Revived, please keep it clean.

Thank you Trd87. 

Originally posted by TRD87

Revived, please keep it clean.

Frodus gives TRD87 a deep-bow..

Bow :: to bend down one's head or bend one's body in respect, agreement, worship, recognition, etc. to yield or submit, as to authority; to ...
 

Originally posted by Fishermage

To clarify, and to show you more respect than  you seem to show anyone here:

 

Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.

This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.

Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well  -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.

Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.

I hope this time I was clear enough.

 

Statements require evidence.  Job growth did not increase.  GDP?  Not exactly soaring.  The dollar?  Eh...

How was it great for the economy?  At best, it was not an unmitigated disaster, merely a pretty bad disaster. 

You have jumped straight from the hypothesis (Tax cuts are good for the economy) past the gather evidence phase, and into the apply theory phase (Tax cut!  Economy must have improved).  

But it doesn't really seem to have.

Thanks! Good to see the thread back :)

To Faxxer and Fishermage or anyone else starting threads like this. The Whole fact that you call yourselves Conservatives, Liberals, or what have you just shows how naive you really are. Why does it have to be the views of "Liberals" or "Conservatives"?. What you are doing exactly what this country has done for centuries and are just pre arranging people into set groups.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage

To clarify, and to show you more respect than  you seem to show anyone here:

 

Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.

This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.

Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well  -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.

Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.

I hope this time I was clear enough.

 

Statements require evidence.  Job growth did not increase.  GDP?  Not exactly soaring.  The dollar?  Eh...

How was it great for the economy?  At best, it was not an unmitigated disaster, merely a pretty bad disaster. 

 

You have jumped straight from the hypothesis (Tax cuts are good for the economy) past the gather evidence phase, and into the apply theory phase (Tax cut!  Economy must have improved).  

But it doesn't really seem to have.

Sure they did. I didn't provide evidence because I was sharing MY beliefs and views to another poster, not making a case or trying to prove anything. That being said it is very easy to prove the case and dozens of studies have been done in my favor.

You forget they brought us out if the Clinton recession, and led us into economic growth. They also did lead to GDP growth until the housing bubble burst, which was the fault of administrations and congresses prior to Bush groing back to Carter.

But, if you insist, here's one that took about 30 seconds to find:

taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-working

__________________________________________________________________________________

How Has the Economy Changed Since the Tax Cuts?

GDP Growth

After the recession in 2001 and the first round of tax cuts, economic growth speeded up and is expected to pickup even faster in 2004:3

* The real annual GDP growth rate increased from 0.3 percent in 2001 to 2.5 percent in 2002.
* In the third quarter of 2003, GDP grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate.
* Forecasters are expecting GDP to grow by 4.6 percent in 2004, the highest in 20 years.
* 2003 and 2004 economic growth levels surpassed Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates by 150 basis combined, resulting in $300 billion of additional growth, which is roughly $2,500 per household.

Employment, Jobs, and Productivity4

Though job creation was slow immediately following the recession and during the first stages of the recovery, it had increased dramatically by late 2002 and 2003.

* 1.4 million jobs were added in the nine months after August 2003 (the 2003 tax cuts were signed into law in late May 2003).
* The unemployment rate remained steady at 5.6 percent in May 2004, well below its peak of 6.3 percent a year ago.
* The Treasury Department estimates that without the tax relief, as many as 1.5 million more Americans would be out of work right now, and the unemployment rate would be well over 7 percent.

The job growth statistics are particularly noteworthy because of greater-than-expected increases in productivity levels-high rates of productivity tend to mean less employment:

* Productivity grew at a 4.6-percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2004, continuing the trend of large gains in productivity since 2001 due to investments in equipment and technology.
* Higher productivity increases incomes and keeps inflation in check.

Furthermore, unemployment claims are at their lowest since the 2001 recession. The high rates of job growth matched with high rates of productivity point to the overall strength of the economy.

