Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Conservative Achievements

jm_notguilty
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Definition of achievement: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
1. the act of achieving : accomplishment
2. (a) a result gained by effort (b) great or heroic deed


Now that we have that solved, what have conservatives in government accomplished to benefit society? Note this is not a question of Democrats vs. Republicans.

The liberals in government have abolished slavery, desegregated the schools, promoted civil rights, allowed minorities and women to vote, promoted LGBT rights, helped immigrants, improved healthcare, education and social security,.....

Conservatives generally opposed all these things. They like big government as long as they are allowed to regulate women's bodies, regulate people's sex lives and marriages, impose prayers in public schools, execute people, etc. Other than that, stay the hell away from my guns and life.

OK, if you insist on conservatives believing that he government should be limited and its role lessened and that it's the individuals who should act, what have conservatives done to promote this cause? How have they progressed in limiting governments and at the same time promoting freedom and benefiting society? What can be considered as a great and heroic deed done by conservatives?

This has probably been discussed before. If so, I apologize. I'm just eager to know the thoughts of a rather conservative web forum.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:16:45 PM, jm_notguilty wrote:
This has probably been discussed before. If so, I apologize. I'm just eager to know the thoughts of a rather conservative web forum.

I would suggest some reading on the Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org...
Under the section of "Progressivism and Liberalism," you may find some very insightful analysis concerning the contribution of conservative principles.

Conservative principles are about the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Conservative principles have worked in the past, and they would work in the presence and future as well. The conservative principles find their legitimacy on the basis of the U.S. constitution. It serves as an useful counterbalance to the liberal ideas promoted by many liberal Presidents to prevent the nation from moving too fast.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:46:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I guess it would someone who supports conservative principles?
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:16:45 PM, jm_notguilty wrote:
Definition of achievement: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
1. the act of achieving : accomplishment
2. (a) a result gained by effort (b) great or heroic deed


Now that we have that solved, what have conservatives in government accomplished to benefit society? Note this is not a question of Democrats vs. Republicans.

The liberals in government have abolished slavery, desegregated the schools, promoted civil rights, allowed minorities and women to vote, promoted LGBT rights, helped immigrants, improved healthcare, education and social security,.....

the bolded surely are not without a certain degree of controversy. I would argue that most of those don't represent achievements or improvements.



Conservatives generally opposed all these things. They like big government as long as they are allowed to regulate women's bodies,

What do you define as conservative? Republicans support this, but I think most of the actual philosophical conservatives (not right-wing statists like neocons and most republicans) would leave that authority to the family.

regulate people's sex lives and marriages, impose prayers in public schools,

Conservatives historically staunchly opposed public education. Just because the ones claiming the mantle "conservative" now like to impose their fascism on people doesnt mean we all do. I know it seems like I'm just peddling with definitions here, but its something that really frustrates me as a conservative, always having to shake off the negativity associated with people like the moral majority.

execute people, etc. Other than that, stay the hell away from my guns and life.

OK, if you insist on conservatives believing that he government should be limited and its role lessened and that it's the individuals who should act, what have conservatives done to promote this cause? How have they progressed in limiting governments and at the same time promoting freedom and benefiting society? What can be considered as a great and heroic deed done by conservatives?

Republicans, essentially nothing. Actual Conservatives still not a lot especially recently. Old fashioned family and kinship has been dying for a long time now, and its this that conservatives support above all

This has probably been discussed before. If so, I apologize. I'm just eager to know the thoughts of a rather conservative web forum.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:14:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Their 'free market' principles succeeded in causing the Great Depression (thanks, Hoover!). Sure, a 25% unemployment rate happened, but businesses were free, unregulated, the rich got a lot of tax savings that they spent on luxuries instead of mainstream essential goods that would help the economy grow in those sectors where it really mattered, as well as spending on investments (which, of course, wouldn't do them much good with the stock market crash). Some bad things happened, but at least we weren't restricting the freedom of businesses!

Freedom for all, even if it means driving our economy off a cliff!

(this was sarcasm, for those with a faulty Sarcasm Detection Module.)
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 2:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:14:19 PM, drhead wrote:
Their 'free market' principles succeeded in causing the Great Depression (thanks, Hoover!). Sure, a 25% unemployment rate happened, but businesses were free, unregulated, the rich got a lot of tax savings that they spent on luxuries instead of mainstream essential goods that would help the economy grow in those sectors where it really mattered, as well as spending on investments (which, of course, wouldn't do them much good with the stock market crash). Some bad things happened, but at least we weren't restricting the freedom of businesses!

Freedom for all, even if it means driving our economy off a cliff!

(this was sarcasm, for those with a faulty Sarcasm Detection Module.)

