Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whither American Conservatism?
Truth Based Logic ^ | December 5, 2012 | William Flax

Posted on 12/06/2012 8:49:30 AM PST by Ohioan

Can The Republican Party Yet Serve Conservative Purpose?

The answer depends on whether we can resolve questions of purpose, priority & tactics, with far more clarity than we have in the last twenty-one years. Politics have always been about winning & the art of the possible; but to the true Conservative (which in the American context has always involved a major libertarian component), "winning" means preservation of a Constitutional heritage, never merely electing people with a particular label, nor those primarily identified with a single cause or the demands of any special interest. Winning is about preserving the multi-generational purpose & pursuits of a particular people--the mainstream Americans.

(Excerpt) Read more at truthbasedlogic.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: conservative; cultural; republican; social
In the essay we "look at several approaches to expanding the Conservative vote, while reducing the vote of groups being exploited by politicians on the Left. Some of what follows is more aspirational than immediately achievable. In the interest of stimulating reflection on dynamic interaction from a long-term, multi-generational, perspective, we lump together what could be accomplished tomorrow, by simply changing the way we argue, with goals that will require considerable ground-work."

Personally, I still believe that we can again capture the Republican Party for traditional Conservative American values. But that must depend upon Conservatives becoming more effective, tactically, than we have been, since Reagan left office.

The article goes into ways to address important issues.

1 posted on 12/06/2012 8:49:36 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

I intend to defeat the republican party.


2 posted on 12/06/2012 8:51:12 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

“I intend to defeat the republican party.”

Well said, and I agree.


3 posted on 12/06/2012 8:55:13 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

No.

It’s been tried.. time and again, and look at the results, the latest of which is the removal of conservatives from budgetary committee posts by John Boehner.

Time for a different course now. And, please... let’s not counter with the tired rationale that splitting the GOP will dilute its chances of winning the White House in 2016. Antarctica will be hosting surfing competition before a GOP candidate ever wins the Presidency again.


4 posted on 12/06/2012 8:56:10 AM PST by ScottinVA (I've never been more disgusted with American voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Boner must go as Weeper......

2. How is the Speaker of the House elected? Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."

Although the Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of the House, all Speakers have been Members.



Gohmert: I want Gingrich as speaker
5 posted on 12/06/2012 8:58:12 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

We are two years before the next Federal election. Before you commit to not be a Republican, at least consider my suggested approach in the article!


6 posted on 12/06/2012 9:13:23 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

See my reply #6. You need to at least consider the types of arguments, used in my article, wherever you end up, politically—that is, if Conservatism is your objective.


7 posted on 12/06/2012 9:16:24 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
I hardly suggest anything in my article, which would offer a "tired rationale."

Incidentally, this is what I just posted on another thread:

In hanging tough, House Conservatives need to reiterate a combination of talking points; never let themselves be interviewed without starting by clarifying their position against Obama's Class-Warfare attitude on Taxation:

1. Class-Warfare is immoral & unamerican.

2. A tax system that punishes success to reward failure is economically insane.

3. The Founding Fathers considered the use of taxation to redistribute wealth to be totally unacceptable (Art. I, Sec. 9). Having sworn to uphold the Constitution, one cannot vote for redistribution of wealth.

4. During the 124 years, from 1789 til 1913, when we followed the Founder's Taxing policy, we had the greatest material growth rate of any people on earth--and we retained our spiritual values in the process. Nothing, proportionately, or adjusted for inflation, has since compared! (And just look at what the class-warfare mentality has done to our spiritual values!)

Do not let anyone put Obama's definitions into anyone on our side's mouth. Obama has never been about "fairness," anymore than Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler or Castro were ever about "fairness."

William Flax

8 posted on 12/06/2012 9:21:07 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

I’m already not a republican.

I can look right at them and see that I am not them.

Republican = enemy.

I do not want their party, I do not want their name, I do not want their stupid elephant, I do not want their non existant machinery or their no nothing consultants.

What I want is their extinction.

If that means Americas get 100% democrat majorities, oh well.

If more than half of this country is intent upon suicide, then I have no problem assisting that goal.

Seriously, Ohioan, I have ****ing had it with backstabbers and idiots. I am not playing this game any longer. It is time to throw the chess board off the table and flip it over, and that is exactly what I am going to do.


9 posted on 12/06/2012 9:21:53 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
The idea of a Speaker from outside the House would create all sorts of dissension, and to what purpose? Gingrich has regained a certain toughness, but he was basically punched out, at the end, in his last year, before. He completely mismanaged the Clinton impeachment, in my opinion.

