For true conservatives disenchanted with the GOP

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Goldwater was a true conservative, and a man who would be regarded as a liberal Republican today (if he even made it into the party at all). He abhorred the influence of religion in politics, and in the Republican Party in particular. He shared conservative values of national defense, lower taxes and a hands-off government.

He would be speaking out against the Bush administration if he were alive today. To say that Goldwater's words could be Bush's credo is false and without merit. Barry Goldwater would have had nothing to do with the current Republican Party.

Todays 21st century Republicans and Conservatism are about as closely related as a fish and a bicycle, but it's a helluva lot easier to just lob labels around than it is to examine the strange fruit that has blossomed as we posture and strut and thumb our noses at one another.

Todays 21st century Conservatives harbour a sense of perpetual persecution, precisely because they are always being challenged and left behind by the changes in society. They see the natural processes of adaption and improvement as assaults, and they respond to such onslaughts by clumping together into defensive herds. Once ensconced, they then proceed to rally behind whoever is "on their side", even if only nominally, because to do otherwise is to show weakness to the circling wolves. That they will embrace the very wolves they fear, provided such wolves are carefully disguised, is merely a by-product of this instinct.

We've got what we deserve and only we can throw it off. It is not Conservative in nature. It is merely criminal.

I'm not a fan of Barry Goldwater, but I agree with him on some things,and you're right.

If you would like to hear more of his what his views would have been on the modern Republican party, you can see them pretty well represented in the book he had planned to co-write with fellow conservative who was very unhappy with the modern Republican party in Dean's book that he wrote anyway, Conservatives without Conscience, a play on Goldwater's book.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

Excuse me but rational people don't want the democrat version of "once in a life time" change. The last one gave us the SS scam and never ending growth of government. So I and other rational people say no thanks to what you people are selling.

Right, rational people, want 8 more years of the same disaster as the last 8. That's why you're a flag and I'm a clown. What you call rational I call psycho and visa versa.

And where did I say people wanted 8 more years of the same? Oh that's right, I didn't. You have any more false BS to spew?

You didn't have to. You said you don't want the only change that is possible so you automatically vote for 8 more years.

Wrong. I am not voting for McCain. I'm not voting for more of the same old politics that both BHO and McCain are part of.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

Wrong wrong wrong. Those 'tax cuts' are all *borrowed* money, so all that money plus interest has to be paid back *in taxes*.

So repealing those cuts means *less taxes* for the nation. Some - especially the rich - will pay more now, but America will pay lower taxes total.

:roll: More of the same disinformation from a lib.
The budget and revenue are not a fixed sized pie. Also, tax-cuts are not borrowed. Spending causes borrowing. We've been over this time and time again and you people still continue with the BS.

The Bush 'tax cuts' would only have been tax cuts if Bush had cut spending. But he didn't do that, now did he? No, he INCREASED spending at a record rate and piled on record debt. Which will -- at some point -- have to be repaid through taxation.

Yaknow what finally turned me against the Republicans and its double-talking sheep? How patriotic is someone who insists on sending our country off to war, but refuses to pay for it? Or even sacrifice in the slightest for it? Not very patriotic at all I say.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

Wrong wrong wrong. Those 'tax cuts' are all *borrowed* money, so all that money plus interest has to be paid back *in taxes*.

So repealing those cuts means *less taxes* for the nation. Some - especially the rich - will pay more now, but America will pay lower taxes total.

:roll: More of the same disinformation from a lib.
The budget and revenue are not a fixed sized pie. Also, tax-cuts are not borrowed. Spending causes borrowing. We've been over this time and time again and you people still continue with the BS.

More of the same disinformation from a right-winger.

Your first comment is a non sequitor (it has nothing to do with the topic). The fact is that a billion dollars of tax cuts today means paying the billion plus interest in taxes later.

The tax cuts *are* borrowed. Let's use an analogy to make this simple for you.

Let's say you have a mortgage you are paying down (that's like your tax bill for government spending - in this case, you owning that nice house). Then you decide to pay $100 lesss towards your mortgage, to have money to blow on other things. Well, you would be right - IF you moved into a cheaper house, that would be another way of reducing the debt that frees up your $100 to spend.

But *until you do* - as long as government spending isn't cut - you ARE borrowing the money when you take it out of the mortgate/tax payment, and put it in your pocket.

And just because you say you want to cut government spending doesn't change a thing on the fact it's borrowed. You have to cut it, not just 'be in favor of cutting it.

