What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[JohnL.Burke]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind. I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened. The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

The Founders did not speak with one voice, nor were they of one mind.

The Hamiltonian model was just as legitimate, just as much part of the Framers’ original intent as the Jeffersonian.

The Hamiltonian model that eventually prevailed is therefore consistent with the founding principles of the Republic.

As Justice Kennedy noted in US Term Limits:

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

We are therefore one Nation, not 50; we are a people, citizens of a Constitutional Republic, where the Constitution derives its authority from all the people, not the states, nor counties, nor ‘communities,’ but all the people of the American Nation.

Whatever tedious and pointless idiocy one wishes to wallow in concerning liberal or democrat, republican or conservative, this fundamental fact of our National character is immutable: that the Federal government is paramount, per the original intent of the Founders and the people.

 

[Bfgrn]

Now if the question had been what would America look like if all the liberals left?. . . .

Well we would definitely have to scramble to find people to make movies and repopulate most of the news media and universities, but I imagine we would accomplish that and would have better movies and a much more competent media and a much much better and more affordable public school system.

The welfare rolls would drop dramatically to a level our local private charities could easily manage even with some reduction in funding as even liberals, or some of them, do give some money to charities.

There would be a significant shuffling of the economy due to massive reductions in public employment--most public employees would leave with the liberals but some are conservatives who would need private sector employment. But with Obamacare and other inappropriate federal programs closed down, there would be many private sector opportunities opened up to replace essential services and I'm pretty sure we could assimilate everybody with a little work.

Most of the illegals, stripped of all the government services here, would go home. Those who are conservative would be welcome to stay and would be needed to repopulate California and a lot of New England that would have only a shell of their former populations.

The oppressive and unnecessary federal regulations would be rescinded and the regulations left would be those necessary to secure our rights, allow the individual states to function effectively as one nation, and prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

The budget would be balanced, the economy would be booming, and everybody would pay the same percentage of taxes that would be just enough to cover the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government. All other public services and functions would go to the states to manage. Because there would be no way to profit themselves, the federal government would again be staffed with public servants rather than career politicians and that would stop a lot of domestic and foreign nonsense that goes on purely for power and profit.

It would be up the individual states to decide what they wanted to do about abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues.

We would miss Ben and Jerry's and Flying Star but I'm sure we would be able to cope with that.

And they call liberals Utopians...LOL

In one post, you have verified everything I had though about you.

You know what's really ironic? There is a country that has followed your design exactly. And for the same reasons. You folks have a place to go!

Oh, where you ask?

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty UN-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

The Parallax Brief believes, however, that these government policies are generally matched by the views of Ivan Six-Pack. Now, the Parallax Brief had been led to believe by his pinko sociology teachers in college that communism taught progressive views on gender, race, immigration and class, so it therefore came as a shock to find when he moved here that after 80 years of Marxist indoctrination, young ladies in Russia often reject feminism, men ooze with unrepentant machismo, and the population appears to generally support a penal code that could have been based on Dostoyevsky’s work.

The Parallax Brief passes no judgment on Russia’s conservatism (beyond finding it ironic that those who criticize Russia the most would like similar policies implemented in their countries (I’m thinking of you Charles Krauthammer, Ed Lucas, Anne Applebaum and the Republican Party)), but does view it as the foundation from which Russia can be better understood, and its news and policies better analyzed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity? American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation? Wow! Uhmm... OK. You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!

I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"

If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.

The Most Anti-Environment House In History
15 Dec 2011

House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

League Of Conservation Voters

First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and very much a liberal, progressive and a solid, life-long Democrat, just like his father was, and his uncles, aunts and cousins. If you're referring to his uncle President Kennedy, he proposed cutting the marginal tax rate when it was still at 91%, which was set by responsible liberals like FDR to pay off the costs of WWII and the Great Depression. And it wasn't his idea, he was talked into it by his chief economist Walter Heller.


Tax Cuts in Camelot?

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was my job to educate you. The article I posted has a link to the report that spells out how House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

On average, 228 Republican members of the House – 94% of the Republican members – voted for the anti-environment position during these roll call votes. On average, 164 Democratic members of the House – 86% of the Democratic members – voted for the pro-environment position.