But, be that as it may. The idea would further fracture what we still have going for us in the House.

William Flax

10 posted on 12/06/2012 9:27:06 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chris37
All right. You have had it with the Republican organization. That said, my article, while directed at the question of whether or not we can still work with the Republican Party, discusses tactical approaches to several major issues (Whither American Conservatism?), and could be just as applicable to a new Conservative Party, or the present Constitution Party.

But that said, this Ohioan intends to continue to work with the Republican Party over the coming months.

William Flax

11 posted on 12/06/2012 9:39:38 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

This is why it is important to maintain control of the house and it parliamentary rules and get the 17th amendment repealed so senators actually represent the states as originally designed. That way the president being elected by the unwashed masses is not that big a deal. Unlike now where we have a want to be dictator in power being facilitated by the senate elected by basically the same demographic.

This should be the focus


12 posted on 12/06/2012 9:48:38 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Maybe you can.

My intent is to defeat them.

I really can’t make myself any more clear.

I was listening to one of the “conservatives” ousted by Boehner yesterday on Hannity’s radio show. Sean asked him will you still vote for Boehner as speaker. He immediately responded yes. Useless idiot.

I was just listenting to Rush interview Heritage Foundation about Jim Demint, and Rush said conservatives owe Heritgae Foundation a lot...what do I owe them? What have they done for me or my country at all? What has any conservative outside of Ronald Reagan done for this country at all? What has the republican party done at all?

Outside of personally stabbing me in the back and telling me to go **** myself, I can’t think of anything whatsoever.

I’m not playing this shell game anymore, William.

Consider me absolutely hostile.


13 posted on 12/06/2012 9:58:44 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Nobody is changing Washington from inside the Beltway. That’s what The Purge is all about.

The guys that bought and paid for the vote and the White House this last time around aren’t hearin’ nothin’ about any “Constitutional Government”.

All politics is local

Change comes through local government, state legislature. Own your voting precinct. Clean the vote. Ballot receipts etc...


14 posted on 12/06/2012 10:28:41 AM PST by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
1. Class-Warfare is immoral & unamerican.

Then tell the upper classes to stop waging war on the bottom classes by depriving them of the wages they've earned but not received as seen in the ever widening productivity/wage gap.

2. A tax system that punishes success to reward failure is economically insane.

Are you not paying attention to all the taxpayer funded rewards upper class failure has been getting the past few years?

3. The Founding Fathers considered the use of taxation to redistribute wealth to be totally unacceptable (Art. I, Sec. 9). Having sworn to uphold the Constitution, one cannot vote for redistribution of wealth.

Good, then stop supporting the redistribution of america's wealth to wall street.

4. During the 124 years, from 1789 til 1913, when we followed the Founder's Taxing policy, we had the greatest material growth rate of any people on earth--and we retained our spiritual values in the process. Nothing, proportionately, or adjusted for inflation, has since compared! (And just look at what the class-warfare mentality has done to our spiritual values!)

You mean the spiritual values that allowed the enslaving of other human beings? The spiritual values that treated women as not even worthy to vote? Not all spiritual values are worth keeping.

15 posted on 12/06/2012 10:39:31 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mo
All politics is not local, but all real problems of individual citizens are.

It is idiotic that we have people, who still get elected, who want to stick the Federal Bureaucracy--completely contrary to the written Constitution--into one on one situations (teacher/student or physician/patient), at an enormous waste of resources.

William Flax

16 posted on 12/06/2012 10:48:35 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ksen
You are not answering my points. You are demonizing your own set of villains. But you will not find any place in the hundreds of articles at Truth Based Logic, where I advocate taxpayer subsidies for any class of people. That is simply not authorized in our Federal Constitution.

But your other basic rants go against the laws of economics & against traditional Western spiritual values. Pitting the people against each other in a blame game may suit your idea of spirituality. It is certainly not mine.

But to cut to the chase, since my points were suggestions for how those opposed to Obama's tax policies should address the present confrontation, may I assume that you support Obama on tax policy?

William Flax

17 posted on 12/06/2012 10:59:46 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Why Gingrich, on earth? Of all people the other one who within the last generation got creaked as speaker in a similar situation, only with more power.


18 posted on 12/06/2012 11:00:20 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Why Gingrich, on earth? Of all people the other one who within the last generation got creamed as speaker in a similar situation, only with more power.