We're all in favor of cutting government spending - somewhere. That's called democracy that none of us gets just what we want, that it's a comprmise with others.

The fact is that the 'tax cuts' are tax increases to the nation, on borrowed money.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. I am not voting for McCain. I'm not voting for more of the same old politics that both BHO and McCain are part of.

Well, glad to hear that there is some sense in you. I retract my earlier comments, but still disagree as to your assessment of the article.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

Excuse me but rational people don't want the democrat version of "once in a life time" change. The last one gave us the SS scam and never ending growth of government. So I and other rational people say no thanks to what you people are selling.

Right, rational people, want 8 more years of the same disaster as the last 8. That's why you're a flag and I'm a clown. What you call rational I call psycho and visa versa.

And where did I say people wanted 8 more years of the same? Oh that's right, I didn't. You have any more false BS to spew?

You didn't have to. You said you don't want the only change that is possible so you automatically vote for 8 more years.

Wrong. I am not voting for McCain. I'm not voting for more of the same old politics that both BHO and McCain are part of.

Then why do you reserve your ire only for Obama? I haven't seen so much as a single post of yours that has been half as critical of McCain.

Nothing more annoying than partisans pretending to be above the fray.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. I am not voting for McCain. I'm not voting for more of the same old politics that both BHO and McCain are part of.

Well, glad to hear that there is some sense in you. I retract my earlier comments, but still disagree as to your assessment of the article.

FINALLY!!!! I've only been saying that I don't support McCain for a couple months now(actually haven't ever really supported him) but you kept claiming/suggesting that I was.

Please read the book by Buckley about his Mayoral run. That along with his many other works show just how wrong it is to suggest that Buckley would ever support a candidate like BHO.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

PROVE IT! You have NO links. You have NO facts. That is NOT what he says he will do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

PROVE IT! You have NO links. You have NO facts. That is NOT what he says he will do.

I?ve listened to Obama?s tax cut rhetoric. He?s not simply going to let the Bush tax cuts expire and restore the Clinton era taxes. He?ll combine that expiration with a new tax plan is that more ?progressive? than ever.

Republicans are wrong to suggest that Obama will directly tax poor people. He?s going to do it through their employer like other socialists.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mani
Then why do you reserve your ire only for Obama? I haven't seen so much as a single post of yours that has been half as critical of McCain.

Nothing more annoying than partisans pretending to be above the fray.

Uhh.. I don't support McCain. I have posted critically about McCain in the past but it matters very little to me right now as BHO and his ideologies are extremely bad for this nation - from a Conservative point of view and I will fight them always.

I agree though, there is very little that is more annoying than self-proclaimed "independents"(libs who won't admit it) who use it as a shield to pretend to be above the fray.

I am a Conservative and make no apologies for that fact.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

PROVE IT! You have NO links. You have NO facts. That is NOT what he says he will do.

Harvey, he's right; he was referring only to the repeal of the borrowed tax cuts, not to Obama's actual policy, which would cut taxes for 4 out of 5 households.

Of course, the increase in staxes from repealing the 'cuts' would affect the wealthy the opposite way the 'cuts' did - disproportionately aimed at the top.

In the same way the tax 'cuts' often were only like $4 for many Americans, their taxes would go up the same amount if the 'cuts' were repealed.

Of course, you are right in what you were saying - the larger point that he did not bring up - that Obama's actual tax policy isn't just to repeal those 'cuts', and he would lower taxes (although my same comment about it being borrowed money to do so applied to him as well) for most Americans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

Wrong wrong wrong. Those 'tax cuts' are all *borrowed* money, so all that money plus interest has to be paid back *in taxes*.

So repealing those cuts means *less taxes* for the nation. Some - especially the rich - will pay more now, but America will pay lower taxes total.

:roll: More of the same disinformation from a lib.
The budget and revenue are not a fixed sized pie. Also, tax-cuts are not borrowed. Spending causes borrowing. We've been over this time and time again and you people still continue with the BS.

The Bush 'tax cuts' would only have been tax cuts if Bush had cut spending. But he didn't do that, now did he? No, he INCREASED spending at a record rate and piled on record debt. Which will -- at some point -- have to be repaid through taxation.

Yaknow what finally turned me against the Republicans and its double-talking sheep? How patriotic is someone who insists on sending our country off to war, but refuses to pay for it? Or even sacrifice in the slightest for it? Not very patriotic at all I say.

