COMMENTS:
No. I would add the wanton destruction of wildlife habitats to the list. Teddy Roosevelt is pirouetting in his grave.
Great ballot.
by mojo on Mon Jun 20, 05 3:58pm
[+]
I just read an interesting article in my Sunday paper, about a man who's been a long-time force in the Georgia Republican Party whose renowned for his fiscal conservativism. He backed the campaigns of BOTH GOP senators Georgia has in the Senate now (HELP!), but he's now begun a campaign to remove them from office, claiming that they've abandoned the GOP standard of responsibility to taxpayers in their districts. And what Messrs. Chambliss and Izakson are doing, through their pork-barrel politics, is just the trend of GOP policies nationwide. Or have we forgotten the $1.5 million that Uncle Ted Stevens pulled down for Anchorage, Alaska to build a state-of-the-art bus stop. Oh, the NEED...
Better than what democrats had/have to offer.
cathexis, it of course is convenient to label the Republicans one and then beat that image down. I, as you know, don't disagree with your assertion that the Repubs have been considered the "conservative party" by the morons on the left who think anything that disagrees with them are conservative.
The Republican Party has been far more progressive historically than the Democratic Party has been. Consider that its foundation was mostly in part to stop/rollback slavery
RRW: definately. But simply being better than the democrats isn't enough. Cath has a point; this administration is spending too much money. Tax cuts, the war, all good things. But it should be followed by domestic spending cuts, and that hasn't happened.
Herzog, as soon as domestic spending cuts start, you can say good bye to the well respected American economy. It'll give the government too much breathing space when it comes to spending and only then will you see a true homeland crisis.
I didn't finish above but, what I want to say is that can you really call those things conservative?
Anyways I don't think it is really the goal of the Republican party to be conservative. I think probably its goal is more of less a party of business, or that businesspeople tend to be Republicans.
I meant to say inflation not economy. Inflation will go up.
neoconservative = pro-war socialist
inter_regnum: Beat that image down? Please point out where I have disparaged Conservatives ... I am not seeing it. I am just pointing out that I don't believe the adopted label fits.
If one is not a Conservative, why would they care if the party might not be?
If one is a true Conservative, perhaps they will be motivated to hold their party accountable for its actions, if they do not reflect the assumed principles.
It's that simple.
LD: How does government spending cuts allow the government too much leeway for spending?
I used to be a Republican before the current administration, but Bush & co. made me want to part ways with it. Maybe it's the current administration that parted ways with the Conservative party after all and not me. Great ballot.
"LD: How does government spending cuts allow the government too much leeway for spending?"
If you cut federal funding to domestic services or if you take money away from domestic services then the government will have more money left over to spend. This leaves the government with a blank check. When you have a large deficit the government tends to try to spend less. Domestic spending cuts shortens that deficit and the government sort of leans back
LD: cutting services would do that yes, but cutting services to match tax cuts wouldn't.
So you think its ok for the government to cut services in order to give that man in the suburbs an extra 10,000 dollars in his bank account? Even though that tax cut will most likely be as ineffective as the last 3?
Actually, Cathexis I am coming to reject the mantle of conservative, and surprisingly it is because of good reasoned arguments that you and Zig, occasionally mojo, and very surprisingly cranky.
Depending, as you say, on the meaning of labels, I find the common label of conservative objectional.
Earlier in my B&W career you said you thought I should not take it so seriously, and I will give you that same advice now. I wasn't questioning your motives necessarily, as much as I am kind of thinking out loud.
inter: Fair enough.
LD: so you think the money that someone has worked hard to earn is better used to give viagra to convicted sex offenders than it is to remain in the hands of the person who produced it?
Now now herzog, don't change the subject. Maybe the money doesn't have to be spent on viagra. Maybe if it's spent on police. Would you support taking money away from them for tax cuts. Cutting domestic spending takes away an equal amount from everything unless you target what you're taking money away from. That barely happens.
'Maybe if it's spent on police. Would you support taking money away from them for tax cuts.'
Police budget comes from local taxes, the tax cuts had no effect on them.
'Cutting domestic spending takes away an equal amount from everything unless you target what you're taking money away from'
It's easy to target what get's cut. For instance, do we really need to pay 'artists' millions of dollars to cover a painting of the virgin mary in shit? No, I don't think so. Do we really need to pay quite so many people to sit on their asses and not work? No. Do we need to buy africa condoms that they will simply burn on the docks and not use? No. Do we need to pay to be a member of an impotent debating club (UN). Nah. There is so much fat in the government, it would be easy to trim off enough to make up for the tax cuts and then some.
"Police budget comes from local taxes, the tax cuts had no effect on them."
Domestic spending comes from local and state taxes. EX: Firefighters, police, street repairs, highway construction are all domestic spending that comes from local and state taxes.
"It's easy to target what get's cut. For instance, do we really need to pay 'artists' millions of dollars to cover a painting of the virgin mary in shit? No, I don't think so. Do we really need to pay quite so many people to sit on their asses and not work? No. Do we need to buy africa condoms that they will simply burn on the docks and not use? No. Do we need to pay to be a member of an impotent debating club (UN). Nah. There is so much fat in the government, it would be easy to trim off enough to make up for the tax cuts and then some."
"It's easy to target what get's cut. For instance, do we really need to pay 'artists' millions of dollars to cover a painting of the virgin mary in shit? No, I don't think so. Do we really need to pay quite so many people to sit on their asses and not work? No. Do we need to buy africa condoms that they will simply burn on the docks and not use? No. Do we need to pay to be a member of an impotent debating club (UN). Nah. There is so much fat in the government, it would be easy to trim off enough to make up for the tax cuts and then some."
I would support cutting a lot of unnecessary spending, like the things you stated and then some, but I'm not sure if you'll have enough for a tax cut plan. If you cut a lot of unnecessary spending and then have enough to give all your citizens no more than 200 dollars then you might as well spend it on something else.
|
