RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 16th 05, 12:57 AM

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

more snippage

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy

on

others. Liberals.

??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you

are

with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending
money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other things that we
used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals were
willing to pay for their overspending.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.

Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of
people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.

How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Not many (any)......... yet.

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately
the Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for.

Or defaulted on.

Pretty much the same thing. Just a matter of how it is "paid for" 8^)

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help
with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their
money.

Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those who
are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving.

And a way of reducing demand.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the benefits
of modern America may be directly tied to a form of government that is
being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments in almost
pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and with the natural
accumulation of power to just a few of the most aggressive.

If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of course,
I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think both
sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)

If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)

Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.

It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and necessary
thing, with government control of those things that national government
does best, and delegation of the things that state and local governments
do best to their respective sections.

The government that governs best is the one that governs least. It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once handled by
the Federal government are simply handed off to state governments. That
means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues, not
simply chants party dogma.

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person.
But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with
him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate with
Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates have
become.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1 democrat
and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!

- Mike KB3EIA -