maintain their house and reasonable property if they get sick or injured. The way things stand now, the majority of us are only one major illness away from bankruptcy. This is not a free country. I guess I’m a social democrat.

I’m with you, @Ron_C. I believe in the social contract.

@Ron_C Me too on that. I want single payer health care. Health care is a whole different subject. We won’t get it, I don’t think we will ever have it. The bill out there now just extends the crappy deal we have now to others. Except, from what I understand they will get rid of pre-existing.

@Dr_Dredd thank you. I see this country as sort of a club. After initiation you get certain benefits, one should be health protection another should be a level economic playing field. Special interests should not trump citizens rights and property.

@Ron_C Many Neo-cons see it as a club too; if you can’t afford to pay your dues for any reason, even if it’s through no fault of your own, they’ll shove you out into the street and slam the door behind you.

@jerv not the club I joined! I need to expand this a bit further. I noticed that the conservatives that are trying to run this club haven’t paid any dues. Other than elected office, the majority never did any kind of government service. I also notice that the new members of congress are ex military that actually fought in combat zones.

I paid my dues. I served in the military, pay middle class taxes, vote on a regular basis, and write to my congressmen. To me that makes me more of a citizen than the vast majority of congress. All I want is a fair legal, health, and tax system. What we get is volumes of laws, tax loopholes for the rich, and a health system that makes you a vassal of your employer. This is a pretty shitty club and we need a new board of directors!

@Ron_C Why do you think that there are so many disillusioned Republicans out there right now? It’s not the party they joined either.

@jerv The only trouble is, I don’t see them doing anything. Their representatives sole reason for existence seems to be to sink the Obama government and get back into power. There is no way that any thinking American should vote for the incumbents of EITHER party. They have all caved to either their fascist leaders or to their corporate sponsors. The no longer (all of them) represent the electorate.

The Revolution and the Civil war were fought for less reasons than this.

@Ron_C I’ve been waiting for some sort of coup, revolution, or similar here in the US for most of my life, ever since I was smart enough to even have an inkling where we were heading. Pretty sad when a 10-year-old figured it out over a quarter of a century ago and yet it seems to come as a total shock to people now.

This is why the parties suck. If you have abrain in your head you don’t agree with every single thing each “title” offers. Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Neo con, Progressive, and more. I don’t have a better solution than parties, but in the end I think it better we don’t assume how someone will feel on one topic based on another, or by how they usually identify themselves.

@jerv the problem with a coup is that there is an excellent chance the wrong group will win. The ultra-right has already shown that they can organize their unthinking hoards into doing unthinkable evil. They supported the axis of evil, Bush and Cheney, there was no protest when the Patriot Act was enacted, they supported torture, and preemptive war. Do you think that they would be deterred from killing and torturing people that just wanted decent health care and a fair government? They are also more likely to have guns and the support of the military elite.

We’ll end up like Argentina or even Nazi Germany. The only difference, instead of only Jews being sent to concentration camp, so will catholics, atheists, progressives and anyone not brainwashed into the National Religion. We could start it but they would finish it. We best try to reform the government through elections and political action.

@Ron_C I never said it would necessarily be a good thing, I merely see it as almost inevitable. As it stands, we are getting more and more polarized, or at least extremist views are becoming more prevalent.

And it’s sad but I think you’re entirely correct; if there were a coup, it would the gun-loving, God-fearing Uber-Right that would emerge victorious, and I don’t think the world is ready for that. Of course, you will be the first against the wall for making parallels between the Bush-43 administration and Nazi Germany

@jleslie Ive been thinking that political parties are like dinosaurs. They exist soley to get elected and have power with the wishes of the electorate ignored.
In this internet age perhaps something can emerge so that we can all vote on issues rather than relying on party politics. This situation exists all over the western world. Here in Britain the turnout at elections has been as low as 25 percent. This is no longer democracy with so many being disillusioned.

Whaddaya mean, you want a coup? Haven’t you been paying attention these last few months?
You guys have some seriously messed-up ideas about who and what Conservatives are. I suggest you try interacting with some now and then; you’d be surprised.

