|
Posted on 07/18/2008 8:20:49 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
No wonder John McCain's policies are incoherent. He digests this stuff while also claiming to be a Reaganite. The problem is, many people in his own party aren't buying it, let alone conservatives. Many of the problems Brooks sites to promote his view were made worse by big government. Can anyone seriously point to any major sector of our economy where the government hasn't insinuated itself in a significant way? Talking about Disraeli and TR as if 100 years and more of government intervention hasn't transpired — such as the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Square Deal, the Great Society — is pundit malpractice.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
|
Payroll tax cuts, lower corporate and individual tax rates are not conservatism?? We used to call that Reaganomics. What has Levin been smoking??
So.....I guess we just give up? They would love that.
Levin is one of the sharpest minds in the modern conservative movement. I would sooner take his word than John McCain’s. His disagreements and criticisms of McCain are right on, and entirely justified.
Nonetheless, Levin is a prudent man. My understanding from his show is that he will support McCain, for lack of better options — but not withhold conservative criticism of McCain at every required juncture.
This, I think, is the best choice for conservatives, conservatism, and the country.
H
Answer the question; are tax cuts conservatives principles?? Yes or no?
If McCain switched parties, would anyone notice? He’s, at best, a conservative Democrat.
Tax cuts are a manifestation of conservative principles. I don’t get your point.
H
I enjoy the Mark Levin radio show when I am able to catch it on evening car rides. I too have reservations about McPain, but will vote for him as Obama would be a disaster on the scale of 9/11 plus two Katrina hurricanes for our USA.
“So.....I guess we just give up? They would love that.”
We gave up when McCain was ‘nominiated’.
“Answer the question; are tax cuts conservatives principles?? Yes or no?”
Yes. Now tell us why McCain opposed the Bush tax cut?
Yes, many people would notice, if McCain switched parties. He usually disagrees with Democrats. According to www.vote-smart.org, these are some of McCain’s latest ratings, from interest groups: Club for Growth, 100%; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 100%; Citizens Against Government Waste, 91%; Americans for Democratic Action, 10%; NEA, 0%; and NARAL, 0%.
>> I enjoy the Mark Levin radio show when I am able to catch it on evening car rides.
I catch Levin once or twice a week. I make a point to listen after any particularly notable Supreme Court ruling ... aside from Thomas, Bork and Scalia, I can think of few conservative legal minds that exceed Levin’s.
I like Levin better than most of the other biting conservative hosts ... particularly Mike Savage. Levin is sharper than Savage, brighter than Savage, less prone to shooting his mouth off thoughtlessly, less angry/manic-depressive, his arguments actually make sense (Savage’s are poorly reasoned), and he’s a genuinely better man than Savage.
H
>> Yes. Now tell us why McCain opposed the Bush tax cut?
His explanation was that he opposed tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts.
H
McCain was incorrect when he insisted that tax cuts needed to be paid for. His lack of understanding about economics is quite apparent.
That said, it serves no purpose to constantly attack him at every turn. Unless you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Big-government leftists have already won this election.
After all, they have two candidates running.
We do not like our choices. They are pitiful; however, unless God gives us a miracle, it seems we are struck with 2 bad choices. McCain is preferred to Obama, barely. Hillary is in between. They are all not acceptable.
What's a person to do? We may be on the razors edge of a unstoppable downward cycle in America.
We have allowed too many changes to go by with little or no uproar or resistance.
We keep voting for the same old politicians again. No matter how corrupt they seem to be. Pray.
>> McCain was incorrect when he insisted that tax cuts needed to be paid for. His lack of understanding about economics is quite apparent.
Agreed. But, despite the flawed anti-conservative conclusion — it was a conservatively-based argument, which is at least mildly encouraging. He absolutely needs economic help on the ticket.
>> That said, it serves no purpose to constantly attack him at every turn. Unless you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Agreed.
H
In 1980 Reagan in every speech given in Ohio and Michigan.. (some 20 speeches)said his political heroes were Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Reagan said that for 35 years he had been a registered Democrat. Reagan said he had NOT changed his political views.
