PDA

View Full Version : I'm Not A Conservative And You Shouldn't Be One Either


W*GS
06-06-2013, 12:19 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatism-is-the-problem-2013-6

Last week, I sat down to take questions from Andrew Sullivan's readers and one question was "How would you characterize your conservatism?" I responded, as I do when asked about this, that I'm not a conservative I was once a libertarian, but my views have changed mostly because of the recent economic crisis and now I'm a neoliberal, and I particularly favor redistributive taxes and transfers to reduce inequality.

Crushaholic
06-06-2013, 02:22 PM
He was never a true libertarian to begin with. A libertarian doesn't see government as the answer to perceived social problems...

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 02:28 PM
But the question remains, Wagsy... what exactly were you? (before the Obama Fever hit, that is :) )

W*GS
06-06-2013, 02:36 PM
He was never a true libertarian to begin with. A libertarian doesn't see government as the answer to perceived social problems...

True Scotsman fallacy.

W*GS
06-06-2013, 02:37 PM
But the question remains, Wagsy... what exactly were you? (before the Obama Fever hit, that is :) )

I was a doctrinaire libertarian - more tiresome than a doctrinaire Marxist.

I rejected libertarianism as unrealistic and unworkable, primarily because the financial crisis arose from unregulated financial game-playing. I also see the widening income and wealth inequality going on as corrosive to our political and economic system.

cutthemdown
06-06-2013, 02:38 PM
W*gs mainly just wants equality for himself and others like him. :)

Rohirrim
06-06-2013, 02:40 PM
The top one percent control 43% of the wealth.
The next four percent control 29% of the wealth.
That means the other 95% get to split up the 28% of the wealth left over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/

If that doesn't turn you into a progressive, you're either an idiot, or in the top five percent.

ghwk
06-06-2013, 02:41 PM
W*gs mainly just wants equality for himself and others like him. :)

Actually I think he wants to not see the system tilted towards the 1% any more. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be for this.

houghtam
06-06-2013, 03:01 PM
Actually I think he wants to not see the system tilted towards the 1% any more. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be for this.

That's the problem with all economic conservatives who do not belong to the 1%. They all believe the lie that someday they may be part of the upper crust, so how dare you ruin it for them before they get there.

Then the people in the upper middle class like some on here feel the need to flaunt their "stuff" to those who have less...not realizing that the joke is really on them. People like lonestar, Meck, Dr. Bownstain and so on are the Grima Wormtongues of the political world.

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 04:14 PM
That's the problem with all economic conservatives who do not belong to the 1%. They all believe the lie that someday they may be part of the upper crust, so how dare you ruin it for them before they get there.

Then the people in the upper middle class like some on here feel the need to flaunt their "stuff" to those who have less...not realizing that the joke is really on them. People like lonestar, Meck, Dr. Bownstain and so on are the Grima Wormtongues of the political world.

You know there used to be a word for people who defended a position, even if it did nothing to benefit them personally.

Not sure when that defense of principle started making one the class-warfare equivalent of Uncle Tom. It's still clear to me that a bunch of people voting purely in their own self-interest is exactly the mob ruled tyranny we were all warned about when this whole experiment started.

houghtam
06-06-2013, 04:24 PM
You know there used to be a word for people who defended a position, even if it did nothing to benefit them personally.

Not sure when that defense of principle started making one the class-warfare equivalent of Uncle Tom. It's still clear to me that a bunch of people voting purely in their own self-interest is exactly the mob ruled tyranny we were all warned about when this whole experiment started.

Except we know that loading all of the wealth in the upper portion of the populace doesn't work and never has. You misinterpreted my post. People like you and cut and the rest of the one-day-I'll-be-rich-ers are the ones voting against the nation's interests, all in the hopes of fulfilling your own, and then claiming you're just living the American Dream.

cutthemdown
06-06-2013, 04:47 PM
Worrying about 1% is a joke. There have always been super rich people and there always will be. Go ahead take some more money from them not like you will see any of it. Besides you all argue like one party is more for the super rich then another party. Give me a break do you really think that? The super rich will always get their asses kissed unless you want to go Cuba on them. Remember though you can only sieze all their assets once. After that the govt spends it all, loses it all, can't maintain it and your country goes to ****. But hey at least everyone will be poor together right?

houghtam
06-06-2013, 04:51 PM
Worrying about 1% is a joke. There have always been super rich people and there always will be. Go ahead take some more money from them not like you will see any of it. Besides you all argue like one party is more for the super rich then another party. Give me a break do you really think that? The super rich will always get their asses kissed unless you want to go Cuba on them. Remember though you can only sieze all their assets once. After that the govt spends it all, loses it all, can't maintain it and your country goes to ****. But hey at least everyone will be poor together right?