The anti-environment votes cut across a broad array of issues and included 27 votes to block action to address climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, 28 votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, and 47 votes to weaken protection of public land and coastal waters. The Environmental Protection Agency was the target of 114 of these votes; the Department of the Interior was the target of 35 of these votes; and the Department of Energy was the target of 31 of these votes.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"

If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.

The Most Anti-Environment House In History
15 Dec 2011

House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

League Of Conservation Voters

First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and very much a liberal, progressive and a solid, life-long Democrat, just like his father was, and his uncles, aunts and cousins. If you're referring to his uncle President Kennedy, he proposed cutting the marginal tax rate when it was still at 91%, which was set by responsible liberals like FDR to pay off the costs of WWII and the Great Depression. And it wasn't his idea, he was talked into it by his chief economist Walter Heller.


Tax Cuts in Camelot?

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was my job to educate you. The article I posted has a link to the report that spells out how House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

On average, 228 Republican members of the House – 94% of the Republican members – voted for the anti-environment position during these roll call votes. On average, 164 Democratic members of the House – 86% of the Democratic members – voted for the pro-environment position.

The anti-environment votes cut across a broad array of issues and included 27 votes to block action to address climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, 28 votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, and 47 votes to weaken protection of public land and coastal waters. The Environmental Protection Agency was the target of 114 of these votes; the Department of the Interior was the target of 35 of these votes; and the Department of Energy was the target of 31 of these votes.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

You didn't know it was your job to educate me? Hmmm... apparently you still don't know it's your job to educate me since you didn't answer my question. Ah well, my question was more rhetorical than anything else.

By the way, you seem a little confused. When Kennedy said, "The enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this congress" Kennedy had thrown Heller under the bus and ignored the Keynesian model. Now I did not mean to imply that Kennedy was a republican at heart. My only point is that the democratic party has been taken over by progressives and wouldn't allow Kennedy to become today's democratic presidential nominee. In terms of cutting taxes Kennedy did exactly what Reagan did. The result of course was the economy improved greatly. Of course, the economy always improves greatly when taxes are cut. The Keynnesian theory is what kept our depression going for ten years. John F. Kennedy in many ways was a horrible president (maybe one of our worst) but his refutation of Keynesian economics, pro tax cuts, and a successful space program saves his reputation.

Oh yes, just to clear things up. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an idiot.

 

[Votto]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

People like you are why Presidents like FDR could lock up innocent Japanese Americans without so much as a peep from anyone. People like you scare me.

Have you ever heard of the NDAA?

 

[Bfgrn]

First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and very much a liberal, progressive and a solid, life-long Democrat, just like his father was, and his uncles, aunts and cousins. If you're referring to his uncle President Kennedy, he proposed cutting the marginal tax rate when it was still at 91%, which was set by responsible liberals like FDR to pay off the costs of WWII and the Great Depression. And it wasn't his idea, he was talked into it by his chief economist Walter Heller.


Tax Cuts in Camelot?

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was my job to educate you. The article I posted has a link to the report that spells out how House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

On average, 228 Republican members of the House – 94% of the Republican members – voted for the anti-environment position during these roll call votes. On average, 164 Democratic members of the House – 86% of the Democratic members – voted for the pro-environment position.

The anti-environment votes cut across a broad array of issues and included 27 votes to block action to address climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, 28 votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, and 47 votes to weaken protection of public land and coastal waters. The Environmental Protection Agency was the target of 114 of these votes; the Department of the Interior was the target of 35 of these votes; and the Department of Energy was the target of 31 of these votes.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

You didn't know it was your job to educate me? Hmmm... apparently you still don't know it's your job to educate me since you didn't answer my question. Ah well, my question was more rhetorical than anything else.

By the way, you seem a little confused. When Kennedy said, "The enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this congress" Kennedy had thrown Heller under the bus and ignored the Keynesian model. Now I did not mean to imply that Kennedy was a republican at heart. My only point is that the democratic party has been taken over by progressives and wouldn't allow Kennedy to become today's democratic presidential nominee. In terms of cutting taxes Kennedy did exactly what Reagan did. The result of course was the economy improved greatly. Of course, the economy always improves greatly when taxes are cut. The Keynnesian theory is what kept our depression going for ten years. John F. Kennedy in many ways was a horrible president (maybe one of our worst) but his refutation of Keynesian economics, pro tax cuts, and a successful space program saves his reputation.

