Reader comments
Readers' forum: We need a real conservative
132 comments | Read story
liberal means freedom | 6:14 a.m. March 3, 2008
No, we do NOT need the judgemental, moralizing, machiavellian style of
government (aka conservatism)that has led this country towards ruin. Let these
conservatives all move to a deserted island far away from the normal people.
Americans need to be free again.
And it is already happening.
Thank God!
Americans need to be free again.
And it is already happening.
Thank God!
lamonte | 6:16 a.m. March 3, 2008
Russell - I hate to burst your bubble but you haven't had any conserviative
folks running for office for the past 30 years. Ronald Reagan promoted himself
as a conserviative but borrowed and spent the nation into perpetual debt - debt
that our grandchildren will be suffering to pay.
Could you really call George H. W. Bush a conserviative. Like most of them he spoke out of both sides of his mouth (No new taxes!). And then, of course, there was the compassionate conservative George W. Bush. Never have we (the American taxpayers) spent so wrecklessly or surrendered so many of our civil rights as we have under the current adminstration. I say, "Thank goodness!" there are no "conservatives" running for office.
Could you really call George H. W. Bush a conserviative. Like most of them he spoke out of both sides of his mouth (No new taxes!). And then, of course, there was the compassionate conservative George W. Bush. Never have we (the American taxpayers) spent so wrecklessly or surrendered so many of our civil rights as we have under the current adminstration. I say, "Thank goodness!" there are no "conservatives" running for office.
Comments continue below
michaelh | 6:36 a.m. March 3, 2008
Liberals want to tell us what words we can use when we talk, what food we can
eat, what we can weigh, what healthcare covererage we can have, what our kids
are taught at school, what religion we can talk about, what car we can drive and
on and on and on, Where is the freedom in this? You liberals are nothing more
than facists without the pride in your country.
You libs totally distrust people and want to control every thing they do, for the common good.
You are just a bunch of bullies and scared children.
You libs totally distrust people and want to control every thing they do, for the common good.
You are just a bunch of bullies and scared children.
Roland Kayser | 6:43 a.m. March 3, 2008
Between 1945 and 1975, when liberals ran the government, real incomes doubled
for Americans. Since 1980, when conservative ideology has been dominant,
incomes for average Americans have stagnated or declined. Which philosophy
works best for working Amercans?
Richard | 6:47 a.m. March 3, 2008
Haven't you heard of Ron Paul? Apparently the reason you blieve there are
no "conservatives" running is because you haven't done your
homework. Ron Paul is called Dr. No because he votes against any proposed
legislation that goes counter to the constitution. But your ignorance
isn't all your fault. The big media don't give him the time of the
day, which supports my claim that they're part of the problem and
aren't part of the solution.
Chuck Keilman | 7:00 a.m. March 3, 2008
I have a comment for Frank. Just who judges the best places to live? Do you
really believe that America is 17th on the list? Where's #1 Russia?
Find me a country that gives it's people more freedom, more rights, more
opportunity for upward mobility, more opportunity to improve ones self. Oh you
must think that the better place to live is where the Government gives you
everything. Well the reality of those places is that they give you everything
the government thinks you need to keep you happy including a one bedroom hovel,
a bicycle, and laws that restrict your thinking, movement, speech, and of
course your unlimited opportunity to not progress to anything. The cry of the
poor and lazy, give me give me give me. But don't make me earn it on my
own. I'd be glad to send you to whatever country is #1 if you really care
to go there.
Anonymous | 7:03 a.m. March 3, 2008
lamonte: All I can say is AMEN, AMEN, to your words.
liberal larry | 7:20 a.m. March 3, 2008
The principle of conservatism is just a miss mash of knee jerk ideas, that sound
good on right wing radio. The problem is, is that no country, I know of, has
actually made these principles work. At least us enlightened liberals can look
to the successes of England, and other socialized states, who have health care
for all their people.
Alex | 7:44 a.m. March 3, 2008
Socialism: America's new panic word.
It sure would be horrible if everyone helped one another out, wouldn't it?
It sure would be horrible if everyone helped one another out, wouldn't it?
Labels, labels, labels | 8:07 a.m. March 3, 2008
Liberals, Conservatives, Compassionate, Socialist, lots of loaded words that can
label you as the "hero" or the "villain" depending on
one's point of view.
Personally, I don't want lots of "liberal legislation", guaranteeing "everything for everyone". But I would like to see basic benefits for every American. As long as there is any way in the world we can afford it, that just seems like the "right" thing to do.
Things like police/fire protection, education, emergency health care, food if you're starving, and shelter from harsh weather, all of these seem like items an advanced and civilized society should be able to offer and provide.
