Liberal vs. Conservative

[Member2019]

Re: Liberal vs. Conservative (1/2)

He did not say he was a Libertarian.
He typed that he holds quite a few Libertarian ideals - as do I.

Unfortunately, and as will most members of the US Libertarian party correct you (NOTE: I am registered "no party" on my registration card), the difference between a "Liberal" and "Libertarian" is great in the US system.
There's nothing "wrong" with being a Liberal-Socialist as defined in the US society.
But it's definitely not a "Libertarian" -- you can't hold "Libertarian ideals" without realizing that socialist on a federal scale takes away freedoms.

Well, I live under a Canadian safety net - what choices do I not have?

Not any more than I do under the US partially-facist economic model.
The facist economic model works in the short term -- but over time, it breaks down as the private industry is unable to sustain it.
Canadians understand how socialism works far better than Americans, which is why Canada can sustain it.
Amercians think our massive, aggregate GDP and federal budget is limitless, and we can increase social services whenever we feel like it.
We are far more of the folly of the Greeks than you Canadians.

We in Canada have a national healthcare system.
Your GDP per capita (according to the CIA World Factbook) is $40,100.
Ours is $31,500 - and amongst the highest in the world.

Yes. And you are also 1/10th the population of the US.
Canadians also have a better sense of federal responsibility than Americans.
If you could somehow transfer the Canadian federal authority into the US system, replacing all the lobbying non-sense of our system, I'd very much agree that a socialized medical system could work.

Unfortunately, we don't even have privitized healthcare in the US -- we have exortion HealthCare where you are either at the mercy of your employer, or you are penalized.
In the movie "John Q," the problem was that his employer changed his healthcare benefits without informing him or giving him any chance.
Well before the movie "John Q," I refused to take any healthcare from my employer, and have been paying 100% out-of-pocket for a group healthcare plan that is not based on my health, etc... and they can't drop me.
Ironically enough, I can get this healthcare program at about the same cost as a large corporation -- because I get it through a non-profit organization.

Most Americans don't realize that until the exortion system, setup in the '60s by largely Democrat Congressmen (pretty much explicitly to make the private system so bad), the facist model of HealthCare will continue to rise.
Although there is also 1 major, additional problem that is making matters worse.
And that's the fact that Canada and many other nations do NOT respect the IP of the United States on medical research.
If the world would do that, then we'd ALL bring our perscription drug costs down.
Until then, the US ends up funding all the latest breakthroughs in drug research, while everyone else ignores the patents and just generics everything.

It's almost getting to that point in the US that we're going to do the same, allowing the importation of generics.
When that happens, about 90% of the drug research will go away.
So we'll have 1/10th the breakthrough research in drugs from that point on -- because there will be no incentives for anyone to do it anymore.

We both have big houses and two cars per family and swimming pools and cottages.
Ours are just - apparently - 20% smaller.
And curable diseases amongst the less fortunate are not death sentences as they often are in your country.

Who says it's just the "less fortunate"?
I pay $500/month post-tax for just my healthcare to ensure I can't get fucked by my employer or other issue.
It's well worth it.

Furthermore, and you have to admit this, I know plenty of younger Canadians who come to the US for their doctors.
There is definitely a difference in quality at times, although I do agree it's much, much better to retire in Canada because of it's federated system.

Now I grant you our national healthcare needs work but it hasn't destroyed our economy yet.

That's because your federal government and, more importantly, it's workers are responsible.
Most of the American federal government is not -- it's empire and agency building, largely because half of America thinks we have a bottomless bit of money.
Because it is over 1000% the size of Canada's.

Are you actually suggesting that the economic elite does not dominate politics - especially in the U.S.?

I'm suggesting the larger the federal government is, the more it can be controlled by those with influence -- typically that is those with money.
Everytime a new US agency is based to so-called "protect" the "small majority," it is quickly lobbied and circumvented by the "large minority" -- typically those with money.
So errecting new US federal agencies is NOT the answer.

