The Rise of the New Right - Terrifying? Or Terrific?

[MaggieMae]

Well done Big Fitz though those still looking for somebody to blame, villains to accuse, or windmills to tilt at won't get it. You see above that there are some still spouting the far left standard assigned hate jargon and are unable or unwilling to focus on the principles involved. The whole Chris Matthews spiel was to attack, diminish, marginalize, demonize those on the right and he isn't about to get into the values that the Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, tax protest groups etc. are actually promoting. Those are ignored and recharacterized as 'hate', 'unrestrained anger', 'militias', 'ignorant people clinging to their guns and Bibles', etc.

Even Maggie up there who is trying very much to be reasonable simply dismisses conservative values as unworkable rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of WHY they are unworkable. Because I doubt very much she knows. It has been my experience that nobody who is a leftist does know because they just aren't wired to thnk in any terms other than leftist, socialist, big government solution terms. And they have been trained and/or brainwashed to think poorly of those on the right.

I don't know how we get around that other than just keep making our case and hope it gets through the fog here and there.

I'll be happy to discuss why I don't think many (not all) conservative values don't work. Did lowering the tax rate provide an intended trickle-down effect? Nope. Did the 2004 evangelical movement which brought to the fore every wedge issue imaginable work? Nope. Did the "new conservative" push for unilateral military intervention in the middle east work? Nope.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Given the ratings, it seems the only people watching PMSNBC are right wing bloggers who want to make fun of it.

If the right wing bloggers stop watching, their ratings might fall by 2/3s.

 

[Foxfyre]

Given the ratings, it seems the only people watching PMSNBC are right wing bloggers who want to make fun of it.

If the right wing bloggers stop watching, their ratings might fall by 2/3s.

LOL. I hadn't thought about it, but I bet you're right.

 

[MaggieMae]

It has been my experience that nobody who is a leftist does know because they just aren't wired to thnk in any terms other than leftist, socialist, big government solution terms. And they have been trained and/or brainwashed to think poorly of those on the right.

Oh how I love it when conservatives fail to see the pure hypocrisy sometimes, to-wit, a rewrite:

It has been my experience that nobody who is a right wing extremist does know because they just aren't wired to thnk in any terms other than don't-tax-but-spend-anyway-on-Big-Business solution terms. And they have been trained and/or brainwashed to think poorly of those on the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well done Big Fitz though those still looking for somebody to blame, villains to accuse, or windmills to tilt at won't get it. You see above that there are some still spouting the far left standard assigned hate jargon and are unable or unwilling to focus on the principles involved. The whole Chris Matthews spiel was to attack, diminish, marginalize, demonize those on the right and he isn't about to get into the values that the Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, tax protest groups etc. are actually promoting. Those are ignored and recharacterized as 'hate', 'unrestrained anger', 'militias', 'ignorant people clinging to their guns and Bibles', etc.

Even Maggie up there who is trying very much to be reasonable simply dismisses conservative values as unworkable rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of WHY they are unworkable. Because I doubt very much she knows. It has been my experience that nobody who is a leftist does know because they just aren't wired to thnk in any terms other than leftist, socialist, big government solution terms. And they have been trained and/or brainwashed to think poorly of those on the right.

I don't know how we get around that other than just keep making our case and hope it gets through the fog here and there.

I'll be happy to discuss why I don't think many (not all) conservative values don't work. Did lowering the tax rate provide an intended trickle-down effect? Nope. Did the 2004 evangelical movement which brought to the fore every wedge issue imaginable work? Nope. Did the "new conservative" push for unilateral military intervention in the middle east work? Nope.

'Trickle down' is a misunderstood phrase. Reagan, I believe, coined it and, if you listen to his speeches on economics, he accurately noted that unless big business is strong, the economy can't be strong. It is big business that provides the underpinning for small business that provides most of the jobs. Poor people and governments cannot produce a strong economy. It takes people with capital and ambition to hire, expand, and prosper to help the economy. So 'trickle down' was an unfortunate phrase. A more useful analogy is that a rising tide raises all boats.

I don't have a clue what you mean by the 2004 evangelical movement.

And the push for military intervention in the Middle East began with Democrats in the Clinton administration--the same Democrats who supported it in the Bush administration plus a few more who jumped on the bandwagon. The final vote to invade included 65% of the Democrats. So you can blame that on the 'new conservatives', whatever that is, if you wish, but then you would have to say that 65% of the Democrats are conservative?