Investment, Spending and Inflation5

Consumer spending is on the rise, as is business investment. Economists credit the tax cuts for some of this growth-taxpayers' disposable income rose after receiving their rebates and businesses increased their inventory to meet increased demand.

* Consumers' real disposable income has increased by more than 10 percent during the first 13 quarters of the Bush administration, compared to only 7 percent during the same period of the first Clinton administration.
* Business investment increased at a 5.8-percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2004.

Though inflationary pressures have risen recently in response to increased business and consumer spending, inflation is low by historical standards:

* The personal consumption expenditure index (the Fed's preferred inflation gauge) rose by 1 percent for an annual 3 percent inflation rate, but when volatile food and energy prices are removed from the index, the inflation rate is only 1.7 percent annually.
* However, personal income growth is growing as well, so inflationary pressure is easier for the average worker to bear.

Dividend Payouts

A study on dividend payouts before and after the 2003 tax cut for all Standard & Poor's 500 companies showed a highly positive response to the tax cut:6

* Annual dividends paid by S&P 500 companies rose from $146 billion to $172 billion, an increase of $26 billion.
* In addition, special dividends of $7 billion have been paid, raising the total first-year dividend increase to $33 billion.
* Thus, dividends increased 18 percent without special dividends and 23 percent with special dividends.
* About 22 companies that did not previously pay dividends have initiated regular dividends.
* Equity values rose more than $2 trillion after the tax cut.
* Since 2003, nearly 19 companies have instituted a dividend payment for the first time, and almost 9 per­cent more companies paid out dividends after the tax cut than before the tax cut.
* Dividends payments to taxpayers increased from an average of $410 in the second quarter of 2003 to $518 in the third quarter of 2005.
* The overall payout of dividends in 2005 was over 36.5 percent higher than the payout before the 2003 tax cut and dividend income increased by a similar margin after the 2003 cut, from $750 to $1,000.

The large and positive response to the dividend tax cut, which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2008, suggests that Congress should make it permanent.

Capital Gains7

* In 1993, 14.5 million Americans claimed capital gains income, by 2003, the number had grown to 21.9 million Americans -- a 51 percent increase -- and the percent of all taxpayers report­ing capital gains income increased from 12.6 per­cent to 16.8 percent, respectively.
* Taxpayers claimed an average of $12,283 in capital gains income in 2003, and shareholder wealth increased by more than $5 trillion.

The Bush Tax Cuts Are Working

The three Bush tax cuts have offered tax relief to every American taxpayer and businesses as well. Individuals and families kept more of their own income and tended to spend it or invest it, which led to impressive economic growth. Tax relief also lowered the cost of capital, making it easier for businesses to expand, increase profits, and hire more workers. Nearly all economic indicators show that we have recovered from the 2001 recession and are in a period of economic expansion.

Unfortunately, many of the Bush tax cut provisions have "sunset clauses" and will expire soon. Nearly all elements of the 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act will expire in 2011 if legislators do not make them permanent. If that doesn't happen, taxpayers will face the largest tax increase in the nation's history.

That tax increase raises three legitimate concerns:8

* Higher taxes encourage additional spending; there is no fixed relationship between taxes and spending, but history suggests that tax increases almost surely have the effect of loosening the reins on government spending.
* Higher tax rates hurt competitiveness and growth ; all tax increases cause economic harm because they encourage bigger government but some types of tax increases do more economic damage than others, specifically, higher marginal tax rates on work, saving, and investment reduce incentives to engage in productive behavior.
* The tax rates/tax revenue downward spiral ; if the Bush tax cuts are not extended and the economy is hit by a sizeable increase in marginal tax rates, economic performance will falter, and this translates into fewer jobs, lower incomes, and diminished profits, and that means less money for the government to tax.