19 posted on 12/06/2012 11:00:42 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
In your post, you glossed over the actual suffrage question. In my article (Whither American Conservatism?), I address it. Here is sample:

A situation, where there is no offset for receiving unearned benefits from public coffers, obviously condones conflicts of interest. As more & more of the population falls into this category, it becomes ever more critical that Conservatives respond to the clear implications. Loss of suffrage, to those who receive but do not produce--and unlike those on veteran's or social security pensions, have never produced--is inevitable. The only question, really, is whether such loss of suffrage happens before a complete fiscal collapse, or after someone or some ones pick up the pieces--after a day of reckoning.

William Flax

20 posted on 12/06/2012 11:04:49 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Depriving people of wages you think they’ve earned, but which have not been agreed upon, is not class warfare. Working for them is voluntary. You don’t like your wages, hightail it.

I don’t see that sentence excepting upper class failure.

Who says they don’t want to stop redistribution to Wall Street?

Slavery and sexism, seriously? You’re really stretching. Couldn’t come up with another out of left field slam against corporate welfare, or did you accidentally cut and paste a high school history textbook into that last paragraph?


21 posted on 12/06/2012 11:09:47 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Slavery and sexism, seriously? You’re really stretching. Couldn’t come up with another out of left field slam against corporate welfare, or did you accidentally cut and paste a high school history textbook into that last paragraph?

I was in a rush to go grab some (free) lunch

22 posted on 12/06/2012 11:16:07 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
since my points were suggestions for how those opposed to Obama's tax policies should address the present confrontation, may I assume that you support Obama on tax policy?

Yes, you may assume that.

23 posted on 12/06/2012 11:18:20 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Depriving people of wages you think they’ve earned, but which have not been agreed upon, is not class warfare. Working for them is voluntary. You don’t like your wages, hightail it.

Yes, we have a nice form of 21st century feudalism going on here.

Of course they've earned more because workers' productivity has shot through the roof yet there has been no accompanying increases in their wages. Until the late 1970s wages and productivity moved along nicely together. If a good portion of that increased productivity isn't accruing to the one doing the producing who is it accruing to? (that's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer and so should you)

Which leads to a concentration of wealth and capital that is unhealthy for the economy. Right now we are stuck in a feedback loop of people not having enough disposable cash to purchase items which in turn causes businesses to slow down and look for ways to cut costs, normally in the form of cutting workers, which leads to people having less disposable cash, etc.

Going back to Clinton-era tax rates will not kill the economy or send us careening down the pathway towards your socialism bugaboo anymore then it lead to those things during the 1990s.

24 posted on 12/06/2012 11:24:58 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Who says they don’t want to stop redistribution to Wall Street?

Since the Republicans don't want to do anything to curb Wall Street excesses, and in fact want change rules in order to give Wall Street the leeway to create even more havoc for the rest of the world, it's abundantly clear the Republicans are not interested.

25 posted on 12/06/2012 11:29:44 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Nice article. My solution is if you are on the government dole you don’t get to vote. In the interest of fairness to those that lose a job exclude unemployment up to a certain amount.


26 posted on 12/06/2012 11:33:34 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Yes, we have a nice form of 21st century feudalism going on here.

Letting the market determine what people receive for any given work is hardly a form of feudalism. It is the exact opposite. In the feudal period people did indeed have to work under whatever conditions were provided from above. Everything was from the top down. The aristocrats were under the will of the King, as their feudal over-lord; serfs were under the aristocrats. It was all premised on the idea that the King was annointed by God, etc.. It was this idea that Jefferson challenged in the preamble to our Declaration of Independence, in setting up a compact theory of Government.

But you also misunderstand the economics of so-called productivity gains. Much of those gains are from the increased use of ever more efficient equipment. The cost of utilizing those productivity gains involves both the physical labor, the cost of the equipment, the cost of the supervision of the meshing of the right equipment with the right labor, and the entrepreneurial cost of putting together the financing, etc., to bring the factors of production together in a working package.

Demagoguing the issues by focusing on only one factor of production, may suit Obama or your ideas of "fairness." It does not reflect economic reality.

William Flax

27 posted on 12/06/2012 11:46:07 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
I agree with your point. Thanks for the contribution.

Of course, we should be careful, not to exclude someone who has been a responsible citizen, merely because of a temporary glitch. There are, on the other hand, those who make dependency a substitute for a life's work.

28 posted on 12/06/2012 11:51:58 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Look....here...is where what we deal with everyday ..today started....this stuff all started 100 years ago in 1912 with Teddy Roosevelt....and the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party

The Committee of 48 traces its roots to January 1919, when a gathering of individuals interested in public affairs gathered in New York City. Those so assembled decided that a formal organization should be sponsored and decided to issue a call for a National Conference. The name “Committee of 48” was chosen as a reflection of the desire to form a national organization bringing together interested representatives of each of the nation’s 48 states.