In 1986 Reagan actively worked to get the New Immigration act to contain amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants. Reagan argued that their labor was needed by our economy, and that they did work that would not get done with out them.
Reagan spent 35 years working for, campaigning for and giving money to the Democratic party. And then after becoming the Republican candidate for President claimed that he was still FDR's AND JFK's biggest fans. If Reagan was truly a conservative then he either lied to voters or JFK and FDR were both Conservatives.
Reagan was in favor of open borders with MEXICO. In fact Reagan wanted open borders for all American Nations North of the equator. Reagan proposed that the law be changed so that any north American citizen with a birth certificate could come to the USA and stay and work as long as he or she wanted to stay. (That included Mexicans. and Reagan used the argument that Mexicans only take jobs regular Americans don't want!)
Click here for Reagan's position on Mexican Immigration
McCain's positions on Mexican Immigration and Amnesty are identical to RONALD REAGANS...
As usual, Levin nails it.
Later in the morning at The Corner:
I’m With Mark Levin [Peter Robinson]
Mark Levin tells us that David Brooks can write as he does only by ignoring “100 years and more of government intervention.” I’d add that David likewise ignores a great mass of hugely important thought.
Milton Friedman argued that government spending will always prove pernicious for the simple but profound reason that “nobody spends somebody else’s money as well as he spends his own.” Has Brooks ever refuted Friedman? No. He writes instead as if Friedman had simply never existed. Hayek argued that government intervention in the economy will always prove grossly inefficient because government planners can never acquire all the information they’d need to do a good job of allocating resources. The price mechanism, Hayek argued—joined by Friedman, and George Stigler, and Gary Becker, and James Buchanan, just to name five scholars whose thought proved impressive enough to win them the Nobel Prize for economics—disperses knowledge throughout the marketplace in a way that government activity simply cannot. Does David attempt to refute Hayek? No. Once again, he simply ignores the man.
Here and elsewhere, David writes as if the policies of Ronald Reagan (and Margaret Thatcher) were mere reactions or spasms, not what they actually were; which was, of course, the political expression of more than half a century of painstaking observation, inquiry, and debate—in other words, of intellectual progress. David has a fine mind, Lord knows, and he writes gorgeously. But he wants to dumb us down—to insist that we know less than we do. And there’s nothing conservative—or, for that matter, progressive—about that.
07/18 11:52 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGMyM2IxYjhlODc3NmUxOGEwNjE1YTNkODRhOGVhYzI=
>> What’s a person to do? We may be on the razors edge of a unstoppable downward cycle in America.
People have been saying that for decades. I am an eternal optimist. When it was darkest in America — the Presidency of Jimmy Carter — “Morning in America” soon followed. America is a strong country with a strong citizenry. We have survived “moderate” Republicans and liberal Democrats before, and we will survive again.
>> We have allowed too many changes to go by with little or no uproar or resistance.
I wouldn’t go that far. There has certainly been resistance ... and there has certainly been some absolute success. The last 28 years have been among the best this country has ever seen — Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. Unbridled economic growth, the fall of the evil empire, taking command in the War on Terrorism ... its been a good time for conservatives and the country. Even the most liberal President in the last 28 years (Clinton), was probably more conservative than the MOST conservative from 1960-1980 (Nixon).
However, politics is cyclical. After an 8-year conservative Republican Presidency, we’re destined to see a moderate or liberal President. McCain, while not perfect, might be the right man for the Republicans in this election ... his “moderate” aura might allow him to get elected despite unfavorable ratings for Republicans and conservatives right now.
>> Pray.
Always a good idea.
H
The spending-cut argument was NOT the contemporaneous argument from McCain. At the time, he was spouting off about the wealthy paying their fair share, IIRC. The spending-cut balance answer came out years later.
These are quite possibly two of the greatest cartoons ever created. They have made my day.
You might be right ... I don’t recall McCain’s argument at the time.
H
“HOWEVER REAGAN WAS FOR OPEN BORDERS AND MCCAIN IS NOT!”
Please, do show us where Reagan was for open borders.....and McCAin is not???