The last time the income gap was this wide, there was a depression. Pretty big one as the history books tell it.

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 05:27 PM
People like you and cut and the rest of the one-day-I'll-be-rich-ers are the ones voting against the nation's interests, all in the hopes of fulfilling your own, and then claiming you're just living the American Dream.

Except you're missing my point. I don't ever anticipate being a 1%er. I just have no hard feelings about those who get there. Good on 'em.

Obushma
06-06-2013, 06:15 PM
If that doesn't turn you into a progressive, you're either an idiot, or in the top five percent.

God progressives are stupid. This country has steadily gone more and more progressive over the last 60 years. More government has created more loopholes for thieves and robbers, then the opposite effect. Big Government buys its friends and pays them well through backroom deals, appointments, or through lobby...all progressive

I'd say the progressives are the real idiots.

peacepipe
06-06-2013, 06:45 PM
God progressives are stupid. This country has steadily gone more and more progressive over the last 60 years. More government has created more loopholes for thieves and robbers, then the opposite effect. Big Government buys its friends and pays them well through backroom deals, appointments, or through lobby...all progressive

I'd say the progressives are the real idiots.

The people of this country have been moving progressive, not our government. The crap we got now is a result of Reaganomics/conservative/libertarian ideals. You let the banks/financial sector act without regulation and the 2008 collapse or bail out whatever you want to call it will always be repeated.

Obushma
06-06-2013, 06:55 PM
The people of this country have been moving progressive, not our government. The crap we got now is a result of Reaganomics/conservative/libertarian ideals. You let the banks/financial sector act without regulation and the 2008 collapse or bail out whatever you want to call it will always be repeated.

You are a ****ing moron peacepipe. Show me Lassie Faire Economics at work in this country.

Oh you can't, that right dumbass, it's because central economic planning is at the opposite end of the spectrum, which is where we are now. Go to a different thread, it's obvious, you dont know **** about economics.

peacepipe
06-06-2013, 07:08 PM
LOL first it's laissez faire you idiot,second our entire banking system has been operating under that philosophy. It was the GWB approach. It of course bit him in the ass at the end.

Taco John
06-06-2013, 07:11 PM
Huh... Sullivan has changed his political orientation again? No kidding. Also, the season has changed.

El Minion
06-06-2013, 07:13 PM
The World's Richest 8% Earn Half of All Planetary Income (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/worlds-richest-8-earn-half-all-planetary-income?paging=off)
The top 1 per cent has seen its real income rise by more than 60 per cent over those two decades.

The lead research economist at the World Bank, Branko Milanovic, will be reporting soon, in the journal Global Policy, the first calculation of global income-inequality, and he has found that the top 8% of global earners are drawing 50% of all of this planet's income. He notes: "Global inequality is much greater than inequality within any individual country," because the stark inequality between countries adds to the inequality within any one of them, and because most people live in extremely poor countries, largely the nations within three thousand miles of the Equator, where it's already too hot, even without the global warming that scientists say will heat the world much more from now on.

For example, the World Bank's list of "GDP per capita (current US$)" shows that in 2011 this annual-income figure ranged from $231 in Democratic Republic of Congo at the Equator, to $171,465 in Monaco within Europe. The second-poorest and second-richest countries respectively were $271 in Burundi at the Equator, and $114,232 in Luxembourg within Europe. For comparisons, the U.S. was $48,112, and China was $5,445. Those few examples indicate how widely per-capita income ranges between nations, and how more heat means more poverty.

Wealth-inequality is always far higher than income-inequality, and therefore a reasonable estimate of personal wealth throughout the world would probably be somewhere on the order of the wealthiest 1% of people owning roughly half of all personal assets. These individuals might be considered the current aristocracy, insofar as their economic clout is about equal to that of all of the remaining 99% of the world's population.