Actually the federal government caused it, and prolonged it.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 2:59:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:14:19 PM, drhead wrote:
Their 'free market' principles succeeded in causing the Great Depression (thanks, Hoover!). Sure, a 25% unemployment rate happened, but businesses were free, unregulated, the rich got a lot of tax savings that they spent on luxuries instead of mainstream essential goods that would help the economy grow in those sectors where it really mattered, as well as spending on investments (which, of course, wouldn't do them much good with the stock market crash). Some bad things happened, but at least we weren't restricting the freedom of businesses!

Freedom for all, even if it means driving our economy off a cliff!

(this was sarcasm, for those with a faulty Sarcasm Detection Module.)

Actually the federal government caused it, and prolonged it.

And Hoover was behind the wheel. Conservatives were the ones promoting idiotic, naive laissez-faire policies. And look at where we are today. We have lowered taxes for the rich, which is something that conservatives have traditionally advocated. Even if we didn't, there's enough loopholes where people can get away paying no taxes to the point that it doesn't matter. We have monopolies. This isn't a problem we think about as existing, but think about how many choices you have for your internet service provider. If you live in a rural area, odds are you have only one. This is a local monopoly. Furthermore, many businesses are successfully lobbying for regulations to be turned in their favor, whether by getting rid of existing ones or by propping themselves up on new ones. It is likely that with regulations that would make it easier for new ISPs to start up, we could take care of this problem, however, conservatives seem to think that 'regulation' is some sort of curse word.

Add in the fact that there are idiots like Ron Paul who want the SEC abolished (which is there to prevent the stock market from replicating the speculative conditions leading up to the stock market crash), and you've got a party full of people who are hellbent on replicating the EXACT same conditions that led up to the Great Depression. Of course it was the federal government. However, under generally progressive policies, it was doing quite well, and with conservative laissez-faire policies, it LOOKED like we were doing great until the stock market crashed and we realized that we weren't actually doing good at all, and that in fact we were doing horribly.

On the subject of Ron Paul, I might also add that he doesn't like the FDIC either, which was another important part of mitigating the effects of the depression. He doesn't seem to understand the nature of the banking system. Banks keep money moving when it is not in use through investments, under the promise that the depositor will be able to withdraw the amount that they have put in and either receive interest on the amount (under the assumption that the money will be there a long time) or be able to use this money more easily (through checks, and, more recently, debit cards). Now, obviously, this means that there isn't always as much money in the bank as was deposited by account holders. This is on purpose - the reasons banks exist is to keep money MOVING. Now, if there is a run on the bank, or if the bank is robbed, or if there is a scandal or if aliens abducted the money or whatever else happens, it puts the people who put their money in the bank in a bad position if there is no deposit insurance. Now, what I want to ask is why Ron Paul is so blatantly opposed to something that is designed to prevent consumers from getting too fscked over by something that prevents economic stagnation from a lack of spending, something which undoubtedly provides a net benefit to consumers and the economy as a whole. Would he rather have everyone's life savings wiped out whenever there is a banking scandal?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:23:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 4:20:05 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/22/2013 2:59:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:14:19 PM, drhead wrote:
Their 'free market' principles succeeded in causing the Great Depression (thanks, Hoover!). Sure, a 25% unemployment rate happened, but businesses were free, unregulated, the rich got a lot of tax savings that they spent on luxuries instead of mainstream essential goods that would help the economy grow in those sectors where it really mattered, as well as spending on investments (which, of course, wouldn't do them much good with the stock market crash). Some bad things happened, but at least we weren't restricting the freedom of businesses!

Freedom for all, even if it means driving our economy off a cliff!

(this was sarcasm, for those with a faulty Sarcasm Detection Module.)

Actually the federal government caused it, and prolonged it.

And Hoover was behind the wheel. Conservatives were the ones promoting idiotic, naive laissez-faire policies. And look at where we are today. We have lowered taxes for the rich, which is something that conservatives have traditionally advocated.

Tax rates have been lowered for everyone, and the most recent tax increase applied to the rich alone.

Even if we didn't, there's enough loopholes where people can get away paying no taxes to the point that it doesn't matter.

Bull.

We have monopolies. This isn't a problem we think about as existing, but think about how many choices you have for your internet service provider. If you live in a rural area, odds are you have only one. This is a local monopoly. Furthermore, many businesses are successfully lobbying for regulations to be turned in their favor, whether by getting rid of existing ones or by propping themselves up on new ones.

this (the bolded) is an argument for smaller government, not economic liberalism.

It is likely that with regulations that would make it easier for new ISPs to start up, we could take care of this problem, however, conservatives seem to think that 'regulation' is some sort of curse word.

What specifically? More importantly what right does the government have to "regulate" contractual exchanges?