So tell me. What is wrong with the conservative point of view that it is people with money who provide jobs for those who don't have money? And those with a lot of money have ability to provide jobs for a lot more people than those who don't have much money? Can you really honestly argue with that?

 

[MaggieMae]

socialism/liberalism/marxism/communism/fascism

This is the codification of envy and revenge into a political and life philosophy as well as religion.

Prove the postulate wrong if you can.

It's actually very easy to prove it wrong, and that's because you people toss around the term "Communision/Socialism" as if Socialism in America (or even Great Britain) is the same as 50-year old Stalinism. Just because in the United States, the government sees fit to assist the less fortunate, and regulate industry that tend to become monopolistic and greedy, or regulate those industries that service EVERY American, not just specific segments of society, hardly means it is "socialistic."

I don't even know what you mean by "envy and revenge." I'm certainly NOT "envious" of my rich neighbor who has at his disposal the means to reduce his tax liability to zero because of special loopholes based upon his enormous wealth, the one who has 3 cars in his yard but never once offers to give a lift to another neighbor who has none once in awhile. I hardly envy someone like that; I pitty that person. As for "revenge," it seems to me that this is what we debate every day here. The Bush supporters are out for revenge against Obama supporters because Bush was picked on, so now they feel they have carte blanche permission to do the same. This kind of revenge is fucking childish, mainly because you (collectively, you) don't KNOW whether or not I (personally) was one of those who posted ugly pictures of Bush or said terrible things about him. Instead you lump all of those who did into the rest of us who didn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

I get it. New Right is now the Leftwing Codeword for "Racists".

Riiiight.... Pun intended.

 

[MaggieMae]

Given the ratings, it seems the only people watching PMSNBC are right wing bloggers who want to make fun of it.

If the right wing bloggers stop watching, their ratings might fall by 2/3s.

You guys just loooooooove your ratings and polls (except when they go against you, that is). More hypocrisy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I get it. New Right is now the Leftwing Codeword for "Racists".

Well it's a given that sooner or later any discussion of this type will get around to racism. Just as it will get around to the evils of George W. Bush.

But in fairness, the "New Right" according to Matthews is code word for wild-eyed fanatical gun-loving anarchist militias, clinging to Bibles religious extremists, anti-government radicals, and every manner of conspiratist. And, of course, racists.

Look at Maggie's posts. Rather than dealing with substance she is still dealing in code words she thinks are 'biting' and demonizing us--turning the criticism back on us--rather than dealing with any specific issue. She says conservative stuff doesn't work because that's what leftists are trained to say.

But in fairness to her, I frequently say that liberal policies have produced unintended negative consequences every time they've been tried.

The difference is, on an issue by issue, basis, I can back up my 'slogan'. I don't think the leftists can back up theirs.

 

[boedicca]

And just so we all know:

If you don't like the Vuvuzela blowing during the World Cup, you're a RACIST!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDPEaxkqYyM]Barron on Vuvuzelas[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

Well done Big Fitz though those still looking for somebody to blame, villains to accuse, or windmills to tilt at won't get it. You see above that there are some still spouting the far left standard assigned hate jargon and are unable or unwilling to focus on the principles involved. The whole Chris Matthews spiel was to attack, diminish, marginalize, demonize those on the right and he isn't about to get into the values that the Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, tax protest groups etc. are actually promoting. Those are ignored and recharacterized as 'hate', 'unrestrained anger', 'militias', 'ignorant people clinging to their guns and Bibles', etc.

Even Maggie up there who is trying very much to be reasonable simply dismisses conservative values as unworkable rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of WHY they are unworkable. Because I doubt very much she knows. It has been my experience that nobody who is a leftist does know because they just aren't wired to thnk in any terms other than leftist, socialist, big government solution terms. And they have been trained and/or brainwashed to think poorly of those on the right.

I don't know how we get around that other than just keep making our case and hope it gets through the fog here and there.

I'll be happy to discuss why I don't think many (not all) conservative values don't work. Did lowering the tax rate provide an intended trickle-down effect? Nope. Did the 2004 evangelical movement which brought to the fore every wedge issue imaginable work? Nope. Did the "new conservative" push for unilateral military intervention in the middle east work? Nope.

'Trickle down' is a misunderstood phrase. Reagan, I believe, coined it and, if you listen to his speeches on economics, he accurately noted that unless big business is strong, the economy can't be strong. It is big business that provides the underpinning for small business that provides most of the jobs. Poor people and governments cannot produce a strong economy. It takes people with capital and ambition to hire, expand, and prosper to help the economy. So 'trickle down' was an unfortunate phrase. A more useful analogy is that a rising tide raises all boats.