Milanovich says: "Among the global top 1 per cent, we find the richest 12 per cent of Americans, ... and between 3 and 6 per cent of the richest Britons, Japanese, Germans and French. It is a 'club' that is still overwhelmingly composed of the 'old rich'," who pass on to their children (tax-free in the many countries that have no estate-taxes) the fortunes that they have accumulated, and who help set them up in businesses of their own - often after having sent them first to the most prestigious universities (many in the United States), where those children meet and make friends of others who are similarly situated as themselves.

For example, on 22 April 2004, The New York Times headlined "As Wealthy Fill Top Colleges, Concerns Grow Over Fairness," and reported that 55% of freshman students at the nation's 250 most selective colleges and universities came from parents in the top 25% of this nation's income. Only 12% of students had parents in the bottom 25% of income. Even at an elite public, state, college, the University of Michigan, "more members of this year's freshman class ... have parents making at least $200,000 a year [then America's top 2%] than have parents making less than the national median of about $53,000 [America's bottom 50%].'"

Most of the redistribution that favors more than just the top 1% has occurred in the "developing" countries, such as China. However, a larger proportion of the world's population live in nations of Central and South America, Africa, etc., where today's leading families tend overwhelmingly to be the same as in the previous generation. They, too, near the Equator, are members of the "club," but there are fewer of them.

Milanovic finds that globally, "The top 1 per cent has seen its real income rise by more than 60 per cent over those two decades [1988-2008]," while "the poorest 5 per cent" have received incomes which "have remained the same" - the desperately poor are simply remaining desperately poor. Maybe there's too much heat where they live.

This study, in Global Policy, to be titled "Global Income Inequality in Numbers: In History and Now," reports that economic developments of the past twenty years have caused "the top 1 per cent to pull ahead of the other rich and to reaffirm in fact - and even more so in public perception - its preponderant role as a winner of globalization."

A preliminary version of Milanovic's findings, presented by him at an economic conference, can be seen here. A stunning summary video of Milanovic's research can be seen here.

Obushma
06-06-2013, 07:16 PM
LOL first it's laissez faire you idiot,second our entire banking system has been operating under that philosophy. It was the GWB approach. It of course bit him in the ass at the end.

I'm a ****ty speller, what can I say? I dont google search my words.

Now tell me jack ass, how did Bush run Laissez Faire economics with the Federal Reserve. Show me, moron. You can't, because it was never Laissez Faire.

Vegas_Bronco
06-06-2013, 10:38 PM
The people of this country have been moving progressive, not our government. The crap we got now is a result of Reaganomics/conservative/libertarian ideals. You let the banks/financial sector act without regulation and the 2008 collapse or bail out whatever you want to call it will always be repeated.

Hilarious!

TonyR
06-07-2013, 06:36 AM
Huh... Sullivan has changed his political orientation again? No kidding. Also, the season has changed.

Did you read the article? Or even click the link? That's not Sullivan. It's Josh Barro. It's actually a very good read, you should check it out.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 07:37 AM
The top 1 per cent has seen its real income rise by more than 60 per cent over those two decades [1988-2008]

I've got no axe to grind one way or the other, either philosophically or ideologically. History says that these kinds of numbers lead to societal collapse. Take it however you want. As a progressive, ideologically speaking, I'm for gradually changing this number to something more equitable in order to create a more sustainable, and stable society for the future. These kinds of numbers lead to the collapse of societies. What will replace them? Who knows? Whatever the people who bring this one down decide. This kind of income disparity has a limited shelf life.

B-Large
06-07-2013, 07:50 AM
That's the problem with all economic conservatives who do not belong to the 1%. They all believe the lie that someday they may be part of the upper crust, so how dare you ruin it for them before they get there.

Then the people in the upper middle class like some on here feel the need to flaunt their "stuff" to those who have less...not realizing that the joke is really on them. People like lonestar, Meck, Dr. Bownstain and so on are the Grima Wormtongues of the political world.

isnt that what America is all about, though? Hard work, taking a risk, starting a business will land you into a nice life, and the freedom to puruse that endeavor? Don't we want people to aspire to being successful?

