Your "Conservative" President

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Max Power, Oct 21, 2005.

  1. Max Power
    Online

    Max Power Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

    George Bush is the #1 president in terms of government spending. Of all time.


    What does "conservative" mean again?
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    So as a liberal are you just thrilled that he is following in the footsteps of the big spending Dems ?
     
  3. Max Power
    Online

    Max Power Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm only liberal on non-fiscal issues, i.e. social issues.

    You might label me a libertarian, if you were so inclined.

    http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

    How about you?
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I've grown up and learned the wisdom of conservatism.
     
  5. Max Power
    Online

    Max Power Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Feel free to (attempt to) impart any of that on me.
    You don't have to bother to explain fiscal conservatism to me (preaching to the choir). But I just don't understand social conservatives - people who think that gays shouldn't be allowed the government provided (not church provided) benefits of marriage, or people who think that drugs should be illegal because "drugs are bad," etc etc.
     
  6. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,706
    Thanks Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,031
    Bush is not an economic conservative. Conservatives of this ilk want to reign in government, not expand it AND leave it much more in debt.
     
  7. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Proponents of gay marriage frequently blame the current administration for "denying" the "right" of marriage to gays. That's not true. First, marriage is not a right as defined by the Constitution of the United States. If it were a right, then divorce laws in this country should all be struck down as unconstitutional because they deny a civil right to those who don't want to be divorced (contrary to popular wisdom, most divorces in this country are initiated by one party over the objections of the other, 85% of divorces are initiated by women). Gay marriage is an attempt by radical gay rights activists to redefine the cultural institution of marriage specifically and society in general to fit their world view. Also, the radical gay activists paint gays as victims of oppression and taking part in a struggle similar to that of blacks during the height of the Civil Rights movement or those suffered by Jews during the Holocaust. That is also not true.

    Gays suffer few, if any, of the injustices suffered by blacks during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. First, gays are not being systematically excluded from the political process. They are, if anything, extremely well organized politically, their movement is extremely well funded and they have the ear of many high ranking government officials. Secondly, gays do not suffer from economic discrimination based on their orientation. If anything, many gays, especially gay men (who are considered by anti-gay bigots to be much more repugnant than lesbians) enjoy a higher standard of living than the general population. This is because they make more, tend to be more likely to own their own businesses and own property. Thirdly, American culture and Western culture in general has become tolerant of gays and their lifestyle. Gays are often portrayed on TV in a positive light, openly gay celebrities enjoy the same status as their straight counterparts. Fourth, gays are now being singled out for preferential treatment by the laws of several states in the form of “hate crime legislation” which makes any crime perpetrated by an individual against a gay person more serious than the same crime perpetrated against, for instance, a straight, white guy.

    To offer a historical perspective to the so called “gay holocaust” during the days of the Nazis and Hitler, one merely has to look at a few facts. First, the Gestapo, which was the organization that spawned the SS, which participated in the mass murder of Jews was started by a close associate of Adolph Hitler, Ernest Rohm. Ernest Rohm was a homosexual and did not attempt to hide that fact from Hitler or the Nazis. In fact, Hitler had no objections to Rohm’s sexual orientation so long as he served a purpose to him and the Nazi Party. Secondly, the number of homosexuals that were exterminated by the Nazis during the Holocaust number roughly 6,000 – 10,000. That is one gay person for every 1,000 Jews exterminated. Considering that 2 to 5 percent of a given population is gay and that the number of people in Europe during rule of the Nazis was in the tens of millions, any systematic attempt to exterminate gays by the Nazis would have produced far more deaths. It didn’t happen. All attempts by the radical gays to paint gays as victims of the Holocaust does a great injustice to those who actually were the target of Nazi oppression, mostly the Jews.

    To paint gays as being an oppressed group of individuals is to parrot the propaganda of the radical gay activists rather than speak the truth.

    As to your second argument that the Right claims drugs should be illegal, because they are bad. To put it succinctly, drugs ARE bad. One only has to look at the effect on our society of widespread crack and speed usage over the past 10-20 years. Secondly, those who advocate legalizing drugs on ignore the Law of Supply and Demand. Their argument goes somewhat like this, if drugs were legalized and only the government could sell them, then the price would be kept low and the money out of the hands of gangs and drug cartels. Once the price was set to a low level, addicts won't be forced to commit crimes to finance their habit.

