Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

Damn Yankee said:
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.
Click to expand...

So personal responsibility is social conservatism? Thats a new one.

All I am asking is for you to give me an example of Reagan actually doing something that was socially conservative.
 
Personal responsibility is the cornerstone of conservatism, social and fiscal. Liberals want freedom from personal responsibility:

wanderingbear said:
In the end who doesn't want freedom from responsibility? But that's not always what we get.Because in the end some one has to be responcible.
Click to expand...
wanderingbear said:
Actually freedom by definition is a lack of all responsibilities except for those you chose to uphold.
Click to expand...
wanderingbear said:
Its the ultimate form of freedom there is.Lack of responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps a case could be made that personal responsibility is more commonly a priority for conservatives than liberals. (quoting an extremist like Wanderbear is silly)

But to claim that Reagan's push for personal responsibility was an action of his pursuing a socially conservative agenda is more than a little bit of a stretch.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did Reagan have a social conservative Congress that would author social conservative legislation? No, and if Reagan had attempted to have social conservative legislation written, it would have never made it to his desk.
 
Bfgrn said:
Did Reagan have a social conservative Congress that would author social conservative legislation? No, and if Reagan had attempted to have social conservative legislation written, it would have never made it to his desk.
Click to expand...

So any actions taken during the tenure of an administration are to be to the credit or blame of the Congress?
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well ID, you should be in full support of President Obama on this one, but then you'd be supporting a 'socialist'...

Jan 26, 2011

Obama: Lower corporate tax rates, close loopholes

110126_Obama_4.jpg

President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address
on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011.

WASHINGTON (AP) President Obama said in his State of the Union address that he wants to close corporate tax loopholes and use the additional revenue to lower corporate tax rates for the first time in 25 years - without adding to the budget deficit.

AP

BTW, So much for Republicans protecting small businesses, the engine of job creation. The self-employment tax under Reagan jumped as much as 66 percent.

Reagan: The great American Socialist realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable.

In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.

Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.

For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan’s policies? At least $3 trillion.
 
Return of Dune said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I am right since no one disagrees.
 
Damn Yankee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jumping in the middle of a conversation I havent followed, after reading the opening post.
But Libertarians take the absurd position that governments heretofore failure to license and regulate homosexual relationships and failure to use tax breaks and governmental entitlements to encourage their formation, has somehow inhibited the homosexuals freedom.
 
dixon76710 said:
Jumping in the middle of a conversation I havent followed, after reading the opening post.
But Libertarians take the absurd position that governments heretofore failure to license and regulate homosexual relationships and failure to use tax breaks and governmental entitlements to encourage their formation, has somehow inhibited the homosexuals freedom.
Click to expand...
That's one reason I call them libertardians.
 
No, wandering bear isn't an extremist, he just doesn't see any shame in admitting what liberalism is all about- thwarting personal responsibility.
 
dixon76710 said:
Jumping in the middle of a conversation I havent followed, after reading the opening post.
But Libertarians take the absurd position that governments heretofore failure to license and regulate homosexual relationships and failure to use tax breaks and governmental entitlements to encourage their formation, has somehow inhibited the homosexuals freedom.
Click to expand...

The Following User Groans At dixon76710 For This Awful Post:
SmarterThanYou
Click to expand...

Not smart enough to formulate a response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top