Why I am a conservative (Part Two of Two)

[Bitsy]

Not really stereotypes. This is what the "real conservatives" themselves are telling us. That's the turf that they've staked out for themselves.0 There's a massive gathering of "real conservatives" in Washington DC this weekend called the "Value Voters" summit. All of the probable Republican presidential nominees are there with the exception of Chris Christie. And they've banded together to declare that "real conservatives" want the end of Obamacare, More Jesus, tax cuts, and the decimation of social programs. And they say that Republicans who don't share those values, like John McCain or Chris Christie, aren't "real conservatives" and are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

Not really stereotypes. This is what the "real conservatives" themselves are telling us. That's the turf that they've staked out for themselves.0 There's a massive gathering of "real conservatives" in Washington DC this weekend called the "Value Voters" summit. All of the probable Republican presidential nominees are there with the exception of Chris Christie. And they've banded together to declare that "real conservatives" want the end of Obamacare, More Jesus, tax cuts, and the decimation of social programs. And they say that Republicans who don't share those values, like John McCain or Chris Christie, aren't "real conservatives" and are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

And these are the speakers at the rally who support those leaders.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/parker-gay-people-and-enemies-god-should-keep-it-private

[scribblet]

Nope.

So none of what kImmy says about republicans is true ?

[Bonam]

It keeps the discussion confined to how the governments great power should be directed.... where as in a system where the authoritarian / libertarian access was dominant the discussion would be about whether they should have any power at all.

Like Iv said before, this is one of the greatest achievements of philosophers in all of history. Basically these contrived political wings act as a firewall between the population and the political/ruling class itself. They can do literally whatever they want and we just squabble amongst our selves and vote for one of their political franchises instead of the other.

Indeed. Kinda makes one wonder if the currently popular democratic government structures used in most advanced nations are no longer serving their purpose, and need to be replaced with something substantially different.

[eyeball]

We could just try changing how people look at government which is why I say aim the Telescreens the other way but I guess that would be substantially different with a capital S and D wouldn't it?

[Argus]

People would say I'm a lefty, and I don't support banning offensive speech. In fact I might not even ban hate speech if it were up to me. So this is yet another stereotype of the "left" and "right" which doesn't help debate.

A generality is not less a general truth simply because it does not encompass the entirity of a population.

Not all Canadians care about hockey, but that does not make us any less a hockey-mad nation.

[Argus]

Not really stereotypes. This is what the "real conservatives" themselves are telling us. That's the turf that they've staked out for themselves.0 There's a massive gathering of "real conservatives" in Washington DC this weekend called the "Value Voters" summit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most of these people are not conservatives in any real sense of the term.

In America, the hot button morality issues have been used to inflame religious people and to garner votes and donations for so long they've become the heart and soul of what they seem to believe conservatism is all about. GWB ran up massive deficits while screwing up on just about everything government was supposed to do, but he was considered 'consercative' because he opposed gays and abortion. Sorry, but gays and abortion are not what conservatism is all about.

I agree that a lot of conservatives are too friendly with big business, but remember, until relatively recently on the time scale, what was good for General Motors generally WAS good for America, so to speak. The economic theories followed by conservatives have not changed much over the years in that providing a good environment for businesses to profit and grow means more people employed, a thriving economy and more taxes. The theory that money is better spent by those who earn it than by government is also largely unchallenged (including by me).

So what's changed of late? I once believed that it made little sense to tax business heavily. After all, what were they going to do with the money but either expand (good for the economy) or pay it out to owners (where it can then be taxed). Unfortunately, what we've seen in the last several decades is the growth in the ways the wealthy can take in those big cash payouts and not be taxed, and in the alternatives to investing money in the economy - like investing it overseas in someone else's economy.

Thus cutting taxes to a corporation now doesn't mean it builds a new plant or expands the existing one, but that it contracts out work to China and pays higher dividends to investors (taxed at 15% not including various writeoffs).

I am not the only conservative who has noticed the failure of the trusted economic model. I am sure that quite a few of us are muttering about this and that the situation will eventually change. I know I'd like to see a new tax regimen which removed payroll taxes on business entirely (for example) and instead increased taxes in various other ways, including on sales. Our GST is one of the lowest around. Do you know that the VAT (value added tax) in Germany is 19%? In Britain and France it's 20%? In Finlalnd its 24%, in Denmark 25%.

