Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Reactionary

In response to Reactionary posted by pink101:

I have stated my contention that the current state of Conservative Republicanism is based on advocacy of personal greed.

And speaking as a conservative....you are wrong.

I think it is easy to see with the skyrocketing national deficit spending that adds enormous debt while, at the same time, the hue and cry is for reduced taxes with claims that it all adds up to being good for the economy.

It IS a mistake to run up the debt AND cut taxes at the same time. I won't argue with you there. On the other hand...there IS merit to the premise that the more money you leave in the hands of businesses AND consumers, the more money is spent in the economy.

Next, the wars! The claims are that the wars are necessary to make America safe; but, with full knowledge that a war economy has always been good for business and that the business is part and parcel to the military industrial complex.

The World War II economy helped bring the USA out of the Depression. Was that a bad thing?

Check out the investment portfolios of Republicans who claim their "core beliefs" of faith are how they make their choices. I think you will see a definite trend toward investments in oil and armaments.

There are ALWAYS businesses and capitalists who profit from war. ALWAYS. Go back to every single war in American history - and you will see this. Does this invalidate all those wars? Does it mean that greed is the sole or primary motive of EVERYONE who was or is for a particular war? Was economic greed the sole or primary motive behind Abraham Lincoln's decision to raise troops to prevent the South from seceding? Was it? Was economic greed the sole or primary motive behind President James Madison's decision to ask for a declaration of war against Britain in 1812? (I think you'll find that those with economic motive OPPOSED the War of 1812). I could go on, but I don't have time. And I shouldn't need to.

Now, there is a bill being presented before Congress in which a special G.I. Bill is offered to provide educational benefits to veterans of the present wars. The opposition is all about how much it will cost taxpayers.

I don't know the details of this, so I wont' comment on that particular measure. However, let's deal with the overall principle. If someone proposed giving each and every veteran of the present wars a check for $1 million. Would you support it? Obviously, at some point, the cost to the taxpayers IS an issue, Pink.

Let's take it from the war to civilian life. I'm very pro-education. Particularly as a former full-time and now part-time teacher and part-time administrator. But would it be feasible for the US government to guarantee every public school teacher in America a salary of $100,000 a year (at minimum)?

The cost to the taxpayer IS a legitimate concern. It IS a legitimate factor.

As though the Republicans really give a hoot about how much anything costs the taxpayers as long as tax cuts can be made permanent and lowered even further still.

Interesting how you presume to interpret the thoughts, intentions, and motives of all Republicans.

When our society's economy is based on deficit spending, just who is benefiting from the interest we must pay on those bonds that are floated?

I agree with you that the deficit spending is bad policy.

We can argue over the use of the word, conservative, and claim that it is misused by the greedy; but, I doubt they will describe their position as one based on personal greed. They like to call themselves, Conservative.

Economically speaking, conservatives believe that people should keep more of their money and that the government should be kept in check. YOU interpret this as "greed." That's your right to do so, but you're wrong.

» Brian Tubbs - Interesting, but...

As a conservative, I've observed this discussion with some amusement. It's always amusing to see a bunch of liberals describe what "conservative" means.

I will say that, I think, Paper Turtle has tried to be fair in this discussion. I don't fully agree with her, obviously , but I appreciate her fairness.

But I'm not interested in inserting myself into this discussion as a punching bag for left-wing frustrations. So, carry on.

» pink101 - Reactionary

In response to Reactionary posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Wow!
.
Great post, Brian. I appreciate the effort you put into it.
.
I will respond in like manner; but, it won't be easy.
.
Give me some time. I will give you a comprehensive response in some detail.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary - # 1

In response to Reactionary posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I wrote, "
I have stated my contention that the current state of Conservative Republicanism is based on advocacy of personal greed.
And speaking as a conservative....you are wrong."
.
To which Brian responded, "
I have stated my contention that the current state of Conservative Republicanism is based on advocacy of personal greed.
And speaking as a conservative....you are wrong."
.
Perhaps you would be good enough to explain your belief on which you think the "current state of Conservative Republicanism is based."
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary - # 2.

In response to Reactionary posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I wrote, "I think it is easy to see with the skyrocketing national deficit spending that adds enormous debt while, at the same time, the hue and cry is for reduced taxes with claims that it all adds up to being good for the economy."
.
To which Brian responded, "It IS a mistake to run up the debt AND cut taxes at the same time. I won't argue with you there. On the other hand...there IS merit to the premise that the more money you leave in the hands of businesses AND consumers, the more money is spent in the economy. ."
.
I'm not exactly what you think you mean with your use of the word, merit. From my experience, the more money wealthy people have in their hands, the more they reach out to get. Look at the recent situation with Cerbeus and Chrysler. Look how General Motors has offered to buy out EVERY employee.
.
To say that someone is going to spend more money on the economy is to beg the questionas to what economy you are speaking--our national economy or the multinational economy. You've been brainwashed over a long period of time that capitalism is tantamount to democracy. It isn't--they are two distinctly different things.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary - # 3