I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

I didn't say they are a "cost", I said they are borrowed and end up costing us more in taxes than paying for the actual costs now.

I'll repeat myself:

...as long as government spending isn't cut - you ARE borrowing the money when you take it out of the mortgate/tax payment, and put it in your pocket.

And just because you say you want to cut government spending doesn't change a thing on the fact it's borrowed. You have to cut it, not just 'be in favor of cutting it.

We're all in favor of cutting government spending - somewhere. That's called democracy that none of us gets just what we want, that it's a comprmise with others.

The fact is that the 'tax cuts' are tax increases to the nation, on borrowed money.

You are increasing taxes by delaying their payment, until if and when you cut spending.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

I don't doubt that you're livid. But you're not doing anything about cleaning up your own house either. So it looks like it's going to have to get done for you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

PROVE IT! You have NO links. You have NO facts. That is NOT what he says he will do.

I?ve listened to Obama?s tax cut rhetoric. He?s not simply going to let the Bush tax cuts expire and restore the Clinton era taxes. He?ll combine that expiration with a new tax plan is that more ?progressive? than ever.

Republicans are wrong to suggest that Obama will directly tax poor people. He?s going to do it through their employer like other socialists.

Yaknow, your OMG Socialist! arguments might have some merit if the Republicans hadn't just used govt for their own wealth redistribution scheme, except in the other direction.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the article did get it right. The idea that the nanny state is bad is gone within the majority of the republican party. We now have two big govt parties with different social values.

I agree that the article is more right than wrong.

There are some things a like about Obama... I just can't stand the horseshit flowing from his supporters mouths like a fire hose. Makes it real hard to accept the guy knowing this is his base.

If you're going to judge internet supporters, at least be fair and look at McCain's "base." There's whacko extremists on both sides and emotions are pretty high this time around.

But Genx is right, we now have two big govt parties with different social values. The problem with that is that it makes the Republicans the more authoritarian of the 2 parties.

I agree...

Over the last 8 years the Conservatives have gotten everything that they have sought. Conservatives have so overtaken the levers of power that the whole spectrum of politics is shifted to the right. The machismo and testosterone of the right wing is an aphrodisiac to the unthinking population. To overcome this requires public understanding of how authoritarian mindsets work. Greater overall education, denying a voice to the extremist evangelical movement, a stronger press, and a open, honest, public discussion of the culpable activity the White House so far denies (to name a few).

One of the problems as I see it is not the the true Conservatives so much but the weak, ineffective and unorganized liberal/libertarian majority. This is the same group guilty of voter apathy and silent/empty protests. Unfortunately even if push comes to shove this group simply does not have the fortitude to push for good and just policies in the face of arrogance and self-righteousness of the right wing. The appeal of "having bigger balls" will always draw newcomers to the conservative movement. This might is right attitude shows no sign of abating even with a failed policies. This is the empire mentality so sneered at by the rest of the world.

The Republican/conservative movement devolved into a giant shell game. Despite their rhetoric, the Republicans know better than anyone that their policies over the last 8 years haven't worked, but they can't admit it without losing power, an unthinkable result for modern conservatives. The Republicans and the conservative movement may once have stood for something other than maintaining political power at all costs, but those days ended long ago.

Bush himself has delivered a death blow to modern conservatism. It is hard to imagine an individual more uniquely unqualified to be president . Unread, stubborn, provincial, highly-opinionated and lacking a shred of either intellectual curiosity or self-doubt. Surrounded by a cadre of powerful men with agendas, he became the snake oil salesman supreme. The fact that the world's leading democracy is led by a hollow chief executive pushing bankrupt ideas is 'like a joke, but it isn't funny'.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

I don't doubt that you're livid. But you're not doing anything about cleaning up your own house either. So it looks like it's going to have to get done for you.

That is untrue. I have been doing what I can to fix things from within. That has failed(obviously) so now I use my vote to protest and send a clear message. My vote won't be registered as a protest vote if it gets lumped with the BHO supporter votes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

I didn't say they are a "cost", I said they are borrowed and end up costing us more in taxes than paying for the actual costs now.

I'll repeat myself:

...as long as government spending isn't cut - you ARE borrowing the money when you take it out of the mortgate/tax payment, and put it in your pocket.

And just because you say you want to cut government spending doesn't change a thing on the fact it's borrowed. You have to cut it, not just 'be in favor of cutting it.

