Is Conservatism Succumbing to Mediocrity?

[charleslb]

Well, did anyone here watch the putzy performance of the comical crew of conservative candidates in the Republican debate yesterday? I don't think that Saturday Night Live writers will really have to strain their creativity a great deal to work up an amusing sketch from yesterday's forensic farce majeure. Oh yes, it was quite entertaining to watch the lot of them twaddlingly touching on the usual diversionary talking points of the right, i.e. issues that merely serve to misdirect the voter's attention away from the simple sociopolitical fact of life, that it's the minority of people who possess power in the world, the minority of people who sit atop the economic and political power structure, who actually create most of the troubles & terrors of history, our current recession and problem with terrorism being no exceptions.

But naturally, being conservatives, instead of confronting this well-known worldly reality and declaring a principled commitment to empowering ordinary people against the elite, they promptly jumped right into vying to be viewed as the candidate most likely to further deregulate the corporate powers & principalities and to placate xenophobic anti-immigrationists who have a non-reality-based worldview in which it's somehow disenfranchised immigrants and minorities who are at the root of all socioeconomic evils.

At least it led to a tickling moment when Romney inadvertently commited an self-betraying boner on the matter of his personal hypocrisy regarding the issue of employing undocumented workers. Then there was the ironically fruitless filibuster of Herman Cain on the distinction between apples and oranges that he resorted to to stonewall answering Romney's pointed questions about the new taxes proposed in his 9-9-9 plan. Oh, and that bizarre moment when Romney became so frustrated with Perry that he placed his hand on him. Lol, as they say on the internet. For a brief moment there was a prospect of the Tea Party becoming an internecine Tea Fracas.

As for the "libertarian" troll Ron Paul, he just keeps quaintly peddling the same old crock of paleo-conservative, free-marketarian caca; you know, the one that smells of the future Wall Street shenanigans and recessions that would inevitably result from his agenda of totally unfettering big business and banking. Yes, if some twilight-zone twist of fate enabled Dr. Paul to somehow win his bid for the Oval Office it would quite soon turn out to be a most joyless outcome to the election for the majority of working-class voters; that is, if he actually attempted to make good on his ideological rhetoric and turn back the clock to pre-Great Society, pre-New Deal days, i.e. all the way back to the robber baron days.

Yes indeed, they're a most amusing bunch, as long as none of them gets elected president of the United States. Let's keep it that way. (Btw, I've actually been quite gentle here, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos calls them "clowns" and a "freak show".)

 

[Openmind]

Well, did anyone here watch the putzy performance of the comical crew of conservative candidates in the Republican debate yesterday? I don't think that Saturday Night Live writers will really have to strain their creativity a great deal to work up an amusing sketch from yesterday's forensic farce majeure. Oh yes, it was quite entertaining to watch the lot of them twaddlingly touching on the usual diversionary talking points of the right, i.e. issues that merely serve to misdirect the voter's attention away from the simple sociopolitical fact of life, that it's the minority of people who possess power in the world, the minority of people who sit atop the economic and political power structure, who actually create most of the troubles & terrors of history, our current recession and problem with terrorism being no exceptions.

But naturally, being conservatives, instead of confronting this well-known worldly reality and declaring a principled commitment to empowering ordinary people against the elite, they promptly jumped right into vying to be viewed as the candidate most likely to further deregulate the corporate powers & principalities and to placate xenophobic anti-immigrationists who have a non-reality-based worldview in which it's somehow disenfranchised immigrants and minorities who are at the root of all socioeconomic evils.

At least it led to a tickling moment when Romney inadvertently commited an self-betraying boner on the matter of his personal hypocrisy regarding the issue of employing undocumented workers. Then there was the ironically fruitless filibuster of Herman Cain on the distinction between apples and oranges that he resorted to to stonewall answering Romney's pointed questions about the new taxes proposed in his 9-9-9 plan. Oh, and that bizarre moment when Romney became so frustrated with Perry that he placed his hand on him. Lol, as they say on the internet. For a brief moment there was a prospect of the Tea Party becoming an internecine Tea Fracas.