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:34:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I believe that he's defining conservative according to the actions of the people who call themselves just that.....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:40:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:34:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I believe that he's defining conservative according to the actions of the people who call themselves just that.....

He seems to be defining conservatives as Republicans. They are not the same thing, which is why I asked.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:40:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:34:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I believe that he's defining conservative according to the actions of the people who call themselves just that.....

He seems to be defining conservatives as Republicans. They are not the same thing, which is why I asked.

Either Republicans or people who oppose all change, which isn't what conservatism is. "Conservatism" in america is basically in the trash at this point though.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:48:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:40:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:34:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I believe that he's defining conservative according to the actions of the people who call themselves just that.....

He seems to be defining conservatives as Republicans. They are not the same thing, which is why I asked.

Why does that even matter? The fact is that they call themselves conservatives and they attach certain actions to the ideology. You can have a political-term war with them if you want, but that's not relevant to the point in the OP. The people who help run this country and call themselves "conservatives" have advocated exclusion, prejudice, and obstruction for the past century. What have these people achieved?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:59:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:40:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:34:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I believe that he's defining conservative according to the actions of the people who call themselves just that.....

He seems to be defining conservatives as Republicans. They are not the same thing, which is why I asked.

Why does that even matter? The fact is that they call themselves conservatives and they attach certain actions to the ideology. You can have a political-term war with them if you want, but that's not relevant to the point in the OP. The people who help run this country and call themselves "conservatives" have advocated exclusion, prejudice, and obstruction for the past century. What have these people achieved?

It's important because it's relevant to how I answer the OP. Philosophical conservatives have achieved a lot. Backwards Reactionaries, not much.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:13:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually the federal government caused it, and prolonged it.

And Hoover was behind the wheel. Conservatives were the ones promoting idiotic, naive laissez-faire policies. And look at where we are today. We have lowered taxes for the rich, which is something that conservatives have traditionally advocated.

Tax rates have been lowered for everyone, and the most recent tax increase applied to the rich alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org... (this is a graph)
As you can see, there is a general downward trend. In addition, that 'increase' was nothing more than the planned expiration of a tax cut. I would like to see figures on the income tax rate before Black Tuesday, at the beginning of FDR's presidency, at the end of FDR's presidency, and today (for all tax brackets) before I will accept that statement at face value. This isn't just about the Bush tax cuts.

Even if we didn't, there's enough loopholes where people can get away paying no taxes to the point that it doesn't matter.

Bull.

http://www.ctj.org...
Nope. The fact that these large corporations are paying negative taxes is enough to warrant action. If I pay taxes, then these corporations should pay them, too, since they are 'people' too, right?

We have monopolies. This isn't a problem we think about as existing, but think about how many choices you have for your internet service provider. If you live in a rural area, odds are you have only one. This is a local monopoly. Furthermore, many businesses are successfully lobbying for regulations to be turned in their favor, whether by getting rid of existing ones or by propping themselves up on new ones.

this (the bolded) is an argument for smaller government, not economic liberalism.

Lack of regulation either results in corruption or consumers getting screwed over. My best example of this is the recent trend with ISPs concerning data caps. Broadband data caps. As in, being limited on how much data you can use on your home internet connection. If you go over a predefined limit (Time Warner Cable is particularly infamous for its 20 GB cap that it implemented as an experiment, while I've seen a cable company that had a hidden clause in one of its packages that came at a discount with a 2 year contract that had a 2.5GB cap, which is absolutely nothing in today's world), you have to pay an overage fee. Now, it is quite obvious that this is a scheme for the ISPs to make more money, through the fact that the costs of moving data have gone down dramatically, as with anything related to consumer electronics:
"There's a basic principle about consumer electronics: it gets more powerful all the time and it gets cheaper all the time. that's true of all types of consumer electronics." - Trip Hawkins
Now, it is true that demand has gone up. However, the ability to provide fast, affordable internet service has gone up, too. So why is it, then, that suddenly all of these ISPs are finding it so difficult to move more data around when the costs of doing so have gone down so much?
To answer this we must look at the entry barriers that ISPs face. The main one is capital. It takes a lot of wire to get an ISP running. However, at the same time, you have to look at what they are laying that wire next to - probably an existing network. Why would any ISP want to roll new wire, alongside existing wire, into an area where they'll have to compete anyway? What this results in is a monopoly, and regulation doesn't have a damned thing to do with what causes it. It's the fact that it is, in this case, more profitable to sit back and do nothing than it is to actually provide consumers with the service they need or want. This is counter-productive for the concept of monetary incentives to provide a good or service in a capitalist economy. With this, the only solution I can see, given the fact that a free market will not sort this out, is to have internet service treated as a utility, just like running water or electricity. This means either heavily regulating it or just starting our own state-owned ISPs. Internet usage is essential to many lines of work. It can be argued that it is as much of a luxury as electricity is, since both are things that we use for a variety of purposes, both productive and for leisure. The only conceivable bad thing with this is the possibility of introduction of direct, ISP-level censorship, however, that is easily counter-argued, since:
- The government is more easily held accountable for this at the ballot box
- If the government wanted to do this, they could have it done with things the way they are now
- The First Amendment applies to the government, but corporations can stop us from speaking freely whenever they want to. Example: http://thenextweb.com...
I mean, are they serious?
"[T]he Order infringes broadband network owners" constitutional rights. It violates the First Amendment by stripping them of control over the transmission of speech on their networks."
It's unconstitutional because it doesn't allow you to go out of your way to prevent others from speaking freely? Do you see any logic to this? Because I sure don't.
Now, I'm sure you know that the Internet alone makes up 5% of our GDP. We're also the ones who invented ARPANET and eventually the Internet, and before you say it, yes, Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did help with it (mainly with funding). Now, since we invented the Internet, why are we ranked so low in average Internet speeds? With so much of our economy dependent on the Internet (a figure that will only rise), we can't afford to let corporations jerk around with us and work on providing more affordable service at faster speeds only when it is more profitable for them. I don't mind someone providing a service and taking home some profit at the end, but when they are withholding an essential resource that 5% of our GDP depends on, it's time for it to stop.

