aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
Member is Online
|
Post by aufan on Aug 1, 2024 3:48:54 GMT
Trump is smart to try to distance himself from conservatism, as it is unpopular. Conservatism has lost 7 of the last 8 popular elections, Liberalism has had a good run. It's pervasive at all the levers of power in the media, academia, and popular culture. They had a great spokesperson for the past 16 years with Obama. But the pendulum has a way of swinging back to the norm. Conservative ideas are still the best in the long run. The tide is turning on many of the looniest ideas of the modern-day liberal, like it's perfectly OK for biological males to compete in sports against women. The new Gen Z voters are showing a tendency toward more conservatism, especially fiscally. As the country edges closer and closer to financial ruin brought on by extreme excess debt, I think conservatism will make a big comeback. Reigning in the out-of-control monster that our federal government has become is Step 1. And Trump is the guy to start the process. Conservatism is to conserve the status quo. Our founders were the liberals of the colonies, while the loyalists/tories wanted to preserve the status quo. Liberalism is not some phase, it has given us all of the progress of the last centuries, from emancipation to legalized gay marriage. Conservatism has stood in the way of all that progress, trying to conserve the status quo. Maintaining status quo, aka conservative ideas, have never been the best in the long run. We’d still be under British rule if that were the case. “Fiscal conservatism”, policy-wise, is just cutting taxes and reducing regulations to consolidate wealth while growing the national debt. How would this attract voters?
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Aug 1, 2024 17:54:15 GMT
CPA, I'd be very interested if you'd kindly answer Aufan's question about trump's claim of 'The last election' and "no more voting necessary" ( when he takes office ) Thank you. And your opinion only...not some extreme right wing propaganda site. You're intelligent...don't need that crap for thinking instructions. Lol, you don't like that do you ? The idea that your voting power might be taken away
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Aug 1, 2024 17:58:28 GMT
Liberalism has had a good run. It's pervasive at all the levers of power in the media, academia, and popular culture. They had a great spokesperson for the past 16 years with Obama. But the pendulum has a way of swinging back to the norm. Conservative ideas are still the best in the long run. The tide is turning on many of the looniest ideas of the modern-day liberal, like it's perfectly OK for biological males to compete in sports against women. The new Gen Z voters are showing a tendency toward more conservatism, especially fiscally. As the country edges closer and closer to financial ruin brought on by extreme excess debt, I think conservatism will make a big comeback. Reigning in the out-of-control monster that our federal government has become is Step 1. And Trump is the guy to start the process. Conservatism is to conserve the status quo. Our founders were the liberals of the colonies, while the loyalists/tories wanted to preserve the status quo. Liberalism is not some phase, it has given us all of the progress of the last centuries, from emancipation to legalized gay marriage. Conservatism has stood in the way of all that progress, trying to conserve the status quo. Maintaining status quo, aka conservative ideas, have never been the best in the long run. We’d still be under British rule if that were the case. “Fiscal conservatism”, policy-wise, is just cutting taxes and reducing regulations to consolidate wealth while growing the national debt. How would this attract voters? How would cutting Taxes attract voters? You can't figure out that question by yourself? Lol Did you consider SPENDING in your fiscal conservative definition? Do you think before you post this garbage?
