A call for a Conservative revolt against the GOP

Kimball_Kinnison: We're just gonna have to respectfully disagree about the role of the federal government (or move the discussion to that role-of-federal-government thread I started awhile ago - what happened to that anyway?). But here's what I submit to you: politicians "buy" votes with tax cuts as well, perhaps even more easily than with social programs. Considering that the current deficit we have was accelerated by tax cuts much more than domestic spending, shouldn't politicians show similar restraint with tax cuts?

Darth Mischievous: I got your point clearly, that you think FDR and JFK are different from today's Democrats and leftists. I think to in order to make that kind of claim, you have to ignore huge chunks of history. Let's talk about economics for example. How is my support for "tax-and-spend" on domestic programs really any different from the old Democratic programs of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society? (Please do NOT bring up JFK/LBJ's tax cuts - that was clearly a demand-side tax cut and JFK was planning a massive social program agenda to follow it. Ask DS1977; he has the pertinent links.)

If you're saying the old Democrats and the modern left differ on social issues, well then yes, I don't know if FDR really cared for abortion rights and what not. But it wasn't even an issue then. On the social issue of the day - civil rights for oppressed racial minorities - the four great Democratic Presidents of the 1930's through 60's all supported liberalization and equality, backed by federal power if necessary. LBJ even supported affirmative action and ending the death penalty, for chrissakes.

If anything, the progressive/liberal/whatever wing of the Democratic Party has more in common with these "old Democrats" than the "New Democrats" like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman who want to rollback the federal government and the welfare state, and caution timid moderation on social issues. Why else do you think there was and still is an ongoing "liberal revolt" against the Democratic establishment, not dissimilar to what JFT is calling for in the Republican Party? Liberals aren't dissatisfied with John Kerry and Al Gore because they're too far left. Forget his record for a moment; John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign was a far cry from Hubert Humphrey's 1968 run or George McGovern's in 1972.

 

To look at it another way, if the government isn't managing tax dollars wisely now, why should I agree to give them even more money to mismanage?

You have great compassion for the top 5 percent of income. What would be so wrong with rolling back Bush's tax cuts? Most people would take home the same amount or more. Why are you so worried about the lucky few, who have no real financial worries?

 

I'm wonder if you recognize this little tidbit about the New Deal, maverick:

Fiscal conservatism was a key component of the New Deal, as Zelizer (2000) demonstrates. It was supported by Wall Street and local investors and most of the business community; mainstream academic economists believed in it, as apparently did the majority of the public. Conservative southern Democrats, who favored balanced budgets and opposed new taxes, controlled Congress and its major committees. Even liberal Democrats at the time regarded balanced budgets as essential to economic stability in the long run, although they were more willing to accept short-term deficits. Public opinion polls consistently showed public opposition to deficits and debt. Throughout his terms, Roosevelt recruited fiscal conservatives to serve in his administration, most notably Lewis Douglas the Director of Budget from 1933 to 1934, and Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury from 1934 to 1945. They defined policy in terms of budgetary cost and tax burdens rather than needs, rights, obligations, or political benefits. Personally the president embraced their fiscal conservatism. Politically, he realized that fiscal conservatism enjoyed a strong wide base of support among voters, leading Democrats, and businessmen. On the other hand there was enormous pressure to act?and spending money on high visibility programs attracted Roosevelt, especially if it tied millions of voters to him, as did the WPA.

As a simple statement of fact, the Democrats were a completely different party then than they are today (so are the Republicans, by the way). FDR also was willing to work with the conservative Democrats and others to compromise and get things done (he was also a very shrewd politician, of course).

Hard-leftists even then complained that it didn't go far enough, individuals like Noam Chomsky who are adored by far-left progressives.

There were also very different economic circumstances involved in FDR's day, maverick, which are so often ignored (Great Depression, anyone?) that make any of the modern economic slumps look like child's play.

Social Security for example: the age was set at what? 65 at the day? What was the life expectancy then? 65 or 67? It wasn't meant to be what it is today. People wish for passage of social policy out of a sense of entitlement rather than inherent necessity.

Just try to make Social Security the same type of responsible system that it was back then... Raise the age of benefit to 72 for men and 75 for women. See if that isn't political suicide....

 

There is a big difference, though.

One of the foundations of Conservativism is smaller government, which means lower taxes and lower spending. Fiscal conservativism (which goes hand-in-hand with that) also dictates a balanced budget and avoiding debt.