It is likely that with regulations that would make it easier for new ISPs to start up, we could take care of this problem, however, conservatives seem to think that 'regulation' is some sort of curse word.

What specifically? More importantly what right does the government have to "regulate" contractual exchanges?

Are you trying to imply that you'd rather live in a corporate dictatorship? If a contractual exchange leads to a corporation gaining too much power, then the government should intervene. Capitalism depends on disruption. If someone is able to provide a better good or service, then they should be the one succeeding. It's not about engineering the economy into an anti-competitive state through huge trusts. Our government needs to regulate to keep our market out of an anti-competitive state. If you read up on anti-trust law, you'll understand. Because right now, it seems quite clear to me that you don't think anti-competitive conduct can exist in your free-market fairy tale economy.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 9:50:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:13:43 PM, drhead wrote:
Actually the federal government caused it, and prolonged it.

And Hoover was behind the wheel. Conservatives were the ones promoting idiotic, naive laissez-faire policies. And look at where we are today. We have lowered taxes for the rich, which is something that conservatives have traditionally advocated.

Tax rates have been lowered for everyone, and the most recent tax increase applied to the rich alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org... (this is a graph)
I would like to see figures on the income tax rate before Black Tuesday, at the beginning of FDR's presidency, at the end of FDR's presidency, and today (for all tax brackets) before I will accept that statement at face value. This isn't just about the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been lowered across the board, which is a good policy. More resources are left in the hands of those who earned it, allowing more wealth for business investment, and private sector economic growth.

If you choke off businesses with paralyzing webs of regulations, mountains of taxes, and crowd out their activities through gov't spending, you will kill job creation, poverty will skyrocket, and living standards will fall.

Even if we didn't, there's enough loopholes where people can get away paying no taxes to the point that it doesn't matter.

Bull.

http://www.ctj.org...
Nope. The fact that these large corporations are paying negative taxes is enough to warrant action. If I pay taxes, then these corporations should pay them, too, since they are 'people' too, right?

Then you should support a deal that replaces the current system with a low flat corporate tax rate with zero loopholes.

The corporate tax code doesn't apply to people. Corporations often pay varying rates, but the effective rate is about 26%.

Raising taxes or simply cutting loopholes will choke off economic growth. We need a more balanced solution.

this (the bolded) is an argument for smaller government, not economic liberalism.

Lack of regulation either results in corruption or consumers getting screwed over.

Overregulation creates the same thing. Corruption, crony capitalism, and causes harm to consumers through higher prices and by stifling the flow of resources, i.e. more cartelized markets.

My best example of this is the recent trend with ISPs concerning data caps. Broadband data caps. As in, being limited on how much data you can use on your home internet connection. If you go over a predefined limit (Time Warner Cable is particularly infamous for its 20 GB cap that it implemented as an experiment, while I've seen a cable company that had a hidden clause in one of its packages that came at a discount with a 2 year contract that had a 2.5GB cap, which is absolutely nothing in today's world), you have to pay an overage fee. Now, it is quite obvious that this is a scheme for the ISPs to make more money, through the fact that the costs of moving data have gone down dramatically, as with anything related to consumer electronics:
"There's a basic principle about consumer electronics: it gets more powerful all the time and it gets cheaper all the time. that's true of all types of consumer electronics." - Trip Hawkins

