Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

[Rune]

These also happen to be the core beliefs of the Neo-Con party, you know, those assholes whose existence DY denies yet also claims Bush II's replublican majority congress was not conservative, and you all agree with him.

No shit they weren't conservatives, they were Neo-Cons.
Many members may have simply been dumb ass republicans but they still voted lockstep with the neo-cons.

Now that the country repudiated the neo-coms, they have simply taken over the Tea Party, like a demon during an exorsism. This explains the completely oxymoronic inclusion of item #3, stronger military is essential.

Stronger than what? We already have the worlds largest military budget. It is half or more of our budget. Can you say military industrial complex?
Items 3, 6,10 and 11 are incompatible.

The list is taken directly from the Neo-con play book with little or no modification.

I am sorry, but the Teap Party is a flop. It is over.
You, it's followers, have been misdirected. Remember, this is what the evil neo-con bastards are good at.

Look at yourselves for Christ's sake!
Defending Sarah Palin.
Acting as if, with Bachmon, I mean, give me a fucking break!

Bachmon is;
A. A moron
B. Amoral
C. A liar
D. A former IRS agent
E. A hypocrite or a religious fanatic, you decide.

For God's sake, it is over. Get out now, and kill this last NeoCon attempt as quickly as possible.

How about it TPs, refute me.

 

[DamnYankee]

So in reality there are no actual conservatives?

Edit: Maybe better stated would be do you believe there are any actual conservatives and if so who are they?

Reagan was, Bachmann is. There's currently one running for Congress in my district.

 

[cawacko]

I'm not sure that the question of whether or not there have ever been true conservatives running the show is the question this article brings up.

The question would be can the fiscal conservatives separate themselves from the social conservatives and get something done?

The article doesn't bring it up. I was asking DY because based on his definition of what a conservative is I don't know if one has ever held office or not. But for most of us it is an interesting question. While the Democratic Party is made up of many different groups we know the Repubican Party tends to be your social conservatives (I would include big 2nd amendment backers in that although they by no means have to be social conservatives to support it) and your fiscal libertarians. To win national elections I don't believe you can seperate the two because their aren't enough votes to go around.

Now there are quite a few people who claim to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal/libertarian. I don't know if an actual party could be started on that platform or a third party candidate could run and gain traction on that. In theory I would say yes but in the reality of politics I would say very difficult but not impossible.

 

[cawacko]

Reagan was, Bachmann is. There's currently one running for Congress in my district.

But you even said he often took the least conservative option. As a social conservative he was pretty strong but fiscally he did raise taxes several times.

 

[DamnYankee]

But you even said he often took the least conservative option. As a social conservative he was pretty strong but fiscally he did raise taxes several times.

Reagan surrounded himself with folks of less than stellar conservative credentials.

Since he was "strong" on socially conservative issues, and liberals here claim that social conservative policy restricts the rights of individuals, can you name a policy that he implemented that restricted the rights of individuals?

 

[Canceled2]

But you even said he often took the least conservative option. As a social conservative he was pretty strong but fiscally he did raise taxes several times.

Note that Reagan's Tax increases were largely by making it tougher to evade taxes
That sounds quite familiar to current GOP plans.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.


For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

 

[cawacko]

Reagan surrounded himself with folks of less than stellar conservative credentials.

Since he was "strong" on socially conservative issues, and liberals here claim that social conservative policy restricts the rights of individuals, can you name a policy that he implemented that restricted the rights of individuals?

Actually I'm assuming he's strong since most social conservatives really like him and he's credited with bringing the religious right into the mainstream and liberals hate him and say he ignored AIDS and the needs of gay people.

 

[cawacko]

Note that Reagan's Tax increases were largely by making it tougher to evade taxes
That sounds quite familiar to current GOP plans.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.


For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

It does not sound like GOP plans because Grover Norquist has fought even closing loopholes such as for ethanol.

 

[WinterBorn]

Reagan surrounded himself with folks of less than stellar conservative credentials.

Since he was "strong" on socially conservative issues, and liberals here claim that social conservative policy restricts the rights of individuals, can you name a policy that he implemented that restricted the rights of individuals?

Can you give examples of any action Reagan took on socially conservative issues? I know he talked a good game, but what did he actually do in that area?

 

[DamnYankee]

Actually I'm assuming he's strong since most social conservatives really like him and he's credited with bringing the religious right into the mainstream and liberals hate him and say he ignored AIDS and the needs of gay people.

