What is Conservatism?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've seen many conservatives criticize spending including myself. As for Presidents, they don't spend the money--Congress does.

Clinton presided under a Republican Congress most of his two terms. Bush did too until people voted in Piglosi and the Democrats to take charge. DumBama quite the same, most of his years presided over a Republican Congress. Trump? The first two years.

However congressional leadership does not always have the power people think it does. You still need opposition help to pass most spending bills. Unlike Democrats who are all one of the same, the Republican party is fractured between conservatism and the establishment. GW Bush was part of the establishment. He was not a conservative.

Even if you have unity among the congressional party leadership, you still have the President and Senate to consider. Congress can come up with anything they want, but unless they appease the Senate leadership, it's meaningless.

So it's much more complicated than X is President and spending was X.

OK point, but the president sets the agenda. Bush and Trump had their agenda of massive spending and massive tax cuts and the republican congress is more than happy to oblige. Clinton had an agenda of a balanced budget and spending cuts which was also embraced by the republican congress.

In the end I am wondering why all these conservatives thought Bush was so great (until he crashed the economy) and why they think Trump is so great even though he has spent so recklessly.

Well we haven't had an economy like this in many years, so he is kinda getting a pass. However to reiterate, I do see complaints about spending coming from the right side on this forum. And again, very few if any conservatives ever considered Bush one of their own.

What has to be remembered is Bush was in charge during the worst attack on US soil in history. The economy was not that strong before 911 either. He not only had to address that disaster, but also pay attention so the terrorist attack didn't have major impacts on our economy.

View attachment 229614

Looking at this chart, you don't even have to look at the years to see when Republicans had control of Congress, the impact of 911, and the recession of 2008 when Democrats regained control of the House. The Democrats regained leadership of the House in 2007, and look what happened. The Republicans took back leadership in 2011 and remains so until January of next year.

Wait, are you trying to argue that the great recession was because the Dems took over the House??

Not really, but the spending was on their watch. The housing crash is what caused that recession, and even though Bush was in charge, there were many a Democrat fingerprint on that one.

The spending started when Bush took over and passed the huge tax cut along with all the spending bills. The housing crash made the recession into "the great recession", but the economy was headed for a crash as the debt load was too large and interest rates were rising.

Then maybe you better look at that chart one more time. Bush took over in 2001, and lasted until Jan of 2009. However the Democrat Congress took over in Jan 2007.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well the difference is that the platform of conservatism is that they are supposed to control spending and debt, which they have not.
The "Feds" you mean the politicians? the politicians are the ones that have approved the massive spending bills of the past 2 years.

Why stop with only the past two years? lol, other than the brief Clinton-Gingrich Responsibility Conspiracy, we have not had a balanced budget since WW2.

 

[Lesh]

Conservatism...at least for the last 50 years...has been cutting taxes and trying to bankrupt the government in order to force cuts to social programs.

Everything else is bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservatism...at least for the last 50 years...has been cutting taxes and trying to bankrupt the government in order to force cuts to social programs.

Everything else is bullshit.

You don't need anything to cut social programs other than a strong majority.

 

[The Banker]

What is Conservatism?

A failed ideology.

When did it fail? Seems to me like some ignorant people failed it. Simply put it is (unlimuted personal freedom with responsibility for your actions and your maintenance.)
We know however that freedom for liberals means They choose who has freedoms what freedoms others have and that they have others take responsible for their failure and maintenance and that of their pet classes.

As far as clinton having any responsibility for the balanced budget, NOT even a letter of the text it came from the congressional contract with America. He had to sign it to keep his job.

So just wondering do you oppose abortion, pot or drugs, freedom of any religion including islam because it seems that the right only wants to accept freedoms that they agree with vs freedoms for all. Freedom is guns, porn, abortion, drugs, and religion, freedom from law enforcement searches (patriot act), etc etc. The right definitely wants to choose which freedoms you have.

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

 

[blackhawk]

Conservatism and liberalism for that matter are just words that have no real meaning anymore not in D.C. anyway when you cut through all the partisan garbage the only thing either really wants is to get power and keep it at all cost.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Conservatism...at least for the last 50 years...has been cutting taxes and trying to bankrupt the government in order to force cuts to social programs.

Everything else is bullshit.

So pro-life Conservatism, pro-Western culture Conservatism and pro-Defense Conservatism are not really Conservative?

roflmao

 

[Lesh]

You don't need anything to cut social programs other than a strong majority.

What's interesting is that you don't even try to deny that that is the goal of "conservatism".