To answer this we must look at the entry barriers that ISPs face. The main one is capital. It takes a lot of wire to get an ISP running. However, at the same time, you have to look at what they are laying that wire next to - probably an existing network. Why would any ISP want to roll new wire, alongside existing wire, into an area where they'll have to compete anyway? What this results in is a monopoly, and regulation doesn't have a damned thing to do with what causes it. It's the fact that it is, in this case, more profitable to sit back and do nothing than it is to actually provide consumers with the service they need or want. This is counter-productive for the concept of monetary incentives to provide a good or service in a capitalist economy. With this, the only solution I can see, given the fact that a free market will not sort this out, is to have internet service treated as a utility, just like running water or electricity. This means either heavily regulating it or just starting our own state-owned ISPs. Internet usage is essential to many lines of work. It can be argued that it is as much of a luxury as electricity is, since both are things that we use for a variety of purposes, both productive and for leisure. T

It's unconstitutional because it doesn't allow you to go out of your way to prevent others from speaking freely? Do you see any logic to this? Because I sure don't.
Now, I'm sure you know that the Internet alone makes up 5% of our GDP. We're also the ones who invented ARPANET and eventually the Internet, and before you say it, yes, Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did help with it (mainly with funding). Now, since we invented the Internet, why are we ranked so low in average Internet speeds? With so much of our economy dependent on the Internet (a figure that will only rise), we can't afford to let corporations jerk around with us and work on providing more affordable service at faster speeds only when it is more profitable for them. I don't mind someone providing a service and taking home some profit at the end, but when they are withholding an essential resource that 5% of our GDP depends on, it's time for it to stop.

You provide a good argument. We have to allow competition and the Internet market to grow and expand though, over time. New providers are emerging, such as Dish Network, Hughes Net, etc. Over time more competition will arise and lower costs, and provide better services.

Right now yes though, people are in areas where sometimes there is a lack of competition.

It is likely that with regulations that would make it easier for new ISPs to start up, we could take care of this problem, however, conservatives seem to think that 'regulation' is some sort of curse word.

What specifically? More importantly what right does the government have to "regulate" contractual exchanges?

Are you trying to imply that you'd rather live in a corporate dictatorship? If a contractual exchange leads to a corporation gaining too much power, then the government should intervene. Capitalism depends on disruption. If someone is able to provide a better good or service, then they should be the one succeeding. It's not about engineering the economy into an anti-competitive state through huge trusts. Our government needs to regulate to keep our market out of an anti-competitive state. If you read up on anti-trust law, you'll understand. Because right now, it seems quite clear to me that you don't think anti-competitive conduct can exist in your free-market fairy tale economy.

How is a lack of competition a good thing? Competition results in more affordable goods at a better quality, just look at pizza, food in general, televisions, cars, laptop computers, etc.

The key is not to have either a crony capitalist economy or a socialized economy. We need to have a free market economy, where businesses aggressively provide goods to the people, that the people demand, and through the heavy inputs necessary for running a market economy, prosperity emerges and living standards rise.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:18:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tax rates have been lowered across the board, which is a good policy. More resources are left in the hands of those who earned it, allowing more wealth for business investment, and private sector economic growth.

If you choke off businesses with paralyzing webs of regulations, mountains of taxes, and crowd out their activities through gov't spending, you will kill job creation, poverty will skyrocket, and living standards will fall.

My point is more about the fact that cutting taxes on the rich doesn't help as much as is often claimed. When lower income people have more money, they spend it on basic necessities, then 'normal' luxuries, which means more economic activity in these sectors. When the rich have more money, there isn't much that they can spend money on that stimulates these more common sectors of the economy.

Raising taxes or simply cutting loopholes will choke off economic growth. We need a more balanced solution.

Then you should support a deal that replaces the current system with a low flat corporate tax rate with zero loopholes.

The corporate tax code doesn't apply to people. Corporations often pay varying rates, but the effective rate is about 26%.

I'd support this, as long as genuine non-profit operations are distinguished from this (since while doing this might make a loophole, it'd be unnecessarily harmful to non-profit corporate entities to not do so)

You provide a good argument. We have to allow competition and the Internet market to grow and expand though, over time. New providers are emerging, such as Dish Network, Hughes Net, etc. Over time more competition will arise and lower costs, and provide better services.

Right now yes though, people are in areas where sometimes there is a lack of competition.