ROFLMAO.
By today's standards, JFK was a conservative.
And, FDR, for all the evil he wrought on our nation, understood that WWII had to be won and then went and did it. He insisted on the unfashionable concept "unconditional surrender." By today's standards, that makes FDR a foreign policy conservative. Obama and the rest of today's liberals would have still been wringing their hands and demanding negotiations without preconditions in 1944. Today's really tough liberals on foreign policy would have been fine-tuning a "proporitionate response" to the invasion of Poland.
Where on Vote smart are you finding these? I’m only finding up to 2006 there.
McCain was correct. But during the years of the GOP controlled Congress, I guess spending cuts became old news. No longer a part of conservatism. Hell, even the Bush admin. justified/sold their tax cuts in Keynesian term. Hardly a conservative foundation.
Tax cuts should have been the carrot for GOPers, but they should have been required to cut spending in order to get the tax cuts. Why? So that maybe they would have freakin' cut some spending.
Instead they spent and spent, and in the end, lost control of the Congress. McCain was right to hold out for spending cuts. Shame on conservatives for not demanding spending cuts.
It DOES serve a purpose.
It let’s him, and his FR operatives, know that we want assurances, publicly made PROMISES, that he will not revert back to his ugliest days in the Senate. That he will adhere to Conservative Core Principles. Less government, less taxes, no amnesty, and we want a REAL CONSERVATIVE Veep nominee that will carry our water, and our banner, into the next POTUS election, too!
No promises, no vote! His spin and close contact dance steps with libs is not comforting.
I agree with the premise of spending cuts. But, those are separate issues.
A tax cut without spending cuts is still beneficial, as we have seen, as it indirectly lowers the percentage of the expenses. As we have seen.
Spending cuts is whole ‘nother battle, in itself, as it should be, one fought with body armor and flame throwers.
Just the right cartoon is sometimes worth a thousand words, isn't it.
Here is another pretty good one in the same vein:
.
I'd characterize it more as a conservative sounding but realy liberal argument, which is quite disappointing in the standard-bearer of the more conservative party in the next election.
This is exactly the same tax-collector-for-the-welfare state philosophy of Bob Dole, and is getting the same response from the conservative voter.
No they aren't.
A tax cut without spending cuts is still beneficial, as we have seen, as it indirectly lowers the percentage of the expenses.
But those gains are obliterated by the massive debt/obligations taken on by Congress.
Spending cuts is whole ‘nother battle, in itself, as it should be, one fought with body armor and flame throwers.
Incorrect. There is nothing wrong with leveraging conservatives' desire for tax cuts with a demand that spending cuts be included in the bill. Why not make the tax cuts contingent on spending cuts? Why not say unless you cut spending, you can't cut taxes? If we don't ever cut our spending, it's all for nothing anyway.
McCain was correct to attempt to leverage the political desire for tax cuts and try to get spending cuts. AS WE HAVE SEEN, the GOP instead adopted Keynesian justifications for spending, spending, spending. Hell, they did it here on FR, explaining away the deficits, making excuses,we're at war, blah blah. But then, isn't the war spending off budget?
No, he wasn't. Tax revenues go up when taxes are cut. At least, that's what happens at our current tax levels. There will is a point where lower taxes == lower revenues, but that point seems to be at much lower tax rates than we currently have.
This is wilfull distortion by the “great one.” In fact McCain has called for a spending freeze in order to evaluate cutbacks after his first year.
>> I’d characterize it more as a conservative sounding but realy liberal argument ...
I wouldn’t characterize “spending cuts” as even remotely liberal. I realize McCain may be somewhat disingenuous in his argument — but no liberal would ever base any argument on spending cuts.
>> ... which is quite disappointing in the standard-bearer of the more conservative party in the next election.
There are several disappointing aspects of John McCain. He is far from ideal ideologically ... though I do concede he may be ideal electorally in a time where Republicans and conservatives have taken some significant hits electorally, and in popularity.
He might truly be the only hope of ANY sort of conservatism — even “moderated” — in the White House in 2009.