I really don't think we should be giving HUGE tax breaks and subsidies to insurance companies, drug companies, and hospital CEO's as long as the basic needs of average Americans are being ignored.
Government seems to have it backwards on who needs help first.
Personally, I don't want lots of "liberal legislation", guaranteeing "everything for everyone". But I would like to see basic benefits for every American. As long as there is any way in the world we can afford it, that just seems like the "right" thing to do.
Things like police/fire protection, education, emergency health care, food if you're starving, and shelter from harsh weather, all of these seem like items an advanced and civilized society should be able to offer and provide.
I really don't think we should be giving HUGE tax breaks and subsidies to insurance companies, drug companies, and hospital CEO's as long as the basic needs of average Americans are being ignored.
Government seems to have it backwards on who needs help first.
digum | 8:13 a.m. March 3, 2008
As I see it there are two main problems when discussing politics.
The first is that most of us are not conversant with what the U.S. Constitution actually says. A study I ran across a few years ago found that only 2% of the population could state the rights in the Bill of Rights.
The second is that most of us are not aware of what is meant by conservative or liberal. Since these terms are now associated as right wing conservative and left wing liberal perhaps we ought to define what the political left and right are as understood by the founding fathers.
Political left and right refer the the spectrum of government with anarchy on the extreme right and totalitarianism on the extreme left. The founders strove to strike a balance between the two and did a pretty good job, but over the years collectively we have decided government should be what we want it to be and the constitution is just given lip service.
We're beginning to feel the real weight of past liberal policies and our solution seems to be wanting more liberal policies. Just doesn't make sense to me.
The first is that most of us are not conversant with what the U.S. Constitution actually says. A study I ran across a few years ago found that only 2% of the population could state the rights in the Bill of Rights.
The second is that most of us are not aware of what is meant by conservative or liberal. Since these terms are now associated as right wing conservative and left wing liberal perhaps we ought to define what the political left and right are as understood by the founding fathers.
Political left and right refer the the spectrum of government with anarchy on the extreme right and totalitarianism on the extreme left. The founders strove to strike a balance between the two and did a pretty good job, but over the years collectively we have decided government should be what we want it to be and the constitution is just given lip service.
We're beginning to feel the real weight of past liberal policies and our solution seems to be wanting more liberal policies. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Anonymous | 8:20 a.m. March 3, 2008
Upon examination of where our negative political labels came from using the
chicken or the egg principle - you will find the ultra-right as the unquestioned
king in the demonization of words category leaving the other side therefore to
either:
Roll over and play dead
Go progressively nuts
Throw it right back at the nasty NeoCons with an equal and opposite force.
Roll over and play dead
Go progressively nuts
Throw it right back at the nasty NeoCons with an equal and opposite force.
Conservative | 8:25 a.m. March 3, 2008
It used to be that a basic principal of American conservatives was "mind
your own business". Where did THAT go?
Purpose of Government | 8:20 a.m. March 3, 2008
Isn't the real purpose of government to do things together that we
can't do efficiently on our own? When the government turns so much of the
war over to the free enterprise system of Haliburton, things seem to get much,
much more expensive than the Army that the government is directly in charge
of.
Granted, our government is known for bungling a LOT of things, but there are some basic areas that simply seem to cry out for government intervention.
When the free enterprise system utterly fails to meet the needs of society, it's time for the government of "we the people" to take charge.
My nearest neighbors have a small business. They contribute to society. They don't want a handout. But their health insurance is over $13,000 a year. That's the best rate that would cover their family of four.
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!
And if no one else seems able to fix it, perhaps it's time for the government to step up to the plate. What other option do we have?
Granted, our government is known for bungling a LOT of things, but there are some basic areas that simply seem to cry out for government intervention.
When the free enterprise system utterly fails to meet the needs of society, it's time for the government of "we the people" to take charge.
My nearest neighbors have a small business. They contribute to society. They don't want a handout. But their health insurance is over $13,000 a year. That's the best rate that would cover their family of four.
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!
And if no one else seems able to fix it, perhaps it's time for the government to step up to the plate. What other option do we have?
Mc | 8:25 a.m. March 3, 2008
After spending 10 days in England and Scotland I just don't understand why
an American would want to live there (other than the beautiful scenery). It was
like stepping back to the 1960s. Everything was old. Most people can't
afford to have their own home because of taxes, so they wait on lists to get
into government housing. If they do own a home they have to turn it into a bed
& breakfast to be able to keep it. I would bet that most of you who are in
awe of socialist governments elsewhere have never lived under one.
