Come GWJ conservatives, we must chat

Chairman_Mao wrote:

To clarify, the Tea Party leader didn't actually tell McCain to "go to Hell" or take a dirt nap--that was the woman who runs the blog barenakedislam.com, which surprisingly is not an alt-pop band.

I'd rather castigate him for what he did say:

“Have you ever read the Quran? I suggest you do so, because anyone that is a Muslim is a threat to this country, and that’s a fact,” Harris told the Arizona Capitol Times. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. If they are Muslim they have to follow the Quran. That’s their religion and that’s their doctrine.”

...

“Is she a Muslim? Is she an active Muslim?” Harris said. “I rest my case. That’s all she needs to be.”

Ah, you are correct. I misread the article and missed the attribution for those statements to the blog. Not that Harris' own statements make him look any better...

suresure wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

I'm a big fan of Teddy too, even his monopoly busting. My only concern today is that the pendulum is switching too far left and the private sector has become the whipping boy for everything wrong with America.

Perspective really is everything. From where I sit, at least 40% of the country wants to fully unleash big business -- which would be interesting considering the control that private industry already has over our elected officials. If anything, I think rational people of all political stripes should want to reign in the runaway beast called corporatism and the control it has over the public and private sectors, then resume our left-right dialectic in a purer political system. Unfortunately that may be too idealist.

For me not enough people are swinging that sword both ways. I hear a lot of talk about how regulators are ruining business. I see a smattering talking about removing subsidies and tax benefits, especially for old and wasteful industries. I would argue that favoritism towards fossil fuels is much more damaging that any EPA reforms and regs. The fact that our telecom industry is more monopolistic now than in the 70's when Bell was broken apart is also telling.

I blame regulators in bed with the industries that they regulate as much as anything. True independent regulation would be nice as well. Mineral Management is paid directly from the mining industry.

Further I think some additional funds and regulation should be directed to the USDA and FDA given some of the significant food scares we have had recently.

I am obviously not a conservative. Since most conservatives are not Keynesian in ideal except of course military Keynesian. We have the best military because our country has embraced this.

Being fiscally conservative is a vice. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. It is the reason credit bubbles happen and the reason our economy has dragged.

KingGorilla wrote:

For me not enough people are swinging that sword both ways. I hear a lot of talk about how regulators are ruining business. I see a smattering talking about removing subsidies and tax benefits, especially for old and wasteful industries. I would argue that favoritism towards fossil fuels is much more damaging that any EPA reforms and regs. The fact that our telecom industry is more monopolistic now than in the 70's when Bell was broken apart is also telling.

I blame regulators in bed with the industries that they regulate as much as anything. True independent regulation would be nice as well. Mineral Management is paid directly from the mining industry.

Further I think some additional funds and regulation should be directed to the USDA and FDA given some of the significant food scares we have had recently.

I agree so hard with all of this. The system as it is hurts both the people at the receiving end of business practices and the businesses themselves. The former is fairly obvious(hurt miners, customers sick from contaminated food, Wal-Mart employees locked into stores, flammable rivers, etc.), but businesses face increased numbers of lawsuits, increased costs, arbitrary enforcement, and an often-uncertain environment to operate in. I'm a small business owner, and one of the things my partners and I have to deal with is handling and disposal of some fairly nasty chemicals. A consistent, clear set of rules and a reasonably-priced disposal system would be a great boon to us, as would having someone who could come out and verify we were handling everything correctly.

Funny that this popped up, I was thinking a lot about this today. I was at dinner with some family 2 nights ago and i was called a liberal by a relative (it was an insult from their mind btw) it struck me in a strange spot because I have never considered myself anything but conservative.

I believe in the sanctity of life, but acknowledge that it is not a black and white issue.
I believe that marriage is a human right not only for the strait people out there.
I believe that owe it to the poor, sick and disenfranchised to provide them a means to survive as well as means to help them better themselves.
But at the same time government waste is out of control and I hate that taxes go up and we are spending the money on the wrong things while people are hungry sick and dieing with no access to the help because we are afraid to spend money on them because some douche bag needed a better way to kill people.
I go to church every Sunday, and believe in a big dude in the sky, but at the same time Science is Science and facts are facts there is no reason they can not exist in the same brain.
I have been to the middle east, and I can tell you we have no right nor any need to be there. We never did.