H
He also said the tax cuts were going to the least deserving: "The wealthy."
>> He also said the tax cuts were going to the least deserving: “The wealthy.”
So I’ve heard. I simply relayed his justification — I didn’t say I agreed with it.
H
The problem I have with that reason, though, is that it betrays a liberal, class-warfare mindset. It’s not so easy for me to brush it off, when I consider it a fatal character flaw.
>> The problem I have with that reason, though, is that it betrays a liberal, class-warfare mindset. It’s not so easy for me to brush it off, when I consider it a fatal character flaw.
Agree entirely. I don’t brush it off. I simply hope that pressure from the right, and maybe the right VP candidate, can right the McCain ship economically.
H
I agree entirely as well...
And spending went up even more. You just don't get it. In 2000, the GOP and the president wanted tax cuts. It would be their first big victory, it would be "Reaganesque", show their conservative credentials, etc.
So fine, they want tax cuts. Great. But why not force them to include spending cuts? Why not make them do it in order to get what they want? You big spending republicans are killing us! McCain was absolutely right to fight for spending cuts.
While the previous few years have been prosperous, etc. they were also times of much political correctness, taking God out of our society in ever expanding ways. These are responsible for much of our current dilemmas.
The increasing of teaching as normal ... homosexuality, and the attending marriage definition being under fire to be changed. Rampant immigration uncontrolled systematically. The rise of of judicial judges overriding the people votes and making new laws. (California is where I remember it first so blatantly). Schools falling down on education. Revisionist history becoming common for the recent past ...
Sexuality coming into our homes in prime time on TV, MTV etc... to name a few. You get the gist. You can no doubt think of three times as many failures ... to hold on to what had ‘worked’ in our society. We just shrugged and went about our business of daily routines.
There were a few organizations that formed and opposed these changes. Not enough.
All this occurred while the economy was flourishing largely.
On www.vote-smart.org, I searched for McCain’s name, and I clicked on “Interest group ratings.” It lists many ratings from 2007.
I agree with you. Bush’s budgets increased spending more than Clinton’s budgets. In 2004, the Depts. of HUD, HHS, Energy, and Education received at least 22% more than they received in 2001. Bush betrayed many Republicans who thought that he would be conservative.
I'm not for big spending. Were the RNC competent, they would have sold the idea that spending and taxes are separate issues. If the gov't leaves taxes high, then spending is justified in the minds of the Dems even at the cost of a worse economy (because a worse economy drives the need for a bigger gov't). We have to separate the issues.
Anytime taxes and spending are linked, they are linked wrongly. Once you buy in to the idea that spending cuts are linked to tax cuts, you eliminate the possibility of tax cuts, as the RNC has never found a way to advocate lower spending without sounding like a Grinch.
In the mean time, and on a personal basis, I really prefer lower taxes for myself. You are cordially invited to send whatever voluntary contributions you want to the Feds to pay for the higher spending.
Once you find the magic argument that will get folks to cut spending, and form your PAC to push it, count me in for a contribution. However, once you link taxes and spending, you have bought into an idea which has the corollary that higher spending needs higher taxes which is a recipe for disaster.
Until then, I've got bills to pay.
LOL. That IS how they sold the idea. DEMs say you have to "pay" for tax cuts with spending cuts. GOP says tax cuts bring in more revenue--no need to cut spending to "pay" for them!
What the GOP should do is take them up on their offer and CUT SPENDING. Instead, they make excuses for running up huge deficits, and increasing domestic spending more than Clinton did.
See you and others just don't get it. I'm not talking about linking cuts in taxes and spending philosophically. I'm not denying that cuts in certain taxes lead to higher revenues. And I'm not complaining about getting a couple points shaved off my own tax burden.
What I am saying is that when the GOP outspends Clinton on domestic spending, the gains of the tax cut are negated. I'm saying that we the people should have demanded both spending and tax cuts. Not separately, but in one bill. Because the GOP desired tax cuts, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but for political gain. We should have leveraged that political desire to demand cuts in spending.
Of course we didn't. And that's a shame.
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.
