A Liberal Rebuts Conservatism

Conservative. One who conserves. Conservatism. The advocacy of conserving. Of continuation. Of saving what you have to use again tomorrow. A conservator. Usually a conservative is unlikely to see or perceive a need for any changes. What worked well yesterday should work well tomorrow. Conserve. To hold fast. And perhaps even to endure? One popular conservative maxim is: ”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I accept it is hard to argue against that approach if we lived in a static universe. If times did not change. And that was basically true from say, 700 AD to 1600 AD in Europe. 700 AD is chosen as the time line base because that was when the heavy plow was introduced. That in turn was the starting of the agricultural revolution. When one person could feed 2 or 3, instead of barely feeding himself plus a little left over.

The rise of nation states in the 15th century began the end of the feudal era. Essential to the rising nation state was a strong central governing monarch. Spain was first united in 1492. England and France came next by mid-1500s. In France, Francis I, then Henry IV followed by Louis XIII. At the end of Louis’s reign, France was one united country. Edward I began what was to become ultimately modern England and the UK. But it was Henry VIII and his quintessential daughter the first Queen Elizabeth, who led England into a real power in European affairs. (Italy was not united until the 1850s and Germany in 1869).

Money. Specie. Yes, there has always been gold and silver. But unless you can trust the maker of such coins, they are not of much use in trade. Law and order had gradually disappeared in western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, generally given as 476 AD when the last emperor abandoned Rome as unsafe. The feudal system that replaced it did not rely on money. Instead, it was a hierarchical system of obligations and duties. Until the advent of modern states, barter was the primary form of commerce and exchange. Not very useful in a rapidly growing world.

I have said a lot to say this. Conservatism is “bred” into our Western culture. Esample: Although Henry VIII removed the Church of England from the control of Rome in 1534, it was said as late as the 1700s most rural Englishman did not know they were not any longer Catholics.

Aside: Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) has been continuously inhabited more than 5,000 years. Can you imagine how they must look on us who have come 6,000 miles across the Atlantic to TEACH them democracy? We who can’t hold a fair election? They who have seen a hundred conquerors. Sweet Jesus! End.

Liberalism on the other hand - is often offered as a counterpoise to conservatism - but it is not the flip side of the same coin. It is instead a product of the comparatively recent Age of Enlightenment. But it can proudly trace its antecedents back to ancient Greece, to any other ancient peoples who had to innovate or die. That ability to see ahead gives a spark for humans to look beyond the comonplace, beyond the oridnary, to see the future and ways to mold it.

Perhaps that is the best definition of Liberalism: The willingness to innovative new approaches to old problems. For sure based on reason and after due consideration of all the relevancies. It seems to me that by definition a PROBLEM exists only when the existing order has failed. It may well be that logically speaking, one cannot employ the same approach that produced the problem to fix or cure the problem. Hence, the legitimate place in our society for liberal thought!

[edit on 4/8/2008 by donwhite]

Your post seems to draw upon the root meanings of the words, not necassarily the political leanings or stances of either. This is where we get what I and others like to call the "little L" liberal and "little c" conservative. These are the roots of these words and are not a bad thing one way or the other. For example, I have some (l)iberal tendencies, but God help us if I consider myself to be a Liberal. The same can be said the other way around.

These comparisons that draw the conclusion that Conservatives are backward thinking and closed minded are ridiculous. It's the same as me drawing the conclusion that all Liberals are completely without morals and seek to expand government into a giant nanny state.

You might disagree with or even take offense to that statement, and that's fine. I do not agree with your assessment of Conservatism and would argue that in fact it's the other way around.

Conservatism seeks to empower the people of this country to make better lives for themselves. While Liberalism seeks to empower the government to make better lives for them.

And that's something I can not and will not ever get behind.

Using D.W.'s definitions, I have a short list of some famous Liberals that believed in....

The willingness to innovative new approaches to old problems.

Lenin
Marx
Mao
Castro
Muammar al-Gaddafi
Hồ Chí Minh

Yep, now there is a list to live up to..

Just a quick revue..

Socialism is Left Wing.

Another common kind of Socialism involves higher taxes. This is meant to give the government more funds, so that they can provide higher quality welfare.

Socialism can refer to a large number of Political systems, almost all of which are Left Wing.

