What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

[Mr.Nick]

11 Bravos like you are facking retards, they couldn't do my job, but anyways, what are you cons trying to conserve? Still waiting.

How about liberalism??? the Bill of Rights, our Constitution in general..

You're fucking dumb you whole language baby...

If thats the facking case why are you arguing against liberalism you stupid ass moonbat?

You have no concept of what actual liberalism is...

Like I said - you're a "whole language" baby...

See, unlike you I know the actual definition of words and I do my best to use those words correctly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The economy can exist without a bloated wasteful government.

True, but not very relevant to what you were arguing.

And tell me how government employees add to the net tax revenue when all the money they earn and pay in taxes is funded by taxes on the private sector.

I just did. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand it. What isn't clear?

I have never argued for no government.

I said government employees do not add to the net tax revenue. All that other shit about the existence of government and the economy is your tangent.

 

[Vidi]

The gilded age.

And what followed the Gilded Age? The Progressive Era.

Fascism.

Sigh

Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.


Please folks, learn your terms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And public servants do not add to govt. revenue. It's not even feasible mathematically.

(Sigh.)

Government employees perform services without which the economy would not even exist.

If the economy did not exist, there would be NO government revenues at all.

Therefore, public servants add to government revenue.

Q.E.D.

Sigh

Services do not add to the net tax revenue.

Money does.

And btw there was an economy before there was a government. Economy usually precedes government. Government cannot exist without taking taxes from a preexisting economy therefore without an economy government cannot exist.

 

[Vidi]

The economy can exist without a bloated wasteful government.

True, but not very relevant to what you were arguing.

And tell me how government employees add to the net tax revenue when all the money they earn and pay in taxes is funded by taxes on the private sector.

I just did. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand it. What isn't clear?

I have never argued for no government.

I said government employees do not add to the net tax revenue. All that other shit about the existence of government and the economy is your tangent.

Youre mostly correct, but State employees would technically add to the Federal tax revenue and vice versa, as they are paid from different pools.

 

[Flaylo]

The economy can exist without a bloated wasteful government.

True, but not very relevant to what you were arguing.

And tell me how government employees add to the net tax revenue when all the money they earn and pay in taxes is funded by taxes on the private sector.

I just did. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand it. What isn't clear?

I have never argued for no government.

I said government employees do not add to the net tax revenue. All that other shit about the existence of government and the economy is your tangent.

They do add, that's bullshat, contractors are the ones that take more and return less.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Complete nonsense. A capitalist market economy needs an efficient government and also needs government regulation. Like all aspects of government, it should be limited. But it is essential nevertheless.

I love how the assclown tried to fuck this thread up by playing with the quotes..

Back to the topic at hand...

No the government doesn't need to regulate the economy - capitalism is capitalism and a planned economy is such...

Don't confuse the two..

Capitalism doesn't need regulation - as a matter of fact the only reason why capitalism fails is because government regulates the economic model.

So according to you the US has been a planned economy during its whole history?

What you say is simply ridiculous. Try coming back down to Earth.

No, I would say we have been playing mixed economy musical chairs for about a century tho.. At least since Wilson - that is when the government really started regulations on our alleged capitalist economy.

 

[Vidi]

And public servants do not add to govt. revenue. It's not even feasible mathematically.

(Sigh.)

Government employees perform services without which the economy would not even exist.

If the economy did not exist, there would be NO government revenues at all.

Therefore, public servants add to government revenue.

Q.E.D.

Sigh

Services do not add to the net tax revenue.

Money does.

And btw there was an economy before there was a government. Economy usually precedes government. Government cannot exist without taking taxes from a preexisting economy therefore without an economy government cannot exist.

That part is 100% correct.

 

[Vidi]

I love how the assclown tried to fuck this thread up by playing with the quotes..

Back to the topic at hand...

No the government doesn't need to regulate the economy - capitalism is capitalism and a planned economy is such...

Don't confuse the two..

Capitalism doesn't need regulation - as a matter of fact the only reason why capitalism fails is because government regulates the economic model.

So according to you the US has been a planned economy during its whole history?

What you say is simply ridiculous. Try coming back down to Earth.

No, I would say we have been playing mixed economy musical chairs for about a century tho.. At least since Wilson - that is when the government really started regulations on our alleged capitalist economy.

Sooner actually.

Teddy Roosevelt went after the monopolies.

And considering early corporations had expiration dates and were required to serve the public good, one could even say regulators have been there from the beginning

 

[Skull Pilot]

True, but not very relevant to what you were arguing.



I just did. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand it. What isn't clear?

I have never argued for no government.

I said government employees do not add to the net tax revenue. All that other shit about the existence of government and the economy is your tangent.

They do add, that's bullshat, contractors are the ones that take more and return less.

Government employees cost more than private sector employees. 16% more to be exact.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/federal-government-pay-tops-businesses-cbo-report/

It pays to work for the government. Compared with private sector employees, federal workers are paid about 16 percent more when benefits including health insurance, retirement plans and paid vacation are taken into account, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[Flaylo]

I have never argued for no government.

