Conservatism is dying - because conservatives are too good-mannered and nuanced

[Canadiens1131]

YThe problem with the left is that when programs are instituted they are supposed to work but there is always a push to add more. Government is always "underfunded" precisely because most of the money goes to salaries and the challenge is to make sure that new money doesn't simply go to inflated salaries with little to no improvement. That challenge hasn't been satisfied.

Try spending a day with an inner-city social worker and then come back and post about inflated salaries for government workers and chronic under funding.

Utter bullshit.

 

[BVS]

Try spending a day with an inner-city social worker and then come back and post about inflated salaries for government workers and chronic under funding.

Utter bullshit.

Why would he want to spend a day in the inner-city? He's not a socialist. If we just gave the world unbridled capitalism we wouldn't have inner cities.

 

[PhilsFan]

at least indy and 2861 are relatively informed. you, oscar, haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

 

[financeguy]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Socialists don't just support ownership of the means of production (hello 20th century!) they also support control of capital via regulation and social programs via taxation. We already have lots of social programs and the left wants what? More! If not then they would be neo-conservatives. They want at least 60% of the GDP in the hands of government. Conservatives want a lot less. European socialism is a particular type and that was what I'm referring to. Lots of Democrats would love European socialism. We can use the term liberalism if you like but to me that's just a hijacked term.



If your country has similar institutions then it's similar.

You have to understand that your conspiracy theory that social democracy/unions/the environmental movement/the public sector/universities etc are all trojan horses for revolutionary Marxist/Leninism is generally not accepted by most people on this forum, or elsewhere. You do get that, don't you?

Also, there are currently no socialist countries in Europe, not even nominally socialist. Not a single one that I am aware of. If you hear of a country where the means of production are owned by the workers, do tell. Christ, Canada is probably closer to socialism than some European countries. Have you heard what the axis of Sarkozy/Merkel have been coming out with lately?

Have you ever been to Europe, incidentally?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

It's not being "pedantic"

If we allow for the bending and mutating of words then they lose meaning. Would I be correct in calling you a Nazi or Facist? Aren't you just being pedantic if you state 'no' to that question?

If you want to be taken seriously in debate than you have to start respecting the language, the science, and the means that we define things in life in order to do so. Otherwise you'll never be taken seriously, ever.

This is a good post. Saves me from having to explain again.

Also, there are currently no socialist countries in Europe, not even nominally socialist. Not a single one that I am aware of. If you hear of a country where the means of production are owned by the workers, do tell. Christ, Canada is probably closer to socialism than some European countries. Have you heard what the axis of Sarkozy/Merkel have been coming out with lately?

Have you ever been to Europe, incidentally?

We can go one step further and say that there are no countries in this world today that have the workers owning the means of production and only a couple past examples.

 

[financeguy]

^ Indeed, but by Purpleoscar's standards, this guy is probably one of the dratted "European socialists" :

Deep cuts to the public sector in the UK and the western world could cause lasting economic and social damage, The the chief executive of Britain's biggest bank warned today.

Michael Geoghegan, who runs HSBC, cautioned against "cutting into the muscle" of the western world via harsh spending cuts which he said could lead to social conflict and strikes.

However, he said that the current record low interest rates — which have prevented many people from slipping further into debt and repossession — were a bad thing as they punished responsible savers and favoured the "irresponsible".

Geoghegan, whose bank made profits of £7bn in the first six months of this year, said that he generally supported the drive for public spending cuts. But he warned: "I caution this – be careful what you do! It is important that the level you cut is not cutting into the muscle of the western world."

Geoghegan said he was concerned over the "zeal" of the way the cuts were being implemented, saying that cuts "sometimes had unintended consequences." The bank boss said that in relation to public sector costs "the best way would be to see them distributed on an equal level."

HSBC chief warns against savage cuts in public sector | Business | The Guardian

 

[purpleoscar]

the debt wasn't paid down BECAUSE of Bush's 2001 tax cuts. that, along with the housing market, is what bankrupted us.

again, all the GOP cares about is tax cuts on rich people not on lowering the deficit or paying down debt.