As for the "libertarian" troll Ron Paul, he just keeps quaintly peddling the same old crock of paleo-conservative, free-marketarian caca; you know, the one that smells of the future Wall Street shenanigans and recessions that would inevitably result from his agenda of totally unfettering big business and banking. Yes, if some twilight-zone twist of fate enabled Dr. Paul to somehow win his bid for the Oval Office it would quite soon turn out to be a most joyless outcome to the election for the majority of working-class voters; that is, if he actually attempted to make good on his ideological rhetoric and turn back the clock to pre-Great Society, pre-New Deal days, i.e. all the way back to the robber baron days.

Yes indeed, they're a most amusing bunch, as long as none of them gets elected president of the United States. Let's keep it that way. (Btw, I've actually been quite gentle here, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos calls them "clowns" and a "freak show".)

I must say, I much enjoy your editorials. . .all of them!

Well done!

 

[GenSeneca]

No. When someone can back up their opinion with factual data and critical reasoning, their opinion is more valid than someone who is just repeating something they have "heard" from an unknown, or unreliable source.

Considering that I have offered you actual historical facts only to have you dismiss them as "opinion", I'm curious to know exactly how we can both agree on what can be considered a "fact".

Also, reason and emotion are not very different, emotions cloud judgement. You admitted to being overly emotional about some of the topics we discuss, you even suggested I should try being emotional as a way to understand your point of view... Replacing reason with emotion is not logical and does not lead to a rational opinion.

Lastly, the "reliability" of a source seems entirely subjective to you. For example, I offered historical data from the Congressional Budget Office, which you dismissed as "opinion", while, in contrast, you cited the totally unsupported opinions of Robert Reich as being "fact". Again, this leads to the need for some standard by which we can separate fact from opinion.

But, I respect the fact that everyone has the right to have their opinion. . .right or wrong.

Does their right include voicing opinions in favor of discriminating and/or promoting violence against some segment of the population?

 

[Openmind]

Considering that I have offered you actual historical facts only to have you dismiss them as "opinion", I'm curious to know exactly how we can both agree on what can be considered a "fact".

Link on historical facts I dismissed as opinions?

Also, reason and emotion are not very different, emotions cloud judgement. You admitted to being overly emotional about some of the topics we discuss, you even suggested I should try being emotional as a way to understand your point of view... Replacing reason with emotion is not logical and does not lead to a rational opinion.

I didn't ask you to be emotional as a way to understand MY point of view. . .I ask you to allow yourself to feel emotions so that you could take a broader view of issues, rather than standing in one spot and refusing to be moved by issues that DO REQUIRE us to engage our SOUL as much as our BRAIN.

Lastly, the "reliability" of a source seems entirely subjective to you. For example, I offered historical data from the Congressional Budget Office, which you dismissed as "opinion", while, in contrast, you cited the totally unsupported opinions of Robert Reich as being "fact". Again, this leads to the need for some standard by which we can separate fact from opinion

.

Link? I would like to observe whether what you are saying is valid or not with at least one specific exemple. . .but it seems that that "subjectivity" exists on both side, as i do not believe I have EVER heard you acknowledge that ANY sources I presented were worthy of respect!

Does their right include voicing opinions in favor of discriminating and/or promoting violence against some segment of the population?

You mean. . .like some members of the tea party, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh?

Apparently they have NO problem voicing their opinions and promote violence!

 

[GenSeneca]

Another melodramatic, arrogant statement!

Not at all, my statement cuts to the heart of what is being advocated:

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth.​

If I give a homeless man a dollar, by my own free will, that's an act of charity.

When you use force to take that dollar from me and hand it over to the homeless man, you consider it an act of "charity" on your part when it's actually an immoral act. You excuse your act of immorality by calling it "compassion", but it's really just tyranny.

I find this poster's words interesting and based on excellent research.

Because you agree with what he's saying... To me, he's spouting all the usual talking points put out by the Left.

His opinion is obviously more than a repeat of some vague propaganda.

That's all it is, propaganda.

And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no rule on which avatar one decides to use, or not to use in this forum!

Get over it!