Libertarians DO believe in regulation, they just don't believe in excessive regulation.
We have excessive regulation in the US -- and rather screwed up policies, including the environment.
US Libertarians believe in adopting a "pay to pollute" approach to handling the environment, and many other "common sense" solutions.
Economics-based penalties that are absolute, not federal agencies and inquiries, etc... that the current approaches are failing at.
It's funny that lesser federal size and authority would actually increase protections -- both of the individual and other components such as the environment.

I do not think he typed anything about increasing income taxes.

But how do you pay for it all? It's ALL related!

The poor and lower class can be perfectly well taken care of with reasonable tax rates as long as the money is properly allocated - imo.

How? The Clinton administration raised taxes, significantly, on ANYONE making over $20,000!
The campaign promise was "only on the rich" but God knows that wasn't the case!
And even then, the deficit took a massive increase Clinton's first year, especially with new spending.
How do you increase the funds of the federal for all these programs, without damaging the rate in which the private economy can sustain the current rate?

I would very much agree with your Canadian assessment -- if we adopted a social program for medical, I could very much see our GDP dropping 20%!
Do you KNOW how much that is with the size and aggregate GDP of the US?

Our Canadian system needs work.

Actually, I'd say you guys are as close to of an "ideal socialist balance" as I've ever seen.
Especially given 35M or so -- that's quite a lot of people.
But try it on 350M, when the people assume the federal government is a bottomless pit of money.
Americans are still not listening in their head to the common sense statement of JFK's infamous, "Ask not what your country can do for you."
In fact, our country has screwed up medical, immigration and countless other things -- all because of special interest.

But, our national debt and our national income taxes are being cut.
And yet more money is being spent (after inflation) on the safety net; not less.
Your country has (roughly) 1/2 trillion dollar trade and budget deficits.

Yep, because we have some rediculous social programs.
The new highway bill is a perfect example -- we can't sustain such things.

And your financially misfortunate have far worse standards of living then our 'poor' in Canada.

Of course.
And it's even treading into the lower middle class too.
But if you look at the Office of Budget and Management (OBM), which has been tracking this since the early '70s, you'll see the trend has actually occurred during increased income taxes, and receded several years after income taxes were cut.
Why? Because almost every so-called "progressive" income tax has affected even the lower middle class.
That's why the gap is getting wider -- because increased income taxes have always prevented the poor from becoming lower, middle class, the lower, middle class from becoming middle class, etc...

I don't disagree that we should help those who are completely poor better.
Unfortunately, the US system has a nasty habit of stopping to help EVERYONE -- and not just people who need it.
I know people who make 1/4th as much as I do, and have an apartment 2x the size of my house, and they pay maybe $100/month for it.
To make matters worse, they have a live-in girlfriend, and their combined incomes are about now 60% of mine.
As far as "discretionary income," he and she definitely have more than my wife and I.

The enforcement of so-called "fair" in the US is really stupid and uneven, and it needs to stop at the federal (and even somewhat at the state levels, although not nearly as bad).
The money should stay local, to help local people -- which can be held accountable.
I've seen too many abuses in my time.
And it's not the popular characterization of "sugar momma moms" either -- they only take a small part of the federal/state social budgets (which go to help kids).
I'm talking about the people who get benefits that really should not.

Stuff I've never seen in Canada, because there is some actual "common sense" by both the public and the agencies.

There are things about the US system that are great.
But all out, full bore, free enterprise at all costs will not work.
Not with normal, greedy human beings. Not possible.
There has to be safeguards.

We don't have anywhere near "free enterprise" in the US, that's a major falicy.
We have over-regulated non-sense going on -- people creating federal jobs and empires.

(continued...)

 

[Member2019]

Re: Liberal vs. Conservative (2/2)

(continued ...)

And the ones who say that it does not are usually the ones that have way more then they need.
Not want; but need. As I strongly suspect you do.

You might consider that both my wife and I grew up poor.
We've seen people who have far more than we did getting benefits they should not.
Now that we're far better to do, we share much of our money -- on our own.
And every $1 I donate goes to charities who get at least $0.95 of that dollar to the end-need, unlike the US federal government that costs billions just to run an agency of the same effect.