You just fell into the trap again. Bush overspent (not as much as Obama/Pelosi) and his no child left behind didn't do much. Bush fell into the Keynesian trap when the recession happened after the tech bubble burst because he didn't know any better. He wanted people to keep shopping. He spent more on healthcare and education while lowering taxes and he certainly didn't go against lower interest rates either. Now that would be a good argument for a Democrat if the current one in power did something different. Oh yeah, he did. He outspent Bush. When Bush was in power and Obama was in congress he was not deficit hawk either. I would love a Democrat that would pay down debt even with higher taxes but I'm too cynical to believe they won't take more of that money and just blow it on reelection campaigns or new social programs.

you're right. the unemployed need more incentive to take a bath and get a job. lower tax rates will help them do this.

Lower tax rates on corporations will mean that those who actually pay tax (only profitable ones) will have more money left over to reinvest so growth occurs faster and demand for labour increases. People aren't hired out of charity they are hired because business owners HAVE TO hire more. The corporate tax rates in the U.S. aren't low.

i'm essentially married to a federal worker. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah that's great evidence. Government is as efficient as competitive corporations because you are married to a federal worker. I still say that the left has to find ways to get efficiencies better to come closer to the private sector and no one has found a way. Government always has to be reformed and undergo periods of cutbacks and waste reduction or it gets too bloated. With government unions wanting to shut down when there is a whiff of austerity I know of no genius that has figured it out. Why doesn't the U.S. eliminate Medicare, medicaid and Obamacare and replace them with one system that deals with people who can't afford insurance and fire the excess workers that duplicate work? Or we can just add a fourth system while were at it. It will be a Ukrainian Matrushka doll with layers upon layers of bureaucracy, and if there's anyone who slips through the cracks then add another layer.

You have to understand that your conspiracy theory that social democracy/unions/the environmental movement/the public sector/universities etc are all trojan horses for revolutionary Marxist/Leninism is generally not accepted by most people on this forum, or elsewhere. You do get that, don't you?

You don't have to be a Marxist Leninist to do serious damage to the economy. Even so called moderates would like to keep the spending status quo which doesn't seem moderate to me considering prior generations.

Also, there are currently no socialist countries in Europe, not even nominally socialist. Not a single one that I am aware of. If you hear of a country where the means of production are owned by the workers, do tell. Christ, Canada is probably closer to socialism than some European countries. Have you heard what the axis of Sarkozy/Merkel have been coming out with lately?

The European union is a bureaucratic mess and I find it unexpected from you to think that the term socialist should only apply to those who are diehard communists. Yes I live in Canada where we have a government owned and runned healthcare system (the means of production) and they aren't considered communists either. The party that pushed for it the most was the CCF which is like the Labour party in England. So there are leftists (do you prefer that term?) that want ownership of the means of production and more recently energy and healthcare are the major targets in the U.S.. They don't always succeed precisely because not everyone is that far to the left including some blue dog Democrats that didn't vote with Obama. If some of the left has been turned off of "crown" corporations we have to thank Reagan and Thatcher for that. Reagan and Thatcher were awesome debaters and could out debate any of these "moderate" (whatever the hell that means anymore) conservatives in a flash. That article you posted was right. Whatever Republican gets chosen better go out there and try and defeat Obama's ideas with their own ideas and not try and mix oil with water.

Try spending a day with an inner-city social worker and then come back and post about inflated salaries for government workers and chronic under funding.

Utter bullshit.

I've already posted lots of articles showing that in Canada as well as the U.S. government workers (when you including pension benefits) are outstripping private sector workers (who often have lower salaries) who also mostly likely don't have pensions. If you think government workers are destitute then you are living in a fantasy world.

 

[PhilsFan]

Did you just infer that taxes on rich people would go to re-election campaigns?

