What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[PMZ]

Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.

Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.

Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.

As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse.

We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000.

No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.

All fine and dandy, but what about those who have taken over the government, and while the nation is weak they want to transform it into something that no one else wants within a majority ? This is what happens in a vacum that has been created, wherefore we have those whom want to take advantage while they can now, even if it means destroying the nation in order to do so, and then rebuilding it afterwards, because they are willing to do it no matter what it takes. Talk about getting kicked when we are down, it's just so sad...

The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us. But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty.

In a nutshell, modern American conservatiism allow just enough government to provide the common defense and allow for enough organiation and regulation so that the individual states can be one united nation without doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. And other than that, the federal government was to acknowledge and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us strictly alone so that we could form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.

Such a system allowed for broad diversity and choices of lifestyle and allowed people of widely differing religious beliefs, cultural preferences, and every other sort of society we can imagine to do their own thing. Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other. The people, not the federal government, would decide what laws, regulation, or contracts would be involved in everything else.

Take all the conservatives out of the equation, and I think it would leave a deep void that would almost certainly be filled by some form of government even more authoritarian that present and completely self serving. And the USA that the Founders gave us would be something far different from what it once was and/or is.

"The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us. But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty."

History rewritten.

In truth the debate was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists wanted their state/colony to be more powerful than their neighbors, like in Europe, so argued for a federal government so weak that the states would be largely independent. The Federalists saw the state of Europe and argued that a strong Federal union of states would position us to hold our own against those countries. The one thing that they could agree on was a republic, no monarch, as they had experienced as colonies under King George the tyranny of royalty.

The Federalists prevailed. Once the Constitution was written the issues between the two positions was diffused by ammending it with the Bill of Rights prohibiting legislation in certain specific areas of life.

Nobody wanted weak government. The issue was strong state government vs strong federal government.

 

[Circe]

The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along.

Yes, I know what you mean. I feel terribly guilty about buying everything from Amazon, but I have hated shopping my whole life, and I love Internet shopping. I realize that the stores are collapsing all around us!

And books: I buy mostly ebooks, and stream all video, or play DVDs, never go to movie theaters. We are certainly in a second coming of Gutenberg-level change. What big changes in society will it bring? Last time it brought the Protestant Reformation!

I would not do any of this if I didn't love the new opportunities, but the pace of change is so incredibly fast, as Jeremiah said. And accelerating. Nervous-making.

 

[PMZ]

Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.

So you assert, but some of us are asserting that most of the jobs are gone now. And public education doesn't even properly educate the smart kids, and the stupid kids are functionally illiterate, so of course there are no jobs for them. So I'd say we may be stuck at high unemployment. But we'll see; you could still be right. Five percent is full employment, let's remember, that's the magic number.

Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.

How do you know that? I haven't BEEN here for five years. You just got here. NO ONE in the world has been "rooting" for European austerity for five years: the recession only started in 2008 and this is spring of 2013.

This is exaggeration, hyperbole. I think you are given to rather Paris Commune-style "J'accuse!" statements.

Back off.

The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.

 

[PMZ]

Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other.

I particularly like this definition! I want to remember it.

I don't like these so-called "rights" to health care, living expenses, college, etc., etc. that basically mean a welfare state, not really rights at all.

How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?

 

[Circe]

The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.

I can't agree: August 7, 2007, if you want to go that far back to the first phase. I remember it well, very scary at the time, then things seemed to calm down, and so many didn't really view the recession as starting till 2008. September 15, if I recall correctly, right before the election. Wow, that was dramatic.

Wikipedia: "The initial phase of the ongoing crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007, when BNP Paribas, citing a "complete evaporation of liquidity," terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds.[6] The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[7] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally."

 

[Circe]

How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?

It isn't, of course!

And as Europe has shown us dramatically, welfare states with "rights" defined as something everyone else has to provide the ne'er-do-wells and lazy people, these are very, very unhealthy countries.

 

[PMZ]

Wow one of my topics on the net makes over 500 comments? Thats weird they normaly die after five lol.. Good read guys and gals...thanks.

Re, your joke. We used to assume that the motivation for capitalism was to rise from poverty. Now you are assuming that poverty eliminates motivation. Sounds to me like an attempt to argue that the key to economic success is greater wealth inequality. Richer rich and poorer poor. Can you point out a country where greater inequality than ours has produced a stronger economy?

 

[PMZ]

How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?

It isn't, of course!

And as Europe has shown us dramatically, welfare states with "rights" defined as something everyone else has to provide the ne'er-do-wells and lazy people, these are very, very unhealthy countries.

Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?

 

[PMZ]

How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?

It isn't, of course!

And as Europe has shown us dramatically, welfare states with "rights" defined as something everyone else has to provide the ne'er-do-wells and lazy people, these are very, very unhealthy countries.

Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?

World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st in expenditures, 38th in results.

 

[Circe]

Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?

Who cares?

Health care is not a right! Nothing is a right that obliges other people to pay for it.