Dave | 8:37 a.m. March 3, 2008
Socialized health care in England is fine if you have a cold or break an arm,
but if you are diagnosed whith cancer you will likely die before you ever see a
specialist. The country is swimmimg in red ink. Not exactly the best system to
emulate.
Anonymous | 8:47 a.m. March 3, 2008
I love it when people like michaelh tell liberals what we think and what we
want, but somehow they always get it completely wrong. I guess you can expect
that from a regressive.
Anonymous | 8:50 a.m. March 3, 2008
I've never been a big fan of authoritarianism so the ideologies of
today's American conservative movement hold absolutely no interest for my
live-and-let live life philosophy.
Anonymous | 9:00 a.m. March 3, 2008
Purpose of Government asks: "What other option do we have?"
I like Revolution. >:-)
Otherwise, there are candidates running for president outside the two incumbent parties. Do your homework and see if they would put the federal government back into its constitutional box.
George Phillies, Wayne Allyn Root, and Steve Kubby are presidential candidates advocating a federal government much smaller and less taxing on the American people than it is now.
I like Revolution. >:-)
Otherwise, there are candidates running for president outside the two incumbent parties. Do your homework and see if they would put the federal government back into its constitutional box.
George Phillies, Wayne Allyn Root, and Steve Kubby are presidential candidates advocating a federal government much smaller and less taxing on the American people than it is now.
a sick group of people | 9:08 a.m. March 3, 2008
The modern American Conservative movement wants the government to step in and
tell us:
What we can do with the flag
What we can do with our reproductive rights
Insist on praying in our schools
Who we can sleep with
What we should smoke or drink
How we should view stem-cell research
And the list goes on and on.
Then these same people whine and scream that this same government should be smaller and less intrusive.
These are some seriously disturbed individuals.
What we can do with the flag
What we can do with our reproductive rights
Insist on praying in our schools
Who we can sleep with
What we should smoke or drink
How we should view stem-cell research
And the list goes on and on.
Then these same people whine and scream that this same government should be smaller and less intrusive.
These are some seriously disturbed individuals.
To Dave | 9:14 a.m. March 3, 2008
In our country the insurance company would simply drop you from coverage if they
find you have cancer, and you would die anyway AFTER having paid them tons of
money, and losing your home or all other assets before you could qualify for
medicaid. So which system is better? And what other choices do we have?
Other options? | 9:18 a.m. March 3, 2008
I mean options that have ANY chance of succeeding, ANY chance of being elected,
ANY chance of being implemented!
AMERICAN THE GREAT | 9:29 a.m. March 3, 2008
What planet do this author live on ? The so called conservatives strived or a
dictatorship mmmm is that less government. Americans have lost more freedoms
under Bush than any government. If you think keeping the Conservatives in will
keep taxes down, tell me who is going to pay the debt we now have. We are the
human rights for the American Citizen today? mmmmm You need to travel the
world and open your mind and you might see others very happy indeed with their
lives and governments of their choices. huh democracy is alive and well
thoughtout the world no thanks to USA
To Dave | 9:25 a.m. March 3, 2008
I would love to have a system that will take care any basic problems I
can't tend to on my own, without making me go into debt or skip eating or
paying bills for a month.
I'm happy to host a fund-raiser to pay for my kidney transplant, just let someone sew on a severed finger for less than $10,000.
Can't we help each other out?
I'm happy to host a fund-raiser to pay for my kidney transplant, just let someone sew on a severed finger for less than $10,000.
Can't we help each other out?
Bob | 10:12 a.m. March 3, 2008
Consider some of the major issues of the day:
Marriage: Conservatives want government imposed regulation to limit marriage to one man one woman. Liberals want loosen the defination of the term to allow same sex marriage.
Patriotism: Conservatives want forced patriotism for the flag and Military. Liberals want to allow a person to use his own mind.
Religion: Conservatives want to put religion and religious symbols into every part of our lives. Liberal would allow each person to define their own beliefs.
Who is for freedom and who is for government force?
Marriage: Conservatives want government imposed regulation to limit marriage to one man one woman. Liberals want loosen the defination of the term to allow same sex marriage.
Patriotism: Conservatives want forced patriotism for the flag and Military. Liberals want to allow a person to use his own mind.
Religion: Conservatives want to put religion and religious symbols into every part of our lives. Liberal would allow each person to define their own beliefs.
Who is for freedom and who is for government force?
Focus On Congress | 10:20 a.m. March 3, 2008
Since the Republicans aren't offering a viable presidential candiate,
conservatives should focus on the Congressional races. The President can send
us down a bungling road like kicking up dust in the Middle East, but Congress
controls the money.