You have to acknowledge that satellite Internet providers, while quick to deploy, provide quality of service that is only slightly better than dial-up, if not equal or worse. The main problems are reliability and latency for real-time applications. Reliability might be solved by newer technologies, but the latency problem will stay - general relativity dictates it. Consider this - these satellites are in geostationary orbit, meaning they are exactly 22,236 miles above the Earth, and are revolving around Earth in such a way that they seem to stay in the same place from our perspective. Light is very fast, but it takes time to travel - a 240 ms round trip for signals, or 'ping' in this case. Now, if you're not familiar with networks, what you might not realize is how long of a time this is in terms of networks. In online gaming, ping of over 100 is considered the line between 'good' and 'starting to get a bit bad'. Often online games are fast-paced, and a quarter second makes the difference between winning and losing. I understand this isn't the most productive application, it's just a quick example. However, when people want to run a real-time SSH session or remote desktop (both are very popular among IT helpdesks, since they allow for the helper to directly see what is going on with a client's computer), these latency issued cause problems. The worst part, however, is that you are having this 240 ms tacked on to everything. You will get 240 ms ping on servers hosted in your town. Compare this to a wired internet connection - with a DSL connection (the only non-satellite option I can currently get at my residence), I get 43 ms ping from a Speedtest.net server in Asheville, NC because it is close to where I live in upstate South Carolina. If I try to look at a game server from Australia, however, I get results ranging from 150 to 500, with a median of about 300. However, with satellite, I'd get that 240 ms added on to anything. This is unacceptable for business applications, and will never see mass adoption.

That being said, there isn't much left to do. I've been trying to avoid using Techdirt as a source for this due to possible bias (Masnick is a bit passionate sometimes), but it pretty much objectively proves the sad state we're in: http://www.techdirt.com...
It's about ISPs wanting to expand their already huge profit margins (and then spend none of these new profits on improving the network, because why the hell would they want to do that?). Cable companies are especially threatened because of services like Netflix. If you've heard of Game of Thrones, you'd probably know it was pirated very often. This happened, of course, because of HBO exclusively licensing the series to cable for quite a while. You couldn't find it on Netflix, nor on iTunes. However, the beautiful thing about supply and demand when applied to information, ideas, and creative works is that demand usually gets met by a supply whether it is officially sanctioned and monetized or not. People who didn't want a cable service just pirated the show. Of course, this does show how intellectual property is ridiculous on some levels (in that it creates artificial scarcity), but it is capitalism at work. If you look at Masnick's piece on the economics of free, he explains how high-quality service for a price can be perceived as better by the consumer than minimal-quality free service, and that there are other ways to monetize intellectual property. Netflix is a threat to cable, and I feel that the cable industry's whining fest does show an example of some possible bad regulations, but I just want it to be clear that regulations have their place. I also feel that it is no coincidence that something as disruptive to classical intellectual property business models as the internet is in such a sad state in the US, and that it is something that will need correction. The internet has created what is essentially a post-scarcity economy for intellectual property, and since technology only goes forward, always goes forward, and never goes backwards, we might as well start embracing this. Post-scarcity in intellectual property does not necessitate the death of capitalism or meritocracy, nor the death of novelty or sentimental value; though it should necessitate the death of gatekeepers and plutocracy, which are things whose deaths shall be celebrated, not mourned. It does, however, change the rules a little, so to speak.

How is a lack of competition a good thing? Competition results in more affordable goods at a better quality, just look at pizza, food in general, televisions, cars, laptop computers, etc.

Overregulation creates the same thing. Corruption, crony capitalism, and causes harm to consumers through higher prices and by stifling the flow of resources, i.e. more cartelized markets.

The key is not to have either a crony capitalist economy or a socialized economy. We need to have a free market economy, where businesses aggressively provide goods to the people, that the people demand, and through the heavy inputs necessary for running a market economy, prosperity emerges and living standards rise.

I wasn't trying to imply that lack of competition was a good thing. I'm saying that it is poison to capitalism, and that some degree of regulation is necessary to achieve this in some cases. This doesn't necessarily have to be government regulation, I know that a large portion of the economy regulates itself, and that is a good thing, and should be how most things are regulated. The problem arises when there are sectors of the economy that horribly fail to do this (which inevitably will happen on occasion), and sometimes the government will have to step in to fix things. Politically, it's impossible to not do something when you have things like the conditions of the meat packing industry described in The Jungle (which I'd recommend reading, not before meals though, you'll find out why when you read). All sectors of the economy would ideally self-regulate, but there needs to be some backu
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:17:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is the 20GB limit up, down or a combination of both? Pushing 20GB up each month seems like a lot. Pulling it down isn't that much, but is probably enough for most users.

You gotta understand that what this also does is have the effect of speeding up the network, because most people will attempt to stay under the 20GB limit, and by doing so, unclogging servers.

Latency isn't the only cause of slowdown, as I'm sure you know.

Also, these companies do still offer unlimited plans to those who want it, no?