    The Law of Supply and Demand (which is a natural law as is the Law of Gravitation and is not open to debate) states that demand is inversely related to price (i.e. the demand for a good or service goes up when the price of a good or service goes down).

    Before the 1980s, cocaine use was generally confined to a few people, mostly white collar professionals and those who had high incomes, since the drug was quite expensive. In fact, during the heyday of disco, cocaine was a status drug, often sniffed with a rolled up 100 dollar bill. Users wore expensive "coke spoon" jewelry (small spoons used to sniff the drug often made of silver, gold or platinum) as a sign that they not only used the drug, but that they could afford it.

    That all changed in the 1980s with the introduction of "crack" cocaine. Crack is a cheap form of cocaine. Once the price of the drug became affordable to the general population, the demand for cocaine went up (which is just what the law of supply and demand predicts). The effect on society has been nothing short of calamitous. Some sources also claim that Castro helped the Colombian Drug Cartels increase the supply of the drug coming into the United States by providing assistance and cover to the ships and airplanes that shipped the drug to the US in exchange for a “cut” in the profits.

    How about if the government instead limited the supply of cocaine, crack, speed etc even though it was legal? Oh yes, the Law of Supply and Demand predicts the effect of that, as well. If the supply is limited, but the demand remains high, users will find other sources of the drug (i.e. the black market), so that you'll find yourself back to where you started from (i.e. cracking down on illegal drug use).

    The same scenario will be true for any other drug. The Law of Supply and Demand will always be in effect. Thus, the effect of any legalization of illicit drugs will be the same i.e. widespread use, a large addict population and the social ills that come with it.

    Besides that, criminal elements HAVE made money off of legal drugs. The Mafia (and other criminal organizations) have made money off of stolen cigarettes and booze. Since the goods are stolen, the effect is 100% profit to the seller, so they can afford to sell the goods at a lower price than the legal equivalent. The same can be expected if drugs were legalized. The Mafia and other criminal organizations will simply hijack shipments of the drug and sell it on the black market.

    Using these arguments, one can see that legalizing illicit drugs will only serve to exacerbate the problem that you hope to solve.
     
  8. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    I see little sonny boy is over hear spreading his lies also.

    Hey Maxxie boy, did you recant your statment here like you did in the other thread where I proved you wrong?

    As for social conservatism, we are because thats what the country was founded on, and it works, so we stick with it. TOO BAD for ye. hahahahha

    and for anyone who wants to discuss the issue with sonny boy, well, you might as well go and try to teach the complexities of social systems to a five year old, you will have more sucess

    From his own post,

    This is the book he read:
    Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for Kids."
     
  9. Max Power
    Online

    Max Power Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    :clap:
    The country was founded on slavery too. Should we go back to that?
    Haha.
    :Owned:
     
  10. Max Power
    Online

    Max Power Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Karl, I'm not going to argue gay rights with you, because that could easily be another thread or 10. I just think that they should be entitled to the GOVERNMENT PROVIDED benefits of marriage. If a church does not wish to marry gay people, it doesn't have to.

    Right. Drugs are bad. Except for prescription drugs, caffiene, alcohol, those are good, right?
    Have you ever heard of prohibition? That was a success, right? Haha NO.
    The important question is - why should the government be allowed to tell a person what he can do with his own body? Funny how "proponents of small government" just love the idea of government telling you what you can and can't do.

    Uh oh. I"m about to debate your "undebatable" law there.
    First of all, your terms are mixed up. Demand doesn't go up or down with price. Quantity demanded goes up or down with price. But that's not a big deal.
    Second of all, your "law" there is not universally true.
    A Giffen good is a product for which a rise in price of this product makes people buy even more of the product
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
    Haha. Your "law" isn't as universal as you think it is.

    Just compare their efforts NOW with alcohol vs their efforts in the 1920's and you'll realize what a foolish statement you're making.
     

Share This Page