How do they get away with that? The theory is to tax what businesses sell, rather than on what they make. So no matter where you make that fridge or phone or car or whatever, you're going to be largely taxed on what you sell it for. The same goes for services. You can contract out your customer service people to Bangladesh and you can have your software developers in India, but when you offer up your services to a company or organization, whatever you charge is going to get taxed. The way we do it, every single employee you hire is an additional taxation cost as you pay for his CPP, unemployment, etc.

We also need to return to some of the tax policies of the past with regard to taxation rates on the wealthy.

[kimmy]

Maybe in the U.S. but sure a lot less true in Canada. As I said, I know no conservative who wants the police to be paramilitary, it's just crazy. There are many people who think the CPC today is not conservative enough. I've heard some people say they believe the Liberals are more conservative.

Being friendly to big business is just helping the economy and providing jobs. However, the throne

speech appears to be more consumer friendly. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-signal-consumer-friendly-throne-speech-1.2021739

Again, you may be right about the U.S. but not Canada.

People who say the Liberals are more conservative than the Conservatives are probably referring to the cost cutting and budget-balancing Paul Martin did in the 1990s. And if that's the case, they're right about that much. Our "capital C" Conservatives basically blew it with a bunch of reckless tax cuts that undid the work that Paul Martin did as finance minister. For some reason tax cuts have become part of today's "conservative" ideology.

But as Argus is pointing out, there's not actually anything "conservative" about cutting taxes while you still have a big debt and revenue uncertainty. It's like quitting your job while you still have mortgage payments to make. It's the opposite of "conservative" in the traditional meaning of that word.

So none of what kImmy says about republicans is true ?

I don't actually know what she's noping at, but if you're skeptical about anything I've written you can easily Google it for yourself. I'll happily discuss anything that I've said if you have an issue with any of it. You'll note that I wasn't speaking of "Republicans", however, I was speaking of those who have claimed the title of "real conservatives" for themselves. They hardly include all Republicans; they're bigtime enemies of people like John McCain and Mitt Romney and everybody else within the party who doesn't fit their view of what a "real conservative" looks like.

-k

[kimmy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most of these people are not conservatives in any real sense of the term.

I agree with everything you just wrote. I can't think of much to add, except that in regard to taxation and corporate profit, I see little hope for change because the people who are in charge of these things have strong vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

People who say the Liberals are more conservative than the Conservatives are probably referring to the cost cutting and budget-balancing Paul Martin did in the 1990s. And if that's the case, they're right about that much. Our "capital C" Conservatives basically blew it with a bunch of reckless tax cuts that undid the work that Paul Martin did as finance minister. For some reason tax cuts have become part of today's "conservative" ideology.

But as Argus is pointing out, there's not actually anything "conservative" about cutting taxes while you still have a big debt and revenue uncertainty. It's like quitting your job while you still have mortgage payments to make. It's the opposite of "conservative" in the traditional meaning of that word.

In defense of the Conservatives, they cut taxes (at least the GST) before the recession hit. But maybe we should have kept the taxes and kept paying down the debt.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[kimmy]

In defense of the Conservatives, they cut taxes (at least the GST) before the recession hit. But maybe we should have kept the taxes and kept paying down the debt.

In other words it lacked foresight and left the public finances ill-prepared for potential adversity. Basically the exact opposite of what "conservative" actually means.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

So none of what kImmy says about republicans is true ?

Not any more so than it's true about conservatives in Canada in general. I'm sure there are a few that fit the bill, there always are, but it most definitely is not true of Republicans at large. I don't know any Republican who would describe their stance that way. Many Republicans are Republicans because of fiscal matters.

[Argus]

Not any more so than it's true about conservatives in Canada in general. I'm sure there are a few that fit the bill, there always are, but it most definitely is not true of Republicans at large. I don't know any Republican who would describe their stance that way. Many Republicans are Republicans because of fiscal matters.

Really? And that's why they cut taxes again and again while raising spending? Those Republicans are outraged about deficits only insofar as a lot of money is spent on "entitlements" which is a dirty word to Republicans. But you don't see any move to cut back on farm subsidies, on business subsidies or on military funding. And you don't see any move to cut down on the loopholes which have allowed the rich to pay the lowest level of taxation in the last hundred years. In fact, they want to cut taxes for the rich even more.

Cut taxes? With their giant deficit and debt and they want to cut taxes again? That's not conservative.

[Bitsy]

Again, you may be right about the U.S. but not Canada.

Kimmy is pretty spot on in what she said about the US with the exception that all Republicans want the end of Obamacare and additional tax cuts.