I'm just curious why he wears his Marxist ideology on his sleeve in other forums but shies away from it here. We have/had posters named Dante The Marxist, Stalin, and Capitalist Pig on the other end of the spectrum, these people are/were proud of their ideology, I respected that, and they took the time to engage in actual conversations.

Charles, on the other hand, is a copy and paste intellectual, he refuses to engage in an actual discussion, preferring instead to argue against strawmen and poison the well.

 

[GenSeneca]

Link on historical facts I dismissed as opinions?

Income Tax: There is no evidence that raising the top marginal rates increases revenue as a % of GDP (yet you insist that raising the top marginal rates will "help with the deficit" because you fallaciously believe it will result in government collecting more in revenue).

Capital Gains Tax: There is evidence that raising CG rates LOWERS revenue and that lowering rates INCREASES revenue (yet you fallaciously believe that raising the CG rates will increase revenue).

Both of those statements are corroborated by historical data from the CBO and other equally impartial sources.

I didn't ask you to be emotional as a way to understand MY point of view. . .I ask you to allow yourself to feel emotions so that you could take a broader view of issues, rather than standing in one spot and refusing to be moved by issues that DO REQUIRE us to engage our SOUL as much as our BRAIN.

Using force against one person in order to benefit another is immoral. You support such immoral acts because you believe them to be "compassionate", I oppose such acts because I know they are immoral, unethical, and unjust.

it seems that that "subjectivity" exists on both side, as i do not believe I have EVER heard you acknowledge that ANY sources I presented were worthy of respect!

Robert Reich is the only "source" I can remember you bothering to cite in all the time you've been posting here. Most of the time when we ask you to support your statements with evidence, you dodge the question and offer an emotional appeal instead.

You mean. . .like some members of the tea party, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh?

Apparently they have NO problem voicing their opinions and promote violence!

You did not answer my question. Instead you deflected the question by attacking people with whom you disagree in a vein attempt at a red herring.

 

[Openmind]

Income Tax: There is no evidence that raising the top marginal rates increases revenue as a % of GDP (yet you insist that raising the top marginal rates will "help with the deficit" because you fallaciously believe it will result in government collecting more in revenue).

Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve? Time to do your homework: it shows a diminishing advantage PAST A CERTAIN POINT OF TAXATION, but an increasing advantage BEFORE THAT POINT (which is usually believed to be at 70% taxation. . .about TWICE as high as what exists today!)

Wikepedia: One potential result of the Laffer curve is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will become counterproductive for raising further tax revenue. A hypothetical Laffer curve for any given economy can only be estimated and such estimates are sometimes controversial. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%

Capital Gains Tax: There is evidence that raising CG rates LOWERS revenue and that lowering rates INCREASES revenue (yet you fallaciously believe that raising the CG rates will increase revenue).

Both of those statements are corroborated by historical data from the CBO and other equally impartial sources.


Using force against one person in order to benefit another is immoral. You support such immoral acts because you believe them to be "compassionate", I oppose such acts because I know they are immoral, unethical, and unjust.


Robert Reich is the only "source" I can remember you bothering to cite in all the time you've been posting here. Most of the time when we ask you to support your statements with evidence, you dodge the question and offer an emotional appeal instead.


You did not answer my question. Instead you deflected the question by attacking people with whom you disagree in a vein attempt at a red herring.[/QUOTE]

 

[Openmind]

Continued from the previous post, as I was not able to answer fully within the 30 minutes allowed to make changes.

Capital Gains Tax: There is evidence that raising CG rates LOWERS revenue and that lowering rates INCREASES revenue (yet you fallaciously believe that raising the CG rates will increase revenue).

This statement is demonstrated as true. . .however, the reason it is true is because, when the capital gain tax is INCREASED, investors choose to hold on to their investments rather than sell them and pay the higher tax. . . so it could be argued that the higher tax rates on the SALE of of capital investment is actually beneficial to the economy as it provides an incentive for investors to keep their investments instead of liquifying their investments!

Using force against one person in order to benefit another is immoral. You support such immoral acts because you believe them to be "compassionate", I oppose such acts because I know they are immoral, unethical, and unjust.