@Ron_C In fact, I aspire to be one of the first against the wall. I am tired of fighting the battle to get people to listen to reason instead of being blind followers of their particular demagogue. Even thought I’m ex-military, I have never been a good follower. I want and insist that my leaders make sense and give only lawful orders. I have found out that the world doesn’t even try to work that way.

What utter tripe.

@Nullo First off, I never said I wanted a coup; I just expect one.
Secondly, I have, and it often scares me. I am a bit more Conservative than you seem to think, but when you throw politicians like Sarah Palin into the ring, I will vote Democrat every time. (I know that I am not the only one who was prepared to vote for McCain until he announced her as his running mate.) The problem is that the real Conservatives are rather quiet for the most part and thus it’s easy to paint all Conservatives with the same brush when you hear from/about some truly fucked up people who call themselves Conservatives.

@Nullo I actually read Conservative newsletters and media daily. But take a look at what you posted and what @CyanoticWasp said. Sorry, but there is really not much to follow there, and that’s common of lots of right-wing diatribes on social media sites. Name calling, ad hominem attacks, made-up ‘facts’ and denial of what’s right in front of everyone’s faces. That’s the interaction you get when you try interacting with today’s Cons.

@ETpro, it’s still bullshit, and nothing but bullshit. And how lovely a person you must be (so that I’m not accused of an ad hominem attack) that you put words in our mouths and characterize us as right-wing, and our responses as “diatribe”. No, nothing ad hominem about you, is there?!

Let’s see… where to start with this nonsense?

If I stipulate to your presentation of “fact” ... which I have learned from past examples of yours is a risky proposition… then we could agree that the average daily income is $2. How did you make the leap of logic required to believe that half of that is “transfer of wealth” payments from “the rich”? I have no idea what people in Haiti do to acquire (maybe even “earn”) their $2 per day, but I doubt if half of the island’s income is from welfare payments. (If it is, it would seem to drive home the point about how destructive those are, I would think.)

As for “government services”, I expect that “the government” in Haiti hasn’t changed all that much since the days when Papa Doc was in power. The “government services” that people in Haiti receive amount mostly to a door being broken down in the middle of the night and the resident/s being hauled off to jail.

@CyanoticWasp If you are a Conservative and you do not feel that @ETpro‘s question has any truth to it because those are not your political beliefs, then one of the following is true:
1) The uber-Right wingnuts that actually think like that are not really Conservatives, or
2) You are deluding yourself by saying that you are a Conservative.or
3) There is more than one type of Conservative

However, I think that you are missing the point of the question. According to some of the louder wingnuts, the “logic” behind the system that @ETpro mentions is not only sound, but written by God Himself and has the blessing of our nation’s Founding Fathers as well. It is a panacea. It will bolster their economy, cure cancer, ease the pain of childbirth, whiten teeth, and improve radio reception. If you haven’t seen/heard those types of people then you must’ve been under a rock for the last 30 years.

But I would think that old-school Conservatives (like you?) would be even more pissed off at these wackos than any Liberal or Moderate after having their party hijacked and their good name sullied by them. But isn’t the way the game is played in the 21st century, this is . It’s easier for old-school Conservatives to fight with people like @ETpro and I than it would be to take the party back or make a viable third party of their own, and that saddens me.

And either that comment about driving the point home came out totally wrong, or you are one heartless S.O.B. If you are going to blame the whole concept of the welfare system for the poverty in Haiti and overlook the state of the government there and the overall lack of revenue that they have to work with then you are just putting up straw men yourself. Or are you actually in favor of a more Darwinistic approach to economics? If so then you should just do the humane thing and euthanize the poor.

@Sandydog Well, I have hypothesized that if many are not showing up for elections, it means things are probably pretty good. In a democracy when people are disgusted and fearful they tend to get themselves to the polls. On fluther it is always interesting to me that I can notice a person who agrees with me a lot, and then we will get on a question where we are on opposite sides. It throws me off. It is a reminder that each topic is different, just like politics in America, and I would guess your country as well.

@jerv, you seem to be making a lot of the same assumptions and leaps of illogic that @ETpro made.

First, you seem to be under the assumption that I’m a conservative (whatever that is). I suppose at first glance I may appear so, but appearances can be deceiving. (Not that I intend to deceive anyone; I just don’t try to fly under anyone else’s flag.)