Have a nice day.

Again, I really respect Canadians, because they don't build the socialist empires like we do under our facist, American economic model.
It won't last, and we either need to get back to more of a free enterprise system, or we need to bring in Canadian consultants to "brainwash" (and I mean that in a good way) the American public and politicians that we cannot survive as a special interested, "me me me" nation.

 

[Member2019]

It isn't just about income tax.
You could also factor in working conditions like pay, benefits, safety, and human dignity.
One thing life has taught me is that businesses under no circumstances should be allowed to police themselves.

Agreed, but who should police them?

Now you're talking the difference of "common good" versus "communism."
A "common good" is when people, of their INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, work together.
"Communism" is when people, of a FEDERAL MANDATE, work together.

I'm a very firm believer in the ideals of "common good" -- social groups of people who bind together to fight against an abuser.
But I'm very much AGAINST the ideals of "communism" -- that a directorate or other absolutely government body says what will be mandated.

The history of the Labor Union in the US is a perfect example.
People bound together to fight for better pay, working conditions, etc... when an employer was abusive enough.
The employer quickly found that there were not enough people who would work without binding to the union, and had to give in.
That was the balance -- when the conditions were bad enough, the employer had to change because there were not enough workers.

But then the regulation started.
The "closed shop" state laws forced employers to have a union, and then the balance was broken.
Then companies started moving out of state, or even country, as a result of the terms.
So then the states tried to regulate with more of a "counter-union" laws to help businesses.
So now there are both pro-union and anti-union laws in many states that result in a rather over-controlled system where neither the employers or unions can get much done.

Regulation was the problem -- MANDATES on what you can and can't do.
Instead of just letting the INDIVIDUALS decide what was tolerable/agreeable and what was not.
That's the problem with MANDATED socialism, it takes away the FREEDOM of the individual.
The concept of GROUP RIGHTS is the staple of the Communist Manifesto -- sounds good, until it's implemented on a grand scale.
It's only when EVERY single INDIVIDUAL in a group agrees, per their RIGHT, that socialism works.

That's why socialist groups as a subset of a free society works, and why a mandated social alignment does not, because it forces the whole society to work together -- in goals that people may DIFFER on.

Most of the time they are run by people that have little ethics and are morally bankrupt, or at least they have to run their businesses that way to compete with the others who are.
They don't care about their workers, the quality of the products they produce, the environment, or what they do to society.
They care about a number they can get at a bottom of a sheet of paper and perhaps the shareholders of the company.

But how do you solve this?
Is regulation the solution -- a new federal and/or state agencies that can be lobbied?
That's EXACTLY what happened once the labor union gained political footholds.
It worked when it was filled with people fighting for common ideas, a common good, and they were good ideals in a bad situation because a OVERWHELMING MAJORITY decided to join!
Now unions are more about political power, and then the counter-union laws to attract businesses are just one, big, political mess and power play.
Lots of agency dollars spent for virtually NO effect.

US Libertarians believe in getting rid of some agencies, and streamlining others.
Not deciding who or what is right or wrong in employment, but only enforcing when actual contract law is broken.
Not deciding what is right or wrong for the environment, just charging a fee -- PERIOD -- on emissions or dumping, which hits right in the pocketbook.
Protecting whistleblowers and -- most importantly -- hold politicians ACCOUNTABLE when they lie.
Lastly, Libertarians don't believe in campaign finance reform, they believe in open financing but -- most importantly -- FULL DISCLOSURE.
Campaign finance reform is a political tool and even used to censor individuals -- full disclosure means I know where a politician is getting his money.
And if he fails to disclose something, it's just a felony.

The lack of accountability and prosecution of politicans over REAL issues is what the problem is in the US.
As much as their has been made of the Clinton and, now, Bush administration over "corruption" -- it's been rather PATHETIC and 100% POLITICAL.
Anyone who knows anything about law knows that these things have been laughable.

You are right about some things on income taxes.
When the ultra rich can just sit on their wealth for the rest of eternity and create an aristocratic section that rules over the rest of us we have a problem.