In response to Reactionary posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I wrote, "Next, the wars! The claims are that the wars are necessary to make America safe; but, with full knowledge that a war economy has always been good for business and that the business is part and parcel to the military industrial complex."
.
To which Brian responded, "The World War II economy helped bring the USA out of the Depression. Was that a bad thing?"
.
And, you're the historian. Ever hear of the generals Fox Connor, Eisenhower, and Marshall? Yes, War is a bad thing.
.
A War economy is what we have at issue here, is it not?
.
War economies work! Why? Because he throws all costs aside for the purpose of producing a war machine. In Germany they called that the Wermacht if I'm not mistaken.
.
Taxes are raised and the products of manufacture are immediately expended. No expense is spared.
.
But, Americans hate war and they want them over as quickly as is possible. Even so, the present administration ignores the wisdom of the war professionals like Cox, Eisenhower, and Marshall in order to maintain a war economy. The problem has to do with outsourcing which points to my previous question, To which economy are you referring? The American economy or the New World Order Economy with is a feudal system that favors such multinationals as Haliburton.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary - # 4

In response to Reactionary posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I wrote, "Check out the investment portfolios of Republicans who claim their 'core beliefs' of faith are how they make their choices. I think you will see a definite trend toward investments in oil and armaments."
.
To which Brian responded, "There are ALWAYS businesses and capitalists who profit from war. ALWAYS. Go back to every single war in American history - and you will see this. Does this invalidate all those wars? Does it mean that greed is the sole or primary motive of EVERYONE who was or is for a particular war? Was economic greed the sole or primary motive behind Abraham Lincoln's decision to raise troops to prevent the South from seceding? Was it? Was economic greed the sole or primary motive behind President James Madison's decision to ask for a declaration of war against Britain in 1812? (I think you'll find that those with economic motive OPPOSED the War of 1812). I could go on, but I don't have time. And I shouldn't need to."
.
Well, you put the traditional spin on your response by raising Abraham Lincoln and James Madison.
.
But, YES, greed was involved in both of those wars. The greed of the slave holders is probably the most obvious of all. But, I don't expect that you will give me that answer. Abraham Lincoln did not want the war any more than James Madison wanted it. But, there were forces that DID want those wars because they would not back down from the progressive nature of civilizations drive into the future. The war of 1812 was about the relationships the United States would have in the future with Great Britain. And, those relationships had to do with the economic interests of the Brits. But, I guess you know that.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary - # 5

.
I wrote, "Now, there is a bill being presented before Congress in which a special G.I. Bill is offered to provide educational benefits to veterans of the present wars. The opposition is all about how much it will cost taxpayers."
.
To which Brian responded, "I don't know the details of this, so I wont' comment on that particular measure. However, let's deal with the overall principle. If someone proposed giving each and every veteran of the present wars a check for $1 million. Would you support it? Obviously, at some point, the cost to the taxpayers IS an issue, Pink.
.
"Let's take it from the war to civilian life. I'm very pro-education. Particularly as a former full-time and now part-time teacher and part-time administrator. But would it be feasible for the US government to guarantee every public school teacher in America a salary of $100,000 a year (at minimum)?
.
"The cost to the taxpayer IS a legitimate concern. It IS a legitimate factor."
.
I guess I'll just let your answer speak for itself. When WW II came to an end, a program known as 52/20 was put into effect along with an education and job training assistance program. The 52/20 was either $20.00 a week for 52 weeks or $52.00 a week for 20 weeks--the vets choice. Employers gave special precedence to vets over all others. There were special loans made available for home ownership, and free medical health care was promised for life through the V.A. facilities. College tuition and fees were covered. High Schools allowed enrollment of vets that needed a high school education. The taxpayers gladly supported the veteran assistance programs. And there had been a War Excise Tax on a variety of services over the duration of the war.
.
I think the payback into the economy was multiplied over the costs to be a great benefit.
.
And, as regards the cost to the taxpayer, perhaps you'd like to comment on the enormous costs of the present wars being waged by the Bush Administration. Your position of so-called conservatism on any costs to any taxpayers falls flat on its duff.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary - # 6

In response to Reactionary posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I wrote, "As though the Republicans really give a hoot about how much anything costs the taxpayers as long as tax cuts can be made permanent and lowered even further still."
.
To which Brian responded, "Interesting how you presume to interpret the thoughts, intentions, and motives of all Republicans.."
.
Isn't it a major hue and cry of ALL Republicans that lowering taxes is an important aspect of their politics? Didn't you apply to that earlier in your post saying that the more money you leave in the hands of the wealthy the more they put back into the economy? Or something to that effect?
.
Yes, you did.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Reactionary

.
I wrote, "When our society's economy is based on deficit spending, just who is benefiting from the interest we must pay on those bonds that are floated?"
.
To which Brian responded, "I agree with you that the deficit spending is bad policy."
..
Whew! Finally.
.

-- posted by pink101