I am not saying some **** isn't unfair, it is, but as I have posted before, is it worth worrying about the people who have always been and always will be super rich; or go for the ride and try to pop into that 5% if not better for yourself and your family?

In my opinion, alot of people end up down and out because they make bad decisions financially... maybe some have bad luck.... but overall it is not that hard to have a good life in America without being super wealthy... it just takes some gumption, hard work and a little financial common sense..

barryr
06-07-2013, 07:50 AM
Yet we have die hard Obama supporters and Obama has done what to change any of this? The rich are still getting richer and the rest are seeing prices go up on food and services, not to mention healthcare. I think pretty easy to conclude the vast majority of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck and are in serious debt that they will never get out of and it will get worse with this current admin. More people are on food stamps than ever before. More people have instead of unemployment and looking for any job, have gone the disability way, which we have the most on those books than ever before too. And to top it all we have government agencies, such as the IRS out of control, but things are going fine according to some? Geez, I guess for some, unless there isn't total anarchy and millions flooding the streets of every city, we are to believe everything is fine.

pricejj
06-07-2013, 07:51 AM
The top one percent control 43% of the wealth.
The next four percent control 29% of the wealth.
That means the other 95% get to split up the 28% of the wealth left over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/

If that doesn't turn you into a progressive, you're either an idiot, or in the top five percent.

So why has Obama massively increased taxes on the middle-class?

Answer: It's the only way to generate anywhere close to the $3.7T that the federal government spends each year.

B-Large
06-07-2013, 07:58 AM
God progressives are stupid. This country has steadily gone more and more progressive over the last 60 years. More government has created more loopholes for thieves and robbers, then the opposite effect. Big Government buys its friends and pays them well through backroom deals, appointments, or through lobby...all progressive

I'd say the progressives are the real idiots.

I am starting to be more convinced of this concept. As government has grown, it seems to the middle class opportunity has shrunk. I don't know if there is correlation there, but on the surface it appears Government has become the lever of the influential.

Its ironic, progressives disagree with the idea of a flat tax/ fair tax, but manipulation of the tax code is where wealthy folks carve out goodies for themselves and their friends. A flat tax would hold the wealthy to actually paying that "fair amount", since there would be no carried interest, real estate depreciation, etc..... items that most middle class families can't take advantage of.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 08:03 AM
So why has Obama massively increased taxes on the middle-class?

Answer: It's the only way to generate anywhere close to the $3.7T that the federal government spends each year.

For some reason, you keep thinking that I should defend Obama. I didn't vote for him. That's one thick skull you got there.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 08:07 AM
I am starting to be more convinced of this concept. As government has grown, it seems to the middle class opportunity has shrunk. I don't know if there is correlation there, but on the surface it appears Government has become the lever of the influential.

Its ironic, progressives disagree with the idea of a flat tax/ fair tax, but manipulation of the tax code is where wealthy folks carve out goodies for themselves and their friends. A flat tax would hold the wealthy to actually paying that "fair amount", since there would be no carried interest, real estate depreciation, etc..... items that most middle class families can't take advantage of.

Simple: The rich buy the government they want, including the tax policy.

Stop complicating things. Given the current structure of government-for-sale, it doesn't matter what kind of tax policy you tried to implement. Before any bill you passed could get to the president's desk, the influence peddlers would have their pimps in Washington writing in all new loopholes.

You get rid of the influence FIRST. Then, you write new tax policy.

TonyR
06-07-2013, 08:14 AM
isnt that what America is all about, though? Hard work, taking a risk, starting a business will land you into a nice life, and the freedom to puruse that endeavor? Don't we want people to aspire to being successful?

I am not saying some **** isn't unfair, it is, but as I have posted before, is it worth worrying about the people who have always been and always will be super rich; or go for the ride and try to pop into that 5% if not better for yourself and your family?

In my opinion, alot of people end up down and out because they make bad decisions financially... maybe some have bad luck.... but overall it is not that hard to have a good life in America without being super wealthy... it just takes some gumption, hard work and a little financial common sense..