Yep! And worse yet, when you raise income taxes, you only PREVENT other people from gaining wealth -- you don't stop anyone who already has it!

Of course we could start taxing the rich so the poorer people don't have to carry as much of the burden as they do now.

But who are the rich?
Do you take away money from the existing wealthy?
I mean, not only did they pay income taxes on the money already to gain it, but if they inherited, they paid a 55% estate tax already.
Do you penalize them for "sitting on it"?
If so, how to you define that? Who says what "investements" are better than others?

Most Americans don't realize that rich people -- be it income or wealth -- don't just have this "pot of money" they sit on.
It is constantly invested into new opportunities.
Right now, there is re-discussion of the "double taxation rate" that occurs -- companies not only pay income on profits, but then their shareholders pay capital gains taxes, even if they don't receive a dime (but their stock value just increases)!
I mean, there is nothing more frustrating than to have to pay $10,000 on something which you have gotten, maybe in the best case, $500 in dividens on!

When you add everything up, the taxes the rich pay in is only about one cent more on the dollar than the taxes everybody else pays.

Where are you getting this information?
Last time I checked (late '90s), in the US progressive income tax system, those in the lowest tax bracket paid an aggregate of 12%, those in the middle paid around 17% and those in the upper bracket paid about 23%.
Now that's not looking at the ~13% you and your employer pay, in total, for SS/Medicare taxes in addition.
When I say "aggregate" -- I mean how much overall versus their "gross" income BEFORE deductions.
So say if I gross $40,000, I ended up paying around $6,800 -- after all deductions (standard or itemized, medical if I get it from my employer, etc...).
Of course, that's not including the $2,600 I also paid for SS/Medicare, and the matching my employer paid as well.

Now they have all gone down due to W.'s tax cuts, as they did under Reagan and JFK in the each 20 years prior.

Making it worse it that it seems the gap between the poor and the rich is getting bigger.

Yes! Because increased income taxes on the lower middle class has prevented new wealth from being acquired!
Every new income tax has resulted in the lower middle class paying more -- go research this, it's true.
NEVER has any new income tax been placed just on the upper bracket. Why?
There are many factors that I could list -- everything to how much ever $1 in discretionary income goes to fund new jobs (and not just the "rich running down to the jewelry store" attitude), to the fact that it doesn't matter where you take the money, it hurts EVERYONE.

If you've ever had to pay the top bracket -- let alone capital gains -- as a so-called "rich" person who maybe brings home $20,000 in discretionary income per yer (just enough to cover your cheap car, home repairs, etc...), you'd quickly appreciate how "unfair" it is.
Especially when you are trying to plan for your retirement, and some of your investments took a $50,000 capital gains increase, but you see $0 of it.
But you've gotta come up with the $10,000+ to pay the capital gains on it -- where does that $10,000 now come from?
All I'm trying to do is be responsible, to AVOID putting ANY tax burden on anyone else.

That's what Libertarians believe the absolute individual responsibility is -- not to be a burden.
From there, they believe people do help others far better than the federal government can.
As I always say, my problem isn't that the government holds me at gunpoint and takes my sandwich away to give it to the poor.
It's that they only give half of the sandwich to the poor, because they need the other half to fund themselves.
And then they come back 5-10 years later and say they need a full sandwich to fund their agency, just to give a half sandwich to the poor.

At least with companies, if they pull that kind of inefficiency, they go out of business within 5 years.
Hence why 80% of them do.
80% of government agencies are just like the other 20% -- they stick around, sucking up more.

Some of the people in the middle class might have moved up, but more have been coming back down.

Exactly! Why? Increased income taxes!

It makes me wonder if someday, at the rate we are going, if we will even have a middle class that encompasses a significant percent of the population.

Exactly! Why? Increased income taxes!
Libertarians strongly believe in the point of diminishing returns, which a founding father pegged at 47% aggregate taxation.
Add up not only income tax, not only your portion of SS/Medicare, but the portion your employer pays of SS/Medicare, plus any capital gains you or your employer pays, plus any taxes your employer pays -- and we're well beyond it.
That means that by increasing taxes further, the government has less income.