Even though, H.R. 4297 is a step in the right direction and the tax cuts have spurred investment, job creation, and economic growth, repealing any part of them would be damaging to American taxpayers on an individual level and to the economy as a whole. Even if Congress allows a tax cut to expire in 2011, investors will respond by locking up their money in short-term projects rather than long-term ones. The U.S. economy is strong, but could become stronger if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

Moreover, according to the Congressional Budget Office's "Budget and Economic Outlook for 2006":9

* Before the 2003 cut was enacted capital-gains tax liabilities were estimated to be $60 billion 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.
* But after the cut, liabilities were lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion.
* Actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion.
* Instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

The Heritage Foundation also found that overall payout of dividends in 2005 was over 36.5 percent higher than the payout before the 2003 tax cut, and dividend income increased by a similar margin after the 2003 cut, from $750 to $1,000.10 Taxpayers also claimed an average of $12,283 in capital gains income in 2003, and shareholder wealth increased by more than $5 trillion.

In May 2006, President Bush signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (H.R. 4297) into law which extend the current tax cuts. His signing assures that millions of taxpayers and millions more workers and business owners will enjoy low tax rates on capital gains and dividends and a potentially stronger economy through 2010. Overall, extending JGTRRA's preferential rate structure on capital gains and dividend income will have small -- but positive -- effects on both gross domestic product (GDP) and employment. Personal consumption and business fixed investment are also likely to post modest gains as a result of H.R.4297 because it is only a temporary extension of an expiring provision.11

* H.R. 4297's capital gains and dividend provisions are likely to influence economic activity by increasing personal disposable income by lowering federal tax payments and reducing the cost of capital to businesses by raising the value of U.S. equities.
* Most immediately, H.R. 4297's capital gains and dividend provisions will lower income tax payments; extending JGTRRA's rate structure on capital gains and dividend income will reduce federal tax revenues by a total of some $18 billion in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and over $50 billion between fiscal years 2008 and 2016.
* This will likely boost personal consumption and business fixed investments over the medium term; this effect is also likely to be largest for the extension of JGTRRA's preferential tax rates on capital gains realizations.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The biggest problem is that they were not made permanent, and they were offset by reckless government spending.

There's more evidence. pages and pages of it.

Originally posted by Roosevelt

To Faxxer and Fishermage or anyone else starting threads like this. The Whole fact that you call yourselves Conservatives, Liberals, or what have you just shows how naive you really are. Why does it have to be the views of "Liberals" or "Conservatives"?. What you are doing exactly what this country has done for centuries and are just pre arranging people into set groups.

I'm not a conservative, never said I was. Nor am I a Liberal. Nor am I a "whatever."  Not sure what you are talking about. Care to elaborate a bit?

However, humans, in order to think, must generalize, make categories, and arrange all that exists into groups. There is no other way to think, at least if you are human.

How would you suggest we think without making groups based upon beliefs and behavior? How would we discuss topics? please, come up with a better way. I am always looking for new and better ways to think and learn the truth of things. Anything you come up with would be greatly appreciated, IF it is truly a better way.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by qazyman

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
To clarify, and to show you more respect than  you seem to show anyone here:
 
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well  -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
 

---

 

Thank you very much for a reply.

I understand your position :)

 

My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.

You see that’s the problem. Using conventional and Libertarian in the same sentence. 

Just telling it like it is.........

I am curious what would happen to military sending under this more federalist approach?


 

 

What problem do you have with what I wrote?

My views are conventional FOR A LIBERTARIAN. That doesn't mean my views would be conventional to a liberal or to a conservative -- but to a moderate, socially liberal and fiscally conservative is VERY conventional.

In fact, there are two kinds of people in the "middle," authoritarians and libertarians. I agree there are probably more authoritarians than libertarians, but neither is particularly unconventional.

Military spending? That would depend on the libertarian. In my view, we are right now in the opening stages of the biggest, most threatening war in our history -- the defensive war we are fighting against the Jihad is far, far worse than WWI, WWII, or the cold war, so it stands to reason that "defense spending" should be increasing dramatically, as it does during all world level conflicts. That's just the price you pay for freedom.

In fact, the military should be by far the biggest part of the federal government. The military, the courts, and the buildings that house the government should be the total package.