You are basically saying that since we don't have the former right now, we should at least try for the latter. However, you are ignoring the big flaw in that argument.

Note: In the following paragraphs, I will speak of Conservativism and Liberalism, and Conservatives and Liberals. When capitalized, these refer to American Conservativism and American Liberalism (the modern political positions). When lower case, they will refer to classical conservativism and classical liberalism.

Neither Conservatives and Liberals really advocate financial irresponsibility. In fact, most of the differences between them come down to their economic philosophy, and by extension their social philosophy. Remember that both Conservatives and Liberals draw their lineage from liberalism. The big disagreement that sparked it was over the free market system. If you look back, Liberals have usually attempted to use regulation in the markets to carry out social policy, while Conservatives tend to favor letting the market decide and not try to force social reforms in that way.

So, let's take the fiscal conservativism (a better term to reduce confusion would be responsibility) out of the equation for a moment, since both sides' philosophies support that. If Conservatives were to insist on fiscal responsibility at the expense of low taxes and reduced spending, what are you left with? Bigger government and increased taxes. That is an outright betrayal of Conservative principles. You are then left with something that is far closer to a Liberal position.

In effect, you are arguing that Conservatives should simply become Liberals, rather than try to return the government to a Conservative approach. I'm sorry, but that's no better than me arguing that you should simply have Liberals become Conservatives to solve all of the country's problems.

For a Conservative, the fiscal irresponsibility can easily be solved by reducing the spending. That approach is far more in line with Conservative ideals than the complete capitulation involved in raising taxes without doing anything about spending.

Remember that liberalism was the basis for the American Revolution. Part of the fuss over "no taxation without representation" came about because before the Stamp Act of 1765, taxation had mostly been used as a way to regulate commerce (primarily imports and exports), and usually by the local legislature. The Stamp Act was specifically passed to raise revenues to pay off England's debts. The actual cost of the tax was extremely low (the largest cost was that you had to have a notary to apply and collect the tax, and it cost 10 pounds to become a notary, but that was a one-time cost, and not everyone had to pay it). I've seen different historical figures given, but none has claimed that the tax rate on the colonies was anywhere near even 5%. Compare that with today's lowest tax bracket being 10%.

Unless you address the actual cause of the fiscal irresponsibility (the runaway spending), all you are advocating is that Conservatives who are unhappy with the way things are should become Liberals. Tell me, other than to satisfy your own political idealogies, why should any Conservative who actually believes in Conservativism t

 

Bigger government and increased taxes. That is an outright betrayal of Conservative principles.

You live by this, but there is one flaw. You state that there is no such thing as too small a government with too low taxes. The united states would cease to exist if we reduced the government and taxes to a microscopic size.

Therefore when a Liberal advocates increasing taxes for the super-wealthy, they do not want "big government", they simply disagree on the size and taxes needed for equilibrium.

 

Where did I say this? Please quote my exact statements, along with a link to the thread and the date and time of my post.

If you cna't do that, please retract your false statement and cease misrepresenting my views.

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, they do want big government. The main role of liberalism is to create dependence by taking from the "super-wealthy" and giving to the "super-poor" (which are, I guess, new terms for "successful" and "lazy").

Oh, and when has a liberal not advocated inreasing taxes?

Thirdly, conservatives don't advocate no government--they just recognize the concept of there being too many taxes (as opposed to there never being enough taxes).

Of course, when a conservative makes conservative decisions concerning fiscal policy, the results (regardless of intentions) will always benefit society in general (such as reducing deadweight loss from excise taxes).

 

Darth Mischievous: You're totally misrepresenting what I believe in, and you read and/or remembered a previous post addressed to you earlier in this thread you would have known that I see no incompatibility between fiscal responsibility (which is what I assume fiscal "conservatism" to mean; if you have an alternate definition please let me know) and a tax-and-spend policy. In fact, as long as tax and spending levels rise commensurately, tax-and-spend is MORE fiscally responsible than the current policy of DON'T-tax-as-much-and-spend.

At the heart of the matter is the question, do you want to pay for your government? If your answer is you want less government to pay for (like Kimball_Kinnison would say) then that's fine, but if you're gonna have more government or even the same amount of government you have to make sure your funding and revenue levels match. As the great Robert Reich put it, you can't have a great nation on the cheap.

That FDR had some fiscally conservative (responsible?) advisors doesn't change what he DID and what he believed in (and like I said, it is very much possible to have a big government that's still fiscally responsible). I know he campaigned on balanced budgets, but as politicians (and our current President is no exception) have demonstrated time and time again, how one campaigns isn't a perfect representation of how one governs once in office.