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
Member is Online
|
Post by aufan on Aug 1, 2024 19:48:57 GMT
Conservatism is to conserve the status quo. Our founders were the liberals of the colonies, while the loyalists/tories wanted to preserve the status quo. Liberalism is not some phase, it has given us all of the progress of the last centuries, from emancipation to legalized gay marriage. Conservatism has stood in the way of all that progress, trying to conserve the status quo. Maintaining status quo, aka conservative ideas, have never been the best in the long run. We’d still be under British rule if that were the case. “Fiscal conservatism”, policy-wise, is just cutting taxes and reducing regulations to consolidate wealth while growing the national debt. How would this attract voters? How would cutting Taxes attract voters? You can't figure out that question by yourself? Lol Did you consider SPENDING in your fiscal conservative definition? Do you think before you post this garbage? Cutting taxes to consolidate wealth, so to clarify, cutting taxes for the wealthy. The policy of “fiscal conservatism” as republicans implement it does not reduce spending, debts or deficits. All it does is increases wealth consolidation and wealth inequality. The lie of “fiscal conservatism” being good for anyone but the wealthy has been exposed by Reagan, Bush and Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 1, 2024 20:57:48 GMT
Liberalism is not some phase, Of course it is. We go back and forth. Anytime one side stays in power for too long, they go overboard...and do stupid things. That's how we get male boxers pummeling women in the Olympics. “Fiscal conservatism”, policy-wise, is just cutting taxes and reducing regulations to consolidate wealth while growing the national debt. How would this attract voters? We haven't had anything close to "Fiscal Conservatism" since Graham-Rudman in the mid-1990's. It requires at least a modicum of spending restraint. We haven't seen that in a long time because, the people don't want it. It might well be the END of the US. But, I remain hopeful that another good communicator, like Reagan, will come along. People will eventually understand that we cannot borrow 50 cents of every dollar we spend.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
Member is Online
|
Post by aufan on Aug 2, 2024 6:28:12 GMT
Liberalism is not some phase, Of course it is. We go back and forth. Anytime one side stays in power for too long, they go overboard...and do stupid things. That's how we get male boxers pummeling women in the Olympics. “Fiscal conservatism”, policy-wise, is just cutting taxes and reducing regulations to consolidate wealth while growing the national debt. How would this attract voters? We haven't had anything close to "Fiscal Conservatism" since Graham-Rudman in the mid-1990's. It requires at least a modicum of spending restraint. We haven't seen that in a long time because, the people don't want it. It might well be the END of the US. But, I remain hopeful that another good communicator, like Reagan, will come along. People will eventually understand that we cannot borrow 50 cents of every dollar we spend. Liberalism has ALWAYS gone overboard, and done stupid things, according to conservatives. Declaration of Independence was going overboard. Emancipation was going overboard. Women’s suffrage was going overboard. Civil rights act was going overboard. Gay marriage was going overboard. Now, trans rights is going overboard. This is not a phase, this is the hopefully never ending march of progress, that conservatives always resist because they are losing some advantage or privilege. Republicans run on “fiscal conservatism”, just to completely ignore that and focus on social conservatism. You make the point saying the last time we had it was when a democrat was president. Reagan was the start of modern conservative fiscal policy, and he is the one who began the train wreck. Debt/GDP was decreasing until Reagan, who still has the largest % debt growth of any post WW2 president. And W. Bush is #2. If we extrapolate H.W Bush and Trump to 2 terms, they’d be #3 and #4. My point is, if you think debt is a crisis, republican presidents are your worst choice.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 2, 2024 16:43:58 GMT
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
Member is Online
|
Post by aufan on Aug 2, 2024 17:04:52 GMT
That's how we get male boxers pummeling women in the Olympics. Care to clarify?
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 2, 2024 17:35:08 GMT
Another terrible jobs report.
The UST10YR is at 3.80.
Recession?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 2, 2024 21:10:36 GMT
Of course it is. We go back and forth. Anytime one side stays in power for too long, they go overboard...and do stupid things. That's how we get male boxers pummeling women in the Olympics. We haven't had anything close to "Fiscal Conservatism" since Graham-Rudman in the mid-1990's. It requires at least a modicum of spending restraint. We haven't seen that in a long time because, the people don't want it. It might well be the END of the US. But, I remain hopeful that another good communicator, like Reagan, will come along. People will eventually understand that we cannot borrow 50 cents of every dollar we spend. Liberalism has ALWAYS gone overboard, and done stupid things, according to conservatives. Declaration of Independence was going overboard. Emancipation was going overboard. Women’s suffrage was going overboard. Civil rights act was going overboard. Gay marriage was going overboard. Now, trans rights is going overboard. This is not a phase, this is the hopefully never ending march of progress, that conservatives always resist because they are losing some advantage or privilege. Republicans run on “fiscal conservatism”, just to completely ignore that and focus on social conservatism. You make the point saying the last time we had it was when a democrat was president. Reagan was the start of modern conservative fiscal policy, and he is the one who began the train wreck. Debt/GDP was decreasing until Reagan, who still has the largest % debt growth of any post WW2 president. And W. Bush is #2. If we extrapolate H.W Bush and Trump to 2 