- MBTI
- INTJ
Some places would run very well, others would explode.
The Conservative Agenda?
- Thread starter arbygil
- Start date
- MBTI
- INTJ
Trying to find common ground is nobel. I tried to and was throughly disappointed. I think most people are and this is why the country is so polarized.
Ive said it before there is nothing wrong with liberal ideology, it just doesnt and wont work in the real world. I like a lot of things about the idea of a world like that but its an absolute unequivocal fantasy and will never be anything more.
Sloe Djinn
Idiot with Internet Access.
- MBTI
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
I think that's an important point. Places that actually have a sense of community are not so common anymore, and it's an extraordinary thing for communities to come together to help struggling members in need, especially in the sense that people are invested enough to be reciprocal on an ongoing basis. That may also be a side-effect of currency taking the place of actual goods/services. Though population spreads and density grows, people are still remarkably isolated and suspicious of each other.
arbygil
Passing through
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
I think you may have hit the crux of the NF/NT argument too, @Eventhorizon. I think NF-types will always have an idealistic streak, and are willing to work to the grave to achieve even a sliver of hope, to bring folks together. It may be a fantasy for the majority, but if one group - just one - decides to put aside differences and make something work together (even if it's a small group) then maybe that'll be enough for others to take note, and try to do the same.
Anyway. I'll keep searching for common ground, and I'll keep hoping that others may want to do the same. Even if I don't agree, I can agree to disagree - and I'll do my utmost to keep a civil tongue.
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
Fiscally, I am schizoid in that I consider issues individually. I value the meeting of human need, as well as economic principles. A little of this and a little of that makes for a good frugal stew.
In practice, this makes me a Centrist, or so the online tests like Political Compass tell me.
In terms of values, I am as much of a live-and-let-live libertarian as you will find. Again, as the online tests say of me.
The latter has meant I have never wanted to have anything to do with conservatives in the United States, even if their fiscal policy was something I valued. In my lifetime, conservatives in the United States have routinely championed values that are incompatible with my values in terms of personal liberty, progressiveness vs. traditionalism, faith vs. reason, and so on.
If indeed there was, or is, a Conservative Agenda, I’m not exactly sure what it was, or is, but it has always vaguely smelled of that thing called control, and I find that both vulgar and nauseating.
Oh, and about those online tests...the presidential candidate-matching ones in this instance...they all tell me Gary Johnson is for me.
Cheers,
Ian
In practice, this makes me a Centrist, or so the online tests like Political Compass tell me.
In terms of values, I am as much of a live-and-let-live libertarian as you will find. Again, as the online tests say of me.
The latter has meant I have never wanted to have anything to do with conservatives in the United States, even if their fiscal policy was something I valued. In my lifetime, conservatives in the United States have routinely championed values that are incompatible with my values in terms of personal liberty, progressiveness vs. traditionalism, faith vs. reason, and so on.
If indeed there was, or is, a Conservative Agenda, I’m not exactly sure what it was, or is, but it has always vaguely smelled of that thing called control, and I find that both vulgar and nauseating.
Oh, and about those online tests...the presidential candidate-matching ones in this instance...they all tell me Gary Johnson is for me.
Cheers,
Ian
- MBTI
- INTJ
Interesting. I test as libertarian as well. But there are new definitions these days such as independent conservative etc...Fiscally, I am schizoid in that I consider issues individually. I value the meeting of human need, as well as economic principles. A little of this and a little of that makes for a good frugal stew.
In practice, this makes me a Centrist, or so the online tests like Political Compass tell me.
In terms of values, I am as much of a live-and-let-live libertarian as you will find. Again, as the online tests say of me.
The latter has meant I have never wanted to have anything to do with conservatives in the United States, even if their fiscal policy was something I valued. In my lifetime, conservatives in the United States have routinely championed values that are incompatible with my values in terms of personal liberty, progressiveness vs. traditionalism, faith vs. reason, and so on.
If indeed there was, or is, a Conservative Agenda, I’m not exactly sure what it was, or is, but it has always vaguely smelled of that thing called control, and I find that both vulgar and nauseating.
Oh, and about those online tests...the presidential candidate-matching ones in this instance...they all tell me Gary Johnson is for me.
Cheers,
Ian
Anyway between our options, conservative or liberal I find conservatives to offer only half a plate of crap compared to the full plate with a side of crazy liberals offer.
- MBTI
- .
- Enneagram
- .
Try using a less weighted adjective like "ruined" or "bankrupted" or...
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/
"Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist
By Allen W. Smith, Ph.D. • October 11, 2013
...many people, today, still believe that Ronald Reagan came galloping up on a great white horse to sound the alarm that Social Security was in deep financial trouble. He then allegedly figured out a solution to the problem and rammed his legislative proposal through Congress in a three-month period.....
Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.
The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
"
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/
- MBTI
- .