 

I was just making the point that there in nothing conventional about what you are proposing.

Significantly decreasing the power of centralized government and increasing military power (you should really take some time to consider what the ultimate end of this beast would be). That's very Spartan of you to put it in the best possible light. It is true this approach has been used to great success, right up until those advocating it are totally crushed.

Ever been to Athens? That’s because it's still there.

This all ignores the fact that Women, minorities, and others will never allow this to happen in a free and democratic society which, in the end, leaves you totally with out a point.... only a dream.

A dream that has played out several times throughout history only to end each time in failure. The answer is not to destroy the power of centralized government, but to find away to make it work.

{ Mod Edit }

Originally posted by qazyman

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by qazyman

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
To clarify, and to show you more respect than  you seem to show anyone here:
 
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well  -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
 

---

 

Thank you very much for a reply.

I understand your position :)

 

My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.

You see that’s the problem. Using conventional and Libertarian in the same sentence. 

Just telling it like it is.........

I am curious what would happen to military sending under this more federalist approach?


 

 

What problem do you have with what I wrote?

My views are conventional FOR A LIBERTARIAN. That doesn't mean my views would be conventional to a liberal or to a conservative -- but to a moderate, socially liberal and fiscally conservative is VERY conventional.

In fact, there are two kinds of people in the "middle," authoritarians and libertarians. I agree there are probably more authoritarians than libertarians, but neither is particularly unconventional.

Military spending? That would depend on the libertarian. In my view, we are right now in the opening stages of the biggest, most threatening war in our history -- the defensive war we are fighting against the Jihad is far, far worse than WWI, WWII, or the cold war, so it stands to reason that "defense spending" should be increasing dramatically, as it does during all world level conflicts. That's just the price you pay for freedom.

In fact, the military should be by far the biggest part of the federal government. The military, the courts, and the buildings that house the government should be the total package.

 

 

I was just making the point that there in nothing conventional about what you are proposing.

 

Significantly decreasing the power of centralized government and increasing military power (you should really take some time to consider what the ultimate end of this beast would be). That's very Spartan of you to put it in the best possible light. It is true this approach has been used to great success, right up until those advocating it are totally crushed.

Ever been to Athens? That’s because it's still there.

 

This all ignores the fact that Women, minorities, and others will never allow this to happen in a free and democratic society which, in the end, leaves you totally with out a point.... only a dream.

 

A dream that has played out several times throughout history only to end each time in failure. The answer is not to destroy the power of centralized government, but to find away to make it work.

{ Mod Edit }

 

 

 

 

 

We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start. If we don't win this war we'll have nothing. I am being conventional and practical. This is quite a bit bigger than WWII, and if the enemy destroys on of our cities, which is their goal, we'll see how opinion changes.

The answer is to use the central government for its purpose -- to preserve and defend our liberty, and not much else. Pretty conventional.

{ Mod Edit }

Yup, Faxxer, the personal attacks have already started, at least against us "uneducated whites."

They simply can't have a discussion on a subject without attacking. Pity.

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Roosevelt

To Faxxer and Fishermage or anyone else starting threads like this. The Whole fact that you call yourselves Conservatives, Liberals, or what have you just shows how naive you really are. Why does it have to be the views of "Liberals" or "Conservatives"?. What you are doing exactly what this country has done for centuries and are just pre arranging people into set groups.

I'm not a conservative, never said I was. Nor am I a Liberal. Nor am I a "whatever."  Not sure what you are talking about. Care to elaborate a bit?

 

 

 

{ Mod Delete }

Oh yes, legalizing weed, prostitution, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (so pro gay marriage I'll perform the ceremony myself, even marry gay people IN CHRIST if that's what they'd like), believe in open borders, against obscenity laws, against the Patriot act -- yes, all those very conservative views I hold make me a conservative.

I agree with some conservatives on some issues, mostly economic ones. On other issues, mostly social ones, I am very liberal.

I am a small "L" libertarian. That's not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is relatively in the middle of the two.

