Posted on 05/19/2008 4:41:25 PM PDT by mojito
?Conservative Gloominess (Buck Up FReepers - It’s not as bad as you think)”
We have a “choice” between a Liberal with an R after his name or a Liberal with a D after his name. How exactly is it not as bad as I think?
until “none of the above” counts... PM can take a hike.
A good meal and a bottle of Scotch will make it all bearable. LOL!
Losing is never pleasent, perhaps this election cycle will teach us all a very very good lesson.
As for the dhimmis, they win be acting Republican, as soon as the zanniness begins, it will be interesting to see the newbie Dhimmis ‘splain to the folks back home what the heck is going on in DC on their watch...
Conservatives have nothing to fear but fear of incompetence itself.
Republicans are not losing Congressional elections because of the top of either ticket, it’s an R vs D contest and the R’s are drawing dead in 2008.
The best thing that Clinton did for Republicans was to elect a Republican congress for the first time in years, another Democrat will give Republicans that opportunity in 2010. Tell why they should be elected rather than why the other guy shouldn’t.
Cheer up 2010 is coming. Be ready.
My new party!! :)
Hey. Might as well push a re-birth of Reaganism and see where it goes. I can’t think of too many better ways to honor our forefathers and our posterity.
No, we have a moderate with an R after his name. One who'll nominate JUSTICES that will UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION and keep the TAX CUTS. Then we have a SOCIALIST MUSLIM with a D after his name who'll give us BIG GOVERNMENT!!
I have to vote for the WOT - and McCain - THOU NOT PERFECT is my choice.
I believe the FALCON PARTY is where REAGANISM is now!!
Indeed. We changed addresses.
You can't cut taxes unless you cut government. If you don't cut government all you do is pass the credit slips to our kids with interest.
If no one learned a lesson from our losing in 2006 when the rats took over congress then what makes you think losing in 2008 will be any different?
I will do all I can to see John McCain win in the general election and he will win.
I see the future for conservatism that has several paths.
Conservatives, almost by definition, are less inclined to enjoy change unless change has an advocate who promises a better tomorrow. And I mean positive, Reaganesque change, not the reactionary, socialist liberal change promoted by Obama and Clinton.
This means a clear picture of what change is needed, and how to change in that direction. This is why on the fringes of the Republican party, we are starting to see more radical ideas, be they reasonable, like from Duncan Hunter, or less so, like from Ron Paul.
But what we need most of all, is to step back and see what the real problems are, the long-term, enormous problems that underlie our nation and perhaps the entire world.
One of these is more obvious today than it has been for a while. In short, it is the abuse of credit, not just by people and business, but by entire nations. So what should conservatives do to turn this situation around?
Things that are really big ideas. To start with, everybody has to control their spending to match their means:
1) A balanced budget amendment to the constitution, and tight restrictions on government debt.
2) Not just limitations on government growth, but real reductions in the size of government.
3) Restrictions on credit that prevent its issuance without close to matching collateral.
4) Replacing much of the credit industry with debit. It goes back to the truism that money should only be lent to those that do not need it.
Right now, the assumption is that if the credit market is controlled, enough to prevent wild excess, that there will be a tremendous shortfall of investment. But this is not entirely true. Uncontrolled credit is just a very easy way to obtain money, but it is not the only way.
Uncontrolled credit creates economic bubbles, going all the way back to the first Dutch tulip speculation craze. If you take away easy credit, it makes foolish speculation much harder, bubbles much rarer, and markets far more stable.
So those that would “suffer” most, are irresponsible speculators. Not a whole lot of sympathy out there for them. But for typical people, it would be the end of many “get rich quick” schemes promising double-digit returns even in a dull market.
Enormous trade deficits would also wind down. A lack of easy credit also means that unless we paid cash on the barrel head, we would no longer import huge amounts of products like oil and goods from China. It turn, the makers of such goods would have to return to the US, if they hoped to sell their goods here.
Much of the credit abuse in the world only exists because the US is involved. So if we got our own house in order, it would force reform around the world.
And this is just one thing conservatives could do. If we have a future candidate who can bring about such changes, we could all face a much brighter future than a terrible worldwide economic collapse, that seems to be our destiny today. Sooner or later.
Not necessarily true. Tax cuts mean more income into the federal treasury, not less. That being said, we need to shitcan 50% federal expenditures as a matter of principle and as a return to constitutionalism.
District by district, Conservatives have gotten lazy IMO BARLF, part of that is the scandals, maybe part of it is uninspiring candidates, maybe some fatigue as well.
2 years of Dhimmicrat control with a co-operative McCain in the White House will see some of the fires restoked, and I think that is a good thing.
Probably a temporary happening or taxes would be cut to zero for Treasury enrichment.
Not temporary, but there is a law of diminishing returns. Ask Art Laffer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer
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.