There is no party that accurately represents anyone these days, anyone who walks a party line for either side has just resolved themselves to not thinking.

Wired wrote:

But at the same time government waste is out of control and I hate that taxes go up and we are spending the money on the wrong things while people are hungry sick and dieing with no access to the help because we are afraid to spend money on them because some douche bag needed a better way to kill people.

I agree with part of your statement, but I have to question the assertion that government waste is out of control. Where is all this waste (besides the DoD)?

Please note I'm not asserting that government is the pinnacle of efficiency. There's overlapping and conflicting missions throughout the government, much like there's the same in any large company.

I might be too sensitive to it, but statements like that just seem to be a modified version of the idea Reagan started that all government--except the military--is fundamentally bad. It's really hard to reform government or even change it in a positive manner when the starting point for most of the GOP is either that it is evil or simply just shouldn't exist.

I also have to question the assertion that taxes go up when that hasn't been the case for a long time. And, even when they were higher, there wasn't the financial Armageddon, class warfare, or the crippling of "job creators" that the GOP confidently predicts is what will happen if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire.

I would, however, completely agree with you that we're spending the money on the wrong things. Sadly, though, that's never seems to be what's discussed.

Bear wrote:

I'm in the Chris Rock school of politics. I think everyone has some issues they're conservative about and some issues they're liberal about. There's a whole lot of areas where I would be considered conservative and others where I'm overwhelmingly liberal. When I comes to fiscal policy, I want to keep the money I earn but I'm not without compassion and I'm willing to give a bit to help those in need. I think people should be free to earn as much as they can but find the concept of CEO's earning 500 times that of their workers appalling. I'm disgusted by the entitlement nation that refuses to work because we're willing to give them free money. I believe we can't pour billions at defense and completely ignore infrastructure. We can't call ourselves a superpower and ignore the social issues that have existed for generations. The strength of a nation is not measured in how many carrier strike forces you own.

Unfortunately we're now in an age where any political thought has to be instantly quantified and categorized so that the opposing faction can begin immediate derision. It doesn't seem like there's any room in the middle anymore.

I agree with this. Then add to it that the belief that while the government can (and should) provide social services, they really need to stay out of social issues.

I'm not a conservative, but upon seeing the way this thread started off with posts along the lines of "how did the Republican party get where it is and what that means to conservatism" I was reminded of something. It's an article about that shift in the party that I read a couple of years ago--the first couple of pages cover the history; the next couple seem a little dated now as they were written in '08 and the Republican party hasn't gone anywhere, but on the other hand the part about the modern Republican party being interested in winning elections at the expense of a focus on responsibly governing looks prescient. I figured people here might get something out of it, as it gives context for how we (well, how you guys and gals) got from there to here.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...

OG_slinger wrote:
Wired wrote:

But at the same time government waste is out of control and I hate that taxes go up and we are spending the money on the wrong things while people are hungry sick and dieing with no access to the help because we are afraid to spend money on them because some douche bag needed a better way to kill people.

I agree with part of your statement, but I have to question the assertion that government waste is out of control. Where is all this waste (besides the DoD)?

Please note I'm not asserting that government is the pinnacle of efficiency. There's overlapping and conflicting missions throughout the government, much like there's the same in any large company.

I might be too sensitive to it, but statements like that just seem to be a modified version of the idea Reagan started that all government--except the military--is fundamentally bad. It's really hard to reform government or even change it in a positive manner when the starting point for most of the GOP is either that it is evil or simply just shouldn't exist.

I also have to question the assertion that taxes go up when that hasn't been the case for a long time. And, even when they were higher, there wasn't the financial Armageddon, class warfare, or the crippling of "job creators" that the GOP confidently predicts is what will happen if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire.