Oh yeah. Its those Republican congresses that think we can create wealth through massive debt.
Oh yeah. Its those Republican congresses that think we can create wealth through massive debt.
Ernest T. Bass | 10:30 a.m. March 3, 2008
Conservatives have run the country into the ground at the expense of the working
class.
Poverty levels have increase every year under Bush. Giving huge tax breaks to the super wealthy with the hopes that the wealthy will then spend their plunder and in turn helping the working class clearly does not work.
I'm one former conservative who hopes we never have to deal with another conservative president.
20 of the past 28 years have been run by a repug, they've created the vast majority of the problems in the U.S.
Poverty levels have increase every year under Bush. Giving huge tax breaks to the super wealthy with the hopes that the wealthy will then spend their plunder and in turn helping the working class clearly does not work.
I'm one former conservative who hopes we never have to deal with another conservative president.
20 of the past 28 years have been run by a repug, they've created the vast majority of the problems in the U.S.
Anonymous | 10:45 a.m. March 3, 2008
"Conservatives have run the country into the ground at the expense of the
working class. Poverty levels have increase every year under Bush. Giving huge
tax breaks to the super wealthy with the hopes that the wealthy will then spend
their plunder and in turn helping the working class clearly does not
work."
I wouldn't say that it's "conservatives" so much as a certain type of conservative - neconservatives and Wall Street Journal conservatives (not sure there's a difference) doing all the damage.
Main Street conservatism can work and has worked - Eisenhower, and Reagan to some extent. But there aren't too many people running as one of those anymore.
As a conservative I, for one, won't be too disappointed if Obama or Clinton wins this fall. They'll raise taxes on the rich and then the folks at the Wall Street Journal can decide if that's better than controlling the borders.
I wouldn't say that it's "conservatives" so much as a certain type of conservative - neconservatives and Wall Street Journal conservatives (not sure there's a difference) doing all the damage.
Main Street conservatism can work and has worked - Eisenhower, and Reagan to some extent. But there aren't too many people running as one of those anymore.
As a conservative I, for one, won't be too disappointed if Obama or Clinton wins this fall. They'll raise taxes on the rich and then the folks at the Wall Street Journal can decide if that's better than controlling the borders.
liberal means of the People | 10:55 a.m. March 3, 2008
Whew!
I can't remember when the Rush O'Hannitys of these blogs were so quiet.
Way to go my fellow REAL Americans!
Keep up the good work!
Everytime the far-right shoots its mouth off judging, moralizing, and trying to demean other points of view - THROW IT RIGHT BACK AT THEM!
Again, and again, and again.
We SHALL overcome!
I can't remember when the Rush O'Hannitys of these blogs were so quiet.
Way to go my fellow REAL Americans!
Keep up the good work!
Everytime the far-right shoots its mouth off judging, moralizing, and trying to demean other points of view - THROW IT RIGHT BACK AT THEM!
Again, and again, and again.
We SHALL overcome!
Alex | 11:08 a.m. March 3, 2008
Mc - I've lived in the "socialist" (not my definition) country of
Canada. I found it fine, and so did most of the people who lived there. The
didn't seem to have a problem with their democracy when they voted out
their PM and put in a new one.
All of this garbage of moving the country towards "socialism" is nothing other than fear propaganda. Obama and Clinton (though I don NOT want her elected) have said nothing to make me believe that they will do away with our Republic. We're still going to have the Constitution, due process, and elections. We just might have easier access to health care, as well.
All of this garbage of moving the country towards "socialism" is nothing other than fear propaganda. Obama and Clinton (though I don NOT want her elected) have said nothing to make me believe that they will do away with our Republic. We're still going to have the Constitution, due process, and elections. We just might have easier access to health care, as well.
A schizoid group of people | 11:15 a.m. March 3, 2008
Goldwater Conservatives
John Birch Society Conservatives
Reagan Conservatives
And now we have Rush O'Hannity Conservatives.
Each group in their own way, moralizing, judging, and dictating what we should do with our bodies, relationships, prayer, science, flags, stem-cells, mode of entertainment, immigrants, ... the list goes on and on.
And when confronted, they maintain they want smaller government and have yet clearly defined what it is they are trying to conserve.
John Birch Society Conservatives
Reagan Conservatives
And now we have Rush O'Hannity Conservatives.
Each group in their own way, moralizing, judging, and dictating what we should do with our bodies, relationships, prayer, science, flags, stem-cells, mode of entertainment, immigrants, ... the list goes on and on.