 

[Member2019]

I would consider myself a more liberal Republican,

Which means you're probably a Capitalist or Libertarian.

which is probably rare for a college student these days.

When I was in college, I was clearly a borderline Democrat-Libertarian.
I believed that the federal government and its agencies protected me, and that money actually went to good social services.
I started researching the Reagan, H. Bush and Clinton budgets from their respective budget offices, and then I was shocked how many people are employed, and what kind of money is actually given out.

The parties really do overlap in various areas,

Naahh, ya say?
Seriously, W. is stupid -- he's cutting taxes like JFK, but just like Reagan, to appease legislators on defense spending, he's increasing the pork.
Every Republican Executive of the last 36 years has had this continuous problem of "appeasement" on the social programs.
I sincerely believe a Democrat President and Republican Congress are the best balance.
But I don't know which is worse, an all Democrat Legislative/Executive or any Republican President, from the stand-point of spending.
It's a real folly -- especially given no matter how much W. increases spending, the US TV media reports it as a cut.

as I really only focus on economic policies of America rather than the moral and religious issues.

The sooner the US Republican party drops the Abortion issue, the sooner they gain 10% more votes.
They used to have more support when their candidates would say, "I'm Pro-Life and I'm Pro-Choice" meaning they are Pro-Life in their personal life, but Pro-Choice when they vote.
When the Democrats lacking any focus, the religious right Republicans have gotten arrogant again, and used the American major preference and lack of faith in the Democrats to provide any solutions to say, "see, see, Americans want a more conservative agenda" on the individual freedoms front.
Sigh -- I argue with right-wing Republicans daily, and I always get them to see it my Libertarian way in the end.

In any case, I really wouldn't say my alliance lies anywhere too deep in either party, I really just care about my country :2 cents:

I'd say 80% of Americans don't either.
Now if they just wouldn't register for a party, let alone realize they can leave portions for their ballot blank if they just don't know (instead of voting party lines).

I have literally gotten into arguments with election officials whenever I've gone to get my license/voter registration about being NPA (no party affliation).
It literally takes me 5+ minutes to get them to keep them from putting me as "Independent" or something else, as well as the non-sense of "you should at least be Democrat or Republican so you can vote in a major primary."
At some point, I always end the debate with, "no, I don't want to be associated with the clueless masses, I'd rather just vote in the finale based on what they came up with -- which typically isn't what they present."

I've turned in about a good dozen people for impeding my voter registration or execution.
I know they are volunteers, but if they are disenfranching people, they need not help out.
Like the guy who wouldn't let me vote, merely because I had a candidate's shirt on (and he wasn't part of one of the two major parties).

 

[Dixie Normus]

I consider myself a conservative. Funny I was raised by two very liberal people. My father is an Animal Rights activist for a living. Has his own PAC and used to take us to activist rallies when we were kids. My mother is a shrink.
All of their kids became republicans except one (she's too young to care much about politics at this point, it'll be interesting to see which way she goes).

 

[member20672]

Whats going on with this thread. Its become straight out, pic-a-part others reply and rebutle to every point.

 

[foxycougar]

That the way that all of the political threads were a while ago. It seems that they're headed back in that direction.

 

[member20672]

I could tell, like in the early pages of this thread with georges(sp) and the other guy, picking apart each others reply in debate.

 

[Member2019]

I consider myself a conservative.
Funny I was raised by two very liberal people.
My father is an Animal Rights activist for a living.
Has his own PAC and used to take us to activist rallies when we were kids.
My mother is a shrink.
All of their kids became republicans except one (she's too young to care much about politics at this point, it'll be interesting to see which way she goes).

That tends to happen -- extremes tend to produce backlashes of an opposite extreme.
Reagan Republicans who are now Democrats are a perfect example.
I try to see the views of all sides -- I can even respect most views, even when I very much disagree with them.
As long as someone's views aren't filled with hate of an individual/group -- that's very counterproductive.
I can understand disgust of an ideal, especially one where you think it is close to a brainwash/untrue, but not specific people.

