You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Foundations of conservatism
- Thread starter IShopAtPublix
- Start date
How did that low tax and lack of banking regulation, lack of fiscal responsibility, deference to the wealthy work out for conservative Bush's economy?
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-2-140
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-2-140
Quote from NeoRio1:
Are you inept at understanding relativity? You state the phrase low taxes as if there is a universally accepted percentage considered to be a low tax. In 1900 Americans would consider the taxes of today to be gigantic. Today Denmark citizens would consider American taxes to be tiny.
Traditional conservatives believed in a foreign policy built around isolationism and small government interference in the market place. A foreign policy built around isolationism with small government interference in the market with minimal human resource programs would create very low taxes relative to today.
The error you're making is that you assume modern Republicans are traditional conservatives. They are not. The majority of Modern Republicans believe in an expansionist foreign policy with a moderate amount of entitlement programs relative to Democrats. That won't create taxes as low as traditional conservatives but will keep taxes lower relative to the other party.
The majority of Modern Democrats believe in an expansionist foreign policy with a high amount of entitlement programs relative to Republicans. That will create higher taxes relative to the Republicans.
Modern Republicans will not create low taxes in the sense of traditional conservatives but they will create lower taxes relative to the Democrats.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
How did that low tax and lack of banking regulation, lack of fiscal responsibility, deference to the wealthy work out for conservative Bush's economy?
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-2-140
Are you seriously trying to say that in the long run politicians who believe in a moderate amount of entitlements tax more than politicians who believe in a high amount of entitlements?
Would you say Sweden, France, Denmark, Italy and Canada are right or left of the US? Sweden spends 55.9% of their GDP on government expenditures. France spends 53.8% of their GDP on government expenditures. A very large majority of these expenditures are spent on social welfare programs. The average person in those countries pay around 35-40% of their income on taxes.
The only way you could possibly make the argument that Republicans will end up taxing more than Democrats is if you claim that Republicans favor higher amounts of entitlements than Democrats. Could a logical person really make that argument Optional?
Of the countries you quoted, list the % living below the poverty level, then compare that to the USA...
Quote from NeoRio1:
Are you seriously trying to say that in the long run politicians who believe in a moderate amount of entitlements tax more than politicians who believe in a high amount of entitlements?
Would you say Sweden, France, Denmark, Italy and Canada are right or left of the US? Sweden spends 55.9% of their GDP on government expenditures. France spends 53.8% of their GDP on government expenditures. A very large majority of these expenditures are spent on social welfare programs. The average person in those countries pay around 35-40% of their income on taxes.
The only way you could possibly make the argument that Republicans will end up taxing more than Democrats is if you claim that Republicans favor higher amounts of entitlements than Democrats. Could a logical person really make that argument Optional?
As I said before, small government and big military don't combine (military is part of government) big military and low taxes don't combine either. The essence of all of this is that conservatism is a fraud.
4% GDP is not big, your tax bill for the military is quite low compared to social welfare schemes. Social welfare is and will be our economic downfall, not the military, the numbers tell the story.
As mentioned conservatism simply means following the constitution so that gov't will stay the hell out of your life. The military is for dealing with foreign powers. Whether or not we should pay to protect people like the Swedes so that they can play socialist is another question.
I am more anti-liberal than pro-conservative. Liberals with a social agenda are hate driven, liberals with an economic agenda are clueless folk who think gov't solves everything if only they can get enough of my money.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Even as a kid in high school I was wondering how you can combine "strong national defense" (euphemism for big military), small government and low taxes. The foundations of modern "conservatism" are utter nonsense.
i'm not for 'liberalism' either, but our debt has exploded into total self destruction ever since reagan, with 'voodo economics' as george bush called it in 1980
how much is the annual budget for the military/welfare contracting business anyway?800billion ?Isnt that the same amount for healthcare over 10 yrs?Why is the military budget so high?There is no more cold war-what are we spending more on military now than during the 80s???How can we choose military over health?Whats up with these lack of priorities?
The whole low tax ,big military mantra is a contradiction.You cant have one without the other.The gop bitches about 80billion a year for health care yet dont dont say dick about 800 billion a yr for military.Hipocrites.Somebody,somehow has to pay for it.Im glad that congress is thinking about taxing the rich to pay for this war.Since the rich support war but avoid serving in war they can at least walk the talk with their wallets.
The whole low tax ,big military mantra is a contradiction.You cant have one without the other.The gop bitches about 80billion a year for health care yet dont dont say dick about 800 billion a yr for military.Hipocrites.Somebody,somehow has to pay for it.Im glad that congress is thinking about taxing the rich to pay for this war.Since the rich support war but avoid serving in war they can at least walk the talk with their wallets.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Even as a kid in high school I was wondering how you can combine "strong national defense" (euphemism for big military), small government and low taxes. The foundations of modern "conservatism" are utter nonsense.
Of course you don't get it. You are an Obama supporting liberal. By definition, you do not get it. Let me sum it up real quick.
Its a very simply philosophy. If an individual cannot reasonably be expected to do it for themselves, then the Government provides it. The average person, or even Bill Gates for that matter, cannot reasonably be expected to field their own army and thus the government is responsible. The average person cannot be expected to pave their own roads, and thus the government is responsible.