And they've banded together to declare that "real conservatives" want the end of Obamacare, More Jesus, tax cuts, and the decimation of social programs. And they say that Republicans who don't share those values, like John McCain or Chris Christie, aren't "real conservatives" and are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

[eyeball]

How about the conservative stance towards the environment...it's not very conserving at all.

Verb

1. Protect (something, esp. an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.
2. Prevent the wasteful or harmful overuse of (a resource).

[Guest American Woman]

Kimmy is pretty spot on in what she said about the US with the exception that all Republicans want the end of Obamacare and additional tax cuts.

And they've banded together to declare that "real conservatives" want the end of Obamacare, More Jesus, tax cuts, and the decimation of social programs. And they say that Republicans who don't share those values, like John McCain or Chris Christie, aren't "real conservatives" and are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

So what makes them get to be representative of "real Republicans" and not John McCain or Chris Christie? I'd wager that there are a lot more members of the Republican party that identify with the John McCain's et al. McCain was even on the presidential ticket. So no, I say kimmy is not "pretty spot on in what she said about the US."

[Bitsy]

So what makes them get to be representative of "real Republicans" and not John McCain or Chris Christie? I'd wager that there are a lot more members of the Republican party that identify with the John McCain's et al. McCain was even on the presidential ticket. So no, I say kimmy is not "pretty spot on in what she said about the US."

Where did Kimmy say the faction that attended the Value Voter’s Summit were representative of Republicans? She was spot on about that particular group, particularly about Jesus and decimation of social programs, but as I pointed out all the Republicans want to away with Obamacare and believe that cutting taxes increases revenue. She failed to mention though that this value voting faction are against immigration reform, same-sex marriage and legal abortion, policies which are supported by the more moderate Republicans.

[eyeball]

She (kimmy) was spot on about that particular group, particularly about Jesus and decimation of social programs,

I can't help but think that these folks subscribe to the belief that suffering people are more amenable to hearing their good news. I recall reading how certain priests who came in contact with indigenous people gave them blankets they believed were infected with disease for just that very reason - the hope that their suffering would bring them around to the priest's ministrations and eventually their way of thinking.

The scary thing is that these folks really do believe they're doing the righteous thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Where did Kimmy say the faction that attended the Value Voters Summit were representative of Republicans?

Where did I say she did? I was responding to an inquiry about "real conservatives," ie: Republicans in the U.S., in regards to a claim kimmy had made about "real conservatives."

.... as I pointed out all the Republicans want to away with Obamacare and believe that cutting taxes increases revenue.

That's just flat out false.

She failed to mention though that this value voting faction are against immigration reform, same-sex marriage and legal abortion, policies which are supported by the more moderate Republicans.

Yes, and they, too, are "real conservatives [ie:Republicans];" only a small minority of Republicans view themselves as "very conservative."

[Bitsy]

Where did I say she did? I was responding to an inquiry about "real conservatives," ie: Republicans in the U.S., in regards to a claim kimmy had made about "real conservatives."

We have a misunderstanding; you asked “So what makes them get to be representative of "real Republicans" and not John McCain or Chris Christie?” Kimmy did not used the word “representative” she said the ‘value voters’ think they are the “real conservatives”, and I agree with her observation. Sean Hannity seems to think that a third party is needed... a new conservative party. More people may be calling for a third party if the Ted Cruz faction loses this current battle.

That's just flat out false.

I was speaking of congressional Republicans in the congress. The ACA garnered not one single Republican vote. Many Republicans believe that Bush 41 lost his presidency because he could not fulfill his “no new tax” pledge.

Yes, and they, too, are "real conservatives [ie:Republicans];" only a small minority of Republicans view themselves as "very conservative."

What exactly is your definition of “very conservative” as it applies to the US.

[kimmy]

Thanks, Bitsy!

As Bitsy points out, I specified the self-proclaimed "real conservatives", not all Republicans.

As I say, I don't consider these self-styled "real conservatives" to be conservative at all, in the true definition of the word conservative.

The "real conservatives" were the faction of the Republican party that was willing to plunge the United States (and possibly the whole world) into financial uncertainty to get their way over defunding the ACA. Willingness to risk economic chaos as a political strategy is pretty much the exact opposite of what the word conservative actually means.

-k

[cybercoma]

It's actually pretty radical.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's actually pretty radical.

It's radical, insane, and extremely irresponsible is what it is.

[Guest American Woman]

We have a misunderstanding; you asked “So what makes them get to be representative of "real Republicans" and not John McCain or Chris Christie?” Kimmy did not used the word “representative” she said the ‘value voters’ think they are the “real conservatives”, and I agree with her observation.