 

[Member2019]

That the way that all of the political threads were a while ago. It seems that they're headed back in that direction.

The very title of this thread is rather simplistic and over-reaching.
There is no such thing as just a "Liberal" or a "Conservative' -- although I do have to at least say there were a few other options.
It's really at least a 2 axis/4 extreme, with many, many points in between, which is why I posted the political survey.

Now there is nothing wrong with debating.
I will respect everyone's standing, but I will also criticize what I view are inaccuracies.
E.g., the US Libertarian party does not want Liberals, and they will be quick to separate themselves and their views from celebrities who say they are Libertarians and have conflicting views.

Some may disagree with me on taxation and funding social services, and that's fine.
Some like to put each thing in little boxes and say they aren't related, but I see a major continuity between many, many factors.
Most US Libertarians do.

Understand my views are my views, and not absolute.
I'll be the first to admit that, even if I feel like the general US media -- TV, radio and print -- rather simplify things into concepts that I think are rather naive -- it's still my own economic and social views, and they can be disagreed with.
I'm NEVER going to call you "dumb" -- at most I ask people to define "rich" in terms of "high income" or "wealthy" when talking about the rich, as they are two very different people.
It's the one thing I really can't stand about most fellow Americans, because they cross the two as if they are the same -- and their points are rendered inappropriate as a result.

 

[thechosenone]

interesting political test from above. I took it.
I'm a social moderate at 41% and Economic conservative at 63%

 

[Member2019]

interesting political test from above. I took it.
I'm a social moderate at 41% and Economic conservative at 63%

Glad to see people actually take it.
It's good to get a good feel for everyone's views.
I'm sure several think I'm a political nutcase by this point.

 

[member20672]

I'm sure several think I'm a political nutcase by this point.

Minus the political part, yes.:yesyes: :tongue:

 

[Member2019]

Minus the political part, yes.:yesyes: :tongue:

I should have saw that one coming.
Then again, I can't actually say I'm not either!
Especially when it comes to women.
But at least I can blame that on a F cup girlfriend I had at age 16.

 

[georges]

All Democrats and Socialists.
Any Capitalists or fellow Libertarians out there?

Hi

I am more a republican to the truest sense of the meaning. See the graphics and you will understand my political stance:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/georges2/proof1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/georges2/proof2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/georges2/proof3.jpg
I am also a conservative because I think that too new or very bad ideas applied badly or laws which show their uselessness shouldn't even voted or put in application (especially in the case of Europe).

 

[Member2019]

Hi
I am more a republican to the truest sense of the meaning. See the graphics and you will understand my political stance:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/georges2/proof1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/georges2/proof2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/georges2/proof3.jpg
I am also a conservative because I think that too new or very bad ideas applied badly or laws which show their uselessness shouldn't even voted or put in application (especially in the case of Europe).

Change and socialism does tend to cause more inequality and loss of rights than people realize, especially in the US.
Some socialism works well outside the US, and I have to admit that.
The problem in the US is that we have a very rich economy (not just per-capita, but aggregate) and too many people see that as a "bottomless pit of money to fix my personal problems."
Sigh.

As one charismatic and tax cutting Democrat once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you."

I leave a lot of my ballot blank and only vote for who I KNOW will vote with at least 80% or so of my ideals.
That's typically a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and rarely a Democrat.
I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because of his personal finances, but in hindsight, he was more conservative in REALITY (not his media stints) than W.

 

[hedgehog]

Well I think that its important that we seperate economic and social views. We label Bush a "conservative" President, but what exactly does that mean? He certainly cannot be called a fiscal conservative. IMO the Republican Party has lost all claim and credibility to call themselves fiscal conservatives, in an era where the President is a Republican, both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans and 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, there is abosolutely no reason that government should be running the largest deficits in history.

I personally, don't necessarily find budget deficits in themselves horrible, just the extent to which they have grown under the Bush Administration.

I also find the phrase "social conservative" a bit Orwellian in nature, better called social reactionaries since they seem determine to bring everyone back to Victorian standards.