I don't have a clue what you mean by the 2004 evangelical movement.

And the push for military intervention in the Middle East began with Democrats in the Clinton administration--the same Democrats who supported it in the Bush administration plus a few more who jumped on the bandwagon. The final vote to invade included 65% of the Democrats. So you can blame that on the 'new conservatives', whatever that is, if you wish, but then you would have to say that 65% of the Democrats are conservative?

So tell me. What is wrong with the conservative point of view that it is people with money who provide jobs for those who don't have money? And those with a lot of money have ability to provide jobs for a lot more people than those who don't have much money? Can you really honestly argue with that?

The trickle-down approach simply means that by reducing the tax rate for businesses, it is good economic practice because those businesses will be able to reinvest and continue to hire as they succeed. Nobody can argue with that. Unfortunately, when Bush cut taxes, the windfall enjoyed by big businesses went to foreign investments, not investments in the AMERICAN economy. Wages remained flat, benefits were cut or removed entirely. Just the opposite was supposed to happen. As a result, working Americans turned to their credit cards, and the rest is history.

The evangelical movement concentrated on abortion, homosexuality, cultural mores, and encouraged by Karl Rove to be loud and effective in order to keep Bush in office (since his popularity had begun to slide over the Iraq situation). The mega churches all had anti-Democrat agendas, some printing how evil they were right on their printed programs. Smaller churches often cross the line and began demonizing John Kerry from the pulpit. All of that was huge, and covered extensively, so I don't know how you could have missed it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll be happy to discuss why I don't think many (not all) conservative values don't work. Did lowering the tax rate provide an intended trickle-down effect? Nope. Did the 2004 evangelical movement which brought to the fore every wedge issue imaginable work? Nope. Did the "new conservative" push for unilateral military intervention in the middle east work? Nope.

'Trickle down' is a misunderstood phrase. Reagan, I believe, coined it and, if you listen to his speeches on economics, he accurately noted that unless big business is strong, the economy can't be strong. It is big business that provides the underpinning for small business that provides most of the jobs. Poor people and governments cannot produce a strong economy. It takes people with capital and ambition to hire, expand, and prosper to help the economy. So 'trickle down' was an unfortunate phrase. A more useful analogy is that a rising tide raises all boats.

I don't have a clue what you mean by the 2004 evangelical movement.

And the push for military intervention in the Middle East began with Democrats in the Clinton administration--the same Democrats who supported it in the Bush administration plus a few more who jumped on the bandwagon. The final vote to invade included 65% of the Democrats. So you can blame that on the 'new conservatives', whatever that is, if you wish, but then you would have to say that 65% of the Democrats are conservative?

So tell me. What is wrong with the conservative point of view that it is people with money who provide jobs for those who don't have money? And those with a lot of money have ability to provide jobs for a lot more people than those who don't have much money? Can you really honestly argue with that?

The trickle-down approach simply means that by reducing the tax rate for businesses, it is good economic practice because those businesses will be able to reinvest and continue to hire as they succeed. Nobody can argue with that. Unfortunately, when Bush cut taxes, the windfall enjoyed by big businesses went to foreign investments, not investments in the AMERICAN economy. Wages remained flat, benefits were cut or removed entirely. Just the opposite was supposed to happen. As a result, working Americans turned to their credit cards, and the rest is history.

The evangelical movement concentrated on abortion, homosexuality, cultural mores, and encouraged by Karl Rove to be loud and effective in order to keep Bush in office (since his popularity had begun to slide over the Iraq situation). The mega churches all had anti-Democrat agendas, some printing how evil they were right on their printed programs. Smaller churches often cross the line and began demonizing John Kerry from the pulpit. All of that was huge, and covered extensively, so I don't know how you could have missed it.

Maggie dear, you're very good at leftist propaganda. But I lived the 80's as you probably did. I also studied the economics of the 80's which you obviously have not. What you're saying is absolute fiction. You are confusing 'tax cuts across the board' with supply side tax cuts that have proved to in fact spur economic growth. And no such economic growth generated is perpetual but it does raise the tide for awhile and then levels out with no further benefit. BUT......where it levels out is generally higher than where it started which accounts for the standard of living of Americans now being pretty much across the board higher than it was in the 80's.
There's a pretty good discussion of pros and cons of tax cuts here:
What’s the Future for Supply-Side Economics? | Cato @ Liberty

And whatever problem you have with evangelical Christians, none of those issues are on the Tea Party, 9/12er, or Tax Protest agenda nor do any of them have a damn thing to do with the economy. And if your problem is with the 'mega church' perhaps you would like to address the one attended by Barack Obama for 20 years until he had to throw it under the bus to save his candidacy, or all those utilized by Bill Clinton to promote his agenda when he was president. You find them on both sides of the aisle and anybody who isn't blinded by partisan prejudices knows that.