I would, however, completely agree with you that we're spending the money on the wrong things. Sadly, though, that's never seems to be what's discussed.

Trying to formulate a response to you caused me to rethink my position. Perhaps the government waste is just a hold over from spin I hear and not based on facts.

My heart burn comes mainly from seeing the DoD spending, hell they don't even spend the money on the right things in the DoD. The sh*t sandwich that is the budget the pentagon has might be easier to swallow if it wasn't spent on bigger death machines that never come to fruition and perhaps safeguarding our soldiers etc.

Again I haven't put the time in to get numbers and sources so perhaps it is a moot point. I know next time I am bored in the office I am going to dig into and see if my assumptions are correct.

The odd thing about the current republican party is that if you give them a choice between a Rino candidate that can win and a far right candidate that can't, they'll vote for the far right guy. They'd rather be ideologically pure than end with someone who will compromise.

So far it's worked okay for them.

A significant portion of the blame for the fact that Republicans have moved towards the extreme is the fact that the Democratic party has progressively moved to the right over the years. The Democrats these days aren't pushing huge social programs. You're not hearing the screaming for Brady Bill-esque gun control. What we have now is a centrist party that leans right (by traditional terms). The big push from Obama's first term wasn't a government social program, it was a health care push that forces people to buy private health care insurance, rather than socialized medicine.

Anyways, the Republicans are largely defining themselves as "not Democrats" these days, and, as the Democrats have moved progressively further towards the middle, the Republicans have jumped further out to the extreme. Not sure what the heck to do about that, but, while I vote Democrat, I'd vote for Eisenhower in a heartbeat.

I did want to note, income tax rates will be increased in 2013. Many credits will be phased out in the ensuing years as well. So taxes are going up, just not this year. Certain capital gains are getting a reduction principally for small business owners, certain classes of real estate. But the rest are getting an increase to match the income tax.

As it stands today, we might see a return to Clinton Era estate tax rates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...

Bush era cuts that all but phased out the estate tax were not extended.

So far it's worked okay for them.

But not for the country which I guess is the perspective part of the problem.

And perspective may be the whole problem. I see a lot of people desperate for consensus but are fed the fringe so much that they cannot avoid reacting with intense frustration. This reaction causes the other side to jump on the defensive and deflect responsibility before they have had or have been given an opportunity to think the situation through.

So maybe we all turn off the radio and TV?

Maybe we can start a thread where we can calmly discuss a list of things we agree upon.

For instance, do we hem and haw about abortion? Or do we discuss curbing unwanted pregnancies, making informed decisions about intercourse, providing opportunities for more families to adopt, providing opportunities for foster children or those not growing up in an ideal circumstances.

We all know from our time on these boards that just as there is a way to frame the conversation to inflame, there is a way to be constructive.

Another example: do we exclaim how we cannot understand these crazy America is a Christian nation fundamentalists? Or do we provide examples of the great benefits of inclusion by detailing historical figures whom have made incredibly positive contributions to our country.

We have got to turn the national discussion on its head.

KingGorilla wrote:

I did want to note, income tax rates will be increased in 2013. Many credits will be phased out in the ensuing years as well. So taxes are going up, just not this year.

Technically we are just returning to "normal" income tax rates. The laws around the Bush era tax cuts were written to be temporary.

And they were written that way because if they were written as permanent tax cuts then they would have violated the Byrd Rule, which requires the Senate to block any legislation that significantly increases the federal deficit over the course of ten years. The Bush tax cuts also would have violated the heck out of PAYGO had that law not lapsed in 2002.

Personally the backlash on taxes for me is just that it is personal. I don't make a sh*t load of money but i get taxed to hell because i am paid on "bonus" so i make pittance all year long and then i get 60% of my yearly income in 1 check that gets taxed to hell.

Wired wrote:

Personally the backlash on taxes for me is just that it is personal. I don't make a sh*t load of money but i get taxed to hell because i am paid on "bonus" so i make pittance all year long and then i get 60% of my yearly income in 1 check that gets taxed to hell.