We're all in favor of cutting government spending - somewhere. That's called democracy that none of us gets just what we want, that it's a comprmise with others.

The fact is that the 'tax cuts' are tax increases to the nation, on borrowed money.

You are increasing taxes by delaying their payment, until if and when you cut spending.

Again - SPENDING causes borrowing, not tax-cuts. It's a fundamental issue that you people on the left don't seem to understand.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

I don't doubt that you're livid. But you're not doing anything about cleaning up your own house either. So it looks like it's going to have to get done for you.

That is untrue. I have been doing what I can to fix things from within. That has failed(obviously) so now I use my vote to protest and send a clear message. My vote won't be registered as a protest vote if it gets lumped with the BHO supporter votes.

I can't make a protest vote to Bob Barr. That's much worse than Obama IMO. Barr's history with west coast libertarians is not a happy one, putting it mildly. And while I was never an actual Ron Paul fan, I am still disappointed that he decided not to make an independent run of it. I would have considered that vote.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again - SPENDING causes borrowing, not tax-cuts. It's a fundamental issue that you people on the left don't seem to understand.

No, your lack of reading comprehension is the problem.

Over, and over, and over I say that *if* you cut spending, then tax cuts are really tax cuts. I put it into my analogy - if you get the cheaper house, that works.

But you cannot understand, it seems, what I say over and over, and you pretend it wasn't said. You keep talking about the one issue, and missing the other.

*If you don't* cut spending, and you haven't, *then* tax cuts are borrowed money.

Please, have a loved one read my posts and then talk with you, maybe you can hear the message that way.

Let's try yet another way.

Say our spending this year is $1 trillion and our tax revenue $500B. That leasve us borrowing $500B, and paying it back with interest.

If we could cut spending, that would reduce our borrowing, but we're not cutting spending.

Now, let's say you come along and cut taxes (for the rich, of course, not that it matters for this example) $100B.

Now, our nation is taxing $400B and has to borrow $600B, and repay it with intersest.

Before we owed $500B plus interest in taxes to the creditors, now we owe $600B plus interest to the creditors. That's an increase in tax debt.

The $100B we get to keep now, is exceeded by the $100B *plus interest* we owe. That interest is a tax increase.

Before you try to argue how the $100B we keep will 'grow our economy' so well that it's actually a good idea - a propaganda argument from right-wing think tanks - studies actually show that only about 20 cents on the dollar from those 'tax cuts' is returned in taxes from the growth they encourage. And before you argue that inflation makes it cheaper to repay the money later, interest rates tend to be higher than inflation.

 

[Ferocious]

The partial embrace of Reaganomics is a typical bit of Obama?s postpartisan veneer. In a single artful sentence, he dismissed the old liberals, aligned himself with the Bill Clinton centrists and did so by reaching back to a conservative icon who remains widely popular. But the words have significance at face value too. Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics

But it also happened to place him inside what is arguably the intellectual center of modern American economic conservatism, the home of Milton Friedman and the laissez-faire philosophy known as the Chicago School of economics. By all accounts, Obama didn?t spend much time with Friedman?s disciples at the law school. Instead, he became friendly with another crowd: liberals who had come to think that Friedman was right about a lot, just not everything.

Interesting read overall.
Obamanomics

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again - SPENDING causes borrowing, not tax-cuts. It's a fundamental issue that you people on the left don't seem to understand.

No, your lack of reading comprehension is the problem.

Over, and over, and over I say that *if* you cut spending, then tax cuts are really tax cuts. I put it into my analogy - if you get the cheaper house, that works.

But you cannot understand, it seems, what I say over and over, and you pretend it wasn't said. You keep talking about the one issue, and missing the other.

*If you don't* cut spending, and you haven't, *then* tax cuts are borrowed money.

Please, have a loved one read my posts and then talk with you, maybe you can hear the message that way.

*sigh* I have read your posts and understand what you are trying to sell. HOWEVER, it's based on the flawed premise that tax-cuts cause borrowing. That is not the case. SPENDING causes borrowing.