That's how rights work: Foxfyre was correct about that, IMO.

Let the loser-lazies shake their shanks and pay for their doctoring like everybody else has to.

 

[PMZ]

Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?

Who cares?

Health care is not a right! Nothing is a right that obliges other people to pay for it.

That's how rights work: Foxfyre was correct about that, IMO.

Let the loser-lazies shake their shanks and pay for their doctoring like everybody else has to.

Is our global competitiveness a right?

 

[Bfgrn]

Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.

Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.

Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.

As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse.

We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000.

No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.

All fine and dandy, but what about those who have taken over the government, and while the nation is weak they want to transform it into something that no one else wants within a majority ? This is what happens in a vacum that has been created, wherefore we have those whom want to take advantage while they can now, even if it means destroying the nation in order to do so, and then rebuilding it afterwards, because they are willing to do it no matter what it takes. Talk about getting kicked when we are down, it's just so sad...

The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us. But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty.

In a nutshell, modern American conservatiism allow just enough government to provide the common defense and allow for enough organiation and regulation so that the individual states can be one united nation without doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. And other than that, the federal government was to acknowledge and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us strictly alone so that we could form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.

Such a system allowed for broad diversity and choices of lifestyle and allowed people of widely differing religious beliefs, cultural preferences, and every other sort of society we can imagine to do their own thing. Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other. The people, not the federal government, would decide what laws, regulation, or contracts would be involved in everything else.

Take all the conservatives out of the equation, and I think it would leave a deep void that would almost certainly be filled by some form of government even more authoritarian that present and completely self serving. And the USA that the Founders gave us would be something far different from what it once was and/or is.

In a nut shell FF? Really? Then why have conservatives fought tooth and nail to stop the EPA from forcing coal burning power plants to install pollution controls and scrubbers to meet a law that is over 10 years old? These coal burning plants that are not in compliance are causing 'physical, economic, or environmental violence'

Why have conservative leaders in the House of Representatives pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections?

Why have conservative Senators Vitter and Inhofe undermined the EPA review of its assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde? The EPA still lists formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer.

Are conservatives Vitter and Inhofe fighting this because the chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make?

Why is it every time I read your self righteous posts, I have the same sour feeling in my stomach?

 

[Foxfyre]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

 

[Foxfyre]

So going back to the OP, if all the conservatives leave, there wont be anybody to push back on government overreach. There won't be anybody to challenge encroachment on individual liberties and unalienable rights. Government will be free to expand, grow, and feed on the people at a much greater rate than it already is until it swallows everything up and is free to do whatever it wants to anybody it wants.

I suspect at that point, even American liberals will realize how ugly and miserable that will be. But it will be too late. They will be servants of the government and allowed only what government decides they will be allowed. And anybody who steps out of line can expect severe consequences as there will be no unalienable rights and no individual liberties.

 

[PMZ]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

"Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights."

Nearly all laws are to prevent people from infringing on the lives of others. Like murdering them, stealing from them, recklessly endangering them, etc. The Bill of Rights identifies a handful of very specific rights that government is prohibited from regulating. What you are describing as conservatism is really anarchy. That individuals are free to do whatever they wants to whoever they want. That always leads to chaos.

 

[PMZ]

So going back to the OP, if all the conservatives leave, there wont be anybody to push back on government overreach. There won't be anybody to challenge encroachment on individual liberties and unalienable rights. Government will be free to expand, grow, and feed on the people at a much greater rate than it already is until it swallows everything up and is free to do whatever it wants to anybody it wants.

I suspect at that point, even American liberals will realize how ugly and miserable that will be. But it will be too late. They will be servants of the government and allowed only what government decides they will be allowed. And anybody who steps out of line can expect severe consequences as there will be no unalienable rights and no individual liberties.

As long as we have the Constitution and democracy we'll be fine, as we were before the discovery of extremism as a high profit media product 25 years ago.

 

[Bfgrn]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Foxfyre: "no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that"

Really FF? Such a nice self righteous diatribe, but you ignored my questions FF.

You know, I remember seeing a forum on C-Span with Presidential speechwriters. One of my favorite people, the late Ted Sorensen who was President Kennedy's speechwriter and special counsel to the president was on the panel. So was Peggy Noonan (Reagan). One of the students asked the panel the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Noonan went first. She went off on a very similar self righteous diatribe for minutes with all the polemic flourishes.

Ted Sorensen in his typical word thrifty, to the point, Unitarian style answered with one sentence: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

I am sure Peggy Noonan felt like Edward Everett, who delivered a two-hour Oration before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

If 'no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment', why are Republicans trying to scrap EPA coal plant regulations?

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

Burning coal creates harmful pollution

The process of burning coal releases chemicals into the atmosphere that threaten not only the air Americans breathe, but the water they drink, the soil they live on and the food they eat. EPA classifies many of these chemicals as “hazardous air pollutants” or “air toxics,” a category that means they are known or reasonably expected to harm human health or the environment or both.

Hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants include:
• Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride;
• Benzene, toluene and other compounds;
• Dioxins and furans;
• Formaldehyde;
• Lead, arsenic, and other metals;
• Mercury;
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); and
• Radioactive materials, like radium and uranium.2,3

Researchers have found these toxic emissions cause a dangerous array of harm to human health as shown in Table 1.3 These emissions can make breathing difficult and can worsen asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis and other lung diseases. These pollutants can cause heart attacks and strokes, lung cancer and other cancers, birth defects and premature death.

These pollutants threaten essential life systems. Acid gases are corrosive and can irritate and burn the eyes, skin, and breathing passages. Long term exposures to metals have the potential to harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system. Exposures to a handful of the metals and dioxins in coal-fired power plant emissions increase the risk of cancer. Specific forms of arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and nickel have been shown to cause cancer in both human and animal studies. Table 1 also identifies those pollutants that have long-term impacts on the environment because they accumulate in soil, water and fish.3

Coal-fired power plants supplying electricity to the grid are the biggest emitters of airborne mercury among all industrial sources. The pair of maps on page 4 shows the locations of coal-fired power plants and how they can lead to high mercury levels in the local and regional areas.4,5 Mercury is associated with damage to the kidneys, liver, brain, nervous system and can cause birth defects

 

[Circe]

Ted Sorensen in his typical word thrifty, to the point, Unitarian style answered with one sentence: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

[ Cute story.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ted Sorensen in his typical word thrifty, to the point, Unitarian style answered with one sentence: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

[ Cute story.

Ted Sorensen was the closest thing to being able to hear what President Kennedy would have to say if he were alive. Ted was such a pleasure to listen to.

"I think Ted became the most important adviser and on balance, I think he was the best of the brightest and best," said Harris Wofford, a former US senator from Pennsylvania who had served as an adviser to Kennedy. "He also knew what John Kennedy thought. They had an extraordinary relationship. It would be hard to know where one person’s thoughts ended and the other began."

Officially, Ted Sorensen was special counsel to the president, a role he reprised with Lyndon B. Johnson. Mr. Sorensen worked so closely with Jack Kennedy, however, that he became widely regarded as the president's alter ego, liberal conscience, and intellectual confidante. Kennedy sought Mr. Sorensen's counsel at every key juncture, from campaigning for the White House to guiding the country through perilous times such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.

By Mr. Sorensen's description, the two were as one as they drafted turns of phrase Kennedy made famous. Scholars in decades since have parsed sentences and scoured records while trying to deduce who wrote which words. With a grace born of his Midwestern roots, Mr. Sorensen always tipped the spotlight toward Kennedy, casting himself in the role of artist's apprentice who assisted the master "in the execution of the final work of art."

Not yet 25 in January 1953 when Kennedy, then a US senator, hired him as an assistant, Mr. Sorensen had arrived in Washington, D.C., a year and a half earlier, fresh from law school and a life lived almost entirely in Lincoln, Neb.

The two seemed drawn together, rather than pushed apart, by their distinct differences. Mr. Sorensen was a pacifist who had registered as a conscientious objector. His father was a progressive Republican who had served as Nebraska's attorney general.

When Kennedy interviewed Mr. Sorensen for the job, "I was struck by this unpretentious, even ordinary man with his extraordinary background, a wealthy family, a Harvard education, and a heroic war record," he wrote in his 2008 memoir. "He did not try to impress me with his importance; he just seemed like a good guy."

Their friendship deepened over the next 11 years until Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. The pain was of that November day was still fresh when Mr. Sorensen wrote in his memoir about the emotionally wrenching hours in Washington after he was told the president had been shot. "Deep in my soul," he wrote, "I have not stopped weeping, whenever those events are recalled."

Mr. Sorensen stayed in the White House for the beginning of the Johnson administration. He left in 1964 and two years later joined the New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, where he became a senior partner and still kept an office in retirement.

Never far from politics, he advised Robert Kennedy during his 1968 presidential campaign until he, too, was assassinated.

"I do not know whether I have ever fully recovered from John F. Kennedy's death," Mr. Sorensen wrote. "Time passed. Love and laughter helped. But the deep sadness of that time remained, only to be reinforced five years later by the murder of his brother Robert. Those two senseless tragedies robbed me of my future."

Ted Sorensen, speechwriter for JFK, dead at age 82

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives are not advocating anarchy in any sense of the word. Conservatives advocate recognition and security of unalienable rights for all and support rule of law that secures those rights and anarchy is antithesis of recognition of both.

But then so is liberalism that would have government require some to participate in and/or contribute to the 'rights' of others in a way that benefits some and incurs cost for others.

Conservatism is neither anarchy nor is it the kind of modern American liberalism that empowers government with ability to overreach its assigned constitutional authority.

Take the conservatives out of the equation and you will have either anarchy or modern American liberalism to the extreme. And I am fairly certain that none of you would enjoy either situation.