Imagine that. A "strong" socially conservative president, but no one can say show where he restricted individual rights? How can that be?

 

[Canceled2]

It does not sound like GOP plans because Grover Norquist has fought even closing loopholes such as for ethanol.

Jindahl and Cantor were willing to.

 

[WinterBorn]

Imagine that. A "strong" socially conservative president, but no one can say show where he restricted individual rights? How can that be?

He made noises as a social conservative, but what did he actually do? Fiscally he was a conservative and he took actions accordingly. But what did he do as a social conservative?

 

[cawacko]

Imagine that. A "strong" socially conservative president, but no one can say show where he restricted individual rights? How can that be?

I have no idea what legislation he passed nor did I claim he restricted anyone's individual rights so I'm not sure why you are asking me or expecting me to know.

 

[cawacko]

Jindahl and Cantor were willing to.

Well since Norquist made so many members sign his form we'll see if it ever hits the light of day with most of the party members. I am completely against the raising of tax rates but with our tax code at 70,000 pages I am completely for scrapping a lot of it and eliminating a lot of the loopholes. In fact I bet if we lowered the corporate tax rate while eliminating a lot of the loop holes we would collect more money than we do now.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Imagine that. A "strong" socially conservative president, but no one can say show where he restricted individual rights? How can that be?

he did do one thing on restricting individual rights. He signed FOPA 86 which prohibited machine gun possession by anyone other than a government agent or agency.

 

[DamnYankee]

he did do one thing on restricting individual rights. He signed FOPA 86 which prohibited machine gun possession by anyone other than a government agent or agency.

How is that a socially conservative policy?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

from Mott: His answers are blurred in a bit because he is not intelligent enough to simply use the quotes boxes... thus the 'beliefs' listed by Winter precede Mott's responses.

"NON-NEGOTIABLE CORE BELIEFS OF THE TEA PARTY - Non-Negotiable in politics is egotistical, extremist, ideological, impractical and naive. There are 300 million people in this nation. You can't govern if you can't reach out and make appropriate compromise. This tenet alone puts the Tea Party out of the mainstream and on the fringes of extremism.

I agree if by non-negotiable they mean they are unwilling to discuss anything that goes against one of their points. It is like Obama stating 'I will not accept any short term deal' in the debt debate.... it is fucking retarded to be unwilling to compromise to a degree.

1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally. Well thank you for stating the obvious. No kidding their here illegally. What is the Tea Parties solution to the problem?? Comprehensive immigration reform or building a wall on the Mexican border and patrolling it with armed soldiers?

I think the point they are driving at is STOP fucking treating them like they are citizens. Quit providing benefits for them. etc...

2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. This is stupid, name one sane person who thinks pro-foreign employment is indispensable?

As stated, I would agree with you. Though I would look for a fuller explanation as to what they mean by that.

3. Stronger Military Is Essential. This is not only stupid it's down right dangerous. No, we don't need a stronger military. Hell we all ready have the strongest military in the world. We spend more then twice what the rest of the world does combined on our military and we have economically overreached and overextended our selves economically. Not only are these military expenditures not proportional to any defense threat to this nation by grossly ballooning the size of our military we jeopardize our own freedom and history is replete with examples of republics and democracies that have fell due to militarization. If this is a core non-negotiable belief of the Tea Party the deserve to be utterly rejected on this insane lunacy alone!

I think this is simply YOUR over reaction. I seriously doubt they mean 'stronger than it is now'. If you have reason to believe that, then by all means show it. I think it means 'stronger' relative to the rest of the world. That said, we have much we can cut from defense and still be the strongest military by far.

[/quote]4. Special Interests Eliminated. And prey tell how are you going to do that with out re-writing our Constitution?[/quote]

Eliminate, not likely, drastically reduce... easy. Simplify the tax code. Flat tax with standard deduction only. It eliminates special interests from coming in and bribing politicians for special tax breaks etc... While this won't eliminate all bribing for favors, it will greatly reduce it.

5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. No, God is sacred. My family is sacred. Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility.

Now you are just injecting your own personal beliefs with regards to terminology. Which is rather stupid.

6. Government Must Be Downsized. No, Government must be the right size to meet the needs and provide the services that the people of this nations determine it should

The government is a monstrosity in its current form. Due note, THEY too are part of the people you say determine how large the government should be and what services it performs. Thus if THEY feel it is too large, like many do, then who are you to tell them No?