Read the contract before you sign it. It's your (not YOU, the more general you) own fault if you don't.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:18:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:48:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:40:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:34:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

I believe that he's defining conservative according to the actions of the people who call themselves just that.....

He seems to be defining conservatives as Republicans. They are not the same thing, which is why I asked.

Why does that even matter? The fact is that they call themselves conservatives and they attach certain actions to the ideology. You can have a political-term war with them if you want, but that's not relevant to the point in the OP. The people who help run this country and call themselves "conservatives" have advocated exclusion, prejudice, and obstruction for the past century. What have these people achieved?

Exclusion advocacy, prejudice and obstruction.

Just sayin'.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 2:03:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:17:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Is the 20GB limit up, down or a combination of both? Pushing 20GB up each month seems like a lot. Pulling it down isn't that much, but is probably enough for most users.

The point is that this blocks potential new applications of this. It'd be downright impossible to use anything like Netflix on it for any serious amount of time. There are countless other things that could be done that will never see the light of day if this trend continues.

You gotta understand that what this also does is have the effect of speeding up the network, because most people will attempt to stay under the 20GB limit, and by doing so, unclogging servers.

You don't seem to understand the issue. They know damn well that there is no impending data crunch, as the cost of sending data is going DOWN. This explains it pretty well:
http://www.techdirt.com...
It's not about dealing with any real threat. It's about protecting their little plutocracy. They could spend some of their high amounts of profit on improving infrastructure, but they find it is more profitable to not do that, complain about how it is their users fault, and raise prices.

Latency isn't the only cause of slowdown, as I'm sure you know.

I've been using computers and the Internet since before I knew how to read. I know what I'm talking about. When I say latency, I am not referring to speed, but response time. Response time is a major factor here. If it takes 500ms for a packet sent by me to reach the server and for the acknowledgement of the packet to be sent back, there is a problem.

Also, these companies do still offer unlimited plans to those who want it, no?

They don't. This is the problem. My ISP (AT&T) has a flat rate for different speeds with a 150GB cap, and $10 overage for every additional 50 GB (rounded up, of course). If you want unlimited plans, then too bad, business connections aren't available on residences.

Read the contract before you sign it. It's your (not YOU, the more general you) own fault if you don't.

The problem isn't that people aren't knowing the terms. It's that these are the only terms being offered by anyone. No private industry is going to try to offer different terms in the near future, either (With the notable exception of Google, but this hardly applies to us all, since we KNOW they are starting with plenty of capital). This is the entire problem we are dealing with.

Look at some municipal broadband services:
http://www.greenlightnc.com...
This is clearly providing a better service to consumers. An average DSL connection is 6 Mb/s down, 1 Mb/s up, and costs about $45-60. This municipal ISP is offering 10 Mb/s symmetrical for $40 as their cheapest, most basic package. This is above average. If private industry has proven itself too immature to handle the important task of making sure that our leadership in technology is not hindered by the inferiority of our infrastructure, then I think it is time to pull the plug (that wasn't intended) and replace it with something whose goal is not to screw over the customers as much as possible, whenever possible, as soon as possible. It might be socialism, but the negative effects of continuing this status quo, which seems hellbent on hindering innovation, are much greater than the negative effects that may be caused by municipal ISPs existing. Hell, they might even force these ISP monopolies to compete for once in their lives. Or innovate. But, you know, they're cable companies and whatnot, so we should just engineer our economy around their failing, archaic business model, they shouldn't have to innovate or compete in a real market...

My lawmakers disagree. They outlawed municipal ISPs following pressure from AT&T.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 2:05:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh dear, I realized that the last paragraph of my post before the one before this one is mangled horribly by the character limit and by fail grammar, and there is no edit function. But it's 3 AM and I need sleep :(
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is this a DSL thing, then, because Comcast, as well as all the other cable companies in my area (there's a couple other little ones that piggyback off Comcast's lines), ONLY offer unlimited data plans as far as I know.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wasn't trying to imply that lack of competition was a good thing. I'm saying that it is poison to capitalism, and that some degree of regulation is necessary in some cases. This doesn't necessarily have to be government regulation, I know that a large portion of the economy regulates itself, and that is a good thing, and should be how most things are regulated. The problem arises when there are sectors of the economy that horribly fail to do this (which inevitably will happen on occasion), and sometimes the government will have to step in to fix things. Politically, it's impossible to not do something when you have things like the conditions of the meat packing industry described in The Jungle (which I'd recommend reading, not before meals though, you'll find out why when you read). Neither businesses nor the government are infallible, they both make mistakes. When business do a bad job of regulating themselves (since self-regulation rarely poses an economic incentive) or when the government is too easily influenced to vote in their favor, you get horrible things like ISPs in their current state, overuse of antibiotics in livestock (which threatens our health through providing an ideal breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria), and trusts that fix prices.