Originally posted by comablak18

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

I would get rid of the minimum wage. It is not a function of the government to regulate wages. That is up to the market -- through the free interaction of individuals.

I am considering the people -- all the people.

I do not believe it is the government's role to "help people." That our job as free citizens.

This is not about caring and people, but about the nature and purpose of government. I disagree with you, and believe that people should help people voluntarily, not through the force of the State. We merely have different worldviews -- no need to act like I don't care about people.

That amounts to nothing more than an attack on my person and not my views about government.

EDIT: also, I live in a rural area (although it is rapidly being developed). This has nothng to do with urban or rural either -- it has to do with what one's views on government and its function in a free society.

Can we please stop hijacking the thread?

This is what got it deleted in the first place. If people want to argue economics, they can start another thread on it, mmmmkay?

Now, for something to help bring us back to our topic, the various hijackers notwithstanding:

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

The person who said this was not a conservative, and I agree with him. Who else does?

Originally posted by Fishermage

Now, for something to help bring us back to our topic, the various hijackers notwithstanding:

 

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

 

The person who said this was not a conservative, and I agree with him. Who else does?

I doubt anybody disagrees with that.

I think quite a few people disagree with your statement that we're on the brink of some ridiculous war. "We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start."

{ Mod Edit }

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by comablak18

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

I would get rid of the minimum wage. It is not a function of the government to regulate wages. That is up to the market -- through the free interaction of individuals.

I am considering the people -- all the people.

I do not believe it is the government's role to "help people." That our job as free citizens.

This is not about caring and people, but about the nature and purpose of government. I disagree with you, and believe that people should help people voluntarily, not through the force of the State. We merely have different worldviews -- no need to act like I don't care about people.

That amounts to nothing more than an attack on my person and not my views about government.

EDIT: also, I live in a rural area (although it is rapidly being developed). This has nothng to do with urban or rural either -- it has to do with what one's views on government and its function in a free society.

Can we please stop hijacking the thread?

This is what got it deleted in the first place. If people want to argue economics, they can start another thread on it, mmmmkay?

      I was not attacking your person, was merely criticizing broader conservative ideals.  You shouldn't take offense where it's not warranted.  However, I take exception to your belief that governement shouldnt help those that need it most.  I dont think the market always has the best interests of the average American in mind, otherwise working families wouldnt have to get a second job to make ends meet.  I do respect your opinion though.  I just dont have as much faith in the market and the private sector to make sure we dont have families going without food and shelter as you apparently do. 

    Growing up in a family where both parents worked hard for little pay, being thankful for every penny of government assistance, knowing without it you might go to bed hungry a few nights a week.  Having lived throught those times and see everyday the same story playing out again to people I know, it's hard for me to have faith in the generosity of the market place.

     Regardless,  It doesnt matter what any of us say or do.  As long as we pay taxes, the governement will be there to help those that need it most.  Though misguided it may seem, without it we'd be in far worse condition imo.

    As for hijacking the thread, I apolgize.  I absolutely detest arguing on the internet, it's pointless and a waste of time.  I will not be replying further to this thread.  Just wanted to voice my opinon on a few things. 

Originally posted by Olgreyhat

Originally posted by Fishermage

Now, for something to help bring us back to our topic, the various hijackers notwithstanding:

 

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

 

The person who said this was not a conservative, and I agree with him. Who else does?

 

I doubt anybody disagrees with that.

 

I think quite a few people disagree with your statement that we're on the brink of some ridiculous war. "We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start."

 

{ Mod Edit }

 

warmongering?  you're forgetting we've been at war for a few years now. 

But wait, let's go with this kind of thinking and just pull our troops home tomorrow eh?  What you you think will happen?  seriously, tell me.  Tell all of us just how it ends ok?

Originally posted by comablak18

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by comablak18

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

I would get rid of the minimum wage. It is not a function of the government to regulate wages. That is up to the market -- through the free interaction of individuals.

I am considering the people -- all the people.

I do not believe it is the government's role to "help people." That our job as free citizens.

This is not about caring and people, but about the nature and purpose of government. I disagree with you, and believe that people should help people voluntarily, not through the force of the State. We merely have different worldviews -- no need to act like I don't care about people.

That amounts to nothing more than an attack on my person and not my views about government.

EDIT: also, I live in a rural area (although it is rapidly being developed). This has nothng to do with urban or rural either -- it has to do with what one's views on government and its function in a free society.

Can we please stop hijacking the thread?

This is what got it deleted in the first place. If people want to argue economics, they can start another thread on it, mmmmkay?

 

      I was not attacking your person, was merely criticizing broader conservative ideals.  You shouldn't take offense where it's not warranted.  However, I take exception to your belief that governement shouldnt help those that need it most.  I dont think the market always has the best interests of the average American in mind, otherwise working families wouldnt have to get a second job to make ends meet.  I do respect your opinion though.  I just dont have as much faith in the market and the private sector to make sure we dont have families going without food and shelter as you apparently do. 

    Growing up in a family where both parents worked hard for little pay, being thankful for every penny of government assistance, knowing without it you might go to bed hungry a few nights a week.  Having lived throught those times and see everyday the same story playing out again to people I know, it's hard for me to have faith in the generosity of the market place.

     Regardless,  It doesnt matter what any of us say or do.  As long as we pay taxes, the governement will be there to help those that need it most.  Though misguided it may seem, without it we'd be in far worse condition imo.

    As for hijacking the thread, I apolgize.  I absolutely detest arguing on the internet, it's pointless and a waste of time.  I will not be replying further to this thread.  Just wanted to voice my opinon on a few things. 

I never take offense. I merely called you on your none-too-subtle personal attack. When you make the claim that I do not care about people based upon the views I hold about government that is a personal attack. I am not the least bit insulted by it, but it is what it is.

I care about people, you care about people. I just don't believe in using government to do so. That's a difference of opinion about government and its nature and purpose in a free society.

Now, if you want to continue this, please start another thread :)

Originally posted by Fishermage

Oh yes, legalizing weed, prostitution, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (so pro gay marriage I'll perform the ceremony myself, even marry gay people IN CHRIST if that's what they'd like), believe in open borders, against obscenity laws, against the Patriot act -- yes, all those very conservative views I hold make me a conservative.

I agree with some conservatives on some issues, mostly economic ones. On other issues, mostly social ones, I am very liberal.

I am a small "L" libertarian. That's not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is relatively in the middle of the two.

Ok, I think I've got a pretty good idea where you are coming from.  It sounds like you are personally against most of the issues you mention above, but you do not think it is the government's place to prevent individuals from practicing them if they so choose.  You think selling ones body for money is wrong, but don't think it's the government's place to say so.  You are personally against abortion, but believe it's not the government's place to prevent them.  You believe homosexuality is a sin against God, but are not against gays getting married.

I can relate to much of what you are saying, although respectfully disagree with some of it.  But I am curious to hear your explanation on why you support two of your positions.

Abortion.  I'm not sure if you've said publicly on these forums that you personally think having an abortion is wrong.  But based on your proclamation of Christ, I'm going to guess that you do.  Even so, as one who believes the state does not own the individual's body, you are OK with abortion being legal.  But your position is that government's role above all else is to protect human rights.  Based on that, isn't it the government's duty to protect the human being still within the womb?  Or is the right of the individual who carries the unborn human being paramount in that situation?

Gay marraige.  Marraige, at its root, is a religious ceremony.  And if the doctrine of that particular faith does not recognize marraige as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, is not the government intereferring in that faith's business by forcing it to recognize it as something other than what its doctrine defines it as?  I don't know if marraige is specifically defined in any faith texts outside the Bible, but I do know that marraige is discussed pretty extensively in the Bible and a union between members of the same sex ain't there.  Now, if you want to argue in favor of civil unions between gays, I would have a hard time disputing you on that because that is a civil ceremony, not a religious one.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start. If we don't win this war we'll have nothing. I am being conventional and practical. This is quite a bit bigger than WWII, and if the enemy destroys on of our cities, which is their goal, we'll see how opinion changes.
The answer is to use the central government for its purpose -- to preserve and defend our liberty, and not much else. Pretty conventional.

---

How can what small things we've gone through in the last eight years on the terror front be larger than anything that happened during World War II? The Holocaust? Dresden firebombing? London bombing? Concentration camps? The Bataan death march? Malmedy? Pearl Harbor? Nagasaki/Hiroshima? Gas/food rationing? Heck, with the Cuban missile crisis we were literally a step away from the Stone Age again.

Sorry, but in no way does the penny ante stuff these guys have been doing equate with anything from WWII. The only reason they got in the country in the first place (9/11 actors) was because the U.S. intelligence system fell asleep, plain and simple. If they were doing their jobs, those guys would never have gotten in and this whole conversation would be immaterial.

WWII beats any threat we had today. Hitler was one heartbeat away from world domination and if Yamamoto doesn't allow Naguro to withdraw and orders him to find the American carriers, Hawaii would be speaking Japanese right now.

These guys are amateurs and the Western world just got fat and lazy behind technology.

These guys killed 3,000 people in one day by everything falling their way. Hitler killed over 6 million alone, not counting the war dead from other countries for years.

Given the choice between living with Osama and living with Hitler, its a no-brainer. Osama has the will/drive/limited funds to kill whomever. Hitler had the will/drive/resouces/funds/people/allies to almost pull it off.

And I think we've been through this already in this thread (fell free to look up the US history in the Middle East).. the US did start this years ago.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Fishermage

Oh yes, legalizing weed, prostitution, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (so pro gay marriage I'll perform the ceremony myself, even marry gay people IN CHRIST if that's what they'd like), believe in open borders, against obscenity laws, against the Patriot act -- yes, all those very conservative views I hold make me a conservative.

I agree with some conservatives on some issues, mostly economic ones. On other issues, mostly social ones, I am very liberal.

I am a small "L" libertarian. That's not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is relatively in the middle of the two.

 

Ok, I think I've got a pretty good idea where you are coming from.  It sounds like you are personally against most of the issues you mention above, but you do not think it is the government's place to prevent individuals from practicing them if they so choose.  You think selling ones body for money is wrong, but don't think it's the government's place to say so.  You are personally against abortion, but believe it's not the government's place to prevent them.  You believe homosexuality is a sin against God, but are not against gays getting married.

I can relate to much of what you are saying, although respectfully disagree with some of it.  But I am curious to hear your explanation on why you support two of your positions.

Abortion.  I'm not sure if you've said publicly on these forums that you personally think having an abortion is wrong.  But based on your proclamation of Christ, I'm going to guess that you do.  Even so, as one who believes the state does not own the individual's body, you are OK with abortion being legal.  But your position is that government's role above all else is to protect human rights.  Based on that, isn't it the government's duty to protect the human being still within the womb?  Or is the right of the individual who carries the unborn human being paramount in that situation?

Gay marraige.  Marraige, at its root, is a religious ceremony.  And if the doctrine of that particular faith does not recognize marraige as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, is not the government intereferring in that faith's business by forcing it to recognize it as something other than what its doctrine defines it as?  I don't know if marraige is specifically defined in any faith texts outside the Bible, but I do know that marraige is discussed pretty extensively in the Bible and a union between members of the same sex ain't there.  Now, if you want to argue in favor of civil unions between gays, I would have a hard time disputing you on that because that is a civil ceremony, not a religious one.

Yes, I feel abortion is, in most cases, not a good choice to make. As a Christian it is not my place to tell people what non-Christians (or Christians for that matter that disagree) can or can not do with their body, and as a point of fact, a woman's body and womb are her property. That technically, in a legal sense, trumps the fetus in a legal sense.

If a woman, however, asks me what I think, I will encourage her to have rhe baby and offer her my assistance.