You wanna know FDR? Get the best of FDR in his 1938 Gainesville speech. Pay close attention to this part:

They are the kind of people who, in 1936, the last national campaign, were saying, "Oh, yes, we want nobody to starve" but at the same time were insisting that the balancing of the budget was more important than making appropriations for relief. And when I told them that I, too wanted to balance the budget but that I put human lives ahead of dollars and handed them the book of the government estimates and asked them just where they would out the appropriations, inevitably they folded up and came back and told me, "Mr. President, that is not my business, that is yours."

Yes, they have the same type of mind as those representatives of the people who vote against legislation to help social and economic conditions, proclaiming loudly that they are for the objectives but they do not like the methods and then fail utterly to offer a better method of their own.

FDR also was willing to work with the conservative Democrats and others to compromise and get things done (he was also a very shrewd politician, of course).

And modern-day Democrats don't? Forget about the vitriol you see in news reports; there are still good people on both sides in D.C. willing to work together to "get things done". It's just that nowadays the two parties differ fundamentally and ideologically, so compromise is much harder and rare. It's doesn't have so much to do with the people than with the political dynamic and atmosphere.

And it's interesting you bring up the conservative Democrats, because do you know about FDR's (failed) 1938 "purge" of conservative Democrats?

As for the Great Depression, yes it was more extreme than more recent economic slumps but what does that matter? Would a conservative President at the time have done anything differently? Considering that there was a conservative President in office at the outbreak of the Depression, the answer is self-evidently yes.

And as for Social Security, you keep talking about this "entitlement mentality" as if people really didn't need money in their old age. If people could work past 65, they wouldn't need the SS age to be set there (it's actually 67, I believe), now would they? I suppose people in some professions could easily work into their seventies and eighties but people in other professions realistically can't and need SS income to survive.

Besides which, the line between "need" and "want" is very blurry at some point. Theoretically, the elderly don't necess

 

Nowhere did I say people don't 'need money in their old age', but that the Social Security system was not originally set up to be the total crutch it is today for decades into an elderly individual's life. It was meant to suppliment retirement, not encompass it. The age of benefit was also set at just below the life expectancy age of the day. Now, people feel they are entitled to the benefit to utilize it for many reasons, sometimes the least of which involves necessary sustinence.

BTW, you have no idea who I'd vote for if I lived in those days, so I'd be careful from making assumptions.

You also may have this mistaken impression that I don't favor measures involving controlled supplimental government assistance when necessary.

The variety of secular-progressive liberalism that you subscribe has substantial differences than the liberalims of FDR and JFK and has been demonstrated. Not FDR nor JFK were quasi-socialists as you are. You may be their political heirs as a Democrat by name (just as the Republicans are of Lincolin, something I'm sure rattles your brain), but that doesn't mean you represent the essentially parallel lines of thinking. I'm sure FDR or JFK would have had little to do with your social philosophy or some your other ideas.

I'm quite sure Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Al Franken, Dennis Kucinich and all those just lovely people would be considered bastardized children if FDR were alive these days.

I'm also quite sure that Goldwater and other icons of the earlier conservative movement would be appaled at George W Bush's 'conservativism'.

 

I don't know if the supplement vs. encompassment difference somehow translates into an entitlement mentality. But unless I had a wiretap into people's minds, I couldn't tell you for sure how entitled they feel about anything.

BTW, you have no idea who I'd vote for if I lived in those days, so I'd be careful from making assumptions.

Oh, I don't know, it's just that to continually denounce tax-and-spend policies and then embrace FDR, a noted tax-and-spender (regardless of what advisers he might have had onboard) seems to me like a reflection of either a misreading/ignorance of history or intellectual dishonesty. I'll assume it's the former.

The variety of secular-progressive liberalism that you subscribe has substantial differences than the liberalims of FDR and JFK and has been demonstrated. Not FDR nor JFK were quasi-socialists as you are.

I don't know if they were "quasi-socialists" (I really don't know to what you're referring to with that term) but they and I share a belief that the federal government can and should play an active role in public affairs and improving society and people's lives, in marked contrast to conservatives, who believe that the public good and social progress should be left to the market and the individual over the government (at least on the federal level). On that, FDR, JFK, and I are alike.