terms, they’d be #3 and #4. My point is, if you think debt is a crisis, republican presidents are your worst choice. That post explains a great deal. You have a very warped view of history. Modern day "liberalism" didn't even exist when the first three of those things happened. Christian groups had much to do with them. Conservatives played a large role in the passage of Civil Rights. The last two were too far and are still causing problems today. Reagan was the start of modern conservative fiscal policy. He was the first to speak of ANY kind of spending restraint. He squared off against Congress over and over to control spending. Vetoing many bills and shutting down the government multiple times. His tax cuts were designed to help increase growth in the private sector reduce the rate of growth of government. Congress had agreed to spending increase reductions, but they didn't follow through. Reagan actually came back and raised taxes in 1986, with the promise of more spending rate cuts... that never came. But his policies of deregulation, and indexing tax rates to inflation, and putting money back into the pockets of people launched an era of prosperity and growth that lasted for 20 years. Bill Clinton had no interest in controlling spending, he was FORCED to after the Republicans took control of the House in 1994. All they had to do was SLOW the rate in increase in spending for a few years, and SHAZAM! They suddenly had a surplus that no one saw coming. No democrat will EVER be in favor of controlling spending. They only have ONE knob: Raise Taxes.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
Member is Online
|
Post by aufan on Aug 3, 2024 11:41:30 GMT
Liberalism has ALWAYS gone overboard, and done stupid things, according to conservatives. Declaration of Independence was going overboard. Emancipation was going overboard. Women’s suffrage was going overboard. Civil rights act was going overboard. Gay marriage was going overboard. Now, trans rights is going overboard. This is not a phase, this is the hopefully never ending march of progress, that conservatives always resist because they are losing some advantage or privilege. Republicans run on “fiscal conservatism”, just to completely ignore that and focus on social conservatism. You make the point saying the last time we had it was when a democrat was president. Reagan was the start of modern conservative fiscal policy, and he is the one who began the train wreck. Debt/GDP was decreasing until Reagan, who still has the largest % debt growth of any post WW2 president. And W. Bush is #2. If we extrapolate H.W Bush and Trump to 2 terms, they’d be #3 and #4. My point is, if you think debt is a crisis, republican presidents are your worst choice. That post explains a great deal. You have a very warped view of history. Modern day "liberalism" didn't even exist when the first three of those things happened. Christian groups had much to do with them. Conservatives played a large role in the passage of Civil Rights. The last two were too far and are still causing problems today. Reagan was the start of modern conservative fiscal policy. He was the first to speak of ANY kind of spending restraint. He squared off against Congress over and over to control spending. Vetoing many bills and shutting down the government multiple times. His tax cuts were designed to help increase growth in the private sector reduce the rate of growth of government. Congress had agreed to spending increase reductions, but they didn't follow through. Reagan actually came back and raised taxes in 1986, with the promise of more spending rate cuts... that never came. But his policies of deregulation, and indexing tax rates to inflation, and putting money back into the pockets of people launched an era of prosperity and growth that lasted for 20 years. Bill Clinton had no interest in controlling spending, he was FORCED to after the Republicans took control of the House in 1994. All they had to do was SLOW the rate in increase in spending for a few years, and SHAZAM! They suddenly had a surplus that no one saw coming. No democrat will EVER be in favor of controlling spending. They only have ONE knob: Raise Taxes. Liberalism has its roots before the founding of America, principles America was founded on and liberalism still uses today. Conservatism by definition is the idea to conserve traditional values and resist change. Many conservatives opposed the change and no -traditional values of the civil rights movement: americanarchive.org/exhibits/conservatism/conservatism-civil-rightsYou are still resisting change by saying gay marriage is causing problems. You are (I believe) attributing problems to trans rights that have nothing to do with trans rights, when you talk about a man beating a woman at the Olympics. I still need some clarity on that though. I suppose it depends on your perspective, I’m sure some people think the civil rights act is still causing problems. Anyways, I am well aware of Reaganomics. Where tax cuts are falsely given all of the credit for economic recovery, and our friend Keynesian deficit spending is given none. But deficit spending and ballooning the federal spending is exactly what he did, and you can’t argue it had no impact on economic gains. By the way, you have your history wrong. There were also tax cuts in 86, and tax raises in various other years. As long as “fiscal conservatism” believes the lie that tax cuts pay for themselves, “fiscal conservatism” will never balance the budget or reduce debt. It didn’t even “trickle down”, as median inflation adjusted income decreased under Reagan. The balanced budget came after a series of tax increases after 1981. Income is always a piece of the debt puzzle. Imagine conservative hack Dave Ramsey say “you should cut your income to starve the best of credit car spending”. Obviously personal and government finances are different, but starve the beast is now how you balance a budget. All “fiscal conservatism” does is cut taxes and then blame the other side. We need a pragmatic leader that understands the value of government spending, not one that seems government as an enemy that needs to be starved. Since Reagan, no conservative has been pragmatic in their approach or belief of the role of the federal government.
|
|