But no...you had a majority. You need to bankrupt the government to really accomplish your goal...and you're trying really hard to make that happen

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What is Conservatism?

A failed ideology.

When did it fail? Seems to me like some ignorant people failed it. Simply put it is (unlimuted personal freedom with responsibility for your actions and your maintenance.)
We know however that freedom for liberals means They choose who has freedoms what freedoms others have and that they have others take responsible for their failure and maintenance and that of their pet classes.

As far as clinton having any responsibility for the balanced budget, NOT even a letter of the text it came from the congressional contract with America. He had to sign it to keep his job.

So just wondering do you oppose abortion, pot or drugs, freedom of any religion including islam because it seems that the right only wants to accept freedoms that they agree with vs freedoms for all. Freedom is guns, porn, abortion, drugs, and religion, freedom from law enforcement searches (patriot act), etc etc. The right definitely wants to choose which freedoms you have.

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

 

[Lesh]

So pro-life Conservatism, pro-Western culture Conservatism and pro-Defense Conservatism are not really Conservative?

Nope.

That's all window dressing to get votes

 

[Lesh]

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on drugs just like they do with drugs today.

You people keep saying that...but in countries where gun ownership has been heavily curtailed...it just doesn't happen

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't need anything to cut social programs other than a strong majority.

What's interesting is that you don't even try to deny that that is the goal of "conservatism".

But no...you had a majority. You need to bankrupt the government to really accomplish your goal...and you're trying really hard to make that happen

Under DumBama, we spent ten trillion dollars; more than every other President combined since the beginning of this country. Why was he trying to bankrupt the US?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on drugs just like they do with drugs today.

You people keep saying that...but in countries where gun ownership has been heavily curtailed...it just doesn't happen

That's because of the people--not the guns. You on the left only want to look at guns instead of the entire picture.

We are the most diverse country in the world. Some of our minorities are much more violent than others. Statistically, you are eight times more likely to be murdered by a black than a white. Yet you want to compare mostly if not entirely white countries to ours and point to guns as the difference.

 

[Lesh]

Under DumBama, we spent ten trillion dollars; more than every other President combined since the beginning of this country. Why was he trying to bankrupt the US?

Hey dumbass...that's true of almost all (if not all ) Presidents

Certainly was true of Bush the Lesser

 

[The Banker]

What is Conservatism?

A failed ideology.

When did it fail? Seems to me like some ignorant people failed it. Simply put it is (unlimuted personal freedom with responsibility for your actions and your maintenance.)
We know however that freedom for liberals means They choose who has freedoms what freedoms others have and that they have others take responsible for their failure and maintenance and that of their pet classes.

As far as clinton having any responsibility for the balanced budget, NOT even a letter of the text it came from the congressional contract with America. He had to sign it to keep his job.

So just wondering do you oppose abortion, pot or drugs, freedom of any religion including islam because it seems that the right only wants to accept freedoms that they agree with vs freedoms for all. Freedom is guns, porn, abortion, drugs, and religion, freedom from law enforcement searches (patriot act), etc etc. The right definitely wants to choose which freedoms you have.

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So pro-life Conservatism, pro-Western culture Conservatism and pro-Defense Conservatism are not really Conservative?

Nope.

That's all window dressing to get votes

I would agree but it depends on who you are referring to as conservatives.

While it may be true of the Koch Kabal, it is not true of the rank and file party activists who bleed and sweat quite a lot for their causes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Yeah, because we dont h ave anyone smoking pot other than the law abiding since marijuana was made illegal, right?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Certainly was true of Bush the Lesser

So POTUS 43 was Bush the Greater?

lol

 

[Synthaholic]

When did it fail?

Obviously it failed when it couldn't come close to surviving against Señor Trump's fake populism. Even with 16 advocates, from Jeb! to Rand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When did it fail? Seems to me like some ignorant people failed it. Simply put it is (unlimuted personal freedom with responsibility for your actions and your maintenance.)
We know however that freedom for liberals means They choose who has freedoms what freedoms others have and that they have others take responsible for their failure and maintenance and that of their pet classes.

As far as clinton having any responsibility for the balanced budget, NOT even a letter of the text it came from the congressional contract with America. He had to sign it to keep his job.

So just wondering do you oppose abortion, pot or drugs, freedom of any religion including islam because it seems that the right only wants to accept freedoms that they agree with vs freedoms for all. Freedom is guns, porn, abortion, drugs, and religion, freedom from law enforcement searches (patriot act), etc etc. The right definitely wants to choose which freedoms you have.

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.