And when confronted, they maintain they want smaller government and have yet clearly defined what it is they are trying to conserve.
Oh Please | 11:23 a.m. March 3, 2008
I've been a conservative all my life. But Bushco has persuaded me that
it's time for a serious change. I don't see Obama as a
"socialist" -- that's ridiculous. A socialist wants government
ownership of the means of production -- I don't see that anywhere in his
platform. Why don't you learn a little about the labels you're
throwing around? Do you even know what a socialist is? I'm voting for Obama
because he'll clean up the incredible Bush mess. McCain will simply make it
worse.
Mark B | 11:26 a.m. March 3, 2008
Where was the writer when there were nine white Reagan wannabes all claiming to
be as right as the Gipper? You had the chance to pick any one of them. If you
don't like any of those guys, write in someone else like Teddy Roosevelt
(oops, that was a different letter). Maybe it's not too early to start the
Mitt 2012 campaign. Then again, it takes a good deal of money to succeed.
Regarding Labels | 12:09 p.m. March 3, 2008
Regarding "Labels, labels, labels" @ 8:07 a.m.
"Things like police/fire protection, education, emergency health care, food if you're starving, and shelter from harsh weather, all of these seem like items an advanced and civilized society should be able to offer and provide."
I agree that civilized society should be able to offer and provide these things, but I think it is wrong to think that the GOVERNMENT needs to provide all of them.
"Things like police/fire protection, education, emergency health care, food if you're starving, and shelter from harsh weather, all of these seem like items an advanced and civilized society should be able to offer and provide."
I agree that civilized society should be able to offer and provide these things, but I think it is wrong to think that the GOVERNMENT needs to provide all of them.
Earl | 12:32 p.m. March 3, 2008
McCain's favorite politician is Teddy Roosevelt. What does that say about
McCain?
The Glory days of Conservatism | 12:45 p.m. March 3, 2008
Conservatives like Russell should be grateful to liberals or he would be working
16 hour days as would all of his children. He would be lucky to get a lunch
break and worst his food would be contaminated and his children and family would
be eating meat from diseased cows and grain that rat's feces were ground
into. There are numerous examples of how so-called conservatives or as they like
to label themselves "capitalists" have done nothing but harm this
country.
It seems to me that those who benefit the most from so-called "socialist" programs, regulations, etc complain the most about them even though they keep capitalism from self-destructing. But he believes our best hope is to have conservatives lead us back to the glory days of families working 16 hour days, being paid quarter-time where you are forced to work 59 minutes and don't get paid for an hour. The glory days where children worked in factories to provide for their families and were seriously maimed or died. I'm so looking forward to a return to the glory days of conservatism and my family is so excited. We are waiting for a conservative like Bender to bring back tyranny.
It seems to me that those who benefit the most from so-called "socialist" programs, regulations, etc complain the most about them even though they keep capitalism from self-destructing. But he believes our best hope is to have conservatives lead us back to the glory days of families working 16 hour days, being paid quarter-time where you are forced to work 59 minutes and don't get paid for an hour. The glory days where children worked in factories to provide for their families and were seriously maimed or died. I'm so looking forward to a return to the glory days of conservatism and my family is so excited. We are waiting for a conservative like Bender to bring back tyranny.
Too busy to care about voting | 12:54 p.m. March 3, 2008
Those who oppose taxing the wealthy at a greater rate than the poor don't
understand the concept of "those who benefit the most from something should
pay more than those who benefit the least."
A man who uses our roads to go to work every day shouldn't pay the same as a man who benefits from our highways and roads which allow his trucks carrying goods worth $35,000 profit to get from point A to point B. Who should pay more to maintain our roads? Should the man who benefits the least pay the same as the man who benefits the most? The same for police service. Who benefits the most? The man who has something to protect or the man who has only himself and his family to protect?
We often fail to understand this so we see taxing the wealthy at a greater rate as unfair even though its fair to do so and unfair to tax someone the same who doesn't benefit from the same services. The same is true of the military. This may sound unpatriotic but the poor man doesn't care who rules America and being able to vote means little to them.
A man who uses our roads to go to work every day shouldn't pay the same as a man who benefits from our highways and roads which allow his trucks carrying goods worth $35,000 profit to get from point A to point B. Who should pay more to maintain our roads? Should the man who benefits the least pay the same as the man who benefits the most? The same for police service. Who benefits the most? The man who has something to protect or the man who has only himself and his family to protect?
We often fail to understand this so we see taxing the wealthy at a greater rate as unfair even though its fair to do so and unfair to tax someone the same who doesn't benefit from the same services. The same is true of the military. This may sound unpatriotic but the poor man doesn't care who rules America and being able to vote means little to them.
