Conservative Skeptics?

[Cleon]

One more thing concerning Gay rights, which seem to be the battle flag of liberals all over America:

Their "struggle" is hardly comperable to the civil rights struggle of African Americans. If the lawyers would have stopped kvetching and whining, settled on civil unions, allowed the matter to settle and society to acclemate a bit, we would have seen legalized marriage over the next decade.

Stupid uppity gays, not knowing their place.

 

[bagtaggar]

But Saddam actually did switch to the Euro.

Iraq alone isn't the point. Of course it doesn't produce enough export. But it's a pressure point we are applying to the middle east.

The learders of Syria and Lybia are scared out of their minds at the moment. The rest of the middle east is being very cautious with its policies. By setting up a western currency/policy friendly government in the middle east, we are attempting to corner their economies and policies.

Iraq is a stepping stone for a greater geopolitical game.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Not really. As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out for years and years, income tax revenues tend to remain fairly steady as a percentage of GDP (about 19.5%), regardless of the level of marginal income tax rates. This suggests strongly that taxpayers shift their activities away from taxable events during times of relatively high income taxes, and back to them during years of lower tax rates. The lesson is that American taxpayers have a sort of built-in tolerance for a certain level of income taxation. Try to exceed that, and you achieve nothing positive, and may in fact be acting contrary to your intended goal of raising additional income tax revenue.

Tax and spenders really need to study more macroeconomics. The overall economy tends to suffer after periods of tax increases, and then rebound after a relaxation of tax rates.

Here's a brief prose summary of this effect from Standford University's Hoover Institution:

HOOVER INSTITUTION

Essays in Public Policy

Taxation and Economic Performance

W. Kurt Hauser

Executive Summary

Over the past two centuries, economists have debated whether or not higher rates of taxation lead to increased levels of government revenues. In the eighteenth century, Adam Smith pointed to a reduced level of revenues from substantially higher tariffs and duties on traded goods. In the twentieth century, the Laffer Curve postulated that there would be no government revenue at a taxation level of 100 percent or 0 percent. More recently, the debate focused on the tax increases of 1990 and 1993, which were designed to reduce the federal budget deficit through an increase in government revenues. In fact, the forecasted revenue generation following each tax increase fell short of the mark.

Increases in tax rates have not raised the desired additional revenues, but they have dampened economic activity. Higher tax rates tend to reduce the tax base as taxpayers have disincentives to work, produce, save, or invest. There are, however, incentives to hide, shelter, and underreport income as tax rates are raised. Thus, the economy as a whole tends to perform less well following a tax increase. Conversely, the economy tends to perform more favorably following a reduction in tax rates. In the postwar period, government revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product have averaged 19.5 percent despite marginal income tax rates as high as 92 percent and as low as 28 percent. Despite the historic record, policy makers continue to embrace the notion that an increase in marginal tax rates will raise revenues without any attendant adverse effects on economic growth, job creation, or standard of living.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/epp/epp68.html

AS

When the debt stops spiraling out of control and breaking all-time records, we'll get back to you on your ideas.

 

[kimiko]

Iraq is a stepping stone for a greater geopolitical game.

No wonder so many in the Middle East hate the west- they've always just been pawns in 'the Big Game'. Nice to see the US carrying on the tradition.

 

[geni]

But Saddam actually did switch to the Euro.

Iraq alone isn't the point. Of course it doesn't produce enough export. But it's a pressure point we are applying to the middle east.

The learders of Syria and Lybia are scared out of their minds at the moment.

Not really. Your millitry is tied up in Iraq and Afganistan. Ok Muammar al-Qaddafi may be afraid of you but that puts you right up there with chad

The rest of the middle east is being very cautious with its policies. By setting up a western currency/policy friendly government in the middle east, we are attempting to corner their economies and policies.

It isn't working

Iraq is a stepping stone for a greater geopolitical game.

Helping the chinese keep the renminbi artificaly low against the dollar strikes me as a terminaly poor move.