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that about 50% (and I'm making that percentage up but it's probably in the ballpark) of the population have almost no chance and no hope of improving their outcomes enough to make much of a difference. What do we do about that, and what do we do with these people? You and I have access and privileges, which we largely take for granted, that many people don't. And the foundation for one of the big philosophical arguments seems to be whether or not we "help" these people, and if so how and to what extent? The cycle of poverty is a very real, very profound, and very pervasive reality that there doesn't seem to be a solution for. So yes, what you said is a big part of what America is about. But that's the idealist view because it's leaving out a large part of reality.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 08:18 AM
Simple: The rich buy the government they want, including the tax policy.

Stop complicating things. Given the current structure of government-for-sale, it doesn't matter what kind of tax policy you tried to implement. Before any bill you passed could get to the president's desk, the influence peddlers would have their pimps in Washington writing in all new loopholes.

You get rid of the influence FIRST. Then, you write new tax policy.

The government is the influence. If it puts itself up for sale, someone somewhere will somehow find a way to buy it. The only way to stop it is to take away their sale value by taking away their most "flexible" forms of influence.

No more slush funds or public/private "investments." No more subsidies or tax favors. Simple, cut and dried regulations with no possibility for administrative exceptions. If it's that difficult to manage across the board, it's probably better to let the states handle it anyway.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 08:30 AM
The government is the influence. If it puts itself up for sale, someone somewhere will somehow find a way to buy it. The only way to stop it is to take away their sale value by taking away their most "flexible" forms of influence.

No more slush funds or public/private "investments." No more subsidies or tax favors. Simple, cut and dried regulations with no possibility for administrative exceptions. If it's that difficult to manage across the board, it's probably better to let the states handle it anyway.

Really? Why would state government be any better, or any more efficient than a centralized government? If there's one thing American history has proved, it's that states are much more vulnerable to factional influence than the federal government is.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 08:44 AM
Really? Why would state government be any better, or any more efficient than a centralized government? If there's one thing American history has proved, it's that states are much more vulnerable to factional influence than the federal government is.

Do you really believe that the largest corporations are the most efficient? No. They view their customers as faceless nameless money machines that need to be manipulated to bring the highest possible return. They'll be as efficient as benefits themselves. But if it pays to be inefficient, they'll do that too (at your expense) Your federal government views you the same way. The more local the government the less likely that is to be the case. And the better they know the needs and requirements of those they govern.

As an example, my current state rep is a Democrat. But he knows his community. He lives with us. He knows the impact of what he does. And I'd trust him far more than any political figure that currently runs anything in Washington.

Obushma
06-07-2013, 09:01 AM
I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that about 50% (and I'm making that percentage up but it's probably in the ballpark) of the population have almost no chance and no hope of improving their outcomes enough to make much of a difference. What do we do about that, and what do we do with these people? You and I have access and privileges, which we largely take for granted, that many people don't. And the foundation for one of the big philosophical arguments seems to be whether or not we "help" these people, and if so how and to what extent? The cycle of poverty is a very real, very profound, and very pervasive reality that there doesn't seem to be a solution for. So yes, what you said is a big part of what America is about. But that's the idealist view because it's leaving out a large part of reality.

Tony, how do you think these people were taken care of before the Big Government Welfare net caught them?

Churches, private individuals, soup kitchens...those things would come back. With the extra money I wouldn't be paying for Ro's Social Security, I'd happily donate that money to a local shelter or church.

This problem wont be fixed until the Boomers die off, this is a problem the Millennials will have to fix.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 09:03 AM
Do you really believe that the largest corporations are the most efficient? No. They view their customers as faceless nameless money machines that need to be manipulated to bring the highest possible return. They'll be as efficient as benefits themselves. But if it pays to be inefficient, they'll do that too (at your expense) Your federal government views you the same way. The more local the government the less likely that is to be the case. And the better they know the needs and requirements of those they govern.

As an example, my current state rep is a Democrat. But he knows his community. He lives with us. He knows the impact of what he does. And I'd trust him far more than any political figure that currently runs anything in Washington.

Setting up a system composed of uber-powerful, global corporations and weak, decentralized governments is a recipe for disaster.