That seems silly to me. Income is income and people shouldn't get taxed more or less because of the manner the income comes in.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Wired wrote:

Personally the backlash on taxes for me is just that it is personal. I don't make a sh*t load of money but i get taxed to hell because i am paid on "bonus" so i make pittance all year long and then i get 60% of my yearly income in 1 check that gets taxed to hell.

That seems silly to me. Income is income and people shouldn't get taxed more or less because of the manner the income comes in.

It is indeed absurd that different categories of income are taxed differently. Bonuses, paychecks, and capital gains all result in an incremented personal bank account, so why treat them like entirely separate and unique activities(note: this excludes the various savings plan structures)?

If there's one thing I'm learning from this thread, it's that I hold some surprisingly conservative opinions for a limp-wristed euro-commie liberal hippie. While my social politics are unswervingly liberal, when it comes to fiscal matters, my stance is all over the political spectrum.

The takeaway from that is that media spin and the yelling of the lunatic fringe has bamboozled me to what conservatism actually means. Bear in mind I only moved to this country 5 years ago, so I don't have the working knowledge of the long history of American conservatism that many of you do.

Interesting stuff, ladies and gentlemen - keep it up.

Bonus income is the same as regular income. It is not taxed differently than wages. The government just takes more out up front. You can get it back by either increasing your exemptions on your paystub or getting back a refund at tax time.

Capital gains on the other hand....

fangblackbone wrote:
So far it's worked okay for them.

But not for the country which I guess is the perspective part of the problem.

And perspective may be the whole problem. I see a lot of people desperate for consensus but are fed the fringe so much that they cannot avoid reacting with intense frustration. This reaction causes the other side to jump on the defensive and deflect responsibility before they have had or have been given an opportunity to think the situation through.

So maybe we all turn off the radio and TV?

Maybe we can start a thread where we can calmly discuss a list of things we agree upon.

For instance, do we hem and haw about abortion? Or do we discuss curbing unwanted pregnancies, making informed decisions about intercourse, providing opportunities for more families to adopt, providing opportunities for foster children or those not growing up in an ideal circumstances.

We all know from our time on these boards that just as there is a way to frame the conversation to inflame, there is a way to be constructive.

Another example: do we exclaim how we cannot understand these crazy America is a Christian nation fundamentalists? Or do we provide examples of the great benefits of inclusion by detailing historical figures whom have made incredibly positive contributions to our country.

We have got to turn the national discussion on its head.

You are on to something here but also you can not discount that the Republican Party has been especially the "Christian Right" has been hijacked by the crazies.

I have a Masters of Sacred Theology with an emphasis on languages from a Seminary, but ultimately didn't do anything with it because of what I see happening in the modern American Christian Church. I have many family members and encountered many of these people in seminary. They stop thinking and follow party line (not necessarily political party).

I am not sure the term brain washed is accurate but it is scary close when you look at them from the inside. I get in to discussions all the time with Family and others at church about political issues and they automatically expect the answer they are looking for.

"Hey John can you believe that they are legalizing gay marriage in X"
They get shocked when my reply is good. And then go on to explain that IF (I don't) you believe that Christianity should take the stance that homosexuality is wrong, icky, forbidden etc, that allowing them the same rights under civil law has no bearing on their church or their own "Sanctity of Marriage" Then hit them with the right cross of "Sanctity of Marriage" is a concept invented by the modern (Post 12th century) Roman Catholic Church and not one found in any other doctrine before or after.

The conversation usually ends there, if not then we have a fun discussion on how separation of church and state does not work the way they think it does and it does in fact work both ways. Oh yeah it should and does have it's limits.

By this point if they are still going we go on to discussion literal translation of Genesis and if they want to get into the text to support the 7 day creation myth we are going to put away the English translations and get the closest thing we can find to the original texts out and go through it word by word and syllable by syllable, oh yeah we should block out a few hours on a Saturday afternoon to go over this.

I had planned on addressing the "Conservative/Republican" take on gun control but I am rambling enough for now.

