Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Fiscally Conservative Or Just Pro-Rich/Corps

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think there has to be a differentiation between those in politics, media, and academia who are actually fiscally conservative and those who are simply pro-wealthy/pro-business.

Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, John Stossel, and Milton Friedman are examples of legitimate fiscal conservatives. (I'm not choosing them out of libertarian bias or anything, they were genuinely some of the better representatives from politics, media, and academia that came to mind.) Fiscal conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative on pragmatic and/or moral grounds. The pragmatic grounds tend to be: government is inefficient at spending money and allocating sources compared to the voluntary sector, and lower taxes and government spending create more prosperity across society. On the moral grounds, they may think taxation is theft and presumes government has a higher claim on the fruits of our labor than we do, and thus taxation should be as minimal as possible or completely reduced.

Some people who are supposed to be "fiscal conservatives" but are not at all include George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, Rush Limbaugh. How can we differentiate them from true fiscal conservatives? Here are 3 easy ways to weed the fake ones out:

- Did they defend the bailing out of the financial institutions with tax payer money?
- Do they enthusiastically support the military industrial complex and refuse to consider decreasing government spending on the military?
- Do they vote/propose significantly reducing federal spending/the debt at all, or are they more or less the same as the Democrats in the amount of proposed spending?

Apply these to the 4 examples I mentioned above and you will see that these men are simply pro-wealthy/pro-businesses and corporations, but when it comes down to it, they have no problem with massively increased government spending and debts and they have no problem with liberally using tax payer money for bailing out huge corporations. This cannot apply to a real fiscal conservative.

I was thinking about this because I was on the wiki page of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader. He's pro-tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses, pro-free trade, voted against raising the minimum wage, and has spoken out against Keynesian economics. Low and behold he also voted for the bailouts and has voted at almost every opportunity to expand the military and create more wars.

Unfortunately, in the mainstream media, these fake fiscal conservatives and their proposals are all seen as radical, free market capitalism. The bad part about this, aside from it being a complete fabrication, is that when their policies cause or coincide with awful results, i.e. Bush at the end of his 2nd term, deregulation and the "excesses of the market" are always blamed and it becomes a rallying cry for more regulation, more govt control, which is supposed to then fix and prevent everything that happened last time.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:25:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Or, maybe like me they have their own beliefs on what needs to be done to do certain things, and don't allow conform to their ideologues to but make their ideologues conform to them.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 5:25:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Or, maybe like me they have their own beliefs on what needs to be done to do certain things, and don't allow conform to their ideologues to but make their ideologues conform to them.

That was the most vague and incomprehensible statement you've typed in the past 24 hours.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:52:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the pro-free market and pro-business distinction needs to be made.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:53:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 5:51:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/14/2012 5:25:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Or, maybe like me they have their own beliefs on what needs to be done to do certain things, and don't allow conform to their ideologues to but make their ideologues conform to them.

That was the most vague and incomprehensible statement you've typed in the past 24 hours.

Read through it a couple times. You'll get it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:56:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 5:25:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Or, maybe like me they have their own beliefs on what needs to be done to do certain things, and don't allow conform to their ideologues to but make their ideologues conform to them.

Okay, that's respectable, but doesn't really have anything to do with my point. My point is that these people are labeled as fiscal conservatives and their ideas/proposals are generally referred to in politics and the media as radical laissez-faire capitalism. They should not be labelled as fiscal conservatives who support laissez-faire capitalism, because they are anything but that. These "fake fiscal conservatives" think all you need to be a fiscal conservative is be for tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and businesses, and pay lip service to how much better the private sector is at allocating resources and the immorality/impracticality of "spending more than we take in". The key phrase is lip service because as for these kinds of conservatives, their voting records are anything but fiscally conservative, pro-small government, fiscally responsible, etc.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:58:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 5:56:31 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 5:25:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Or, maybe like me they have their own beliefs on what needs to be done to do certain things, and don't allow conform to their ideologues to but make their ideologues conform to them.

Okay, that's respectable, but doesn't really have anything to do with my point. My point is that these people are labeled as fiscal conservatives and their ideas/proposals are generally referred to in politics and the media as radical laissez-faire capitalism. They should not be labelled as fiscal conservatives who support laissez-faire capitalism, because they are anything but that. These "fake fiscal conservatives" think all you need to be a fiscal conservative is be for tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and businesses, and pay lip service to how much better the private sector is at allocating resources and the immorality/impracticality of "spending more than we take in". The key phrase is lip service because as for these kinds of conservatives, their voting records are anything but fiscally conservative, pro-small government, fiscally responsible, etc.

Ok, I see what your getting at.

And, in response, I dunno. I guess your right.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:58:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 5:52:36 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think the pro-free market and pro-business distinction needs to be made.

Yes, exactly. This is exactly how I should have phrased it. The crucial difference being that those who are pro-business are for privatized gains and socialized losses (taxpayer money). Bailouts being the most perfect example of this. Those who support the free market are for private gains and private losses.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 6:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wouldn't it be more fiscally conservative to bail out the banks, rather then have to pay for the deposit insurance that the government would have to pay once the banks failed?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 4:04:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 6:00:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wouldn't it be more fiscally conservative to bail out the banks, rather then have to pay for the deposit insurance that the government would have to pay once the banks failed?

What's this "have to" in human action and when did any of these gentlemen Republicans outline that as the choice they faced?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 10:36:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 4:04:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/14/2012 6:00:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wouldn't it be more fiscally conservative to bail out the banks, rather then have to pay for the deposit insurance that the government would have to pay once the banks failed?

What's this "have to" in human action and when did any of these gentlemen Republicans outline that as the choice they faced?

The government has a contract with all depository institutes that all depositors are insured $100,000. If contracts can be broken, then the rule of law is pretty dead, which pretty much destroys an economy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 2:07:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The contract (if there really is one) is obviously null and void, it signs away money owned by persons other than the signers. Regardless, you didn't answer the question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 4:29:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 5:22:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think there has to be a differentiation between those in politics, media, and academia who are actually fiscally conservative and those who are simply pro-wealthy/pro-business.

Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, John Stossel, and Milton Friedman are examples of legitimate fiscal conservatives. (I'm not choosing them out of libertarian bias or anything, they were genuinely some of the better representatives from politics, media, and academia that came to mind.) Fiscal conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative on pragmatic and/or moral grounds. The pragmatic grounds tend to be: government is inefficient at spending money and allocating sources compared to the voluntary sector, and lower taxes and government spending create more prosperity across society. On the moral grounds, they may think taxation is theft and presumes government has a higher claim on the fruits of our labor than we do, and thus taxation should be as minimal as possible or completely reduced.


- Did they defend the bailing out of the financial institutions with tax payer money?
- Do they enthusiastically support the military industrial complex and refuse to consider decreasing government spending on the military?
- Do they vote/propose significantly reducing federal spending/the debt at all, or are they more or less the same as the Democrats in the amount of proposed spending?


I consider myself both, fiscal conservative and pro wealthy. I like money, and want more of it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be rich and wanting others to be rich; in fact I'm highly suspicious of those who are against people being rich, and want them condemned to mediocrity or poverty.

Having said this, I am against all of those things above, so I must be missing your point.