What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

[Vidi]

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

That's not necessarily true.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

What good is money when there is no competition to back it???

The only reason why your green backs are worth what they are is because of competition.

Eliminating competition would be equivalent to destroying the value of your dollar...

Are economics too difficult for you to understand?

 

[Flaylo]

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

 

[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.

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.

OMG..

You fucking serious?

You're a fucking idiot...

You're not even worth debating.....

 

[Vidi]

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...

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it any more true.

Yrs it's SUPPOSED to be self regulating, but it fails and it will ALWAYS fail without regulation. Without regulation, you will end up with monopolies and company towns with the average person enslaved to their robber baron feudal lord.

There MUST be a power over the economy maintaining the rights of the participants, that is government.

 

[Flaylo]

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

Federal Government Pay Tops Businesses: CBO Report - ABC News

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

It does not save money, private sector contractors are not about saving the government money they're all about getting as much as they can out of the government and the reason why private sector employees make less is the mafia like structure of those companies where the top bosses skim the most off the top and spread crumbs around to the bottom, you don't have that in the federal work place.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That is truly classic..

"Our dollar is worth what we say it is. Just as gold is worth what we say it is"

I'm still laughing at that...

That is one of the most ignorant things I have read on this board over the past year..........

 

[Mr.Nick]

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...

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it any more true.

Yrs it's SUPPOSED to be self regulating, but it fails and it will ALWAYS fail without regulation. Without regulation, you will end up with monopolies and company towns with the average person enslaved to their robber baron feudal lord.

There MUST be a power over the economy maintaining the rights of the participants, that is government.

Oh, I'm right - not because I understand economics - but because I "say so."

Maybe we can judge truth and reality via democracy????

Maybe we can call blue - orange and orange - blue???

I suppose if that's what we decide..

Just like we decide a dollar is worth a dollar...

 

[Vidi]

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.

What good is money when there is no competition to back it???

The only reason why your green backs are worth what they are is because of competition.

Eliminating competition would be equivalent to destroying the value of your dollar...

Are economics too difficult for you to understand?

I think you need to rethink economics, friend.

Competition never backs currency. Ever. Competition should breed higher quality products and lower prices, but it does not back currency.

And did I say ONE WORD about eliminating competition?

Read back. Not a single word about it from me.

Eliminating competition is the goal of unregulated capitalism. Maintaining healthy competition is the goal of regulated capitalism.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"Our dollar is worth what we say it is. Just as gold is worth what we say it is"

This reminds me of this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMK9zxb5HyE]Michael Savage - Jo from Florida demonstrates how stupid she is on radio - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vidi]

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...

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it any more true.

Yrs it's SUPPOSED to be self regulating, but it fails and it will ALWAYS fail without regulation. Without regulation, you will end up with monopolies and company towns with the average person enslaved to their robber baron feudal lord.

There MUST be a power over the economy maintaining the rights of the participants, that is government.

Oh, I'm right - not because I understand economics - but because I "say so."

Maybe we can judge truth and reality via democracy????

Maybe we can call blue - orange and orange - blue???

I suppose if that's what we decide..

Just like we decide a dollar is worth a dollar...

We could if we chose to. After all, we've changed currencies a few times, even went off the Gold Standard and moved to the agreed upon exchange rates/ agreed upon value.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

What good is money when there is no competition to back it???

The only reason why your green backs are worth what they are is because of competition.

Eliminating competition would be equivalent to destroying the value of your dollar...

Are economics too difficult for you to understand?

I think you need to rethink economics, friend.

Competition never backs currency. Ever. Competition should breed higher quality products and lower prices, but it does not back currency.

And did I say ONE WORD about eliminating competition?

Read back. Not a single word about it from me.

Eliminating competition is the goal of unregulated capitalism. Maintaining healthy competition is the goal of regulated capitalism.

You're an idiot.....

Try economics 101..

 

[Vidi]

"Our dollar is worth what we say it is. Just as gold is worth what we say it is"

This reminds me of this:

Michael Savage - Jo from Florida demonstrates how stupid she is on radio - YouTube

You can be reminded of anything you like. Just because someone else who's equally wrong agrees with you ( or rather you've been indoctrinated by him ) doesn't make your statements true.

 

[Mr.Nick]

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it any more true.

Yrs it's SUPPOSED to be self regulating, but it fails and it will ALWAYS fail without regulation. Without regulation, you will end up with monopolies and company towns with the average person enslaved to their robber baron feudal lord.

There MUST be a power over the economy maintaining the rights of the participants, that is government.

Oh, I'm right - not because I understand economics - but because I "say so."

Maybe we can judge truth and reality via democracy????

Maybe we can call blue - orange and orange - blue???

I suppose if that's what we decide..

Just like we decide a dollar is worth a dollar...

We could if we chose to. After all, we've changed currencies a few times, even went off the Gold Standard and moved to the agreed upon exchange rates/ agreed upon value.

You have no concept of money...........

 

[Mr.Nick]

"Our dollar is worth what we say it is. Just as gold is worth what we say it is"

This reminds me of this:

Michael Savage - Jo from Florida demonstrates how stupid she is on radio - YouTube

You can be reminded of anything you like. Just because someone else who's equally wrong agrees with you ( or rather you've been indoctrinated by him ) doesn't make your statements true.

Dude, you're an idiot that has absolutely ZERO understanding of how economies work.

You're either a child or an adult with the IQ of 90...

 

[Vidi]

Tell you what: google competition backs currency.

If you get even a single relevant hit, not some forum post, I'll concede the point.

If not, you concede the point.

And competing currencies are not relevant. That's a different issue.

 

[Vidi]

"Our dollar is worth what we say it is. Just as gold is worth what we say it is"

This reminds me of this:

Michael Savage - Jo from Florida demonstrates how stupid she is on radio - YouTube

You can be reminded of anything you like. Just because someone else who's equally wrong agrees with you ( or rather you've been indoctrinated by him ) doesn't make your statements true.

Dude, you're an idiot that has absolutely ZERO understanding of how economies work.

You're either a child or an adult with the IQ of 90...

And yet YOU are the one behaving like a child throwing a tantrum.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Tell you what: google competition backs currency.

If you get even a single relevant hit, not some forum post, I'll concede the point.

If not, you concede the point.

And competing currencies are not relevant. That's a different issue.

Tell you what: google "supply and demand" and you will get TONS of hits..



Better yet just google "capitalism."



You're an ignorant person...

 

[Vidi]

Tell you what: google competition backs currency.

If you get even a single relevant hit, not some forum post, I'll concede the point.

If not, you concede the point.

And competing currencies are not relevant. That's a different issue.

Tell you what: google "supply and demand" and you will get TONS of hits..



Better yet just google "capitalism."



You're an ignorant person...

Do you even understand what "backs" means?

 

[zonly1]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.

Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

hey thich head ......... that cra work out really well for America. Financial collapse and the result is every American has less purchasing power...sooon the dollar will collapse...behind the scenes obumer sneaks in an executive order here and there resulting in taking away all or our rights. Btw, he has pretty much pissed off the middle east with his back door..around congress to kill kadafi ...putin wants obumer to kiss his ring for that snafu.
what say horshacklus?