To 12:09 | 12:55 p.m. March 3, 2008
Who do you think SHOULD provide the services that free enterprise has utterly
failed to administer with any equity?
Do we need to depend on Churches to recruit doctors to fix our child's broken leg? Or do we need to rely on the community to sponsor a fund raiser whenever someone needs a kidney transplant?
Who else besides the government has the incentive to correct a broken system? At least with the government running things, we can "vote the bums out" when they screw things up. With the current system we have no recourse.
Don't you think that "We the people" should be able to get essential services in an American democracy!
Do we need to depend on Churches to recruit doctors to fix our child's broken leg? Or do we need to rely on the community to sponsor a fund raiser whenever someone needs a kidney transplant?
Who else besides the government has the incentive to correct a broken system? At least with the government running things, we can "vote the bums out" when they screw things up. With the current system we have no recourse.
Don't you think that "We the people" should be able to get essential services in an American democracy!
Thomas | 1:37 p.m. March 3, 2008
"Too busy," I call bullfeathers on the "the rich benefit more
from government, therefore, they should pay more" argument.
The argument is that the wealthy need government to keep angry mobs from looting their mansions. However, the wealthy have never depended much on police protection (regular police forces didn't even exist before the 19th century). The rich have always been able to pay for private security. It is, in fact, the poor who benefit disproportionately from (free) police coverage -- largely because they are unfortunate enough to live around other poor people, many of which have a nasty habit of victimizing their neighbors.
Example: The Newport Beach, California police department has pretty much nothing to do except pull over drunk drivers (and take apprehended shoplifters off the hands of the private mall security at Fashion Island). The Santa Ana police department a few miles away has its hands considerably more full.
That said, I have no problem with the rich being asked to pay more -- within reason. It's when it's proposed to place virtually the *entire* burden on those defined (broadly) as "wealthy" that questions of fairness can fairly be asked.
The argument is that the wealthy need government to keep angry mobs from looting their mansions. However, the wealthy have never depended much on police protection (regular police forces didn't even exist before the 19th century). The rich have always been able to pay for private security. It is, in fact, the poor who benefit disproportionately from (free) police coverage -- largely because they are unfortunate enough to live around other poor people, many of which have a nasty habit of victimizing their neighbors.
Example: The Newport Beach, California police department has pretty much nothing to do except pull over drunk drivers (and take apprehended shoplifters off the hands of the private mall security at Fashion Island). The Santa Ana police department a few miles away has its hands considerably more full.
That said, I have no problem with the rich being asked to pay more -- within reason. It's when it's proposed to place virtually the *entire* burden on those defined (broadly) as "wealthy" that questions of fairness can fairly be asked.
I call bullweather on your respo | 2:12 p.m. March 3, 2008
To Thomas: I never made the argument that "the wealthy need the government
to keep angry mobs from looting mansions." So your post is what's
referred to as a "straw man argument." You create an argument that
doesn't exist and then proceed to tear it down.
Yet, if you want an example of how the government benefits the wealthy more than the poor (nothing to do with mobs or mansions) I will give it to you. It was in Philadephia in 1789 that an armed mob marched on the Constitutional Convention where the wealthy were meeting to draft a new Constitution. Of if you wish I will quote Madison, one of the founding fathers, who said that the "role of government is to protect the opulent from the majority." Maybe the word opulent is too big for you?
In fact, a majority of historians accept that the constitutional convention was a reaction to Shays' Rebellion (the debtors). So I call bullweather to your argument.
Maybe your lack of knowledge of history doesn't allow you to know about how the National Guard were used to kill strikers or how they were used by the wealthy to control unrest by the poor.
Yet, if you want an example of how the government benefits the wealthy more than the poor (nothing to do with mobs or mansions) I will give it to you. It was in Philadephia in 1789 that an armed mob marched on the Constitutional Convention where the wealthy were meeting to draft a new Constitution. Of if you wish I will quote Madison, one of the founding fathers, who said that the "role of government is to protect the opulent from the majority." Maybe the word opulent is too big for you?
In fact, a majority of historians accept that the constitutional convention was a reaction to Shays' Rebellion (the debtors). So I call bullweather to your argument.
Maybe your lack of knowledge of history doesn't allow you to know about how the National Guard were used to kill strikers or how they were used by the wealthy to control unrest by the poor.
Willie | 2:16 p.m. March 3, 2008
yeah, we've had 7 years of this "conservative" presidents
policies and look how well that turned out.
Bush and Reagan introduced the religious rightwingers into government and we've gone downhill since.
