Conservatives, don't despair...

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Washington (CNN) -- The mood among American conservatives is now one of apocalyptic despair.

Having convinced themselves that this election arrayed freedom against tyranny, they now must wonder: Did their country just democratically vote in favor of tyranny?

On Fox News election night, BIll O'Reilly explained the meaning of the election: the "white establishment" was now outnumbered by minorities. "The demographic are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore." And these untraditional Americans "want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it."

O'Reilly's analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country's wealth and end the American experiment forever.

You'll hear O'Reilly's view echoed wherever conservatives express themselves.
Happily, the view is wrong, and in every respect.

America is not a society divided between "makers" and "takers." Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement.

The line between "making" and "taking" is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.

President Barack Obama was not re-elected by people who want to "take." The president was re-elected by people who want to work -- and who were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the president's policies were more likely to create work than were the policies advocated by my party.

The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance, the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line. To gain three yards is a big play.

Whatever you think of the Obama record, it's worth keeping in mind that by any measure, free enterprise has been winning the game for a long, long time to this point.

Compare the United States of 2012 to the United States of 1962. Leave aside the obvious points about segregation and discrimination, and look only at the economy.

In 1962, the government regulated the price and route of every airplane, every freight train, every truck and every merchant ship in the United States. The government regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated the interest on every checking account and the commission on every purchase or sale of stock. Owning a gold bar was a serious crime that could be prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The top rate of income tax was 91%.

It was illegal to own a telephone. Phones had to be rented from the giant government-regulated monopoly that controlled all telecommunications in the United States. All young men were subject to the military draft and could escape only if they entered a government-approved graduate course of study. The great concern of students of American society -- of liberals such as David Riesman, of conservatives such as Russell Kirk, and of radicals such as Dwight Macdonald -- was the country's stultifying, crushing conformity.

Even if you look only at the experiences of white heterosexual men, the United States of 2012 is a freer country in almost every way than the United States of 1962.


Obama has changes in mind that conservatives and Republicans will oppose. He will want to raise taxes, he will want to sustain social spending at a permanently higher level, he has in mind new regulations over health care, energy production and banking. He'll win some, he'll lose some. To the extent that his wins prove injurious, future Republican Congresses and administrations will struggle to undo them. That's politics: a contest that never ends, and in which the only certainty is the certainty of constant change.

The Republican challenge next is to reassemble a new coalition for limited government and private enterprise. That coalition must include Americans of all ethnicities. To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion.

People of all backgrounds want to create, save and contribute to society. A party of the center-right should make them all feel at home, regardless of how they pronounce their last name, the complexion of their skin or the way in which they express love and build family.

The Roman Catholic Church deems despair a mortal sin. To abandon hope is to reject the reality of goodness and to forswear future action. The United States is a great and good country, and it remains great and good even when we do not get all our own way politically. The United States is a tolerant and free country, which means that there are no "tipping points" beyond which it becomes impossible to correct mistakes.

Fifty years ago, Marxism was still a live intellectual force in British universities. Marxists taught that human society must inevitably evolve into a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. The great British conservative historian Hugh Trevor-Roper scoffed at this arrogance. He said, "When radicals scream that victory is indubitably theirs, sensible conservatives knock them on the nose. It is only very feeble conservatives who take such words as true and run round crying for the last sacraments."

We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again.

I'd say Frum is pretty much spot-on, here.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,100
2,154
136
The line between "making" and "taking" is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.

Since you bolded this statement, I guess you and the opinion writer don't realize that workers and companies were forced to pay into this federal health insurance program called medicare so it's the people who have been working who are now the recipients of this program.

Here are some other interesting facts about medicare and medicaid.

Medicare is a social insurance program that serves more than 44 million enrollees (as of 2008). The program costs about $432 billion, or 3.2% of GDP, in 2007. Medicaid is a social welfare (or social protection) program that serves about 40 million people (as of 2007) and costs about $330 billion, or 2.4% of GDP, in 2007. Together, Medicare and Medicaid represent 21% of the FY 2007 U.S. federal government.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/medicare-medicaid/


http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=297&cat=6
Distribution of Medicare Beneficiaries by Race/Ethnicity, states (2010-2011), U.S. (2011)
United States
White________77%
Black_________10%
Hispanic_______8%
Others________5%

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=158&cat=3
Distribution of the Nonelderly with Medicaid by Race/Ethnicity, states (2010-2011), U.S. (2011)
United States
White__________42%
Black___________20%
Hispanic_________29%
Others__________9%



We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again.