I also think that the "test" fails to take into account how todays society is currently being fractured into haves and have-nots. I don't see either party taking steps to really fight for social equality. If there's anything we've learned in the past twenty years it is how much wealth affects a person's options in America, i.e. if you have the cash you can get away with murder.

 

[robertodiaz123]

Probably we need some definitions to sharp this poll, but anyway interesting opinions.
:hi:

 

[Member2019]

Well I think that its important that we seperate economic and social views.
We label Bush a "conservative" President, but what exactly does that mean? He certainly cannot be called a fiscal conservative.
IMO the Republican Party has lost all claim and credibility to call themselves fiscal conservatives, in an era where the President is a Republican, both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans and 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, there is abosolutely no reason that government should be running the largest deficits in history.

Agreed. Of course, the problem is war.
Not the actual cost of the war, but the "appeasement" the President must show to Congress[wo]men to get support for it.
Same thing happened under LBJ's "guns'n butter" -- way too much appeasing Congressmen with spending.

I personally, don't necessarily find budget deficits in themselves horrible, just the extent to which they have grown under the Bush Administration.

Some of it wasn't Bush's fault at first.
Luckily the American public isn't as dumb as some Democrat politicians think they are, and clearly showed that in voting.

If you look at his first 9 months, he walked into a recession and the US growth had been plummetting since 2000Q1.
Every quarter was massively negative except a slight growth in Q2, avoiding a recession even before the election happened.
Then 9/11 did another $400B of damage to the economy.
Again, look at the DIFFERENTIAL in GROWTH between quarters, that is the "trend" that Clinton left Bush starting in 1999.
Jobs are the last to go and last to come back.

But I agree with you entirely, it is NOT time to spend.
Bush did one thing right, tax cuts which have helped the economy.
But you do NOT spend in the hope that the tax cuts will increase income tax revenues as a result of a better economy.
That's just the same, stupid logic that Reagan had too, and W.'s got it.

It's almost a perfect ratio -- for every new $1 in defense, there are new $3 spent on social services and local Congressional pork.
Again, the "appeasement" non-sense in times of build-up or war.
Same thing happened with LBJ too, a Democrat Congressman.

I also find the phrase "social conservative" a bit Orwellian in nature, better called social reactionaries since they seem determine to bring everyone back to Victorian standards.

The ideas behind socialism are sound, utopian and they DO work when they are small enough that everyone is held accountable.
Then the obvious happens, when it comes being about individual choice to work towards a common good, then it becomes communism.
And that fails because you force people to agree on "what is best" and that differs.

I also think that the "test" fails to take into account how todays society is currently being fractured into haves and have-nots.

It's ALWAYS been like that, it's just getting worse because we place an income tax those people who make $20,000.

I don't see either party taking steps to really fight for social equality.
If there's anything we've learned in the past twenty years it is how much wealth affects a person's options in America,

Agreed, which is why they need to stop taxing families of 4 who make $40,000 or less.
Bush's tax cuts came close to that, they pay less than $1,000 in income tax.
The widening gap between wealth and non-wealth is increased income taxes, especially on those at the lower brackets.

I believe in the flat tax, even though I WOULD PAY MORE MONEY as a result.
No income tax on the first $40,000 + $5,000/child, then a flat tax beyond that.
Every $1 of discretionary income has the ability to do good for the economy in job creation, and it's ironic that higher income makers who re-invest 90% of their discretionary into new jobs don't get to.
Same deal with those who are at the lower bracket, investments are the key to their wealth, and that means NO TAX on them.

i.e. if you have the cash you can get away with murder.

The key word is "can" -- you "can" get a better lawyer than the typical pro-bono.
Not necessariliy "will".

 

[McRocket]

You know what Prof. You are obviously a very bright and well read person. But you strike me as an ever-so-slightly intellectual bully.
You throw alot of facts and theories out and you type them with a seemingly absolute self assurance that what you say IS right.
I simply wonder if you consider often enough - and little doubt you will state or think that you do - that you may NOT be right; more often then you consider.
Though little doubt you are right far more often then wrong.


But, on this subject, there are few absolutes in economics. Just as there are few absolutes in the world - if any.