Then you seem to think that there’s some merit to @ETpro‘s mocking question, which on the face of it does not have any validity. You followed that up with your own insulting reference to “uber-Right wingnuts” who apparently think differently than you do, or you think that I’m delusional. The only one of your statements at the top of your last post that makes any sense at all is—there really are many kinds of (lower-case) conservative. What a surprise, eh?

Your insults continue into the second paragraph. (I’ve lived under quite a few rocks in the past 30 years, I suppose.) No one seriously proposes that there are any panaceas, but that’s the straw man you set up before you accused me of hiding under a rock for the past three decades.

I’ll spell it out for you: I’m not a Republican. Whether or not I have some conservative principles is moot. So do many Democrats—I’m not one of them, either. You didn’t spell out who “these wackos” are, but I guess that means “anyone who doesn’t toe your party line”. Instead of painting with a broad brush, why not just use a spray gun for even better coverage?

As long as the Democrats and Republicans are in relative parity to argue about the margins of government, there will be—can be—no “viable third party”. They agree enough to see to that better than anything else they do.

I don’t know what was hard to understand about my comment about welfare. I alluded to the fallacy that @ETpro made in his assumption that roughly half of the average Haitian’s income must be from some kind of government handout. (I don’t believe it to be true.) I made that point that if it is true, then it drives home the point that such welfare is killing the country, rather than helping it. No nation and no people ever became rich, or even self-sufficient, on “government handouts”. I would posit that if half of a nation’s income were from welfare, that would be the cause of its malaise, and no kind of solution. I don’t expect you to agree with it, but I think anyone with an ounce of sense would. If the citizens of the 19th Century United States had “welfare payments” that made up half of their income (and those citizens were often not even as well off as today’s average Haitian), then we never would have become the richest nation on Earth. And we’re not going to be the richest nation on Earth if we increase our welfare programs. I don’t see why that should be at all difficult to understand, but apparently it is.

I don’t expect to continue many debates with either of you. You both bore me cross-eyed. But I did want to explain some of this in short words.

@CyanoticWasp – If you aren’t a Conservative then you certainly fooled me, especially due to your dismissive attitude. C’est la vie, but I am glad to hear that you actually use your brain.

“No one seriously proposes that there are any panaceas.”
I have a different set of experiences from you; just because you haven’t seem some of the things I have, that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist or never happened. I wish I were kidding, but I have dealt with more than a few people who honestly think that way.

“You didn’t spell out who “these wackos” are, but I guess that means “anyone who doesn’t toe your party line”.”
Do you think that any of the Tele-tubbies were blatantly homosexual? That is just one example of the behavior of some of the people I refer to. I can understand taking the same facts and using sound logic to reach a different conclusion from me, but I cannot understand a lot of what I see coming from either side.

“I don’t know what was hard to understand about my comment about welfare.”
I read that a couple of different ways and wasn’t sure which way you were going with it. Apparently my first guess was correct then; it did come out wrong. Thank you for setting it straight.

@CyanoticWasp You talk about my having launched an ad hominem attack, but where is it? Responding directly to @Nullo who simply posted that my thoughts are “utter tripe” without providing any rebuttal of what I stated? That’s not an ad hominem attack. That’s self defense. Ad hominem means trying to discredit an idea or argument by attacking the person who stated the idea. An ad hominem is when a conservative claims that a fact isn’t true because it was printed in the liberal NY Times or a liberal claims an idea isn’t true because it was quoted by Rush Limbaugh. You’re just resorting to schoolyard name-calling. Neither you nor I were guilty of an argument ad hominem in this particular case.

As to arguing with facts, I may err at times, but I actually work at getting my facts straight. I look them up. And when someone proves me wrong, I appreciate the correction. I am actually willing to change my mind of new evidence shows my original idea was wrong. I’m not an ideologue. Fact is I was a Republican at one time. I left the party when I saw the dangerous direction Ronald Reagan was taking it in.

I hold both conservative and liberal views. I think anyone who limits themselves to only one way of thinking does their thought process a severe disservice. I try to be careful to distinguish between conservative as the dictionary defines it and as true conservative thinkers like William F. Buckley lived it, and the New Cons, who are radicals and not conservatives in my mind. If you are of the Buckley school and thought I was lumping you in with the party Rush Limbaugh leads, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Now, about the thought experiment.