I would agree with this but it also holds true for liberals.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
Of course it also holds true for liberals. If I woke up in a world where liberals were more sane than conservatives my head would probably explode. Therefore liberals MUST be equally messed up.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Since you bolded this statement, I guess you and the opinion writer don't realize that workers and companies were forced to pay into this federal health insurance program called medicare so it's the people who have been working who are now the recipients of this program.

Of what relevance to the point he's making is that? None.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Anything that has to be explained by someone from Faux News hasn't been explained.
(whats that term Im looking for here?)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Of what relevance to the point he's making is that? None.
Actually there is a huge significance. Medicare is basically a government-enforced retirement insurance program. Contrast that with Earned Income Credit, free college education, free health care. One is something one must pay into, like Social Security; the others are simple wealth transfers, government takes something from one person and gives it to another person.

I don't think any of us ever thought the line between makers and takers was a racial line, and I'm baffled as to why that would matter anyway.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Actually there is a huge significance. Medicare is basically a government-enforced retirement insurance program. Contrast that with Earned Income Credit, free college education, free health care. One is something one must pay into, like Social Security; the others are simple wealth transfers, government takes something from one person and gives it to another person.

I don't think any of us ever thought the line between makers and takers was a racial line, and I'm baffled as to why that would matter anyway.

I realize that, but Medicare is the single biggest program in the federal government. The EITC, "free college education", and "free" health care pale in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Actually there is a huge significance. Medicare is basically a government-enforced retirement insurance program. Contrast that with Earned Income Credit, free college education, free health care. One is something one must pay into, like Social Security; the others are simple wealth transfers, government takes something from one person and gives it to another person.

I don't think any of us ever thought the line between makers and takers was a racial line, and I'm baffled as to why that would matter anyway.
I am baffled as well...why is this a racial issue to some? Very odd.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I realize that, but Medicare is the single biggest program in the federal government. The EITC, "free college education", and "free" health care pale in comparison.
That's a good point. Still, the gap between programs one funds (voluntarily or otherwise) and those funded for one by others (involuntarily) is pretty major.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
It's a race issue because that's is pretty much the excuse the conservative blogosphere was using the night Romney lost. It's a dumb excuse, but it's the excuse they were passing around.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Actually there is a huge significance. Medicare is basically a government-enforced retirement insurance program. Contrast that with Earned Income Credit, free college education, free health care. One is something one must pay into, like Social Security; the others are simple wealth transfers, government takes something from one person and gives it to another person.

I don't think any of us ever thought the line between makers and takers was a racial line, and I'm baffled as to why that would matter anyway.

I don't want to pick and choose too much here, but if there were a program to fund college education it isn't necessarily different then Medicare. People still pay into that program through taxation. They may pay into that program after they receive the benefits (making it more like an inter-generational loan) but that doesn't mean they're not paying in.

To use myself as an example, I received interest free government loans and outright scholarships from the government to attend college. At that point, my tax payments were extremely limited. Today, though, I make well above the average salary and pay taxes so that other people can take advantage of that same program. While the order is reversed, I am still paying into a system and receiving a benefit from it.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
I don't want to pick and choose too much here, but if there were a program to fund college education it isn't necessarily different then Medicare. People still pay into that program through taxation. They may pay into that program after they receive the benefits (making it more like an inter-generational loan) but that doesn't mean they're not paying in.

To use myself as an example, I received interest free government loans and outright scholarships from the government to attend college. At that point, my tax payments were extremely limited. Today, though, I make well above the average salary and pay taxes so that other people can take advantage of that same program. While the order is reversed, I am still paying into a system and receiving a benefit from it.

Serious question, now that you're working and making an above average salary, do you feel that your taxes are so high that it's keeping you from breaking out of the middle class, or is high tax rates keeping you from achieving your goals?
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,783
2
76
I don't want to pick and choose too much here, but if there were a program to fund college education it isn't necessarily different then Medicare. People still pay into that program through taxation. They may pay into that program after they receive the benefits (making it more like an inter-generational loan) but that doesn't mean they're not paying in.

To use myself as an example, I received interest free government loans and outright scholarships from the government to attend college. At that point, my tax payments were extremely limited. Today, though, I make well above the average salary and pay taxes so that other people can take advantage of that same program. While the order is reversed, I am still paying into a system and receiving a benefit from it.

I completely agree. The federal government subsidized my interests, and outright paid for a chunk of my college. I am now in the "middle class" earnings bracket and while the taxes suck, I don't have a problem with it. I'm still making enough to live comfortably on. And increasing my yearly income won't all of a sudden get me to a point where "omg I'm not making enough to live on because of taxes."

Serious question, now that you're working and making an above average salary, do you feel that your taxes are so high that it's keeping you from breaking out of the middle class, or is high tax rates keeping you from achieving your goals?