You may be their political heirs as a Democrat by name (just as the Republicans are of Lincolin, something I'm sure rattles your brain)

Actually, I would have been a Republican had I lived in the 1850's.

but that doesn't mean you represent the essentially parallel lines of thinking. I'm sure FDR or JFK would have had little to do with your social philosophy or some your other ideas.

More misreading of history. How exactly do FDR/JFK and I have different "lines of thinking"?

 

I'm going to answer all of these at once.

In an ideal world, where things were already functioning properly, you would be right. If the government were not so addicted to spending, there would be no problem with minor tax increases to make the budget balance. The problem is that we aren't living in that ideal world, and our government is addicted to spending. Until that addiction is cured, raising taxes in the name of "fiscal responsibility" only makes the problem worse, because it imposes no punishment for the poor choices.

Again, think of someone who has gotten into credit card debt. Most of them (excluding those who went into debt for a single incident, such as medical problems), got into debt through fiscal irrespeonsibility, living beyond their means. Now, let's assume for a moment that you suddenly increase their income, solely for the purpose of paying of their debt.* What would happen?

In a very few cases, they would actually pay off their debts and keep things that way. However, that is by far the minority. Debt and spending can be every bit as addictive as gambling, drugs, or alcohol, and it takes a lot to even get people to admit that they have a problem (that all-important first step), let alone develop the self-control needed to solve the problem. For many people, it is not until they hit rock bottom that they are willing to admit that they have a problem. WHen they've maxed out their credit cards, have trouble paying the mortgage, and are about to lose the house. Until they are open to changing their behavior, there is nothing you can do to solve the real cause of their debt.

There's a reason why about 1/3 of lottery millionaires go bankrupt. Giving someone with no fiscal responsibility additional money isn't going to change the fact that they are fiscally irresponsible.

Now, you could argue that calling for tax increases is fiscally re

 

K_K
There's a reason why about 1/3 of lottery millionaires go bankrupt. Giving someone with no fiscal responsibility additional money isn't going to change the fact that they are fiscally irresponsible.

Are you advocating letting this happen on a national level? When some hick loses all their money, they are the ones who lose. When the federal government loses all their money, it;s a disaster that will effect every single person in this country.

Except the rich of course.

I do agree with you that we need to cut out the massive spending, but I'm trying to figure out what we can do, and why we cannot stop the tax cuts while forcing Congress to stop their massive spending.

And just so everyone is clear, halting tax cuts =/= a tax hike.

Anyway, I say that this just shows how far the GOP has fallen. I mean, it'll be a betrayal of their fiscal conservatism to raise taxes, but they're perfectly willing to betray their fiscal conservatism by spending millions on a useless bridge project?

Hypocrits, the lot of them!




You ungrateful, metal pansy!

 

How are you going to get Congress to actually stop the spending, though? They are addicted to it as surely as an alcoholic is addicted to drinking.

As long as Congress can use deficit spending, pork, and social programs to buy votes, the addiction will continue. Unless you have a better way to force them to stop (short of the US running out of credit), I see no reason not to further limit the federal government's income. If it will take a financial crisis to get them to clean up their act (or to get the people to elect others who will clean up their act), then I say bring the financial crisis on. I'd rather face the hard times and emerge from them stronger than before, than continue to enable the addictive behavior.

Kimball Kinnison

 

K_K
How are you going to get Congress to actually stop the spending, though?

Maybe by electing true conservatives?




You ungrateful, metal pansy!

 

What you are advocating is completely irresponsible, Kimball, and again, like most of your novel theories on government, might work nicely if you were dictator for life running the United States, but given the complexity of the situation we are in, your positions is reckless, naive, and completely implausible.

Yes, spending is a problem, and I even like the addict analogy that is quite commonly thrown around. But you act as if we can discipline Congress, or rather punish congress without punishing ourselves. Like being addicted to heroine or other serious drugs, immediate, unplanned, cold turkey withdrawel can kill you. A United States government facing a total financial collapse could devestate this country and have profoundly disastrous impact. Your line of reasoning is just as ill conceived and poorly thought out as the decision to enter into and the handling of the war in Iraq. It sounds like a nice idea, but most of the time the best way for change if you can plan it is for slow, peaceful transition.

Like Goldwater, make your case about limited government, but learn the art of compromise and be aware of cold hard reality. In the short run, wouldn't you rather have a party that might raise taxes calculated ways to ensure the public can afford it, but will cut spending as well, giving us a reduction in spending and a more fiscally solvent government? We all know what your end goal is, but the best way to acheive it isn't to starve the beast and risk financial crisis, from which we might not recover, but to advocate slow and responsible change. I mean, your argument might even be more plausible if we weren't fighting foreign wars, because conservative or liberal, when you have increased costs associated with wars, you don't just chalk that up next to regular domestic spending, you have to account for it as something SPECIAL.

