End-Timers & Neo-Cons - The End of Conservatives

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm just wanting to know what these "classical conservatives" believe so I understand how there's none left. Are they fiscal conservatives? Neoconservatives? Social conservatives? I need help with this classical conservative thing...

I think becasically ever republican up to eisenhower applied to the term. Generally tight fiscal policy, somewhat isolationist, real free market, etc.

Yeah, that's sorta a half-assed definition of your own, but you should name it something else. I think a better term might be "pre-1960 Conservatives"

My point was, there's no real body of thought called classical conservatism, and using the term they way you and Engineer do is wrong. If anything, classical conservatism is a conservative nature, NOT ideology.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer
Shrinking deficits? Has it shrank one year during the current 4 year regime?

Surplus
Deficit
Bigger Deficit (record for that year)
Even bigger deficit (2004: again, record for that year)
Projection: 2005 - new record projection.

Shrinking? Yep, that's it. And as for GDP, it's rising on the GDP curve just as fast. It may not be "Historically' as high as the past, but it's has high as it's been in over 30 years (overall debt to GDP).

Add rising interest rates in and let the deficit interest start to creap up and see how tough it is to start cutting once the interest becomes large.

2003 projection 500/actual 374
2004 projection 521/ actual 413
2005 projected 427/actual currently growing at a slower rate than last year.

Given the current data, it one could easily argue that we will have a smaller defecit this year.
I was also referring the defecit to GDP ratio.

Am I correct in remembering those deficits do NOT include the cost of our adventure in Iraq?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer
Shrinking deficits? Has it shrank one year during the current 4 year regime?

Surplus
Deficit
Bigger Deficit (record for that year)
Even bigger deficit (2004: again, record for that year)
Projection: 2005 - new record projection.

Shrinking? Yep, that's it. And as for GDP, it's rising on the GDP curve just as fast. It may not be "Historically' as high as the past, but it's has high as it's been in over 30 years (overall debt to GDP).

Add rising interest rates in and let the deficit interest start to creap up and see how tough it is to start cutting once the interest becomes large.

2003 projection 500/actual 374
2004 projection 521/ actual 413
2005 projected 427/actual currently growing at a slower rate than last year.

Given the current data, it one could easily argue that we will have a smaller defecit this year.
I was also referring the defecit to GDP ratio.

Am I correct in remembering those deficits do NOT include the cost of our adventure in Iraq?

Those are year end totals.

 

[robertcloud]

This is purely anecdotal, but in the southern town where I go to school, many people I talk too are very much pro Bush and will not tolerate any criticism on him or his policies. Some very old friends, my mother as one example, are educated and usually can think critically about things. Lately, even she has began to defend Bush using sometimes irrational arguements. My father and I both think it is strange.

My father, a moderate conservative, says he has noticed a change in tone of his old friends. We are getting some crazy drivel called 'Focus on the Family' in the mail which preaches some strange ideas of morality. My point is that me, my father, and several of my friends, are beginning to notice a change in the conservative people we know.

I notice a change in some people about how they talk about politics and they aren't using rational arguements to defend the republican party.

<<---didn't vote because I didn't like either candidate. I am fiscally moderate and value civil liberties.

ps. Sorry if the above seems unclear. I just wanted to communicate that I feel a change in the planks of the 'conservative' platform. i.e. fiscal policy comes second to promoting social agenda.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What the hell is "classical conservatism?" Never heard of it...

Wait, I thought those neocons were the great threat running the show? Wait, I thought those Christian Fundamentalists were the great threat running the show? Wait, I thought those capitalist pig corporation Republicans were the great theat running the show?

Wait, I'm a liberal and I pick and choose any of the above whenever it suits my purposes and cry like a b!tch about them (and make up fanstasies about so-called "real" conservatives) :roll:

There are no conservatives anymore, especially fiscal. Here's a for playing.

this is what my idea of old school conservative principles:
-smaller government, limited government
-fiscal responsibility, spending restraint
-limits to the intrusion of government into the private lives of citizens
-defender of civil liberties
-socially conservative

contemporary so-called conservative:
-unlimited spending on things they approve of, while simultaeously seeking to dismantle existing social welfare safety nets
-support government expansion, appear to have unlimited faith in their government and leader
-supports government intrusion into the most private aspects of citizens' lives
-contemptuous of civil liberties, human rights
-authoritarian approach to divisive social issues, seek to impose their preferred way of life on all citizens by power of law, seek to penalize those who do not have an approved lifestyle

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
so now that this thread has been thoroughly crapped, hows everyone doing tonight?

Well it seems to be doing just fine, Mr. Left of Center

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What the hell is "classical conservatism?" Never heard of it...

Wait, I thought those neocons were the great threat running the show? Wait, I thought those Christian Fundamentalists were the great threat running the show? Wait, I thought those capitalist pig corporation Republicans were the great theat running the show?

Wait, I'm a liberal and I pick and choose any of the above whenever it suits my purposes and cry like a b!tch about them (and make up fanstasies about so-called "real" conservatives) :roll:

There are no conservatives anymore, especially fiscal. Here's a for playing.

Most of us are still fiscal conservatives...just a matter of getting congress to do our bidding...

Is deliberately shifting the burden of tax onto the middle class, and away from the very wealthy, by giving the wealthiest 1% of citizens a half-trillion dollars in tax cuts (50% of the total amount of Bush's tax cuts - to 1% of the population...) somehow "fiscally conservative"? Or is it just greedy?

Is doing the above, while maintaining a massive budget deficit "fiscally conservative"?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
This is purely anecdotal, but in the southern town where I go to school, many people I talk too are very much pro Bush and will not tolerate any criticism on him or his policies. Some very old friends, my mother as one example, are educated and usually can think critically about things. Lately, even she has began to defend Bush using sometimes irrational arguements. My father and I both think it is strange.