Socialism

Liberal anyone?

Semper

posted by semperfortis
Using D.W.'s definitions, I have a short list of some famous Liberals. Lenin Marx Castro Ho Chí Minh

Another common kind of Socialism involves higher taxes. This is meant to give the government more funds, so that they can provide higher quality welfare.

Liberal anyone? Semper

Hmm? Is that guilt by association? If I want to furnish “free” health care for 100% of Americans - and their guests too - then my middle name is Castro? Or Ho? If I want to work towards 100% employment is my name Lenin? Or Karl?

What about other names for a liberal list? Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt. His cousin, Franklin. And by all means this list must include the notorious Southerner, "Landslide" Lyndon! Gulp! Him a Socialist? Sweet Jesus! And frankly, Richard Nixon but for his uncontrollable penchant for high risk burglaries, was not all that bad from the Liberal POV. OSHA. EPA. And other progressive or liberal acts of Congress were all signed into law by RMN.

“Socialism” may frighten some. But I’m not at all frightened by it. What amazes me is how much socialism we have in America yet we can be bamboozled into denouncing what we enjoy! The Govt collects social security payments from everyone but pays retirement only to those who survive to the appropriate age - 62, 65, or 67. Us living are eating off the dead!

We collect the medicare tax on every worker regardless of the amount of his wages. I have not filed a Schedule C or a Form SE for years, so I’m not sure how much of gross income is ultimately taxed. But I can testify that Medicare not only benefits the OLD people but it benefits their children. Well, the “responsible” ones. (Before medicare young people often supported their parents and paid their medical bills).

We all love to go to Yellowstone, go to the Great Smokies, and to 100s of other sites socially maintained by the states and Federal Government for our rest and recuperation. Thank you TR for starting it all. Hmm? Was TR a closet socialist? I can still recall riding a tour bus up Mt. Hood and dining at Timberline, the famous lodge built in the mid-1930s by the CCC and WPA. Gosh! They built it right back then.

I have also enjoyed watching the fish jump upstream on the Columbia River through the viewing glass for visitors at the Bonneville Dam. And at NO admission fees either. Paid for by our tax dollars.

FDIC. Federal Reserve System. Even FEMA before Bush43 decapitated it. And etc. Doing together important things we cannot do individually. The list of socialistic adoptions and adaptions we have in America could go on for many more keystrokes, but I hope I’ve made my point.

Pragmatism trumps socialism AND anti-socialism. IMO.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by donwhite]

Again we are back at one of the main reasons why Liberalism today is something I completely disagree with. You, along with most other Liberals, believe that it is the governments responsibility to take care of and provide for us. You believe it’s the responsibility of the government to provide our health care, and make sure we are all on the same playing field. This is something I disagree with at the very core of my being.

I don’t believe it’s the governments job to take care of me or my family. I have the ability to learn and work hard to do that myself. I don’t need to rely on the government to provide my health care at no cost, I can rely on myself to work hard and provide it on my own. I don’t need the government to take a larger chuck of my paycheck just because I’m making more money. The idea that this country could be headed toward a policy of redistribution of wealth scares me to death.

Every citizen of this country has the same opportunities to learn, work hard, and make as much money as they can stand to. It may require sacrifice and discomfort, but in the end there is no one in this country who can stop us from succeeding but ourselves. And the thought of the government being able to step in and take more of my hard earned money to provide health care and/or welfare to those who don’t want to take advantage of the opportunities this country provides sickens me.

That sir is where our disagreement with Liberalism lies.

I am not ignoring you, Mr nyk537. Your are TWO posts ahead of me now. I have been working OFF ATS and doin't have the time at this moment to give you a response. I'm dog-sitting for my sister who is in Colorado with her daughter and granddaughter. Going on the Cog Railway today. Etc. But I'll attend to the issues you raised a bit later.


[edit on 4/9/2008 by donwhite]

Don,

All the response needed to your posts in one simple statement...

SOMEONE ALWAYS has to pay for what you want to give to "everyone".

What it boils down to is you don't want it to be you or your fellow Liberal Socialists, you want other more successful people (Capital Free Market Conservatives) to pay the way for those that WONT work as hard to get what they want and instead choose to sit on their behinds and demand that the Government pay.