“La Follette’s Progressive Party, founded in 1924, was the out-growth of the progressive activism of the Committee of Forty-Eight, a political action group formed in 1919, and the Conference for Progressive Political Action. The new Progressive Party was a coalition of organized labor, farm groups, Socialists, and independent radicals, all of whom were dissatisfied with the two mainstream parties,..”

http://www.enotes.com/1920-government-politics-american-decades/national-politics-progressive-party

The Left has been chasing this 100 YEARS!!!

Point being...Conservatives are so little interested in Gov’mt that by nature they default the argument to those for whom it is a religion....and consequently the Church of Progressivism just re-elected its Pope, Barry Obama, this past November

Bill Buckley was “organized conservatism” in the last half of the 20th century.If it was not for his intellectual foundations, his cognitive efforts...and his independent wealth that allowed him these pursuits, the Progressives would have won the war 25 years earlier, right after dethroning Nixon.

Today there simply is not a grass roots conservative organization comparable to what the Progressives laid down 100 years ago. The closest to it is the Tea Party..which is being strangled in the cradle right as we speak.

What CAN be achieved, easily, and locally, by Tea Party minded individuals, are straight, clean elections. In a country largely “right-of-center” ...leftist government is not in power honestly. Rush was going on yesterday, citing poll after poll, showing how even those supposedly voting Obama in don’t even support his positions, making the very corruption alluded to even more of a probability.

That presumptive corruption is the lever, the only lever, We the People retain. Truth will always out when the spotlight is shown upon the deeds.


29 posted on 12/06/2012 12:07:15 PM PST by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mo
You are focused on one thread of the many Leftist movements; and, even there, a slightly misleading one. For example, for all his faults, La Follette did join the irreconcilables in 1919, to help defeat the League of Nations.

I could cite a bunch of other, further Left movements, active in the same era, who have led to a more serious role in producing the present Obamination.

But that would get me off of the immediate point; which is to produce a better understanding of how to argue the issues, we must now deal with.

You want to concentrate on local elections. Fine! You still need to better hone the way we argue at any election. That is what this thread is about. Better ways to focus the public on the real issues.

William Flax

30 posted on 12/06/2012 12:23:46 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Letting the market determine what people receive for any given work is hardly a form of feudalism. It is the exact opposite. In the feudal period people did indeed have to work under whatever conditions were provided from above. Everything was from the top down. The aristocrats were under the will of the King, as their feudal over-lord; serfs were under the aristocrats. It was all premised on the idea that the King was annointed by God, etc.. It was this idea that Jefferson challenged in the preamble to our Declaration of Independence, in setting up a compact theory of Government.

While that sounds good on paper it does not match reality. There currently is no free labor market. All the power resides on the side of the "job creators." Now when the labor side of the market did have more power, back when unions were stronger, wages had no problem keeping up over time because workers were able to negotiate as a group and as everyone knows a bundle of sticks is stronger than just one stick. With the successful near-complete destruction of private-sector unions workers are forced to negotiate individually with organized capital and when that happens the individual has to take what is offered or they are $@!% out of luck. Which gives us, functionally, a quasi-feudal marketplace. You don't need aristocracy to have feudalism, all you need is for the owners of capital to have all the power. Which there is no denying they do.

But you also misunderstand the economics of so-called productivity gains. Much of those gains are from the increased use of ever more efficient equipment. The cost of utilizing those productivity gains involves both the physical labor, the cost of the equipment, the cost of the supervision of the meshing of the right equipment with the right labor, and the entrepreneurial cost of putting together the financing, etc., to bring the factors of production together in a working package.

Was there no labor-efficiency technologies before the late 1970s? Of course there was and yet wages still remained joined to productivity gains. Why? I think I know why but I'd like to read your answer. Besides if one worker can now produce the output of two or more workers why shouldn't why shouldn't he get monetarily rewarded for his increased output? Job creators do not have a divine right to keep all the productivity gains to themselves.

Demagoguing the issues by focusing on only one factor of production, may suit Obama or your ideas of "fairness." It does not reflect economic reality.

Accurately recounting reality is not "demagoguery."

31 posted on 12/06/2012 12:55:43 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ksen
You obviously do not really understand the law of supply & demand. If you want to see real wages rise, you might start by advocating a closing of the Southern border.

Other than that, I will rest on my previous discussion.

You are simply making a verbal argument, which does not involve any indication that you understand the dynamic interaction of the factors of production. Concentrating on the demand for one of the factors, without fully understanding the function of the others, is never going to lead to understanding.