Analogy: You have a job that pays 50K and you spend every penny of your take home. Lets say 35K for this example. You change jobs(for any host of reasons) and you only make 45K(32K takehome) but still spend every penny of the 35K you spend/made before. What caused the borrowing you'd have to do to stay even? Is it the spending or the income change? This is the fundamental issue at play here. It always has been and always will be the spending that causes the borrowing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

The partial embrace of Reaganomics is a typical bit of Obama?s postpartisan veneer. In a single artful sentence, he dismissed the old liberals, aligned himself with the Bill Clinton centrists and did so by reaching back to a conservative icon who remains widely popular. But the words have significance at face value too. Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics

But it also happened to place him inside what is arguably the intellectual center of modern American economic conservatism, the home of Milton Friedman and the laissez-faire philosophy known as the Chicago School of economics. By all accounts, Obama didn?t spend much time with Friedman?s disciples at the law school. Instead, he became friendly with another crowd: liberals who had come to think that Friedman was right about a lot, just not everything.

Interesting read overall.
Obamanomics

Anyone who doesn't think Friedman was a huge menace needs to read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree, I've repeatedly stated that we need to cut spending. I and many other Conservatives have been livid over the way they have been spending. However, the principle remains - tax-cuts aren't a "cost" - spending is a "cost".

I don't doubt that you're livid. But you're not doing anything about cleaning up your own house either. So it looks like it's going to have to get done for you.

That is untrue. I have been doing what I can to fix things from within. That has failed(obviously) so now I use my vote to protest and send a clear message. My vote won't be registered as a protest vote if it gets lumped with the BHO supporter votes.

I can't make a protest vote to Bob Barr. That's much worse than Obama IMO. Barr's history with west coast libertarians is not a happy one, putting it mildly. And while I was never an actual Ron Paul fan, I am still disappointed that he decided not to make an independent run of it. I would have considered that vote.

I understand - I'm not a Barr fan either but my protest vote will be counted if I do vote for him(or write in RP). It will send the message to the GOP that they have lost X amount of Conservative and/or Libertarian(small gov't) votes. It's the only way they'll get the message. If you vote for BHO - it'll be looked at as a vote for more and bigger gov't and more liberal ideas. That will cause the GOP to become LESS Conservative and LESS Libertarian(small gov't) because they will have no choice but to say that is where the votes are.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again - SPENDING causes borrowing, not tax-cuts. It's a fundamental issue that you people on the left don't seem to understand.

No, your lack of reading comprehension is the problem.

Over, and over, and over I say that *if* you cut spending, then tax cuts are really tax cuts. I put it into my analogy - if you get the cheaper house, that works.

But you cannot understand, it seems, what I say over and over, and you pretend it wasn't said. You keep talking about the one issue, and missing the other.

*If you don't* cut spending, and you haven't, *then* tax cuts are borrowed money.

Please, have a loved one read my posts and then talk with you, maybe you can hear the message that way.

*sigh* I have read your posts and understand what you are trying to sell. HOWEVER, it's based on the flawed premise that tax-cuts cause borrowing. That is not the case. SPENDING causes borrowing.

Analogy: You have a job that pays 50K and you spend every penny of your take home. Lets say 35K for this example. You change jobs(for any host of reasons) and you only make 45K(32K takehome) but still spend every penny of the 35K you spend/made before. What caused the borrowing you'd have to do to stay even? Is it the spending or the income change? This is the fundamental issue at play here. It always has been and always will be the spending that causes the borrowing.

Read my edited post above for the additional explanation.

No, you don't understand my posts. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you, since you appear not to plan to ask the loved one help you as I suggested.

The phrase "if spending remains constant" in each of my posts, explained various ways, may as well say "Mary had a little lamb" for all you are understanding it.

I said it, I repeated myself, and it does no good - if you are unable to cut spending, then you need to set policy on the spending you have. You can sal all day it's spending's fault and that you are against the spending, but if you are not cutting the spending, the policy needs to be based on the spending you have.

You can't go buy a Rolls Royce because you 'are in favor' of having enough money to pay for it, and you can't cut taxes because you 'are in favor' of spending cuts to pay for them.

Well, you can, and do, but it's *borrowed money*, as I said.

Here's how I see our debate:

Craig234: Because we bought the hot tub, we have tonot buy the tv this month, to avoid debt.

CAD: No, I'm buying the tv. The problem isn't our having to borrow for the tv, it's that we bought the hot tub that I was against buying. If hadn't bought that hot tub, we'd be ok.

Craig234: But we did buy the hot tub, and so we have to choose between debt to buy the tv and not getting the tv. I say wait on the tv.

CAD: You aren't hearing my point! The problem is that I'm not in favor of having bought the hot tub, and if we didn't buy it, we can buy the tv with cash!