The Haitian tax system is strongly regressive. There is an minuscule 2% payroll tax on gross receipts. There is a 10% VAT. That and the Corporate tax of 22.8% on taxable profits are the chief sources of revenue for the current government.

In actual practice, the wealthiest families pay no taxes whatsoever. Virtually all of them have dual citizenship, passports from multiple countries and take money out of the country at will. So cutting the tax rate would have no impact on them. That may make Haiti a poor laboratory for the thought experiment I proposed. But it wasn’t about a country, it was about a tax-cuts-fix-everything mentality, and I strongly maintain that mentality is wrong and produces an economic disaster when taken to the extreme.

However, choosing Haiti does highlight one thing. When a country is as poor as Haiti, its economy can only be improved by government spending or by outside assistance. Cutting taxes removes the possibility of government spending as one of the ways forward.

In the USA, we got out of the Great Depression through government spending. Consumers couldn’t have done the trick. They were financially wiped out. Business couldn’t have done it. Many were bankrupt and those that weren’t completely wiped out by the Depression were hanging on by a thread. Because they had the ability to deficit spend, government was the only remaining institution with the ability to revive the economy. FDR instituted the WPA and put people back to work, and this actually got the GDP back on track with where it should have been shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Cutting taxes is a good thing when taxes are too high and the National Debt is low. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is a bad thing when they are already so low that debt is huge and still mounting.

@ETpro
I didn’t say that you should go out and read conservative newsletters and media, I said that you should interact. Mingle. Talk, and about more than politics. Grok the other person. Be tolerant and unprejudiced. I think that you’d be surprised with the impression that you come away with.

@jerv
Why, exactly, do you dislike Sarah Palin?

@Nullo Well, I am in the mood for bullet points right now (it’s getting late) but let us start with:
– Inarticulate Bush-43 may have made a few bloopers, but he could think on his feet pretty well.
– Not knowledgeable Not an idiot mind you, but rather naive on many things that a POTUS would need to know
(I think the whole “Death Panels” debacle illustrates those two points nicely)
– Seems to be seeking a theocracy I don’t mind a pious person in office, but I damn well expect them to keep their ideology out of their policy decisions at least enough to respect the law. Not only that, but I expect them to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There is a way to stick to your guns without coming across as a zealot, but she lacks that skill.
– Hypocritical You can’t go on too much about morality and traditional family values when your unwed, underage daughter gets knocked up.
– Differing ideologies While I may be conservative on certain things, I am rather liberal on most social issues. Even if I felt she were competent, I wouldn’t vote for her

And with that, it’s time to hit the rack. G’nite

@Nullo I do interact with conservatives from reasonable, principled ones to far right wing nuts. And by the way, wing nuts come in left hand thread just as surely as they do right hand thread.

You seem to have concluded that you already know all about me and had no need to ask who I interact with. Just because I expressed a certain idea about taxation doesn’t define how I think about everything, whom I do and do not exchange ideas with, and so on…

@ETpro Correct. It’s just that the left-threaded wingnuts don’t get nearly as much airtime and few people take them seriously.

I have to jump in here because I was trying to make sense of this thread and ignore the the occasional name calling. @Nullo I have to say that I agree with the vast majority of what @ETpro had to say. I can’t see why you seem to be attacking him. Further, you probably want to look at @jerv for his comments about Bush and Palin, they’re right on.

By the way Bush and Palin are good examples of what happens when you make D-list people your figure head leaders. They are generally so stupid that they begin to think that they are actually in charge.

Finally, it is conservative principles that put pre-earthquake Haiti into the position it was in. Conservative principles used it as a tool, first against the Spanish, then against communist Cuba. We didn’t care what type of heinous dictator ran the country as long as they took their orders from the U.S.

They finally got an effective leader in Aristde but his programs were too socialist so we had him diposed. Since then, there has been no effective government.

I believe that we (U.S.) have more of a duty to rebuild Haiti than we ever did in Afganhistan or Iraq. If Obama wanted to transfer all of the troops from Iraq to Haiti, I would fully back him.