What is immoral and unethical is for corporation to continue to lay off people in order to increase the price of their stock. What is immoral and unethical is that companies like Morgan Stanley pay huge bonuses to their executives, even when their profits go down!
If the wealthy do not have the MORALITY to care about the shrinkage of the middle class and the suffering of the poor, the only way to even up the odds is through taxation.


Reich is the only "source" I can remember you bothering to cite in all the time you've been posting here. Most of the time when we

ask you to support your statements with evidence, you dodge the question and offer an emotional appeal instead.

This is the most ridiculous statement you may have made yet! I have provided dozens of links. . .in fact, many more links than almost any posters in this forum. And this is an easy statement to disprove. . .just look at my archives!

You did not answer my question. Instead you deflected the question by attacking people with whom you disagree in a vein attempt at a red herring.

Although it happens that I do not have the time to answer questions because. . .I have a life outside this forum. ..and when I come back either the question is buried or has become irrelevent, I make a determined effort to answer all questions that are NOT obvious attempts to trolll.

In fact, at times, I have answered the same question two or three times. . .even used "copy and paste" and notify you of it. One of those specific question is when you asked me if I agreed with the statement that the tea party was racist.

My answer was absolutely no. . .although it seems that the tea party philosophy appeals to some "white supremacist" groups. ..but that I didn't believe that those groups made up the bulk of the tea party supporter, but a minute minority in the fringe of the tea party. This is just brought to you (again) as an exemple of one clear question that was answered clearly. . .but you still didn't like my answer, which is a moot point in my book!.

 

[dogtowner]

This statement is demonstrated as true. . .however, the reason it is true is because, when the capital gain tax is INCREASED, investors choose to hold on to their investments rather than sell them and pay the higher tax. . . so it could be argued that the higher tax rates on the SALE of of capital investment is actually beneficial to the economy as it provides an incentive for investors to keep their investments instead of liquifying their investments!

If you make realizing profit a disincentive then you prevent wealth that could be invested elsewhere. In short, it has a stagnating effect.

Make it bad enough and the investor can take yake their wealth elsewhere as happened to England.

Regarding the Laffer Curve, consider this from Laffer himself

Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.

Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early 1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

republican logic

changing the percent of taxes does not increase amount of taxes taken in

30% tax takes in the same as
1% tax.

And then they wounder why people call them idiots.

 

[Openmind]

If you make realizing profit a disincentive then you prevent wealth that could be invested elsewhere. In short, it has a stagnating effect.

Make it bad enough and the investor can take yake their wealth elsewhere as happened to England.

Regarding the Laffer Curve, consider this from Laffer himself

Or it may PREVENT an investor to take his wealth outside the US, because he would have to sell his capital and pay the hire tax, which he obviously doesn't want to do!

 

[Gipper]

If you make realizing profit a disincentive then you prevent wealth that could be invested elsewhere. In short, it has a stagnating effect.

Make it bad enough and the investor can take yake their wealth elsewhere as happened to England.

Regarding the Laffer Curve, consider this from Laffer himself

IMO many of the wealthy are NOT investing now. They are holding their money and not putting it at risk. This is because of the actions taken by Obama, Dem Party (really commies), and the lib media (commies too). All three have demonized the wealthy. And, now we have these fools demonstrating against the wealthy. The result is the wealthy have pulled their investments in the hope that the country rights itself after Obama is no longer in the WH.

Can you blame them? I can't. If I were wealthy, I would be doing the exact same thing.

Most wealthy people work very hard while paying tons of taxes. And, to be demonized for it, they take offense. Naturally they refuse to put their money at risk for fear of what might be coming.

History shows whenever the radical left takes control of a nation, the wealthy get murdered...Lefties, you will have read a history book to know this.

 

[dogtowner]

Or it may PREVENT an investor to take his wealth outside the US, because he would have to sell his capital and pay the hire tax, which he obviously doesn't want to do!

One short term hit is better than being buggered year after year.

 

[Openmind]

One short term hit is better than being buggered year after year.

In that case, your argument falls apart!

 

[dogtowner]

In that case, your argument falls apart!

Except that that capital leaves the domestic economy. Thats the worst possible outcome. Ask England, they had to deal with the consequences and it was quite painful.