7. National Budget Must Be Balanced. Really? And what about times of emergencies? We could have never won WWII with this non-negotiable core belief written in stone. Our fiscus must be managed responsibly and wisely and as conditions merit. It is up to us to be vigilent that government does so.

Don't be fucking retarded. The BBA had provisions for emergencies you idiot. You claim the 'fiscus' must be managed responsibly.... their point is that for the past 50+ years the idiots in DC have NOT managed it responsibly and wisely... hence the EVER increasing national debt.... in bad times (can be acceptable) in good times (fuck that)

8. Deficit Spending Will End. See comments on #7. The same applies here.

See comments for #7, your stupidity here is the same.

9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. Empty rhetoric. Of course they are legal and, depending on the circumstances, some times appropriate. This core belief is beyond inane.

Not sure about the legality of the bailouts.... but you certainly can question whether the government has the right to pick and choose winners in the private sector as they did.

10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. More ideological non-sense. We need just the right amount of taxes to pay for government services and public infrastructure that inhances all our lives and the burden must be shared fairly. We all ready have historically low tax rates that have, combined with run away military spending, that have put us into our current fiscal crises. This core belief when combined with core belief #3 is beyond irrational. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Something has to give here and we all ready have historically low tax rates.

Wrong.... our current fiscal crisis is a direct result of constant outspending of revenues regardless of where the tax rates have been. It is a simplification of the tax code that is needed. That will raise revenues while lowering the brackets... which is what Reagan did successfully... though he and the Dem Congress still continued the outspending of revenues.

11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory. Again, ideological nonsense. American corporations benefit hugely from the public infrastructure and services provided by US tax payers and they need to pay their fair share! Corporate taxation, with all the loopholes available are also at historical lows to the ludicrous point that billion dollar corporations no longer pay taxes. This core belief is not only irrational and irresponsible, it's border line insane!

This is where YOUR ideology is fucking retarded. Corporations are pieces of paper. The profits made by corporations are taxed already as dividends, capital gains (when distributed to owners) or as income (salaries to employees). Taxing them again is simply a hidden way to tax the CONSUMER and it is a highly REGRESSIVE form of taxation. But I know, your IDEOLOGY preaches 'corps are evil, tax the hell out of them' and then you act shocked when they take their production elsewhere.

12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. What the hell does this mean? Are you saying the average person can't run for office? More rhetorical non-sense!

I think they are saying it is not affordable for the average citizen to run for national office. Which is true. The two party system is set up against the average person running.

13. Intrusive Government Stopped. Again, more rhetorical nonsense. Name one person who wants intrusive government? Name one person who wants that, just one!

EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT SUPPORTS OBAMACARE and its mandates as to what is covered and what is not.

14. English As Core Language Is Required. Really, and what about freedom of speech? Again, rhetorical non-sense geared towards the xenophobic. Who the hell doesn't want immigrants to assimilate? Hell most immigrants want to assimilate.

ROFLMAO... that is absolutely fucking retarded on your part. Making English a core language requirement does not impede on freedom of speech. It is also not xenophobic. It is fucking common sense to have a core language. Or do you think we should start printing warning labels/highway signs/street signs etc.... in every language spoken by anyone in the US? seriously, you went off the deep end on this one. You say 'most immigrants want to assimilate' yet we still are seeing more and more things written in both English AND Spanish. Me thinks ya didn't think this one through very well.

 

[DamnYankee]

I have no idea what legislation he passed nor did I claim he restricted anyone's individual rights so I'm not sure why you are asking me or expecting me to know.

I'm pointing out to anyone who cares to read our exchange, not just to you, that social conservatism doesn't have a history of restricting individual rights, in spite of the voracious claims that it has and will.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm pointing out to anyone who cares to read our exchange, not just to you, that social conservatism doesn't have a history of restricting individual rights, in spite of the voracious claims that it has and will.

Quite a few of the issues that social conservatives want addressed would, in fact, restrict personal freedoms.

The point I am making is that Reagan did not restrict individual rights because he did not actually do anything socially conservative.

 

[DamnYankee]

As you assert. History shows otherwise.

Reagan championed personal responsibility as a way of limiting government. This demonstrates why there can't be true fiscal conservatism without social conservatism.