- Enneagram
- .
to be fair, the GOP has been lying about the impact of their economic policy for decades.
arbygil
Passing through
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Probably, @Stu - but who hasn't? From what I've read, the US has only balanced the budget five times in fifty years - and honestly, I think most of the times that money went into someone's pocket rath er than to taxpayers. I don't really believe any politician can save us, but I'll vote my conscience come November. I have to live with my decisions, after all.
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Exactly...it’s the people’s money.
There were laws protecting the government from using it for anything other than what it was intended for...Reagan blew that apart along with the laws protecting the unions right to protest when he forced the striking air traffic controllers to return to work.
The most prosperous time in the US was after the New Deal was passed...most of which has been slowly dismantled by the “Conservative Party” after they got their free college and had stable jobs, homes, etc.
Reagan nailed the coffin shut, and each subsequent president on both sides of the isle have done all they can do to privatize and gouge the rest of us ever since.
Capitalism is not synonymous with freedom...the party of “social and fiscal responsibility” is a fucking joke.
The middle class is vanishing....the baby boomers haven’t saved enough to retire (those that did, lost huge chunks of their saving with the BS “bail out of Wall St.”)....those graduating college can’t find work and those that do practically have a mortgage to repay that immediately puts them into debt and difficulty.
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
A wise nation would want the most educated and well-trained society it could get, with the infrastructure to support it...however; it has been a constant with the “party of fiscal responsibility” to cut any social programs that help raise people out of poverty or educate them, they oppose minimum wage increases at every turn, all while giving the rich a separate set of IRS tax rules to play by - most of which allow them to pay nothing, if not get millions in subsidies back. Not to mention, defunding any infrastructure improvements - why don’t we have bullet trains people?
Instead we have thousands of bridges deemed “unsafe” - how lovely, I hope I get to drive across one twice a day.
I think Trump and Hillary are both bought out...this whole election is a fucking joke.
Bunch of midwest bible-thumpers who cannot critically think consistently vote to screw themselves over with supposed “right wing ideals” that ends up cutting all the shit that would benefit them so they can send the money to further inflate our military (which spends more money than the next 10 countries spend combined...how's that for a fucked up factoid?) while “Oh, sorry....we can’t give you that Social Security increase this year...we just can’t afford it this time.”...”Yes, we know prices of goods and services are forever inflating in price...you’ll just have to maybe break your heart medication in half...I’m sure you’ll be fine.”
You really think Trump gives a flying fuck about Joe Blow?
He’d sell you for your weight in dog shit.
How any supposed “Christian” can look at how the man behaves and call him a man of God is delusional at best.
At least Hellery has to try and keep the actual “Progressives” happy and appeased...at least they attempt to protect the environment, and their first instinct isn’t to cut all and every social program they can.
Not that the Republicans aren’t going to obstruct everything she does, exactly as they have with Obama...all while blaming him for Washington not working....fucking ingrates.
Instead we have thousands of bridges deemed “unsafe” - how lovely, I hope I get to drive across one twice a day.
I think Trump and Hillary are both bought out...this whole election is a fucking joke.
Bunch of midwest bible-thumpers who cannot critically think consistently vote to screw themselves over with supposed “right wing ideals” that ends up cutting all the shit that would benefit them so they can send the money to further inflate our military (which spends more money than the next 10 countries spend combined...how's that for a fucked up factoid?) while “Oh, sorry....we can’t give you that Social Security increase this year...we just can’t afford it this time.”...”Yes, we know prices of goods and services are forever inflating in price...you’ll just have to maybe break your heart medication in half...I’m sure you’ll be fine.”
You really think Trump gives a flying fuck about Joe Blow?
He’d sell you for your weight in dog shit.
How any supposed “Christian” can look at how the man behaves and call him a man of God is delusional at best.
At least Hellery has to try and keep the actual “Progressives” happy and appeased...at least they attempt to protect the environment, and their first instinct isn’t to cut all and every social program they can.
Not that the Republicans aren’t going to obstruct everything she does, exactly as they have with Obama...all while blaming him for Washington not working....fucking ingrates.
Last edited:
- MBTI
- .
- Enneagram
- .
During the Clinton admin the country was in surplus budgetarily, Not that the dept was paid off but it was being paid down and the gov was taking in more money than it was spending. Many Economists claimed that that was not a good situation to be in. Fortunately Bush came in and slashed taxes ( i got a $300 refund) and the squandered billions in Iraq.
- MBTI
- INTJ
Really? And yet their economic impact is strangely supported by historical events. Maybe thats why you are so bitter. You have just never taken the time to actually dig deep into the facts. Now on the other hand if you want to talk about lying, just stroll over to the Democrat side of things.
- MBTI
- INTJ
- MBTI
- INTJ
.