Oh yes, just to clear things up. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an idiot.

You didn't have to look any farther than my excerpt to avoid stepping in dog poop and gaining an education. It could have been a win/win. You chose a lose/lose.

Kennedy didn't throw Heller under the bus. It was Heller's Keynesian demand-side tax cuts that Kennedy proposed. When Kennedy proposed cutting the marginal rate from 91% to 70% on income over $400,000, it made sense. Kennedy and LBJ were facing a surplus, WWII and the depression had been paid down. But your theory the 'economy always improves greatly when taxes are cut' is akin to saying 'if a patient has a boil and lancing relieves the pressure, then draining all the blood from a person's body would make the patient much better'.

JFK’s real tax-cut legacy is that lower-income and middle-class folks got more money back from the IRS, and drove the economy from the bottom up. Back in Kennedy’s day, when taxpayers kept more of their income, those dollars stayed in the domestic economy.

In 1963, if you bought a car in the United States, there was a close to 100 percent likelihood that it was made in America by American workers in American factories. Today, that likelihood is less than one in two.

The Democratic Party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led. Liberals and progressive boarded Bobby's funeral train and have never been in power since. I remember voting for Senator Jacob Javits, a LIBERAL Republican. Maybe you are just too young or wet behind the ears sonny boy.

BTW, if the Democratic party has been taken over by progressives, and Democrats had a majority in both the House and the Senate in 2010, what did liberals and progressives get in the Affordable Heathcare Act...single payer? a public option?? No, we got the 1993 Republican health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and the America Enterprise Institute. Right down to the BIG conservative idea; the individual mandate.

I will not address your dogma that 'Keynesian theory is what kept our depression going for ten years', 'John F. Kennedy in many ways was a horrible president (maybe one of our worst)' and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an idiot. You will have to tell me how and why, and then I will thoroughly school you and prove you wrong.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.

 

[Foxfyre]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.

So true. JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government. George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.

So true. JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government. George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.

Perfect....After I made the mistake of voting for GWB the 1st time and the boondoggle with Powel at the UN. I thought to myself he is no conservative, he is Jimmy Carter wanna be.

 

[regent]

If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.

So true. JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government. George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.

Perfect....After I made the mistake of voting for GWB the 1st time and the boondoggle with Powel at the UN. I thought to myself he is no conservative, he is Jimmy Carter wanna be.

Surely you didn't vote for John Kerry? George Bush was a fiscal conservative in that he did understand the basics of what makes an economy thrive. But he was not a fiscal conservative in the role he saw for government in a lot of other areas.

However, if George Bush was in the White House now, he would still be getting some things wrong, but I do believe we would be well on our way out of if not clear of this current recession. Evidence: rapid recovery in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina. I have every reason to believe the same policies would have worked in the wake of the housing bubble collapse in 2008. (And to Bush's credit, he did request Congress I believe 17 different times to take measures to head off that 2008 collapse. He and his advisors saw the danger. Congress wouldn't act and in fact Frank and Dodd rushed to the cameras to assure us all that everything was just fine.)

With Obama at the helm, I have little hope that the economy will significantly improve any time soon.

But if he had just had a D instead of an R after his name, GWB would have been a liberal darling and would likely have been one to stay behind when all the conservatives left.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.

 

[Foxfyre]

If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.

I don't know. When you take a long, critical look at the American culture up to the 20th century--up to the 1950's really--we were pretty much one people regardless of of diverse ethnicity. We got things wrong for sure, but American conservatives have always put high priority on results, excellence, efficiency, effectiveness and have always been willing to do something better when we figured out how to correct past mistakes and do things better.

It wasn't liberals but conservatives who demanded an end to slavery because liberals were in short supply back then. Ditto for ending segregaton--that happened just about the same time as the liberal movement was beginning to build momentum in the USA but it was implemented by conservatives.

Probably no conservative lives who doesn't have at least one conviction or notion that could be labeled 'liberal'. But modern American conservative (classical liberal) is not a dictate but rather a concept of freedom, unalienable rights, and that a people free to govern themselves will do better than when government is done for them and to them. And freedom allows ability to follow ones most creative, progressive, innovative, and forward thinking concepts that the mind can conceive.

Modern American liberalism seeks to dictate how we must live, how we must use our property, how we must work, how we must talk, how we must think, how we must express our religious and/or social convictions, or how we will not be allowed to work, speak, think, or express our religious and/or social convictions.

Such a system has depressed and/or destroyed every civilization in which it has been tried. We don't need it in America.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.

I don't know. When you take a long, critical look at the American culture up to the 20th century--up to the 1950's really--we were pretty much one people regardless of of diverse ethnicity. We got things wrong for sure, but American conservatives have always put high priority on results, excellence, efficiency, effectiveness and have always been willing to do something better when we figured out how to correct past mistakes and do things better.

It wasn't liberals but conservatives who demanded an end to slavery because liberals were in short supply back then. Ditto for ending segregaton--that happened just about the same time as the liberal movement was beginning to build momentum in the USA but it was implemented by conservatives.

Probably no conservative lives who doesn't have at least one conviction or notion that could be labeled 'liberal'. But modern American conservative (classical liberal) is not a dictate but rather a concept of freedom, unalienable rights, and that a people free to govern themselves will do better than when government is done for them and to them. And freedom allows ability to follow ones most creative, progressive, innovative, and forward thinking concepts that the mind can conceive.

Modern American liberalism seeks to dictate how we must live, how we must use our property, how we must work, how we must talk, how we must think, how we must express our religious and/or social convictions, or how we will not be allowed to work, speak, think, or express our religious and/or social convictions.

Such a system has depressed and/or destroyed every civilization in which it has been tried. We don't need it in America.

Wish I could write post as good as you, yup your right. I think this is why so many Americans are sticking to their guns and we all saw the Russian Pravada warning us to never give up the 2nd.
Americans never give up your guns - English pravda.ru

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

I have to comment on my own post, I can not believe even the Russians know we are turning socialist and the left in this country says " No we are not" lol, who are you trying to fool?

 

[PMZ]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind. I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened. The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

 

[PMZ]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

People like you are why Presidents like FDR could lock up innocent Japanese Americans without so much as a peep from anyone. People like you scare me.

Have you ever heard of the NDAA?

Have you ever heard of government of, by, and for the people? Do you think that you can improve on that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind. I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened. The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?

 

[PMZ]

If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.

I don't know. When you take a long, critical look at the American culture up to the 20th century--up to the 1950's really--we were pretty much one people regardless of of diverse ethnicity. We got things wrong for sure, but American conservatives have always put high priority on results, excellence, efficiency, effectiveness and have always been willing to do something better when we figured out how to correct past mistakes and do things better.

It wasn't liberals but conservatives who demanded an end to slavery because liberals were in short supply back then. Ditto for ending segregaton--that happened just about the same time as the liberal movement was beginning to build momentum in the USA but it was implemented by conservatives.

Probably no conservative lives who doesn't have at least one conviction or notion that could be labeled 'liberal'. But modern American conservative (classical liberal) is not a dictate but rather a concept of freedom, unalienable rights, and that a people free to govern themselves will do better than when government is done for them and to them. And freedom allows ability to follow ones most creative, progressive, innovative, and forward thinking concepts that the mind can conceive.

Modern American liberalism seeks to dictate how we must live, how we must use our property, how we must work, how we must talk, how we must think, how we must express our religious and/or social convictions, or how we will not be allowed to work, speak, think, or express our religious and/or social convictions.

Such a system has depressed and/or destroyed every civilization in which it has been tried. We don't need it in America.

You continue to be the poster boy for everything good is defined as conservative, and everything bad is liberal, because I am a conservative. Why am I? Because everything good is defined as conservative, and everything bad is liberal.

Someday, turn off Rush and Rupert and work on thinking for yourself. You'll be amazed at how little you need their opinions once you have your own.