For all of your postulating and suppositions, the simple fact is the money has to come from somewhere. The Liberal Socialist Ideal of the Government paying for everyones toilet paper, only works if there are those working and paying into the government.

Your agenda never takes into account those that are working, have struggled to get somewhere and just plain old don't want to support lazy, good for nothings that wont work in a Pie Factory of they could eat every other pie for free.

Your idea of a "FAIR" system is only fair to the lazy people; it sure as heck is not fair to those of us that work and already pay FAR more than our fair share.

ie...

Socialism...

eg...

Ho and Castro

Semper

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it read that the Government is to be benevolent?

Where does it read that my money must be taken from me and my family and sent to someone else?

Where does it read that my money must be taken from me and my family and sent to someone else over seas?

Why can't the liberals in this nation trust me to redistribute my money?

It all boils down to the control of the citizens of the US and retaining power for the politicians and their Party.

Roper

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Roper]

Is it socialism when my tax dollars are spent to bail out Corporations and banks that make bone head decisions? Is it socialism when no bid contracts are awarded to companies that are paid with my tax dollars and they charge $300. for a Goddamn claw hammer.

I personally would rather see my tax dollars be spent on humanitarian projects and infrastructure than to make some fat cat even fatter. If that labels me a liberal; I wear the mantle proudly.

Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by whaaa]

Well it is kind of catch 22 then isn't it?

Those same corporations you complain about getting tax breaks, pay the VAST, VAST majority of the tax revenue paid into the coffers.

So, cut the tax breaks, the corporations make less money or even have to shut down or lay off and all of a sudden YOUR taxes MUST go up and sadly, YOU can't pay what they, the corporations, have been paying; so what else suffers? All of those humanitarian projects that were funded by the tax dollars from corporations like say, Exxon.

Example...

Exxon pays all time record taxes to the United States..

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

Exxon Tax Base

As much as people like to complain about corporate tax breaks, that is what keeps the system running and if it stops running and the business fold, go into chapter backruptcy or reduce overall productivity, those sweet little humaitarian programs will go down the drain with them.

See the 30 BILLION above...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis


Those same corporations you complain about getting tax breaks, pay the VAST, VAST majority of the tax revenue paid into the coffers.

Check again semperfortis, I wasn't talking about tax breaks but bail outs using my tax dollars for Corporation's that make bad business decisions.
Remember when the gov. bailed out Lee Iococa so he could continue to build junk.

I as a small business man I have to sink or swim on my decisions. Why do the fat cats get preferential treatment. Lobbiest perhaps?

And I'm not to sure of your corporate tax burden numbers either.
.

www.cbpp.org...

[edit on 9-4-2008 by whaaa]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa

Remember when the gov. bailed out Lee Iococa so he could continue to build junk.

If anyone deserves a break, it is Iacocca..

Also it is a complete fallacy when compared to the facts...

At the time Iacocca took over, Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy

Iacocca approached the United States Congress in 1979 and asked for a loan guarantee. While it is sometimes said that Congress lent Chrysler the money, it, in fact, only guaranteed the loans

Chrysler leads the automobile industry in minivan sales[citation needed]. Because of these three cars, and the reforms Iacocca implemented, the company turned around quickly and was able to repay the government-backed loans seven years earlier than expected.

Iacocca

Note "PAID OFF EARLIER THAN EXPECTED"

Also of note in reference to the much erroneously demonized Iacocca..

In May 1982, Ronald Reagan appointed Iacocca to head the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation

In 1984, Iacocca co-authored (with William Novak) his autobiography, titled Iacocca: An Autobiography. It was a hugely successful book, proving to be the best selling non-fiction hardback book of 1984 and 1985. The proceeds of the book's sales benefitted diabetes research.

Following the death of Iacocca's wife from diabetes, he has become an active supporter of research to find a cure for the disease, and has been one of the main patrons of the innovative diabetes research of Denise Faustman at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 2000, Iacocca founded Olivio Premium Products, which manufactures the Olivio line of food products made from olive oil. He donates all profits from the company to diabetes research. In 2004, Iacocca launched Join Lee Now[7], a national grassroots campaign that will bring Faustman's research to human clinical trials in 2006.

Iacocca

The man is a "One Man Charity Campaign"

It seems the hype surrounding corporations and the truth about taxes gets confused even here on ATS...

Semper

Nothing really to be unsure of in regards to corporate taxes...

All you need to do is look at more than one source to be sure you have verifiable facts..

Examples..

Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.

Many states impose state corporate income taxes at rates above the national average of 6.6 percent.

Tax Foundation

NOTE: Second HIGHEST on the WORLD

Corporate taxes

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%

SMBIZ

Also of note...

The Wealthy Pay Most of the Taxes

Well, I'm not sure where you define wealthy...but the upper 50% of the wage earners pay @97% of all tax collections, and the lower ones only @3%. The upper of the upper pay a disproportionate share of that too, the Top 1% of earners = 37% of taxes paid, the next bracket 2-5% accounts for another 20%. So about 57% paid by the top 5%. Especially as this is for Personal Income Tax only, and many of the more wealthy have much of the income taxed (some would say double taxed) by in the Corporate returns of those corporations they control/own.

Wiki Answers

The facts are clear...

Semper

Income Tax. The Federal government had an income tax from 1861 to 1894. The very first income tax was laid on in the Civil War. It was a flat or single rate of 3% on all income over $600 which Wikipedia says is equal to $10,000 today.

The Constitutional basis for this tax is found on Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress, Clause 1. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . . “ This clause however must be read in conjunction with Clause 18: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The real Constitutional problem begins when you must determine whether and how to apply Article 1. Section 9, [originally] Clause 4 [Overruled by the 16th Amendment]: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Historically a “capitation” was a head tax. In other words, you counted the people and assessed a tax on each one. A head tax. www.usconstitution.net... For an earlier but probably familiar example of a HEAD tax, see Note 1.

The Constitution’s “capitation” clause (Sec. 9, Cl. 4) when read in conjunction with the [included] decennial “census” provision seems to have meant that when raising Federal revenue by use of a capitation tax, it had to be an evenly allotted amount payable by each person based on the total number of persons eligible to pay such a tax as was disclosed by the census.

However, an income tax is not a “capitation” tax. Nevertheless the 1894 Tax Code was found NOT constitutional in the 1895 Court case cited above. Congress did not collet income taxes until after the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Personal income takes are the easiest to lay on and the most productive and if properly progressive, the fairest. See Note 2.

Read it and Weep! From 1942 until 1961, the top bracket rate was 91%! You guys who hate to fund the government would have screamed like stuck pigs if you had lived in the era of the Greatest Generation of which you are not! JFK lowered the top bracket rate to 70%! And this was in an unparalleled ear of overall prosperity from the TOP down to the BOTTOM!

President Carter lowered the top bracket rate to 50%, and then President Reagan lowered it to 28%. Revenues feel precipitously, so Reagan raised it back to 32%. Bush 1 raised it to 34% and Clinton raised it to 36% with a 10% “Millionaires” surtax, making a top bracket of 39.6%. And another era of widely shared prosperity ensued. Balanced federal budget. $1.8 trillion projected surplus. Taxes make sense.

There is NO proof low tax rates encourage overall economic prosperity OR conversely, that HIGH tax rates discourage overall economic prosperity. In fact, it may well be just the contrary is true.


Note 1. Luke 2:1-5 [1] In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. [2] (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) [3] And everyone went to his own town to register.

[4] So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. [5] He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. (NSV)

Commentary: Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth in the Galilee. They traveled approximately 90 miles south from Nazareth to Bethlehem in Judea in order to take part in the Roman census and [head] taxation.

Note 2. Current US Income tax rate on “taxable” income.
Up to $7,825, No tax. Over $7,825, up to $31,850, s10% rate. Then over $31,850 to $77,100 the rate is 25%. Income over $77100, up to $160,850, is taxed at 28%. Income over $160,850 up to $349,700, a 33% rate. All taxable income over $349,700 is taxed at 35% rate.

Appendix 1. Consider the Federal tax burden on a taxable income of $40,000; a taxable income of $400,000; and a taxable income of $1,000,000. In the first instance the tax owed is $6,423.75. This amounts to 16% of the earner’s taxable income. In the second instance, the tax owed is $119,074.25. This amounts to 29.7% of taxable income. In the last instance, the tax owed is $329,074.25 which amounts to 32.9% of the taxable income.

AFTER tax income to Ex. 1, above, is $33,576.00. In Ex. 2 above, after tax income is $280,925.75. And in Ex. 3, the after tax income is $675,925.75.

[edit on 4/10/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
I want to furnish “free” health care for 100% of Americans -

Nothing is free.

Under Marxism those that work hard end up supporting those that don't want to work. It doesn't matter how hard you work, the gov't takes your money. So why work hard? No personal reward means people will stop working hard. That's just basic psychology.

If I want to work towards 100% employment

If you want 100% employment then stop the illegals from coming in this country and send them all home. They are taking lower level jobs that those on welfare could be taking. And so the illegals end up raising my taxes because I have to support more people on welfare.

Don,

The site where you obtained this information was not difficult to find, so I read it and found one glaring problem with your assertion and their findings...

It is wrong...

The study you reference is here:

Economic Scene

As you can see, they like you are attempting to mix apples and oranges. You are comparing an economy based on bulk manufacturing, then, to a technology driven economy now...

A more accurate and extremely more pertinent study is here:

Tax Protection

States with the highest income tax rates — California and New York, for example — are significantly outperformed by the nine states with no income tax, such as Texas and Florida.

As a study from the Atlanta Federal Reserve Board put it: “Relative marginal tax rates have a statistically significant negative relationship with relative state growth.”The other factor for attracting jobs and capital is right-to-work laws. States that permit workers to be compelled to join unions have much lower rates of employment growth than states that don’t. Many companies say they will not even consider locating a factory in a state that does not have a right-to-work law.

Our study also finds that states with antigrowth tax and spending policies don’t just lose people. Noncompetitive states like New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey are plagued by falling housing values, a shrinking tax base, business outmigration, capital flight and high unemployment rates, and less money for schools, roads and aging infrastructure. These factors of decline hurt the poor the most.

Now that study was performed at current levels of tax base and economic foundation principles. Not historical data that bears no relevance to modern economics.

The simple and pure fact that lower taxation encourages economic growth and increased business structuring is basic economics 101...

Additionally see here:

The most outstanding policy differences between the two recoveries are in the realm of tax policy. Reagan instituted across-the-board reductions in tax rates, while Bush and Clinton both pushed massive tax increases. The most disturbing conclusion is that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases have cost Americans far more than the extra earnings collected by the IRS; they have cost the economy at least two years of growth. Comparing the two recoveries:

* Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).

* After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.

* Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).

* Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).

* Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.

In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Tax Policy

The United States tax base is upheld and funded by corporate tax payments. The amount paid by individuals, while not insignificant, can hardly be considered impactive when compared to corporate dollars.

The Bible not withstanding of course. Although I fail to see the relevance..

As for your tax rates, I have no idea where you obtained them. You will find my tax base schedule I provided in my previous posting to be accurate and up to date. You will also find the links I used to obtain the current information so that you may study it yourself.

Semper

Originally posted by donwhite
There is NO proof low tax rates encourage overall economic prosperity OR conversely, that HIGH tax rates discourage overall economic prosperity.

Tax and spend liberals (or socialists, or Marxists) love to point at Bill Clinton and claim that because he raised taxes he was able to balance the budget and have ‘strong economy’. This isn’t so. His ‘strong economy’ was an illusion. He raped certain very important programs in order to pay for entitlements and giveaways. He screwed over the military and intelligence budgets and left us a very weak country. It’s no wonder 9/11 happened just months after his watch. Our intelligence services were broken. Our military was suffering from severe cutbacks. Clinton did this with the parts of government that he didn’t like. So pointing to the Clinton years and saying “see … high taxes means balanced budget” doesn’t work.

Clinton just looooooved to toss those cruise missiles around. Trouble is, he cancelled manufacturing them to ‘save money and balance the budget’. He just about used up our arsenal and left it empty all in the name of ‘balancing the budget’.

Tax-o-crats listen up -
Higher taxes = lower money multiplier
lower money multiplier = weaker economy

US among the top offending nations in regards to a high tax burden

Understanding why high taxes are bad for the economy … It’s a cheesy video but it educates

The Heritage Foundation – Higher taxes are bad for the economy .

The CATO institute – Low corporate taxes invite foreign investment and stimulates the economy. High corporate taxes creates a ‘brain drain’, loss of business, loss of jobs, loss of spending capital for shareholders

From CNN – People say what we need is a lower cost of living . Raising taxes takes money AWAY from these people.

EVRO Intelligence – The cause of tax evasion is high taxes. Low tax and flat tax countries don’t have nearly the rate of tax evasion problems as high tax countries.

Radio Free Europe reports that the cause of The Black Economy in socialist countries is too high of a tax burden. When a black market develops then the country has tremendous loss. If taxes had been kept low, then the black market wouldn’t have had as much incentive to develop. You want a black market America?? Keep raising taxes.

The Hoover Institute – High taxes are poisonous .

The Economics Voice – High taxes lead to multiple economic distortions .

It comes down to this – people who earn money have a right to keep it. If they have it in their hands they will spend it. When they spend it the economy continues to move. When it’s taken out of their hands by someone who wants to be their nanny, then they no longer have it and therefore can’t spend it. The economy suffers.

It’s pretty much common sense, ya’ know? PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN MONEY. The government is not a nanny-state. No one in this country owes anyone else anything.




[edit on 4/11/2008 by FlyersFan]

posed by nyk537
Your post seems to draw upon the root meanings of the words, not necessarily the political leanings or stances of either. This is where we get what I and others like to call the "little L" liberal and "little c" conservative. These are the roots of these words and are not a bad thing one way or the other.

Mr nyk537, you are generally correct in your observations. I meant to give the reader my point of reference. That in turn would form the basis of my allegation that the title “Conservative” has been hijacked. I’m not saying that act was part of a sinister conspiracy, but it has worked out that way. The hijacking, not the conspiracy. It is totally mis-representative of reality.

People who often identify themselves as being “conservatives” are not. Instead, they are backwards looking types who want to return to the "good old days." Nostalgia buffs. But I say they are more accurately labeled as “reactionaries.” That tag is not meant by me to be pejorative. But it is difficult to impossible to discuss issues when you start off with the wrong labels. The discussion runs the risk the participants are talking in parallel universes. I wanted to avoid that. Admittedly nobody wants to be known as a reactionary, everybody wants to be seen as a conservative. But you are what you are.

Aside: The recent Congressional Hearings on Iraq featured the Administration‘s hand picked Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Neither man revealed anything not already known to the public or leaked by the WH. It was mostly an opportunity for Congresspersons to make statements on national tv. To cheer up the folks back home.

I was pleased but not surprised to hear US Rep. Ron Paul deliver the most COGENT analysis and offer the MOST telling remarks to the two GUESTS. Nor was I surprised that neither could or would respond with the same directness and candor Mr. Paul spoke with. Only a politician with nothing to lose can afford that luxury.

Gen. Petraeus’ full title is CG, MNF-I. Commanding General, Multi-National Force, Iraq. (Soon to drop the Multi- part). Personal: Lesson 1 How to Get Ahead. Two months after graduation Petraeus married Holly Knowlton, a graduate from Dickinson College and daughter of retired Army General William A. Knowlton who was superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) at the time. That's marrying the boss' daughter! Go straight to the top! Clever if not smart. And how's that for networking? Our military and naval forces have become father, son, grandson organizations. An hereditary aristocracy? Jeez. In the US of A. Hmm? End. Facts are from Wikipedia. Commentary is my own. en.wikipedia.org...

Conservatism seeks to empower the people of this country to make better lives for themselves. While Liberalism seeks to empower the government to make better lives for them. And that's something I can not and will not ever get behind.

Operative words, “ . . Conservatism seeks to empower the people . . “ A lofty goal if not just plain old jargon. From Madison Avenue? Or William F. Buckley, Jr? It is no doubt a belief held sincerely by those who recite it. But it has become a pro forma litany mimicked at appropriate intervals at meetings of like thinking people. Done much like a genuflect. Eisenhower and Nixon as well as Ford were conservatives, but Goldwater, Reagan and the 2 Bushes were not. Oh, in his homey rhetoric Reagan wanted to convey that image and claim that mantle, but in real life actions he was not a conservative. IMO. Reagan was a reactionary, that is, he wanted to return to the past.

And therein lies my quarrel. I do not care what anyone stands for or believes. If he or she is honest about it. Like Ron Paul. Reagan OTOH was unable to achieve the outright repeal of any of the social welfare programs he so much detested. But Reagan, unlike Nixon and Ford, was unwilling to accept the “will of the people.” Instead he deviously chose to under-staff and under-fund the programs and agencies. For a variety of reasons he was able to accomplish that goal. It took decades for us to experience the consequences. As in Katrina and FEMA. A gutted agency.

America is now reaping what he sowed. Just a few of the dire consequences are, 1) lead paint in children’s toys; 2) e.coli in our imported food; 3) bridges falling down; 4) airliners not being inspected as required; and 5) a trillion dollar negative impact from unregulated mortgages going bad. Predictably.

The Reagan Revolution at its best and at its worst! And that is not conservative in anybody's language. It is more akin to anarchy.

[edit on 4/11/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by semperfortis

The United States tax base is upheld and funded by corporate tax payments. The amount paid by individuals, while not insignificant, can hardly be considered impactive when compared to corporate dollars. As for your tax rates, I have no idea where you obtained them. You will find my tax base schedule I provided in my previous posting to be accurate and up to date. You will also find the links I used to obtain the current information so that you may study it yourself.

Semper, you are generally regarded as distortion proof! Last first, my tax rates are exactly what yours would be. On persons. They come from the same source you used for corporate rates. 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. I did not intend to make any comments regarding the corporate rates. See below for my reasons.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of the contributions made by corporate America to Federal revenues. Far from being the engine that pulls the Federal tax train, corporate revenues are more like the caboose. See this: “Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for nearly 80 percent of federal revenue . . . corporate income tax revenue makes up about two-thirds of the rest. [13%?] Excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and miscellaneous receipts bring in just 7 percent of federal revenue.” www.urban.org...

reply to post by nyk537

Again we are back at one of the main reasons why Liberalism today is something I completely disagree with. You, along with most other Liberals, believe that it is the governments responsibility to take care of and provide for us. You believe it’s the responsibility of the government to provide our health care, and make sure we are all on the same playing field.

Operative words: “ . . the government to . . make sure . . we are all on the same playing field.” I would have used LEVEL instead of SAME but Mr nyk537, you have hit the nail squarely on the head! That’s what good governance is all about. Look at the recent bail-out of the BIG BOYS whose get rich quick gamble went awry. Unwilling to take their losses, they appealed to the US Government in the person of Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. Without debate he promptly “posted” $200 b. for the banks to “bid” on. He said he’d be ready to post another $200 b. if needed. No Free Market for these well placed boys. No help for borrowers just money for lenders. A lesson in Republican Family Values! They do take care of their own!

Say Thank You Mr. Taxpayers. We are after all the ones who really get to “post” all that money. Nearly a half trillion dollars. Mr. Bernanke is NOT talking about his own personal fortune. My Yiddish: Of which facts we are not told how much he had invested in the grand MORTGAGE SCAM. Or how little. I’d like to know. The Meltdown was made possible - nay inevitable - by the Reagan Revolution. Let’s give credit where credit is due!

I don’t need the government to take a larger chuck of my paycheck just because I’m making more money. The idea that this country could be headed toward a policy of redistribution of wealth scares me to death . . the thought of the government being able to step in and take more of my hard earned money to provide health care and/or welfare to those who don’t want to take advantage of the opportunities this country provides sickens me.

Not every runner in the race (of life) finishes FIRST. Someone finishes LAST. Need I ask the logical questions that fact of life suggests? History. The first income tax was laid on in 1861. If you are just now becoming aware of the potential for the redistribution of wealth income taxation creates, you are late on the scene by a century and a half. No one here has commented on the Greatest Generation paying a 91% tax rate. They obviously prized something MORE than themselves! It was pay as you go for their war. Maybe having just survived the Great Depression gave them a different and I’d argue, a BETTER perspective? We've put $7+ T. on the cuff. It's time we paid our own way. Instead of energy independence we need a lesson in DEBT independence. Say again, higher taxes. Advice. In the alternative, I can only suggest laying in a good supply of K-Y Jelly.

[edit on 4/11/2008 by donwhite]