You point out the basic conundrum: Our federal government is also supposed to be composed of representatives who live in our communities and represent our views in Washington. In fact, our representatives in the House manage much smaller, ergo theoretically much more responsive districts than states. And yet, they spend their entire careers in Washington simply raising the money required to stay in office. That can be fixed. It's not even that big of a fix.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 09:18 AM
Tony, how do you think these people were taken care of before the Big Government Welfare net caught them?

Churches, private individuals, soup kitchens...those things would come back. With the extra money I wouldn't be paying for Ro's Social Security, I'd happily donate that money to a local shelter or church.

This problem wont be fixed until the Boomers die off, this is a problem the Millennials will have to fix.

Too bad they can't quit playing video games, jerking off to internet porn and falling for the ideological nightmares of drunken hypocrites like Ayn Rand. Maybe they actually could do something? Of course, that would require actual learning and thinking, rather than just following and parroting. I'm many years away from SS, btw. Besides, you know you really wouldn't spend that extra money at a church. You'd be wasting that money on a new game controller, a six pack of Amp, and a bunch of double cheeseburgers. ;D

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 09:20 AM
Setting up a system composed of uber-powerful, global corporations and weak, decentralized governments is a recipe for disaster.

There are some risks there. But I think in a lot of cases we'd find local competition to be pretty nimble if they weren't also forced to fight a massive central government whose interests are so intertwined with the largest market players (contributors)

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 09:31 AM
Dude has NO clue what 'conservative' has historically meant, that much is obvious. Back to school for this guy.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 09:34 AM
There are some risks there. But I think in a lot of cases we'd find local competition to be pretty nimble if they weren't also forced to fight a massive central government whose interests are so intertwined with the largest market players (contributors)

It's simple. This morning, I was reading that in Canada, they are bringing up charges against Hershey, Mars and Nestle for collusion in the price fixing of chocolate.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18820597-mars-nestle-hershey-accused-of-chocolate-price-fixing-conspiracy-in-canada?lite

They have a government entity called the Competition Bureau that makes sure the rules of the game are followed. I really doubt we could do the same in the U.S., especially since Citizens United, the dissolution of Glass/Steagle and the SCOTUS creating a new law that money equals speech.

Obushma
06-07-2013, 09:38 AM
Too bad they can't quit playing video games, jerking off to internet porn and falling for the ideological nightmares of drunken hypocrites like Ayn Rand. Maybe they actually could do something? Of course, that would require actual learning and thinking, rather than just following and parroting. I'm many years away from SS, btw. Besides, you know you really wouldn't spend that extra money at a church. You'd be wasting that money on a new game controller, a six pack of Amp, and a bunch of double cheeseburgers. ;D

That sounds more like the Boomers, what you just described there. The Millennials started the two biggest political movements this country has seen. You're a funny guy, all on Obama's dick for his first 4, now it's..."I never liked Obama" Hilarious!

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 09:46 AM
That sounds more like the Boomers, what you just described there. The Millennials started the two biggest political movements this country has seen. You're a funny guy, all on Obama's dick for his first 4, now it's..."I never liked Obama" Hilarious!

I admit, I voted for Obama the first time around. Of course, the choice offered by you brilliant Right Wingers was McCain and Palin. Had McCain won, America would now look like Greece and we'd have boots on the ground in Syria, not to mention, probably Egypt and Libya as well. And Palin backing him up?

That was a vote for the preservation of the country.

Oh, and what two movements are you talking about?

TonyR
06-07-2013, 09:50 AM
Dude has NO clue what 'conservative' has historically meant, that much is obvious. Back to school for this guy.

LOL You think it's this guy who has no clue? Facepalm. Headdesk.

Obushma
06-07-2013, 09:55 AM
I admit, I voted for Obama the first time around. Of course, the choice offered by you brilliant Right Wingers was McCain and Palin. Had McCain won, America would now look like Greece and we'd have boots on the ground in Syria, not to mention, probably Egypt and Libya as well. And Palin backing him up?

Thats funny, I voted in 08 and it wasn't for either McCain or Obama, what was your problem?

That was a vote for the preservation of the country.

Oh, and what two movements are you talking about?