I don't. However I also am not expecting to be "rich" now that I'm graduated. Nor do I expect to be able to now buy a huge house with all kinds of awesome toys. I am creating a plan to follow to get me to where I want to financially be in 10, 20, 30, and 40+ years from now. I know that I have to work to get to those goals. I don't see taxes "holding me back" from achieving any of them, and in fact are irrelevant of my goals. I am basing those goals off take home pay, which means unless tax rates change significantly I'll be able to get there.

I don't understand these people who say that taxes are keeping them down. If you're making 40-100k/year you're doing just fine after taxes, provided you don't overspend. Which is no different than any other earnings range.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Conservatives look at your party disintegrating in front of your eyes!

Despair is a completely rational response.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
I completely agree. The federal government subsidized my interests, and outright paid for a chunk of my college. I am now in the "middle class" earnings bracket and while the taxes suck, I don't have a problem with it. I'm still making enough to live comfortably on. And increasing my yearly income won't all of a sudden get me to a point where "omg I'm not making enough to live on because of taxes."



I don't. However I also am not expecting to be "rich" now that I'm graduated. Nor do I expect to be able to now buy a huge house with all kinds of awesome toys. I am creating a plan to follow to get me to where I want to financially be in 10, 20, 30, and 40+ years from now. I know that I have to work to get to those goals. I don't see taxes "holding me back" from achieving any of them, and in fact are irrelevant of my goals. I am basing those goals off take home pay, which means unless tax rates change significantly I'll be able to get there.

I don't understand these people who say that taxes are keeping them down. If you're making 40-100k/year you're doing just fine after taxes, provided you don't overspend. Which is no different than any other earnings range.

Exactly man, I feel the same way. Politically, I'm what most would consider a centrist, probably a bit left leaning on the fence. What is driving me away from American Conservatism is their lack of ground and basis for their selfish argument, which is that high tax rates are keeping them from becoming successful in this country.

Edit: Let me add a few more points. While I'm getting raped pretty hard by taxes, I am making enough to live comfortably as well. As long as I keep working hard, I'll be fine. I know that my taxes are for good reasons, and looking at the bigger picture, I hope that my taxes will provide to those that were like me when I was younger. A large chunk of my college tuition was paid for by Federally subsidized loans, and I'll be more than happy to pay my share of taxes if I know it will help bring success to the people out there who need the aide, and for them to one day become contributing members of society as well.

What I will never do is cry about how high tax rates is keeping me from getting richer. Of course if there were no taxes, we'd all be saving more, obviously.
 
Last edited:

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Serious question, now that you're working and making an above average salary, do you feel that your taxes are so high that it's keeping you from breaking out of the middle class, or is high tax rates keeping you from achieving your goals?

I'd imagine I could be better off individually if tax rates were lower over the short term, but long term I'm not sure if I'd be living a better life if those rates were cut. This is based on where I think spending cuts would need to be made to get those tax cuts, and the impact those spending cuts would have on the country (I'm Canadian, btw). There are obviously pubic sector inefficiencies that I think need to be closed that could lower the tax rates, but I imagine the impact wouldn't be substantial.

FWIW, my marginal tax rate is over 40% (excluding payroll taxes as I'm over the limit but it's a combined provincial/federal income tax) but I'm the last person to be complaining about taxes. My father was on welfare when we were growing up for a few years after he lost his business, and I've certainly benefited from universal health care growing up in a sub middle class household. You can tack those benefits I reaped in advance on to the substantial post secondary help I (and by two siblings) received.

I'm happy to be providing the same safety net that was provided to me and my family before I was working and paying taxes.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Exactly man, I feel the same way. Politically, I'm what most would consider a centrist, probably a bit left leaning on the fence. What is driving me away from American Conservatism is their lack of ground and basis for their selfish argument, which is that high tax rates are keeping them from becoming successful in this country.

Edit: Let me add a few more points. While I'm getting raped pretty hard by taxes, I am making enough to live comfortably as well. As long as I keep working hard, I'll be fine. I know that my taxes are for good reasons, and looking at the bigger picture, I hope that my taxes will provide to those that were like me when I was younger. A large chunk of my college tuition was paid for by Federally subsidized loans, and I'll be more than happy to pay my share of taxes if I know it will help bring success to the people out there who need the aide, and for them to one day become contributing members of society as well.

What I will never do is cry about how high tax rates is keeping me from getting richer. Of course if there were no taxes, we'd all be saving more, obviously.

Your opinion is exactly why the Republicans lost in this election cycle.