 

[American]

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs? I often find that many young liberals choose to be that way as a reaction to the overt morality and religious intolerance associated with conservativism, but also because of notions of personal accountability, strict social perspective, and harsher legal consequences of conservative rule of law.

Liberals are so because they want sex and drugs everywhere, and they hate churches. Also, they want all (non) problems solved by "somebody", at the expense of anyone who makes $1 more than they do.

They stick to naive and unrealistic ideals concerning governments and geopolitics that often have no relationship to history or fact, but somehow liberalism remains the "intellectual's choice".

It's all about work. Thinking is their ideal, not DOING. That's for non-thinkers.

Yet if I said "geopolitics" to my liberal coworkers, none of them would have the slightest clue what it means. These people all have bachelors and masters degrees, yet they are f'ing clueless to anything that's not on reality TV or isn't on the weekly R&B top 10 charts.

(I hate them. God I hate them!!! Even the few conservatives I know can't get their facts straight. They get bits and pieces, but when you come right down to it - they're just idiots.)

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

The list is endless. I knew one turkey who was mad at the selection of non-perishables we air-dropped to starving Afghans (it was all "junk food" to her). This, from a girl who eats sushi for lunch. It didn't matter that the food had to last months without refrigeration... we were just so awful for not giving them... what? Fish dinners? It really doesn't matter. The point is, she is a ditz who wants everyone to be forced to respect her depraved lifestyle, and she thinks she knows things because she buys newspapers.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic. It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

Everyone is dead-center from their own perspective. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[bagtaggar]

Not really. Your millitry is tied up in Iraq and Afganistan

We still have 1.2 million reservists ready and willing. While it may not be an immediate logistical possibility to invade another nation, once we're "through" with Iraq it will be.

It isn't working

Yes it is.

Helping the chinese keep the renminbi artificaly low against the dollar strikes me as a terminaly poor move.

Macroeconomics lesson: The term "fundamental equilibrium exchange rate" was introduced to emphasize that in thinking about what a country's exchange rate should be one ought not to focus on a momentary market equilibrium. One ought instead to think about what in the IMF's original Articles was referred to as "fundamental disequilibrium", which meant an exchange rate at which it would not be possible to achieve simultaneously both of the basic objectives of macroeconomic policy.

Long term planning my friend. At its very best.

 

[bagtaggar]

American: you kick so much ass you have no idea. I love you.

 

[geni]

We still have 1.2 million reservists ready and willing. While it may not be an immediate logistical possibility to invade another nation, once we're "through" with Iraq it will be.

Meaningless. You can't wage a sucessful long term fight with that kind of troop.

Yes it is.

So you belive Iran when they say they don't have a program to build nuclear weapons?

Macroeconomics lesson: The term "fundamental equilibrium exchange rate" was introduced to emphasize that in thinking about what a country's exchange rate should be one ought not to focus on a momentary market equilibrium. One ought instead to think about what in the IMF's original Articles was referred to as "fundamental disequilibrium", which meant an exchange rate at which it would not be possible to achieve simultaneously both of the basic objectives of macroeconomic policy.

Long term planning my friend. At its very best.

Which would great if it wasn't for the small issue that china's growth rate is about to become a problem in the short medium and long term.

 

[AmateurScientist]

When the debt stops spiraling out of control and breaking all-time records, we'll get back to you on your ideas.

They're not my ideas. They are empirical facts. You are welcome to examine the data yourself.

AS

 

[geni]

American: you kick so much ass you have no idea. I love you.

UK has defeated Iraq twice on it's own. First time it took a small part of the british army two years.

The second time 2200 troops managed to get the Iraqi army to retreat and once renforcements arived conquor the country in short order despite the Iraqis being aided by the Germans.

 

[Batman Jr.]

They're not my ideas. They are empirical facts. You are welcome to examine the data yourself.

AS

The poor performance of the economy under Bush shows your "facts" don't work. I'm not going to waste my time sifting through Hoover Institute's prevarications, and I'm not going to pay the insulting $6 fee to read them. A good word of advice would be to steer clear of "think tanks." They're propaganda machines, not legitimate sources of political analysis.