All sin is forgiven in Christ, so is that one. So in terms of the sin, it is a done deal.

Now the more interesting one. Paul was technically not too big on marriage at all -- the best thing for believers is to stay single and worship God. but if you BURN, get married.

Now, gay folks who burn, in other words have passion for one another, if they do not marry, their burning will harm their relationship with Christ. Therefore I take that to mean that if they burn for one another, they TOO should get married.

I would rather gay people in stable, loving relationships and as a pastor, IF they can prove to me that they love one another and respect one another and it is a mutual decision, I'll marry them.

This was not an easy choice for me to make, but after long pondering, much prayer, and many friendships with gays and bisexuals, and also having helped bringa  few closer to Christ, I would rather let them work it out with the Lord themselves.

I understand many Christians do not agree with me, and I am fine with that. We are free in Christ to disagree.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start. If we don't win this war we'll have nothing. I am being conventional and practical. This is quite a bit bigger than WWII, and if the enemy destroys on of our cities, which is their goal, we'll see how opinion changes.
The answer is to use the central government for its purpose -- to preserve and defend our liberty, and not much else. Pretty conventional.

---

 

 

How can what small things we've gone through in the last eight years on the terror front be larger than anything that happened during World War II? The Holocaust? Dresden firebombing? London bombing? Concentration camps? The Bataan death march? Malmedy? Pearl Harbor? Nagasaki/Hiroshima? Gas/food rationing? Heck, with the Cuban missile crisis we were literally a step away from the Stone Age again.

Sorry, but in no way does the penny ante stuff these guys have been doing equate with anything from WWII. The only reason they got in the country in the first place (9/11 actors) was because the U.S. intelligence system fell asleep, plain and simple. If they were doing their jobs, those guys would never have gotten in and this whole conversation would be immaterial.

WWII beats any threat we had today. Hitler was one heartbeat away from world domination and if Yamamoto doesn't allow Naguro to withdraw and orders him to find the American carriers, Hawaii would be speaking Japanese right now.

These guys are amateurs and the Western world just got fat and lazy behind technology.

These guys killed 3,000 people in one day by everything falling their way. Hitler killed over 6 million alone, not counting the war dead from other countries for years.

Given the choice between living with Osama and living with Hitler, its a no-brainer. Osama has the will/drive/limited funds to kill whomever. Hitler had the will/drive/resouces/funds/people/allies to almost pull it off.

And I think we've been through this already in this thread (fell free to look up the US history in the Middle East).. the US did start this years ago.

Well, people said the same things about Hitler as you are saying about the Jihad. Hitler did not have the potentiall of nuclear weapons with ICBMs like the Jihad has. Hitler had nowhere near the money, the resources, or the manpower the Jihad has. I am looking forward, not backward, and I see the potential of the Jihad to be far, far worse. It is a bigger movement than naziism ever was already.

Osama is one tiny part of a much larger movement that is now at ar with itself for leadership. It is farm far more dangerous than naziism, because Naziism had nothing behind it. The Jihad claims to have God.

I hope you are right but I fear you are wrong.

I've been studying this all my life -- we have made many mistakes in the region -- but we did not start the Jihad.

Here's another "I told ya so..."

Now the AP is taking a shot at the Obama savior...

begin quote after link

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090209/D968BMTO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere.

President Barack Obama had it both ways Monday when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana. He bragged about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.

Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.

In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar.

Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes.

A look at some of Obama's claims in Elkhart, Ind., in advance of a prime-time news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "I know that there are a lot of folks out there who've been saying, 'Oh, this is pork, and this is money that's going to be wasted,' and et cetera, et cetera. Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. ... There aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork - tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added: "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules."

He added: "Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services and Nancy Killefer as his chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.

Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, hung in and achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.

That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.

On lobbyists, Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute.

William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner's choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

OBAMA: "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.
 

end quote.

I hope Obama doesn't think they are going to magically create jobs like they've been magically creating money out of thin air for the past 8 years.