You consider the significantly higher proposed tax rates are acceptable, whatever these rates might be for you, and you seem to have little ambition to use your smaller slice of remaining money for more than a semi-comfortable life.

Maybe you have no kids, maybe you don't even want to start a family. Maybe you have no aspiration to accumulate wealth for a comfortable retirement or buying a nice house or having the capital to start a business, as those possibilities are going to become further out of reach for most. Not entirely, of course, but significantly fewer will now be able to go those routes for personal happiness (the constitutional definition of "happiness," not the popular one of vapidness.)

To keep your satisfaction in context, you might tell us if you are an employee or (highly unlikely) an employer, as here lies the real differential between those who are going to be happy with more of the status quo and even higher taxation and regulatory levels, or not.

If you are a business owner facing costly government imposed health care mandates, vastly expanded regulatory burdens and significantly higher taxation rates, you might not be so quick to parrot the Democrat speaking points.

Since business owners find ways to cope with all of these imposed burdens by passing these costs of doing business to the consumer, who do you think actually pays for big government? You do, in the form of not only higher personal taxation but by inflated prices.

Some businesses, especially service businesses sensitive to a lack of market elasticity that comes with higher pricing are stopping full time employment. Right now we are seeing restaurants and other service businesses moving quickly to eliminate as many FT employees as possible. If you are in this line of work, look forward to a better than Europe 30 hour work week, or, more likely, a future 60 hour work week where you have the privilege of buying your own government menu of limited and cost controlled benefits.

The cost to the US will be more real poverty and less of the opportunity for happiness that comes from capitalism. This grand experiment of declining "good enough" government determined minimal "benefits" paid by those who remain productive is nothing new. It has always been the hallmark of other places that have chosen government socialism.

Hope you enjoy the ride, there is no safety net at the bottom!
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
So conservatives are now retreating from denial into fantasy. What a surprise!

Conservatives have a very clear to choice to give up the culture wars and find a new agenda. The Tea Party insisted they could do this, but so far they've still pushed their overwhelmingly evangelical social agenda and have become the most hated group in US politics today. The obvious solution is for the party to start focusing on fighting corruption in government and business or concede the field to the democrats.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I'd imagine I could be better off individually if tax rates were lower over the short term, but long term I'm not sure if I'd be living a better life if those rates were cut. This is based on where I think spending cuts would need to be made to get those tax cuts, and the impact those spending cuts would have on the country (I'm Canadian, btw). There are obviously pubic sector inefficiencies that I think need to be closed that could lower the tax rates, but I imagine the impact wouldn't be substantial.

FWIW, my marginal tax rate is over 40% (excluding payroll taxes as I'm over the limit but it's a combined provincial/federal income tax) but I'm the last person to be complaining about taxes. My father was on welfare when we were growing up for a few years after he lost his business, and I've certainly benefited from universal health care growing up in a sub middle class household. You can tack those benefits I reaped in advance on to the substantial post secondary help I (and by two siblings) received.

I'm happy to be providing the same safety net that was provided to me and my family before I was working and paying taxes.

Another illustrative story that is missing key facts.

Why did your family have to go on welfare? Was your dad a poor businessman? Did he not pass on all those government imposed costs to his customers, who should have stayed with him no matter what? Didn't his competitors do just that and survived?

I would argue that the more government interferes with markets, the more difficult it is for businesses to succeed. Excepting, of course, those government "approved and supported," no longer free market, businesses that will be the only ones left standing.

You are paying 40% of the money you earn to run a national social welfare program. Canada doesn't have a huge military budget, I imagine that you would have to pay at least a 20% defense premium on top of the 40% social welfare government imposition to match the US military "benefit." From Wiki,

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, military spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues.

so I am being conservative here. You have bigger borders and fewer people. Maybe you don't have to worry about a US invasion, but imagine if the US did not guarantee your security!
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
So conservatives are now retreating from denial into fantasy. What a surprise!

Conservatives have a very clear to choice to give up the culture wars and find a new agenda. The Tea Party insisted they could do this, but so far they've still pushed their overwhelmingly evangelical social agenda and have become the most hated group in US politics today. The obvious solution is for the party to start focusing on fighting corruption in government and business or concede the field to the democrats.

The only one in fantasy land is you. The TEA Party was never anything other than a very large and informal assortment of people who detest big government, big taxation and all of the lost freedoms and lessened potentials big government represents.

They won big, really big, in 2010 but did not have sufficient clout in 2012 to overcome the social welfare Democrats.

The evangelicals and social moralists are a different subset with, obviously, a different agenda.

Consider the opposite on your side. Those advocating for a government takeover of health care, the anti-free market socialists, certainly do have members of Queer Nation among them. Does Queer Nation define the socialists?