OWS and the Tea Party

BTW, what the **** have the Boomers EVER done politically? Besides sit on their hands and let the politicians handle politics.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 10:00 AM
It's simple. This morning, I was reading that in Canada, they are bringing up charges against Hershey, Mars and Nestle for collusion in the price fixing of chocolate.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18820597-mars-nestle-hershey-accused-of-chocolate-price-fixing-conspiracy-in-canada?lite

They have a government entity called the Competition Bureau that makes sure the rules of the game are followed. I really doubt we could do the same in the U.S., especially since Citizens United, the dissolution of Glass/Steagle and the SCOTUS creating a new law that money equals speech.

I hear ya, but nobody's saying there's no federal role. Just that many functions it currently takes on (or monopolizes :) ) would be much better suited to State and local governments.

The answer certainly isn't to build a government so large and unwieldy that it becomes no more accountable than those large companies colluding over a market.

Kid A
06-07-2013, 10:33 AM
Dude has NO clue what 'conservative' has historically meant, that much is obvious. Back to school for this guy.

Barro (the guy that wrote the article) is one of my favorite reads. He's correct in saying that he is not a conservative, but he does a great job in his columns at pushing back on left and right / generally eschewing party lines for sanity.

But, he does know what "conservative" means, historically or currently. He's still a registered Republican. He worked on Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign. He interned for Grover Norquist. He worked at the Manhattan Institute and Koch Tax Foundation. He wrote for the National Review. His father is Robert Barro, one of the foremost conservative economists in the world.

So, yeah, he does understand basically any definition of conservative floating around. He's just saying he has seen it and rejects it, as it's a terribly flawed approach to the economic realities and problems we face.

TonyR
06-07-2013, 10:38 AM
Great post, Kid A. And a thorough dismantling of Smiling Assassin. Hopefully a lesson learned for him, but hope does not spring eternal in this case...

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 10:51 AM
Thats funny, I voted in 08 and it wasn't for either McCain or Obama, what was your problem?



OWS and the Tea Party

BTW, what the **** have the Boomers EVER done politically? Besides sit on their hands and let the politicians handle politics.

Yeah. I'm sure you align with the OWS movement. Ha!

You're right about the Boomers. They elected Nixon and Reagan. Twice. Bunch of **** ups.

Obushma
06-07-2013, 11:57 AM
Yeah. I'm sure you align with the OWS movement. Ha!

You're right about the Boomers. They elected Nixon and Reagan. Twice. Bunch of **** ups.

I never said I agreed w/ OWS, just that it was started by my generation, which was the point in our conversation.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 02:29 PM
Frankly, I think this whole generational labels thing is bull****. There's no such thing as a monolithic generation. It's just a huge mix of people all following their own individual destinies in a particular time slot, purely by coincidence. The whole thing, like hippies, yippies, yuppies, Gen XYZ, Millennials, etc. is made up by media organs so they can use it as a tool to deliver their little nuggets of pablum to the masses. Yeah, such and such a generation cares about so and so. Bull****. I find it hilarious that idiots lap that **** up. Yeah, the boomers were the laid back, hippie generation. That's why they elected Nixon and Reagan twice. Ha!

The had the best music, though. But their clothes sucked.

Arkie
06-07-2013, 03:52 PM
I think the labels are BS to keep us fighting each other instead of the elite. I think we're all against government collusion with special interests or favoring certain businesses.

Requiem
06-08-2013, 07:49 AM
I never said I agreed w/ OWS, just that it was started by my generation, which was the point in our conversation.

Tea Party Movement wasnt Millennials.

cutthemdown
06-09-2013, 12:39 PM
I admit, I voted for Obama the first time around. Of course, the choice offered by you brilliant Right Wingers was McCain and Palin. Had McCain won, America would now look like Greece and we'd have boots on the ground in Syria, not to mention, probably Egypt and Libya as well. And Palin backing him up?

That was a vote for the preservation of the country.

Oh, and what two movements are you talking about?

I'm sure you have to convince yourself of that to feel good about your vote. Thanks for putting this trainwreck into office.

Rohirrim
06-09-2013, 02:40 PM
I'm sure you have to convince yourself of that to feel good about your vote. Thanks for putting this trainwreck into office.

You don't think McCain would have us in Syria right now if he was president? You don't think he would have gone full-on austerity program? You're living in fantasyland.