Winning the Future: The Fiscal-Conservative Fantasy

American Thinker ^ | November 10, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

[formosa]

There is no fiscal conservatism without values. The two go hand in hand. Any fiscal conservative who tells you values do not matter is lying. I do not care what your persuasion: Christain, secular, Buddhist or anything in between. If you work hard, pay your bills, educate and love your children then you live by personal values. Those values are pretty much the same for most of. There is not a lot of room for variation.

[Utmost Certainty]

Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…

Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that the only that 20% are the real pro-lifers.

[Utmost Certainty]

Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…

Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that only this 20% are the real pro-lifers.

[norton]

...as a practical matter, the government can no longer print or borrow to fund the takers.

Perhaps, as a practical matter, someone should spend a year's worth of campaign funds pointing out to them that mega trillions of debt and a noncontributing populace will put an end to any means of paying for all those goodies within the decade.

Oh, and when that happens, it'll be my .308 versus your .223 and I don't think the feds are handing those out to US residents.

Not yet anyway.

[johnd201]

OK. So what is going to be the name of your new third U.S. political party?

[GeronL]

It’s over if we allow the Dem’s to rig the election, the lesson we should learn

[neverdem]

LOL! And you’re showing our ages. Ugh.

[gleneagle]

Unfortunately, Tytler’s stages of democracy theorem has proven accurate. Once in dependency, no amount of logic, reason or education will keep the takers from voting for more goodies. It is human nature as now displayed in Greece. It is like asking a three year old to forego a candy today for two next week.

You are right on with your choice of caliber.

[SoConPubbie]

Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.

Jackass statement of the day!

If we become more like them, we'll lose worse.

And since the GOP doesn't like limited Government or fiscal conservatism either, how will the common voter distinguish between Republicans or Democrats?

[WOSG]

“And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.”

How could they? We have the biggest spending in human history in the White House!

[RedMDer]

Why Donate? We are Beholden to no one!

Why Donate? We are Beholden to no one!

[SoConPubbie]

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

No, not Libertarian, because those same patriots lived in states that had already passed laws against sodomy, among other "sins" described in the bible, and you will not find one peep out of any of the writings of the patriots against these type of laws. Something your Libertarians would be dead-set against.

[SoConPubbie]

The GOP could become much more appealing to many more people by being proponents of states rights, particularly when it comes to addressing social issues.

Since at least 36 of the 50 states at this point have passed constitutional amendments against Gay Marriage, including one of the most Liberal, CA, I sincerely doubt this will make the GOP more marketable.

In fact, with a candidate that was strongly pro-life and against Gay Marriage, GWB, we one two elections.

Think how much better things would have turned out if Romney had NOT supported Abortion and the Gay Agenda.

[chiller]

The latest is that Romney will beat McLame’s totals and equal Bush 43’s 2004 totals. Uncounted votes. Still 1/2 million in AZ alone.

[Utmost Certainty]

I meant Libertarian in the sense of emphasizing individual responsibility, no overbearing nanny-statism, etc. I didn't say condoning of Libertinism.

When the US was founded, there were indeed harsh penalties against sodomy (death, castration)… but nobody is going to win elections campaigning that such laws should be re-implemented. The majority of people in 2012 America are not comfortable with the idea of the Bible being a cornerstone of the law.

[Utmost Certainty]

Well, like it or not, but Romney's expressed position on abortion happens to be consistent with the views of 75% of Americans according to a May 2012 Gallup poll:


Only 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal without exception.

Even GW Bush stipulated that abortion was acceptable in the case of rape/incest/danger to mother's life.

[SoConPubbie]

When the US was founded, there were indeed harsh penalties against sodomy (death, castration)… but nobody is going to win elections campaigning that such laws should be re-implemented. The majority of people in 2012 America are not comfortable with the idea of the Bible being a cornerstone of the law.

Don't be absurd.

Nobody, including myself, is advocating such nonsense, however, where Gay Marriage, and even the Gay Agenda parts that Mitt Romney chose to support this election cycle, Gays in the Military, Gays in the Boy Scouts and Gays Adopting, the overwhelming majority of his party, the GOP, do not support such positions.

This is one of the reasons Mitt Romney lost.

You don't insult your base, you don't support the things they consider sin, and then win the election.

Your suggestion, which amounts to little more than an attempt to walk away from the Social Issues, was proven an absolute disaster this election.

Why double-down on a failed course of direction?

[DBeers]

Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.

You are either a RINO or a Libertarian. Romney was more progressive leftist than McCain was.

I do not want Democrats out of office -I want leftists out of office EVEN GOP leftists!

[SoConPubbie]

Only 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal without exception.

Even GW Bush stipulated that abortion was acceptable in the case of rape/incest/danger to mother's life.

And yet there are recent polls that show that America at large, is getting more Pro-Life as we go along.

Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

If you look at polls in years before 2012 you'll see those gradually moving in the right direction. But there was a time when it was much greater than 50% in the wrong direction.

So, on an issue as important as the murdering of unborn babies, why would you not have us press the issue and continue to move the numbers in the right direction vs. the wrong direction?

Are you a Christian?

Do you consider yourself a conservative?

[CharlesMartelsGhost]

As this excerpt articulates well 2014 the Demorats Pyrrhic 2012 win will consume them.

“...But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.

Nationalized healthcare will only be fully implemented in 2014. Americans will only begin watching old men and women die because the federal government denied them lifesaving, but expensive treatments a year from now. They will only lose their doctors due to dwindling Medicare reimbursements in a year.

College students who got out the vote for Obama will only find themselves doomed to low-paying jobs and a life of indebtedness as they fail year in and year out to pay off their college loans, in a year or two. And by the time they realize what it means to be saddled with a national debt of $16 trillion, they will be locked into a government-controlled economy that requires them to keep their silence or lose their livelihoods...”

Full article: http://www.israpundit.com/archives/50569