No misunderstanding on my part - and my question stands. So a certain ilk claim to be "real conservatives." Say they do want those things; I'm not even going to argue that because it's not relevant to my point. They make up a small percentage of Republicans in the U.S.; I would guess it's similar in Canada. It's a very small minority of a large group. There are always extremists on any issue, in any party, etc. Nothing unusual about that.

To me, speaking in any way as if they are "real conservatives/Republicans" is empowering them. Why not simply recognize them for what they are - a small, vocal minority? To me, it's giving them the attention they seek; letting them 'take over'. I say let them talk. Talk is cheap - and it's only effective if others allow it to be effective. So. To me, saying 'I used to consider myself conservative, but the self-claimed real conservatives want this that and the other thing' implies to me that such people are being allowed to represent conservatives. And that's just not true. Hence my responses.

Sean Hannity seems to think that a third party is needed... a new conservative party. More people may be calling for a third party if the Ted Cruz faction loses this current battle.

I'm not that into what Sean Hannity wants myself, but people give him attention, so what he wants is given power. If there is a third party, a new conservative party, which party do you think will attract more people - the one made up of the ilk you/kimmy refer to - or a more moderate conservative party?

I was speaking of congressional Republicans in the congress. The ACA garnered not one single Republican vote. Many Republicans believe that Bush 41 lost his presidency because he could not fulfill his “no new tax” pledge.

You didn't make it clear that you were only referring to Republicans in Congress, as Scriblett was asking about Republicans in general (not just a specific faction), but even your claim in regards to Congress that "all Republicans want the end of Obamacare," Eighty-seven Republicans in the House and 27 in the Senate joined with President Barack Obama on Wednesday evening to enact a continuing resolution that funds the government, including the implementation of Obamacare. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/87-house-and-27-senate-republicans-vote-cr-funding-obamacare#sthash.Sca3WvhR.dpuf

[Bitsy]

No misunderstanding on my part - and my question stands. So a certain ilk claim to be "real conservatives." Say they do want those things; I'm not even going to argue that because it's not relevant to my point. They make up a small percentage of Republicans in the U.S.; I would guess it's similar in Canada. It's a very small minority of a large group. There are always extremists on any issue, in any party, etc. Nothing unusual about that.

Well, I admit to misunderstanding you. Call it whatever you choose but there is a great divide within the Republican Party, i.e. Ted Cruz from a John McCain or a Mike Lee from Lindsey Graham or a Rick Perry from a Chris Christie.

To me, speaking in any way as if they are "real conservatives/Republicans" is empowering them. Why not simply recognize them for what they are - a small, vocal minority? To me, it's giving them the attention they seek; letting them 'take over'. I say let them talk. Talk is cheap - and it's only effective if others allow it to be effective. So. To me, saying 'I used to consider myself conservative, but the self-claimed real conservatives want this that and the other thing' implies to me that such people are being allowed to represent conservatives. And that's just not true. Hence my responses

.

The Citizens United ruling gave this vocal minority a loud voice. Heritage Foundation, Freedom Works, Club for Growth, etc plan to primary all Republican s who voted to end the shutdown. I see their voice growing louder until they finally capture the presidential nomination, at which time, I do believe the majority will make their voices heard at the ballot box and only then will we see a silencing of their voices or at least a mellowing.

I'm not that into what Sean Hannity wants myself, but people give him attention, so what he wants is given power. If there is a third party, a new conservative party, which party do you think will attract more people - the one made up of the ilk you/kimmy refer to - or a more moderate conservative party?

The moderate conservative party.

You didn't make it clear that you were only referring to Republicans in Congress, as Scriblett was asking about Republicans in general (not just a specific faction),

You are right. I realized that I did make myself clear and this why I clarified it so that we would be on the same page.

but even your claim in regards to Congress that "all Republicans want the end of Obamacare," Eighty-seven Republicans in the House and 27 in the Senate joined with President Barack Obama on Wednesday evening to enact a continuing resolution that funds the government, including the implementation of Obamacare. http://www.cnsnews.c...h.Sca3WvhR.dpuf

Those votes were for ending the government shutdown and avoiding debt default and the only way that could be achieved was to cease their opposition to Obamacare and vote for its funding. It will be of interest to me to follow those who voted yes and are up for reelection in 2014. I have lost track of the number of times the House has spent their time on a fool’s mission in voting to repeal Obamacare. I hope this will now be the last of those votes.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Bitsy

[kimmy]

Personally, I think it would be great if the Tea Partyists went off and formed their own party. Then the Republicans could return to being a functional political party.

-k