Fortunately, the religous wackos are fighting to see which part of the party will control the GOP. Dissention in the ranks will split the PUBLICANS and we will then have realism instead of religion in our country again.
Bush and Reagan introduced the religious rightwingers into government and we've gone downhill since.
Fortunately, the religous wackos are fighting to see which part of the party will control the GOP. Dissention in the ranks will split the PUBLICANS and we will then have realism instead of religion in our country again.
Response to Thomas continued | 2:18 p.m. March 3, 2008
To Thomas: "That said, I have no problem with the rich being asked to pay
more -- within reason. It's when it's proposed to place virtually the
*entire* burden on those defined (broadly) as "wealthy" that questions
of fairness can fairly be asked."
Please demonstrate where anyone has proposed that we place the "entire burden" on "those defined" as wealthy. I know I haven't proposed this and I have yet to see anyone who suggests that the wealthy or those who are able to pay their fair share should be forced to pay more than their fair share. This argument is used frequently in response to the idea that the wealthy who benefit more than those who benefit less.
It's called a "progressive tax" instead of many of the regressive taxes supported by conservatives. Right now our state property and sales tax are regressive taxes and the income tax has taken on a flat tax nature which means that those Utahns who benefit the least are paying more than their fair share while those who benefit the most are paying less than their fair share.
Please tell me why Warren Buffett should pay less of his income than his secretary?
Please demonstrate where anyone has proposed that we place the "entire burden" on "those defined" as wealthy. I know I haven't proposed this and I have yet to see anyone who suggests that the wealthy or those who are able to pay their fair share should be forced to pay more than their fair share. This argument is used frequently in response to the idea that the wealthy who benefit more than those who benefit less.
It's called a "progressive tax" instead of many of the regressive taxes supported by conservatives. Right now our state property and sales tax are regressive taxes and the income tax has taken on a flat tax nature which means that those Utahns who benefit the least are paying more than their fair share while those who benefit the most are paying less than their fair share.
Please tell me why Warren Buffett should pay less of his income than his secretary?
Willie | 2:19 p.m. March 3, 2008
MICHAELH et al, you should google the definition of "Fascism" because
you obviously have not clue what it means, outside of name calling.
AMERICA'S GREATEST WAR HERO, G.W. BUSH, fits 13 of the 14 characteristics of the definition of the word; "FASCISM"
AMERICA'S GREATEST WAR HERO, G.W. BUSH, fits 13 of the 14 characteristics of the definition of the word; "FASCISM"
Wilkey | 2:23 p.m. March 3, 2008
That's an interesting argument. I guess the question is whether people
should support the government based on how many services they receive from the
government, or based on how much money they extract from the economy.
I do not think rich people are always or mostly leeches, but I do think it should be based on how much is extracted from.
After all, if you really want to get technical, one role of government is to revoke the most basic free market principle of all - anyhing you can get your hands on you can steal is yours. If not so, how would billionaire Ted Turner be able to hold on to a million or so acres of ranchland without his own private army?
A true, natural free market does not exist, nor has it existed for a long time, nor would we want it to exist.
I do not think rich people are always or mostly leeches, but I do think it should be based on how much is extracted from.
After all, if you really want to get technical, one role of government is to revoke the most basic free market principle of all - anyhing you can get your hands on you can steal is yours. If not so, how would billionaire Ted Turner be able to hold on to a million or so acres of ranchland without his own private army?
A true, natural free market does not exist, nor has it existed for a long time, nor would we want it to exist.
GWB | 2:36 p.m. March 3, 2008
This letter is so interesting. When faced with the failure of Conservative
policies, the "conservatives" argue that it was a failure of people
because no one was a pure enough conservative, not that the policies are
flawed.
Conservative economic policy is a failure. The Laffer Curve is false. Cut taxes on the wealthy and it does not trickle down, the rich just keep it and ask for more. It has been tried twice (Reagan and Bush II) and it did not produce an increase in taxes that balanced the budget.
On the contrary, the tax cuts only worked to increase the deficits, both under Reagan and Bush.
Conservative's, you know the ones who like smaller government have presided over increases in the number of government employees while Clinton cut the size.
Conservatives also have increasingly argued for and stepped up government control of private life (saying the Supreme Court should not have struck down sodomy laws).
They argue for State's rights, but recently Conservative Judges Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia all voted to strip states of the ability to keep citizens safe against product defects.
Conservative Policies are a failure, not the people, but the policies.