- MBTI
- INTJ
Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
J.D. Foster / September 07, 2012
Two inescapable flaws mar the Clinton economic legend. One is conveniently papered over; the other conveniently forgotten. Even so, a flawed legend is better than the economic reality President Obama’s policies have produced, so it is no surprise the sitting President has outsourced his economic messaging to the former President.
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact. The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.
The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office. Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession. It was the Clinton recession.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
So Bill Clinton came into office and raised taxes on an accelerating economy, and produced a lethargic economy. Republicans pushed through a tax cut in 1997 and thereby launched the famous Clinton boom. Then Clinton left his successor with a nasty recession. And from this is fashioned a legend of economic performance. Damage done on both ends and a prosperity at least shared by Republicans—and yet the legend lives on.
As long as the legend endures, President Obama sensibly would want to set aside past differences and wrap himself in the Clinton flag. Obama’s alternative is to defend his own record, which he simply cannot do, even giving himself a grade of “incomplete” while his wife pleads for “more time.”
Incomplete after four years? More time to press the case for higher spending, higher taxes, and more regulation, all of which have served only to restrain the most prosperity-oriented economy in the world?
President Obama can be given credit for trying to apply his economic philosophy with fervor and conviction. His has been an all-in presidency from the start. He tried his best, but his approach failed anyway, as was inevitable; a fact reinforced yet again with today’s jobs report showing an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent and 12.5 million Americans out of work.
These statistics don’t tell the whole story, however. The workforce itself shrunk dramatically since Obama took office, as many Americans have given up looking for jobs that are nowhere to be found. The failure was not for lack of thought, or of effort. The failure was assured at the start as a failure of conception. Continuing to follow a bad design can only produce more bad outcomes. In the meantime, with neither a record from the past or a program for the future to tout, outsourcing his economic message to Clinton is about all Obama has left.- J.D Foster
Just a start...a primer if you will. You can go find out more a out how Clintons economy damaged America to its core just bg doing a little research on your own.
J.D. Foster / September 07, 2012
- 357
Two inescapable flaws mar the Clinton economic legend. One is conveniently papered over; the other conveniently forgotten. Even so, a flawed legend is better than the economic reality President Obama’s policies have produced, so it is no surprise the sitting President has outsourced his economic messaging to the former President.
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact. The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.
The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office. Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession. It was the Clinton recession.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
So Bill Clinton came into office and raised taxes on an accelerating economy, and produced a lethargic economy. Republicans pushed through a tax cut in 1997 and thereby launched the famous Clinton boom. Then Clinton left his successor with a nasty recession. And from this is fashioned a legend of economic performance. Damage done on both ends and a prosperity at least shared by Republicans—and yet the legend lives on.
As long as the legend endures, President Obama sensibly would want to set aside past differences and wrap himself in the Clinton flag. Obama’s alternative is to defend his own record, which he simply cannot do, even giving himself a grade of “incomplete” while his wife pleads for “more time.”
Incomplete after four years? More time to press the case for higher spending, higher taxes, and more regulation, all of which have served only to restrain the most prosperity-oriented economy in the world?
President Obama can be given credit for trying to apply his economic philosophy with fervor and conviction. His has been an all-in presidency from the start. He tried his best, but his approach failed anyway, as was inevitable; a fact reinforced yet again with today’s jobs report showing an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent and 12.5 million Americans out of work.
These statistics don’t tell the whole story, however. The workforce itself shrunk dramatically since Obama took office, as many Americans have given up looking for jobs that are nowhere to be found. The failure was not for lack of thought, or of effort. The failure was assured at the start as a failure of conception. Continuing to follow a bad design can only produce more bad outcomes. In the meantime, with neither a record from the past or a program for the future to tout, outsourcing his economic message to Clinton is about all Obama has left.- J.D Foster
Just a start...a primer if you will. You can go find out more a out how Clintons economy damaged America to its core just bg doing a little research on your own.
arbygil
Passing through
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Ok, so...I'm kinda stepping in again - I really don't want this to become a "that party vs X party" discussion, so I'm trying not to see it derailed. Again. Can we have a discussion on the Conservative Agenda without going into "this is why the other side is wrong" rhetoric? Is it possible? If not, I'm gonna respectfully ask the mods to close it, 'cause I think I have all my questions answered.
Matt3737
Similes are like songs in love.
- MBTI
- INFJ
The health of the economy is not necessarily dependent on a particular political policy. A policy may determine how the money is spent as opposed to a different policy that would spent it in another way, but when either is spending the same money the distinction is entirely irrelevant to the general health of the economy which is measured by the overall circulation of currency.
- MBTI
- INTJ
Agree but its important to show when a false statement is made about what conservatives accomplish or do not, what is really taking place. Consistently through the years Democrats bring the economy to its knees and consistently conservatives repair it. Its a never ending cycle. Its laughable when someone actually tries to suggest Democrats have ever contributed to the nations economy in a positive way.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