There. Now that last paragraph has much less fail in the second sentence.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:25:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 11:54:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Is this a DSL thing, then, because Comcast, as well as all the other cable companies in my area (there's a couple other little ones that piggyback off Comcast's lines), ONLY offer unlimited data plans as far as I know.

Actually, they don't:
http://customer.comcast.com...

Cable companies would be threatened by Netflix, so they have more incentive to put data caps in place. DSL companies like AT&T still seem to be able to find ways to do it, although they did enter the TV market with their U-verse service. Comcast used to be very bad about this - if you went over the data cap a certain number of times, I think they banned you from using their service for a year. I know that Verizon has no data caps at all, but their service is still quite expensive. It could be said that they are in a similar situation to what ISPs in monopolies are in when customers could get satellite internet if they want: their competitors exist, but are inferior. If they were to set the price of their lowest tier at or below a competitor's price, they would undoubtedly be the death of all other ISPs in areas where they provide service.

However, as I have said, this has gone on long enough to where the benefits of having local governments set up their own ISPs would undoubtedly benefit our growing technology sector.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 7:44:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:14:19 PM, drhead wrote:
Their 'free market' principles succeeded in causing the Great Depression (thanks, Hoover!). Sure, a 25% unemployment rate happened, but businesses were free, unregulated, the rich got a lot of tax savings that they spent on luxuries instead of mainstream essential goods that would help the economy grow in those sectors where it really mattered, as well as spending on investments (which, of course, wouldn't do them much good with the stock market crash). Some bad things happened, but at least we weren't restricting the freedom of businesses!

Freedom for all, even if it means driving our economy off a cliff!

(this was sarcasm, for those with a faulty Sarcasm Detection Module.)

I don't believe that's a fair description about free market principles. Free market does not advocate a "complete free", as you attempted to make people believe. Some sensible regulations apparently must be in place in order to avoid the chaos. Free enterprise principle has served the American people well in the past (conservative principles in general). Of course, no theory is prefect. But sometimes overregulation may proven to be the source of the problem instead of the solutions. Examples include the recent gun control, ban on offshore drilling, Bank regulation Act. KeyStone project is another instance demonstrating that how government regulation can be problematic and harmful to the economy.
jm_notguilty
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 3:59:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can't say I'm not surprised with the answers here.

Conservative principles are about the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Conservative principles have worked in the past, and they would work in the presence and future as well. The conservative principles find their legitimacy on the basis of the U.S. constitution. It serves as an useful counterbalance to the liberal ideas promoted by many liberal Presidents to prevent the nation from moving too fast.

Like for example?

the bolded surely are not without a certain degree of controversy. I would argue that most of those don't represent achievements or improvements.

Surely the current system benefits most Americans than it did half a century ago.

How exactly are you defining Conservative? If you define it as one who supports the status quo is should be know surprise that throughout history it is "conservatives" who opposed progress.

As stated by the others, conservative here would be defined as people who consider themselves conservative. And I'm talking about modern conservatism in the US. All Republicans aren't conservative, yes, but the majority of the GOP consider themselves as one. While I will stipulate to the fact that philosophical conservatives do have beneficial and essential principles, it doesn't transform well to reality. It is, as you said, basically in the trash at this point in America.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 12:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:14:19 PM, drhead wrote:
Their 'free market' principles succeeded in causing the Great Depression (thanks, Hoover!). Sure, a 25% unemployment rate happened, but businesses were free, unregulated, the rich got a lot of tax savings that they spent on luxuries instead of mainstream essential goods that would help the economy grow in those sectors where it really mattered, as well as spending on investments (which, of course, wouldn't do them much good with the stock market crash). Some bad things happened, but at least we weren't restricting the freedom of businesses!

Freedom for all, even if it means driving our economy off a cliff!

(this was sarcasm, for those with a faulty Sarcasm Detection Module.)

This is an entirely incorrect account of what happened.

Let's first look at Hoover. Hoover increased public spending, raised the top tax rate from 25% to 63%, pushed for fixed wages and prices, and signed the Smoot- Hawley Tariff act (protectionism). Hoover was as far as one could get from "free market principles". When FDR got elected, he implemented the New Deal which prolonged the Depression by about 7 years. The hostility to business increased regime uncertainty and the NRA as well as industrial unions kept wages artificially high.

As most modern economists would tell you, the fed's deflationary (tight) monetary policies in the aftermath of the crash lead to the great depression. It was monetary retrenchment (not fiscal retrenchment) that led to the recession of 1937.

After WWII ended, spending was cut (dramatically), taxes were cut, unions were weakened, and monetary policy was expansionary and debt fell and (finally) growth was restored and standard of living started increasing again.