That's the real problem with this war, Bush sold it as a war of convenience in every sense, he didn't ask or make clear to the American people that this war could involve sacrifice beyond the lives of the soldiers, and now, no one but those soldiers is willing to sacrifice anything.

 

Show me you can actually cut spending (as I said, really cut it, not simply limit its growth), including making the painful cuts (even "entitlements" can be cut, it's just harder to do), and I will consider a "compromise".

However, it requires real cuts as a start. You can't simply start with higher taxes, because that fuels the problem, not solves it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Term limits would go a long way in solving a lot of the pork spending in the government. When you don't have to worry about winning an election every couple of years, then you start to focus on where money can BEST be spent instead of compromising left and right to keep the incumbancy system intact. It's a shame that the Supreme Court sided against term limits at the federal level.

 

C-SPAN is showing Americans for Tax Reform at the moment

http://www.atr.org/

Interesting stuff.

 

Yes fine, KK. We'll cut subsidies to the Oil Industries, that costs us 8 figures a year, and we can also start cutting shloads of the pork barrel spending that gets members of Congress elected each year, we can start cutting military budgets and start forcing government contractors to take less pay (but lets increase salaries across the board for the military, but we'll pay for it in other cuts). I mean, if it were up to just you and me KK, I'm sure we could gut the federal budget real good, and still keep our liberal/conservative voting friends happy. Just not the parties in power.

I mean, KK's methods regarding the budget are akin to a peace activist saying "let's not avert this international crisis, let's let a nuclear bomb to go off in our country. That'll teach us about the dangers of NUCLEAR WAR!!! We'll emerge a stronger country! Just like Japan! Yeah! Nuclear bombs going off is the perfect way to prevent nuclear bombs from going off in the future!"

That's how stupid the idea of increasing spending and cutting taxes during wartime sounds to me, but hey, that's just me.

 

No, the reason conservative talk radio is more popular is because it gets people riled up and it gives people something people can get pissed off at, not because it's more rational. (I know you didn't say it was, but don't even try to claim right-wing talk radio is even remotely sensible)

I really hate it when people like you label liberals/Democrats as anti-American just because we criticize some of the habits of Americans. Yes, I think Americans eat bad food, and thus, get fat more often. I'm not going to retract that. Yes, I don't like the religious wackos gaining power in our government and weaking this country (IMO, at least).

I still love many things in America (yes, cultural), and I do think it is a good place to live. And that doesn't mean I think my country is crap.

 

Guys, Come on.

Sure, what constitutes a failure may be debatable, but that doesn't make up for the fact that at some point, you would need to find somethingthe Bush Administration has done wrong. Neither of you have ever criticized Bush in my experience here, ever. It's all shading every single thing he does in a positive light.

In fact, KK, your last post on how failures are debatable just goes to show how you guys will go to great lengths to manipulate the situation/scenerio and the facts to always make it sound good or show something positive about it. If either of you had just once, even

 

Because Shedder, where you may be having difficulty in understanding my posts is because I simply want Bush to be treated no differently than any other President. Every administration has had people who don't agree with it. It's part of doing business, and is a valid part of the poltical process. I supported Clinton on a lot of things, and I support Bush on a lot of things. Generally, the policies of the GOP are more in line with my own, but I still try and find out for myself. Some are going to agree with that decision, others are going to disagree, but that's how it should be.

What's wrong with simply examining the situations as they exist- no matter who the President is? What else do you want me to say? You're basically saying that since you don't like the current administration, you view it through that light no matter what the situation actually is. I just can't subscribe to that philosophy.

 

No way, Mr. 44, Shredder is right, you guys support the President at every turn. Nothing he has ever done has upset you. Why is it you can provide balance for Bush when he is criticized, but never feel the need to criticize him when he was say, getting so many more positive reviews?

 

Nothing. It's just not something that either you or K_K (especially K_K) actually do.

 

dizfactor: Just because they do not arrive at the same conclusions that you have does not mean that they haven't examined the situations.

This is a common rhetorical theme utilized by those on your philosophical end, that people don't think about these issues before coming to a conclusions (e.g., they're misinformed, conditioned, brainwashed, or simply ignorant).

KK and Mr44 usually provide very subtantive analysis, even if I disagree with their positioning from time to time.