 

[bagtaggar]

And in Desert Storm we obliterated Saddam's army in what, 30 days? We had 140 casualties.

Last time I checked, the UK wasn't also attempting to reform the Iraqi government.

 

[bagtaggar]

The poor performance of the economy under Bush shows your "facts" don't work.

Please explain how the economy is doing poorly. In what sense? Job market? GDP? What?

 

[Tony]

Last time I checked, the UK wasn't also attempting to reform the Iraqi government.

You can't expect every government to be as stupid as the US government.

 

[bagtaggar]

You can't expect 70% of Iraqis to turn out to vote on their constitution.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Please explain how the economy is doing poorly. In what sense? Job market? GDP? What?

I'm talking about the poverty rate and the deficit. You know, just the unimportant stuff.

 

[Tony]

I'm talking about the poverty rate and the deficit. You know, just the unimportant stuff.

Don't forget the low (compared to some european countries) standard of living.

 

[peptoabysmal]

In many ways I consider myself a conservative, particularly in United States foreign policy, economics, and many social issues (bar things like abortion, for which I am mostly pro-choice). However I am far from a Bible-thumper, in fact I have a deep distrust and disdain for Christianity and religion in general. I am for all intents and purposes aetheist/agnostic.

Are there any politically conservative folk here on this forum who are not necessarily religious nut jobs? I often find that many young liberals choose to be that way as a reaction to the overt morality and religious intolerance associated with conservativism, but also because of notions of personal accountability, strict social perspective, and harsher legal consequences of conservative rule of law.

They stick to naive and unrealistic ideals concerning governments and geopolitics that often have no relationship to history or fact, but somehow liberalism remains the "intellectual's choice".

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

I like to consider myself a fully rational individual, taking the best elements from each side, trimming the fat, and being realistic. It just seems that when you trim away the fat (religion from conservatives and tree hugging from liberals), the intellectually conservative perspective just has much less ********.

Yes. I'm conservative by today's standards, but I think I'm more of a JFK era conservative. I'm also an atheist. I don't spend any time trying to convince Christians that God doesn't exist. If their faith helps them get through the day, good for them.

I switched parties (from Demo to Repub) because I just don't like the direction that the Demos have headed in during recent years. I wish there were a better and viable alternative to both parties. Can you imagine any Democrat saying something along the lines of "Don't ask what your country can do for you ... " in this day and age? They criticize and sneer and throw handfuls of vitriol and sarcasm, but have any of them had any ideas on how to handle anything lately?

I do believe in keeping church and state separate, but I don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments statue in a courthouse. Now if someone wanted to increase my taxes to put Ten Commandments statues in all court houses I would have a big problem with that. The problem wouldn't be as much with the taxation as it is definitely against the spirit that the Founding Fathers designed our Constitution under the influence of.

I think the scary b.s. that the Bush administration is trying to install a religion based government is just that... b.s. All Presidents to date have invoked the name of a deity at one time or another even if it was just to say "Oh God, please don't let them find out about Monica". They all make obligatory appearances in church.

I think the "balanced budget" of the Clinton years was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The U.S. has been steadily going into debt since the 70's to the tune of trillions of dollars. How can any of those years have had a "balanced budget"?

I think we did the right thing to remove Saddam. The Democrats, who started undermining the mission before our soldier's boots even touched the sands of Iraq were shown at the polls just how we felt about them.

 

[bagtaggar]

United States

GDP - per capita: $40,100
GDP - real growth rate: 4.4%
Population below poverty line: 12%
Unemployment rate: 5.5%

France

GDP - per capita: $28,700
GDP - real growth rate: 2.1%
Population below poverty line: 6.5%
Unemployment rate: 10.1%

Germany

GDP - per capita: $28,700
GDP - real growth rate: 1.7%
Population below poverty line: NA
Unemployment rate: 10.6%

China

GDP - per capita: $5,600
GDP - real growth rate: 9.1%
Population below poverty line: 10%
Unemployment rate: 20%

So by which standard are we failing and by which are we succeeding.