I said government employees do not add to the net tax revenue. All that other shit about the existence of government and the economy is your tangent.

They do add, that's bullshat, contractors are the ones that take more and return less.

Government employees cost more than private sector employees. 16% more to be exact.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/federal-government-pay-tops-businesses-cbo-report/

It pays to work for the government. Compared with private sector employees, federal workers are paid about 16 percent more when benefits including health insurance, retirement plans and paid vacation are taken into account, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

No they do not, a contractor doing what I do as asolider makes more than a federal employee.

 

[Vidi]

I have never argued for no government.

I said government employees do not add to the net tax revenue. All that other shit about the existence of government and the economy is your tangent.

They do add, that's bullshat, contractors are the ones that take more and return less.

Government employees cost more than private sector employees. 16% more to be exact.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/federal-government-pay-tops-businesses-cbo-report/

It pays to work for the government. Compared with private sector employees, federal workers are paid about 16 percent more when benefits including health insurance, retirement plans and paid vacation are taken into account, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Ahhh those pesky benefits.

How dare people actually get health care coverage, vacation time and pensions!

They're ruining this country!

 

[Mr.Nick]

So according to you the US has been a planned economy during its whole history?

What you say is simply ridiculous. Try coming back down to Earth.

No, I would say we have been playing mixed economy musical chairs for about a century tho.. At least since Wilson - that is when the government really started regulations on our alleged capitalist economy.

Sooner actually.

Teddy Roosevelt went after the monopolies.

The only regulations I agree with are monopoly laws...

Besides, monopolies would destroy capitalism.

Fascism is illogical - as the old saying goes "the money in your hand is only worth the paper it's printed on."

In a supply and demand based market monopolies (in most cases) would be illogical. Fascism doesn't work with capitalism.

Those who practice true capitalism would find Fascism to be counterproductive.

 

[Vidi]

I'm not against limited regulation, which is in any way necessary for the profer functioning of a market economy. But right now I think overtaxation is the greater form of exploitation, especially for the middle class.

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

No regulation doesn't "impede" the model. It protects the model, by regulating an even playing feild for all participants.

 

[Flaylo]

Plus federal employees are more educated so they earn more, dumb ass.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Capitalism relies on competition, if you destroy the competition then you're destroying your wealth, and the value of the dollar.....

This is why individuals are exchanging their dollars for gold these days - our dollar is not worth what it used to be. Reason?? because our work force has gone down, production has gone down. Our dollar is only worth what it is because of production in the collective.

 

[Vidi]

No, I would say we have been playing mixed economy musical chairs for about a century tho.. At least since Wilson - that is when the government really started regulations on our alleged capitalist economy.

Sooner actually.

Teddy Roosevelt went after the monopolies.

The only regulations I agree with are monopoly laws...

Besides, monopolies would destroy capitalism.

Fascism is illogical - as the old saying goes "the money in your hand is only worth the paper it's printed on."

In a supply and demand based market monopolies (in most cases) would be illogical. Fascism doesn't work with capitalism.

Those who practice true capitalism would find Fascism to be counterproductive.

You got in before my edit.

True Capitalism doesn't and cannot exist. It would always push the wealth into the hands of a few and create a Plutarchy.

 

[Mr.Nick]

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

No regulation doesn't "impede" the model. It protects the model, by regulating an even playing feild for all participants.

Whoever is trying to throw this thread off should be permabanned...

Yes regulations DO IMPEDE THE MODEL......... I told you capitalism is a self regulating economic model - government intervention just impedes the progression of the model.

Our government(s) are a business NOT a government. They want "their" money so they can buy your vote with welfare money...

 

[Skull Pilot]

They do add, that's bullshat, contractors are the ones that take more and return less.

Government employees cost more than private sector employees. 16% more to be exact.

Federal Government Pay Tops Businesses: CBO Report - ABC News

It pays to work for the government. Compared with private sector employees, federal workers are paid about 16 percent more when benefits including health insurance, retirement plans and paid vacation are taken into account, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

No they do not, a contractor doing what I do as asolider makes more than a federal employee.

Where did I ever say we should hire mercenaries?

You are so defensive about a simple statement that government employees don't add to the tax revenue that you are assuming that I am arguing that there should be no government employees at all.

You'll have to show me where I said that.

And yes for the most part services provided by expensive government employees could be contracted out for less money.

Here's one example from my State

Norwalk Explains How Privatization Saves Money | The Daily Norwalk

 

[Vidi]

Capitalism relies on competition, if you destroy the competition then you're destroying your wealth, and the value of the dollar.....

This is why individuals are exchanging their dollars for gold these days - our dollar is not worth what it used to be. Reason?? because our work force has gone down, production has gone down. Our dollar is only worth what it is because of production in the collective.

Our dollar is worth what we say it is. Just as gold is worth what we say it is. It's all a percieved and agreed upon value.

The only true backing of any currency is labor hours, ie how many labor hours are exchanged for a loaf of bread? Or a iPod? Or a car? Or a house?

Currency fluctuates. Time is constant.