My father, a moderate conservative, says he has noticed a change in tone of his old friends. We are getting some crazy drivel called 'Focus on the Family' in the mail which preaches some strange ideas of morality. My point is that me, my father, and several of my friends, are beginning to notice a change in the conservative people we know.

I notice a change in some people about how they talk about politics and they aren't using rational arguements to defend the republican party.

<<---didn't vote because I didn't like either candidate. I am fiscally moderate and value civil liberties.

ps. Sorry if the above seems unclear. I just wanted to communicate that I feel a change in the planks of the 'conservative' platform. i.e. fiscal policy comes second to promoting social agenda.

Maybe in difficult times, it's easier to skewer a scapegoat (gays, women who have abortions) than actually deal with the real problems confronting the community.

 

[NJDevil]

When did the democratic party become the party of fiscal responsibility? Last I checked, out of the past 4 presidents, only one managed to balance the budget and even create a surplus (Clinton). All I want is a balanced budget ... can't we write an amendment into the constitution that states that the government cannot spend much more than it takes in?

Seems fair.

 

[imported_Condor]

9-11 was the first significant terrorist attack on American soil (save perhaps Oklahoma City & the first bombing of the WTC)...the scope of the attack and the attitudes fueling it were so foreign to Americans that we did not know how to react...I fully supported the Bush Administration's response to 9-11, and the strategic brilliance by which we removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan with a minimal commitment of American forces and resources.

American Embassies are American soil.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Condor


American Embassies are American soil.

Ah, now I understand why it costs $1,500,000,000 for an Embassy in Iraq. It stretches from one border to another.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Conjur, you're still up to this? Drudging out pissed conservatives as if this means..... what..... everyone doesn't agree all the time?

BTW, if you've given general support of conservatives over the past 20 years and you quote/defend Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark and other radical left-wing nuts, than I'm afraid you're either a liar or have no idea what conservative is... or both.

Or perhaps you don't realize how much Bush has pushed me to be anti-war now.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm just wanting to know what these "classical conservatives" believe so I understand how there's none left. Are they fiscal conservatives? Neoconservatives? Social conservatives? I need help with this classical conservative thing...

A classic conservative is hard to define because of the political heritage of our nation and the transition in ideology of the respective political parties through the years...however, most would agree that you cannot really associate a particular political ideology with a political party because each party has moved away from what it supposedly represents.

Most people assume being conservative consists of being against progress, or wanting to revert back to "the way things were." Yet I look at people like Ben Franklin as conservatives. I define conservatism as:

- Fiscal responsibility, and limitations that prevent a strong centralized government from assuming roles that can more easily be handled at the state level.
- A socially progressive attitude that allows society to progress as attitudes, values and ideals shift from one generation to the next.
- An economically aggressive policy of protecting American jobs while not placing artificial barriers on free trade, or engaging in a policy of corporate welfare.
- A strong foreign policy stance of being ready and willing to utilize military force, yet committed to alliance building and exploring all means of diplomacy before committing to war.
- Looking out for the challenges that subsequent generations will face due to decisions we make now, which includes the job market, taxes, the environment, etc.
- Ensuring that educational opportunities are available to all, without government restrictions or social dynamics in place that limit people to particular paths.

Notice that my definition of conservatism doesnt mention religion...how the religious right because associated with conservatism is a tragedy to the ideology.

Some people might look at this list and say, hey this sounds like something a liberal would agree with...perhaps, but I think the key distinction is liberals, or more accurately socialists, tend to lean towards the government taking care of people's problems for them...I am more of the frame of mind that people are capable of taking care of their own problems, with the government simply acting to ensure that the playing field is level and everyone's rights are protected.

The problem I have with modern liberals is that their approach to these social ills has created an environment where people no longer have personal accountability...every social ill is someone else's fault, with the government expected to fix everything...while I sometimes agree with the goals of liberals, I dont always agree with the means.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Conjur, you're still up to this? Drudging out pissed conservatives as if this means..... what..... everyone doesn't agree all the time?

BTW, if you've given general support of conservatives over the past 20 years and you quote/defend Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark and other radical left-wing nuts, than I'm afraid you're either a liar or have no idea what conservative is... or both.

Or perhaps you don't realize how much Bush has pushed me to be anti-war now.

also applies to me


<-----reformed neocon. I used to be a *real* Halospuma. :roll:

 

[dannybin1742]

I don't know about you, but I've seen a 30% hike in gas prices since 9/11 here.

yeah but keep in mind that the dollar has slid 40% against the euro since bush took office, so why would opec sell oil for less? they would have to up the price per barrel by 40% just to keep the same level of profit/barrel.

seems logical gas would be high

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

I don't know about you, but I've seen a 30% hike in gas prices since 9/11 here.

yeah but keep in mind that the dollar has slid 40% against the euro since bush took office, so why would opec sell oil for less? they would have to up the price per barrel by 40% just to keep the same level of profit/barrel.

seems logical gas would be high

Gas isn't tied directly to the price of oil. It's more along the lines of refining capacity (or so we're told)

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Conjur, you're still up to this? Drudging out pissed conservatives as if this means..... what..... everyone doesn't agree all the time?

BTW, if you've given general support of conservatives over the past 20 years and you quote/defend Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark and other radical left-wing nuts, than I'm afraid you're either a liar or have no idea what conservative is... or both.

Noam Chomsky is the world's premier linguist and is highly respected in the academic field in America as well as abroad. By calling him a nut you display the basic conservative tendency not to really WANT to learn. You want to be fed what you want to hear.