And perspective may be the whole problem. I see a lot of people desperate for consensus but are fed the fringe so much that they cannot avoid reacting with intense frustration. This reaction causes the other side to jump on the defensive and deflect responsibility before they have had or have been given an opportunity to think the situation through.

Nailed it.

goman wrote:

I am obviously not a conservative. Since most conservatives are not Keynesian in ideal except of course military Keynesian. We have the best military because our country has embraced this.

Being fiscally conservative is a vice. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. It is the reason credit bubbles happen and the reason our economy has dragged.

I actually have to grudgingly agree with this. We have seen 30 nearly uninterrupted years of supply side economics and the result has been more volatility and irrational market fluctuations than the entire history of Keynesian intervention.

Fiscal conservatism does *not* imply supply side economics. It refers to a desire to look closely at spending and try to ensure that it is not wasted (in government, personal or corporate finances). It views money as a tool, not a solution.

Or am I missing something? There were fiscal conservatives well before the rise of the Chicago School to political prominence.

Keynesians can be fiscally conservative.

Robear wrote:

Or am I missing something?

Definitions change over time. That's kinda of a reoccurring theme in this thread.

Perhaps we have been fed pounds of cure for so long that we are addicted to it. We need to detox and concentrate on the ounces of prevention.

Again I would site the hot topic abortion. We know that one pound of cure is the push to overturn Roe v. Wade. The amount of effort put into this is staggering, but then the political winds change and someone else down the road will reinstate it. The lasting ounce of prevention will have to be a diverse approach. It will have inclusive education of which abstinence certainly has a major place. Abstinence only education is foolish but in the grand scheme of things, abstinence is a really good way to go.

fangblackbone wrote:

Abstinence only education is foolish but in the grand scheme of things, abstinence is a really good way to go.

In the grand thing of things, teenagers have been f*cking since Homo sapiens walked the planet. A 2,000 year old religion isn't going to trump 200,000 years of evolution.

OG_slinger wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Abstinence only education is foolish but in the grand scheme of things, abstinence is a really good way to go.

In the grand thing of things, teenagers have been f*cking since Homo sapiens walked the planet. A 2,000 year old religion isn't going to trump 600 million years of evolution.

FTFY.

fangblackbone wrote:

Perhaps we have been fed pounds of cure for so long that we are addicted to it. We need to detox and concentrate on the ounces of prevention.

Again I would site the hot topic abortion. We know that one pound of cure is the push to overturn Roe v. Wade. The amount of effort put into this is staggering, but then the political winds change and someone else down the road will reinstate it. The lasting ounce of prevention will have to be a diverse approach. It will have inclusive education of which abstinence certainly has a major place. Abstinence only education is foolish but in the grand scheme of things, abstinence is a really good way to go.

Abstinence only education wont work, as OG said, abortion is one of those issues that you will get nowhere discussing especially in a public forum.

You come out against abortion you hate woman, you come out in support of abortion you hate babys. Either way it is a loosing proposition.

This is one of those topics that will never change and the rhetoric drowns out any intelligent discussion around the issue. Look to this very forum on the topic and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

I'm not a Romney fan.

I'm also not a fan of both sides demonizing each other to the point at which their followers are so rabidly entrenched in hatred that there is little hope of actual productive dialogue.

Additionally, it saddens me that most of the legislation coming out of DC these days are each multi thousand page quagmires of lawyer speak and secret insider loopholes that do little to rectify the real problems they were meant to address.

I think the 24 hours news racket has done far more harm than good on all sides.

It also saddens me that in some ways our culture has gotten to the point where people equate disagreement with fear or hatred. Why can't a person disagree with the moral choices of another without being labeled a [insert moral issue here]-aphobe or hater?

Most of all, I appreciate the opportunity to talk intelligently with most of this forum in civility and mutual respect.

I'd consider myself somewhat conservative, but I'd like to reserve the right to make individual judgement calls on separate issues and not be pigeonholed into whatever the conservative cookie cutter position happens to be.