William Flax

32 posted on 12/06/2012 1:18:02 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
You are simply making a verbal argument

I will keep checking back for your non-verbal argument that actually addresses the items I've brought up with something other than hand-waving.

33 posted on 12/06/2012 1:49:18 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Let me also add that “freedom” without the ability to say “none of the above” really isn’t freedom.

And before you try to tell me that workers are free to say “none of the above” let me know how you expect them feed their families with no work while they try to negotiate a wage they can live on.


34 posted on 12/06/2012 2:08:55 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Clinton era tax rates?

we could wish that were so

they will be much higher and more numerous than when Clinton was President

ObamaCare taxes for one thing


35 posted on 12/06/2012 2:29:01 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Solyndra and all those green subsidies are corporate subsidies that needed to be ended. I would support the end of all spending on anything but core constitutional government functions.


36 posted on 12/06/2012 2:30:21 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ksen
All the power resides on the side of the "job creators."

patently ridiculous. They are fleeing to China because they all the power? They are facing the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world because they all the power? They are being regulated out of business in some cases "war on coal" because they all the power?

Question, what is the tax rate paid by unions?

37 posted on 12/06/2012 2:33:11 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Let me also add that “freedom” without the ability to say “none of the above” really isn’t freedom

They are free to sell their considerable skills and irrepaceable talents to the highest bidder. They are free to launch their own enterprise and pay themselves anything they like.

38 posted on 12/06/2012 2:37:41 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Question, what is the tax rate paid by unions?

Question, are you always this retarded?

39 posted on 12/06/2012 5:46:42 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Your position...that the soapbox is where we need to go to win elections is well taken. Clearly the need to evangelize the message of Freedom and Liberty to the non-white fraction of the USA is critical.

However...as long as hundreds of precincts now appear to be able to manufacture 100+ (D) votes with impunity..in a nation still putatively “right-of-center”..the “war” is clearly at the level of ballot box fraud. And refusing to engage it there..and prevail..leaves little alternative other than the cartridge box.


40 posted on 12/07/2012 5:57:41 AM PST by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mo
I certainly agree with you that ballot box fraud is not to be tolerated. (See my piece from right after the 2000 election: Politics 2001.) I do not know why the Republican leadership has been so ridiculously slow in engaging far more intently on that point.

William Flax

41 posted on 12/07/2012 7:13:12 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ksen
What you simply refuse to recognize is that none of the factors of production; no form of human interaction, for that matter, occurs in a vacuum. You cannot focus on the problems, wish list, aspirations or fears of one segment in an interactive process, and come up with any rational approach to anything.

No one here is unsympathetic to the plight of those struggling in the present economy. What most of us understand, however, is the cause of the present malaise. It has a direct connection to the prevalence of your form of myopia (tunnel vision) in our Federal Government, today.

William Flax

42 posted on 12/07/2012 7:20:50 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

That is a lot of words to not actually communicate anything.


43 posted on 12/07/2012 7:57:50 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Here is another sample from the Article:

Then there is a failure to discuss the multi-generational foundations to economic strength. Here, too, ex cathedra pronouncements as to how private enterprise creates wealth--coupled with references to web sites, where the motivated voter can discover a fuller argument--do not accomplish what is needed. Leftists succeed in confusing the issue by endlessly denouncing "trickle down" economics. The reality is that private achievement is never "trickle down," but a building on grounded principles--growth through individual enterprise, based upon personal responsibility, often drawing on the retained fruits of previous achievement, passed down through the generations. It is the retained capital resources of a prosperous people--not Government--that fuels economic growth & innovation; the result of natural renewal in a culture based upon personal responsibility & individual achievement. The claim that allowing people to keep more of what they earn, is somehow an adoption of anything so silly as "trickle down economics," is laughable to anyone who actually comprehends how Capitalism functions.

44 posted on 12/07/2012 10:30:27 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
That is a lot of words to not actually communicate anything.

The difference between a verbal argument, that is only that--a bunch of assertions for a reality that is not actually a reality--and an argument, which employs words to try to trigger images of how actual phenomena interact to establish causation; that difference is the difference between rant & reason.

William Flax

45 posted on 12/08/2012 10:19:14 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The difference between a verbal argument, that is only that--a bunch of assertions for a reality that is not actually a reality--and an argument, which employs words to try to trigger images of how actual phenomena interact to establish causation; that difference is the difference between rant & reason.

Ok, then I look forward to you posting more than just assertions.

46 posted on 12/10/2012 6:15:44 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson