Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
What exactly are you conserving?
One of the problems with conservatives is that they have allowed the liberals to define the narrative. I think this is a big mistake. Conservatives
ought to be more aggressive in explaining their stances on issues.
In the past, especially during the eighties and nineties, you called yourselves conservatives because you didn't want the government to spend
lots of money. It seems that today that is not true anymore, and you spend the money on par with the the liberals.
This is certainly true in Congress, so I agree with you that those so-called conservative politicians have been just as bad as the "progressives" in
spending money. Part of what the Tea Party movement is saying is that the elected conservative politicians have lost their way. So I agree with you
about what is happeneing. As a conservative, I certainly do not want it to be this way, but I'm not exactly winning this battle.
You don't want a small government, except where the corporations are concerned. You want to control people's sex lives such as making
abortion illegal and making certain sexual acts (in some states) illegal.
I DO want small government. Corporations are not a part of government. We can talk about corporations separately if you want. i do NOT want to control
people's sex lives. As far as I am concerned they can do whatever they want. I do NOT want sexual acts made illegal. That's absurd. I want
government out of the bedroom, period.
Now, when you talk about abortion, you are talking about human beings here. You'd like me to think a fetus is not a human being. I rather think it
is. I don't base this on religion at all. I base it on science. It's alive. I think it is alive from conception. That's not religious. It wiggles.
It's alive. You'd like to make an artificial distinction that when it's in the womb, it isn't human, but when it is not, it is. But you
"Progressives" are even wavering on this issue. In a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, some progressive "ethicists" (which are kind
of priests for the liberal left who don't believe in anything) they have decided there's no real moral difference between abortion and infanticide.
So you've attempted to move the bar outside the womb. Congrats.
You want to be more lenient on the rich but don't want to help the poor.
Actually, no. I've never met a poor man who would give me a job. I want the rich to feel free to invest in America. I don't want them moving money
overseas to avoid taxes. You see I know the "rich" pay most of the taxes already. In fact, here's a list from the IRS:
Top 1%: 1,399,606 returns paid $392,149mil for 20.70% AGI for 38.02% of taxes
Top 5%: 6,998,029 returns paid $213,569mil for 34.73% AGI for 58.72% share
Top 10%: 13,996,068 returns paid $721,421mil for 45.77% AGI for 69.94% of taxes
Top 25%: 34,990,145 returns paid $890,614mil for 67.38% AGI for 86.34% of taxes
Top 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $1,003,639mil for 87.25% AGI for 97.30% of taxes
Bottom 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $27,783 mil for 12.75% AGI for 2.59% of taxes.
So I think the poor are already being helped. If you qualify for welfare you get yer food stamps, your large screen TV, yer cable, all for nothing. So
the way I see it, I'm already paying for you to do nothing. What is "poor" anyway? the average "middle class" person in Europe lives in a par
with the average "poor" person in America. "Poor" is a relative term when billions of people live on a dollar a day. If you gave the income of an
average "poor" welfare recipient today to a family in Somalia, they would be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And what is "rich"? Anyone who makes more than you. If you take away the incentive to get rich, you take away the incentive to work. One of the most
popular sayings in the USSR was, "I pretend to work, and they pretend to pay me." Look at the UK today. The "masses" were so upset that there were
rich people in their midst that they passed inheritance taxes and income taxes so high that they erased the "rich" class in a couple of generations.
Now they are all poor and the UK is a shadow of its former self. It's a sad sad place. I'm an anglophile myself. I love the place, but the poverty
in that country is unreal.
You want many laws to be based on your religion. Again, such as abortion and marriage.
We already covered that, and for the record I have no religion. "Conservative" does not equate to "religion." but in terms of marriage, I don't
think the government should be involved at all. Polygamy ought to be legal. You want to marry a kangaroo, go ahead. It's just that I don't want my
tax money to give your "partner" extra benefits just because you are "married." I don't see a benefit to society to do that.
Out of space....