Conservative economic policy is a failure. The Laffer Curve is false. Cut taxes on the wealthy and it does not trickle down, the rich just keep it and ask for more. It has been tried twice (Reagan and Bush II) and it did not produce an increase in taxes that balanced the budget.
On the contrary, the tax cuts only worked to increase the deficits, both under Reagan and Bush.
Conservative's, you know the ones who like smaller government have presided over increases in the number of government employees while Clinton cut the size.
Conservatives also have increasingly argued for and stepped up government control of private life (saying the Supreme Court should not have struck down sodomy laws).
They argue for State's rights, but recently Conservative Judges Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia all voted to strip states of the ability to keep citizens safe against product defects.
Conservative Policies are a failure, not the people, but the policies.
Lionheart | 2:55 p.m. March 3, 2008
The wild assertions and fuzzy thinking on this post are getting quite funny.
Just a few corrections; to Mr. Bass, no, poverty has not increased in recent
years, it has gone down, and to Oh Please, the statement about socialists
wanting the government to own the means of production, no, that is communism.
Thomas, your statement seems to be the most rational, and having lived in Newport Beach, Ca. I can attest that it's pretty quiet, and mainly because all those Santa Ana people can't afford to live there and stick out like a sore thumb if they come into Newport and start looking around for trouble.
The opinion piece stated that there is not a conservative choice in this election and I concur. No matter, regardless of the election of liberals or any other political movement or governments, I and other conservatives will position ourselves to make it through and I expect will still be conservatives and quite happily so.
Thomas, your statement seems to be the most rational, and having lived in Newport Beach, Ca. I can attest that it's pretty quiet, and mainly because all those Santa Ana people can't afford to live there and stick out like a sore thumb if they come into Newport and start looking around for trouble.
The opinion piece stated that there is not a conservative choice in this election and I concur. No matter, regardless of the election of liberals or any other political movement or governments, I and other conservatives will position ourselves to make it through and I expect will still be conservatives and quite happily so.
Anonymous | 3:05 p.m. March 3, 2008
My guess is Thomas is not rich but like so many conservatives, worships the rich
and pretends to be one of them.
Anonymous | 3:09 p.m. March 3, 2008
So just what IS a "real conservative" anyway?
to Thomas | 3:38 p.m. March 3, 2008
Somehow I don't lie awake at night worried that the filthy rich are paying
too much in taxes. I just read in WSJ about Bill McGuire walking away from
United Healthcare as CEO with $1.2 billion in his pocket. A 39% tax would still
leave him with enough to buy his private Caribbean Island while his customers
get turned down for coverage because of "preexisting conditions."
Obama, YES!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- 8 killed in Kabul suicide bombing 1:38 a.m.
- Explosions rock downtown Baghdad 1:32 a.m.
- Family found dead in Calif. home 1:32 a.m.
- House GOP won't take no-tax pledge 12:18 a.m.
- Storms dumped lots of snow in Utah 12:18 a.m.
- Deputies dragged by fleeing car 12:17 a.m.
- Some charities are close to folding 12:16 a.m.
- Insurance exchange not faring well 12:16 a.m.
- Gila Valley Temple dedication set 12:16 a.m.
- Davis schedules 2 free H1N1 clinics 12:15 a.m.
- Wet spot found in Powell's home
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney
- Y. opponent nearly smelled roses
- D-Will treats military families to party
- MWC looks better in basketball
- Pace happy not to be noticed
- Maynor amazed by L.A. fans
- High school football: All-region teams
- Jazz will have full lineup tonight
- BYU singers compete in 'Sing Off'
- Gay-friendly curriculum phased out
145 - LDS to emphasize helping needy125
- Unga might enter NFL draft106
- BYU to wear royal blue uniforms103
- Disappearance called 'suspicious'96
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child96
- Choir, guests unwrap musical magic84
- Barkley says Boozer is big problem81
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney80
- Stay the course with our president79
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
"Price has been problematic for proponents of the exchange who have been...
By the way: Legacy Highway was the suggested alternative to hwy 89.
..but, unfortunately, it sells papers because people want in on the gossip.
Peanuts are NOT NUTS. They are legumes, like beans are. I am allergic to tree...
Mosiah 4: 16-18: So tell me at what point did Mosiah say give of you...
Now take advantage of their size and strength and run the ball more --...
Kim Shinkoskey...I'm afraid your the one who lost his mind.
It seems to me that if Tiger is going to be about fixing his problem the...
Well said...
Spoken like someone truly out of touch with reality. You now want us to...
Advertisements
All developed countries have medical coverage for ALL citizens except the US. And like it or not ALL the people of those countries like it and consider the citizens of the US stupid for not haveing the same as they do.