 

[MaggieMae]

'Trickle down' is a misunderstood phrase. Reagan, I believe, coined it and, if you listen to his speeches on economics, he accurately noted that unless big business is strong, the economy can't be strong. It is big business that provides the underpinning for small business that provides most of the jobs. Poor people and governments cannot produce a strong economy. It takes people with capital and ambition to hire, expand, and prosper to help the economy. So 'trickle down' was an unfortunate phrase. A more useful analogy is that a rising tide raises all boats.

I don't have a clue what you mean by the 2004 evangelical movement.

And the push for military intervention in the Middle East began with Democrats in the Clinton administration--the same Democrats who supported it in the Bush administration plus a few more who jumped on the bandwagon. The final vote to invade included 65% of the Democrats. So you can blame that on the 'new conservatives', whatever that is, if you wish, but then you would have to say that 65% of the Democrats are conservative?

So tell me. What is wrong with the conservative point of view that it is people with money who provide jobs for those who don't have money? And those with a lot of money have ability to provide jobs for a lot more people than those who don't have much money? Can you really honestly argue with that?

The trickle-down approach simply means that by reducing the tax rate for businesses, it is good economic practice because those businesses will be able to reinvest and continue to hire as they succeed. Nobody can argue with that. Unfortunately, when Bush cut taxes, the windfall enjoyed by big businesses went to foreign investments, not investments in the AMERICAN economy. Wages remained flat, benefits were cut or removed entirely. Just the opposite was supposed to happen. As a result, working Americans turned to their credit cards, and the rest is history.

The evangelical movement concentrated on abortion, homosexuality, cultural mores, and encouraged by Karl Rove to be loud and effective in order to keep Bush in office (since his popularity had begun to slide over the Iraq situation). The mega churches all had anti-Democrat agendas, some printing how evil they were right on their printed programs. Smaller churches often cross the line and began demonizing John Kerry from the pulpit. All of that was huge, and covered extensively, so I don't know how you could have missed it.

Maggie dear, you're very good at leftist propaganda. But I lived the 80's as you probably did. I also studied the economics of the 80's which you obviously have not. What you're saying is absolute fiction. You are confusing 'tax cuts across the board' with supply side tax cuts that have proved to in fact spur economic growth. And no such economic growth generated is perpetual but it does raise the tide for awhile and then levels out with no further benefit. BUT......where it levels out is generally higher than where it started which accounts for the standard of living of Americans now being pretty much across the board higher than it was in the 80's.
There's a pretty good discussion of pros and cons of tax cuts here:
What’s the Future for Supply-Side Economics? | Cato @ Liberty

And whatever problem you have with evangelical Christians, none of those issues are on the Tea Party, 9/12er, or Tax Protest agenda nor do any of them have a damn thing to do with the economy. And if your problem is with the 'mega church' perhaps you would like to address the one attended by Barack Obama for 20 years until he had to throw it under the bus to save his candidacy, or all those utilized by Bill Clinton to promote his agenda when he was president. You find them on both sides of the aisle and anybody who isn't blinded by partisan prejudices knows that.

And you are very good at con propaganda, dear. There is absolutely no debate that Reagan left a huge deficit for Bush41 to account for, and who lost reelection because of it. There are many reasons that happened, which have no bearing on the Bush43 tax cuts which I will maintain forever did absolutely NOTHING to help the majority of middle class, working Americans. He, himself, called it "trickle-down" many times. As for the 04 propaganda, I never intended to imply that that sort of thing is currently going on. I was simply pointing out that Republicans/Conservatives ALWAYS have ideological-driven agendas that they manage to make attractive to voters in their off-years. They (you) are very, very good at that. But when push comes to shove, they are almost always failed policies.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever Maggie. I talk about conservative policies. You change the discussion to evil evangelicals. I talk about prosperity. You change the discussion to trickle down. I talk about the economy and you change the discussion to deficits which may or may not have anything to do with the economy but do have everything to do with spending. You might have forgotten that it was the Democrats who were in control and eight out of eight years declared President Reagan's proposed budgets dead on arrival and rewrote what they wanted to spend.

As I said, I don't think many leftists are capable of either understanding or discussing conservative values. They usually only want to accuse, finger point, assign blame, and call that debate.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well done Big Fitz though those still looking for somebody to blame, villains to accuse, or windmills to tilt at won't get it. You see above that there are some still spouting the far left standard assigned hate jargon and are unable or unwilling to focus on the principles involved. The whole Chris Matthews spiel was to attack, diminish, marginalize, demonize those on the right and he isn't about to get into the values that the Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, tax protest groups etc. are actually promoting. Those are ignored and recharacterized as 'hate', 'unrestrained anger', 'militias', 'ignorant people clinging to their guns and Bibles', etc.

Even Maggie up there who is trying very much to be reasonable simply dismisses conservative values as unworkable rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of WHY they are unworkable. Because I doubt very much she knows. It has been my experience that nobody who is a leftist does know because they just aren't wired to thnk in any terms other than leftist, socialist, big government solution terms. And they have been trained and/or brainwashed to think poorly of those on the right.

I don't know how we get around that other than just keep making our case and hope it gets through the fog here and there.

I'll be happy to discuss why I don't think many (not all) conservative values don't work. Did lowering the tax rate provide an intended trickle-down effect? Nope. Did the 2004 evangelical movement which brought to the fore every wedge issue imaginable work? Nope. Did the "new conservative" push for unilateral military intervention in the middle east work? Nope.

Did lowering the tax rate provide an intended trickle-down effect? Nope.

1983-1999. Greatest run of increasing general wealth and jobs in the population in US post war history. Not only that more people got rich than at any other time, depleting the population, not because they got poor again, but because they got RICH! All thanks to Reagan's Tax Cuts.

The Bush tax cuts saved us from double digit unemployment back in 2001-2003. Why? Because people could afford to staff up and still consume and make a profit.

But every time you look at a tax INCREASE it is followed rapidly by increasing unemployment and decreasing wealth and growth in the middle class because those on the cusp of making it to being rich get their knees chopped out from under them.

JFK understood this too, and if it weren't for the collossal fuckup known as the Great Society and War on Poverty (which after 2 trillion spent on this, we still have the same percentages of poor people) wasted it all... plus the vietnam war.

So yes, it does work every time it's tried, it's just that it's not a sexy or easily understood effect.

 

[blastoff]

Whadaya expect from MSNBC? Their motto long ago became: What we're doing ain't working, and we're damn good at it!

 

[Big Fitz]

darn it... killed another thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe people were just finding something more interesting to do on the weekend than yammering here, Fitz.

I should amend my snarky comment up there about leftists though. Probably leftists aren't much if any worse than some conservatives in changing the subject when they can't defend the point they want to defend.

And we all get caught up in trying to defend a point of view long after it really isn't defensible. I'm as guilty of that as the next person. And it really sucks when you reach that point in the argument where you suddenly see that you're wrong.

But in this case, the thing is I have to believe that our 'new right' as personified in Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, Tax Protest groups, etc. must be on the right track or the Left would be attacking what they are saying instead of attacking them personally.

That tells me that what they are saying is pretty hard to argue with.

 

[Big Fitz]

Maybe people were just finding something more interesting to do on the weekend than yammering here, Fitz.

I should amend my snarky comment up there about leftists though. Probably leftists aren't much if any worse than some conservatives in changing the subject when they can't defend the point they want to defend.

And we all get caught up in trying to defend a point of view long after it really isn't defensible. I'm as guilty of that as the next person. And it really sucks when you reach that point in the argument where you suddenly see that you're wrong.

But in this case, the thing is I have to believe that our 'new right' as personified in Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, Tax Protest groups, etc. must be on the right track or the Left would be attacking what they are saying instead of attacking them personally.

That tells me that what they are saying is pretty hard to argue with.

BETTER THINGS TO DO??????? NEVAIRRRRR!!!!!

Oh wait... I had that too Friday and saturday mostly

 

[George Costanza]

Matthews has a good point. We saw, during the Bush years, a very decided push to create an imperial presidencey. We saw erosion of the rule of law (denial of basic rights, allowance of torture, erosion of the 4th Amendment). We saw procedural action replacing legislative action. We saw religious influences moving into the governmental sphere.

John Dean has written of the very real danger to our democratic form of government by the policies and beliefs of the New Right. All one needs to do is listen to what is said on this very board by members of the New Right, to see how truly dangerous these beliefs are. It is not something to make light of.