 

[purpleoscar]

Speaking of those teachers I was talking about before. They were so political also because there was going to be at a local teacher's strike (because the provincial government had to balance the budget). Their argument was that teachers were underfunded. When the media started doing a blitz all the conservative government had to say was the budget increased 70% over 10 years to win the argument. It doesn't matter how much you spend government workers will still complain and want more.

Did you just infer that taxes on rich people would go to re-election campaigns?

I was making fun of Obama because we know lots of stimulus money was for cronies and voters. Why would I expect a guy who knew the oilsands pipeline who create jobs to actually delay it (because he knew that he would lose some of his base if he let it go through)?

 

[PhilsFan]

You are aware that just because something can create a job does not mean it is automatically good policy, aren't you? I think we want to be a little smarter about how we create jobs than just passing anything that will lower the unemployment rate without analyzing it a little closer.

 

[Canadiens1131]

you, oscar, haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

I like your phrasing, BB

 

[purpleoscar]

You are aware that just because something can create a job does not mean it is automatically good policy, aren't you? I think we want to be a little smarter about how we create jobs than just passing anything that will lower the unemployment rate without analyzing it a little closer.

That's fine but it was analyzed more than most pipelines that's why it looks more like a political calculation and when you have an Obama staff member mention it was political and it was after Greenpeace protested it, then it appears confirmed that it was a political calculation. Obama can't afford to have the hardcore left stay home and not vote. It definitely was a correct assessment on his part but most people are more interested in jobs than cool political manuvers. I certainly don't want oil spilled everywhere but Obama wouldn't mind higher prices to support green technology which shouldn't be a surprise when the president said exactly that before he was elected.

 

[Irvine511]

Now that would be a good argument for a Democrat if the current one in power did something different. Oh yeah, he did. He outspent Bush.

which prevented a Second Great Depression.

he also knows that it's not "government spending" that got us into this mess, it's the lack of revenue the government is able to collect due to the Bush tax cuts and Bush's economic collapse.

and he knows that Republicans don't cut spending. they only cut taxes. it isn't politically popular to cut spending.

 

[financeguy]

he also knows that it's not "government spending" that got us into this mess, it's the lack of revenue the government is able to collect due to the Bush tax cuts and Bush's economic collapse.

Indeed:

 

[the iron horse]

Indeed:

I'm confused.

So, it's not government spending, but tax cuts that caused the problem?


I'm really comfused

 

[purpleoscar]

which prevented a Second Great Depression.

he also knows that it's not "government spending" that got us into this mess, it's the lack of revenue the government is able to collect due to the Bush tax cuts and Bush's economic collapse.

and he knows that Republicans don't cut spending. they only cut taxes. it isn't politically popular to cut spending.

Recessions always cause debt but the spending can be under control. As that graph shows the wars weren't as expensive as the domestic spending and spending grew under Bush (espeically with Pelosi) and with Obama/Pelosi even more. So the argument is really about how the left wants to raise spending until tax increases are a forgone conclusion. If Bush didn't spend as much there still would be deficits because of the housing collapse and yes lowering taxes without lowering spending doesn't make sense especially when Reagan lowered them from a 70% top rate. The Laffer curve won't work in lower tax scenarios. Like I said Bush didn't know what to do (he admitted so) when dealing with the tech bubble. It was just "let's go shopping" and when private debt was to the point that people couldn't keep on shopping the stimuluses borrowed on their behalf to try and do it for them with pointless results. If Obama wins I will be waiting with bated breath on these tax increases and seeing if they are actually used to narrow the deficit.

 

[INDY500]

Maybe not textbook socialism but clearly social democracy and statism when government spending in the U.K. is 47% on the GDP with the country's largest employer being The National Health Service.
Government spending in France and Sweden is 53%, Denmark 52%, Germany 44%, Ireland 42%, Spain 41% and Norway 40%.

The U.S has closed the gap considerably in the past 4 years (thanks to Obama's checkbook and European cuts) but our percentage is still considerably lower than Europe when you factor in that we pay for Europe's defense as well as ours.

 

[PhilsFan]

Paying for Europe's defense seems like a really good fiscal policy, doesn't it?