Why should peole believe in Conservatism?

bravo said:
Lets be truthful here,....the reason you reject Conservatives is because you have a skewed, far left view of what it is, its motives, it goals and its values....simply put, you're a pinhead....your belief system is driven by mediamatters, the huffingtonpost, Chris Matthews and the chief Peckerhead, Sir Olbermann the Asshole....

You were probably raised by Democrats, and brainwashed by the liberal public school system, never generating an original political idea of you own....in a word, a lemming....a follower, waiting to be told what to think and what conclusions you should come to for your own good.....


You can't even use simple logic and reason why the economy did what it did in those early Bush years....probably never heard of 9/11 and can't fathom the strain it put on the US economy and how it affected us for years.....
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary. I was raised by a physician who WAS a pro-business Republican (and is now a pro business Democrat). I was a Republican for 23 years and was actively involved with recruiting for the Repbulican party when I was in college and I was a member of the young Republicans. I probably know more about Republican party politics and policy then you do. In fact, I would call your response a case of psychological projection. I've just provided you with lucidly analyzed objective data from sources that, if anything, have a pro-conservative bias. It is you who is unable to look the data in the eye and draw the inevitable conclusion of, "Well the facts prove that this (supply side economics) does not work.". So if anyone is a "lemming" and a follower being told what to do, it is you.

As for your irrational and emotional appeal to the 911 attacks. This is pretty much the standard and lame rebuttal to these facts refuting supply side economics/Reaganomics by right wing conservatives (well that and calling people traitors). If you have any iota of objectivity or analytical skill you'd have to draw this conclusion. If the 911 attacks were such a drain on the economy then why did the economy grow at an average rate of 2.5% for the 4 years after the attacks? According to supply side theory even this modest increase in the economy, combined with the Bush tax cuts, should have resulted in increased Federal revenues. Why didn't it? Can you explain that?

I can. It's because supply side economics/Reaganomics doesn't work.
 
bravo said:
I'm not here to educate the dude...to try to overcome years of liberal ideas crammed into his skull....thats a useless endeavor....I'm just telling him why I believe he thinks the way the thinks...
He can't change, he won't change...he'll always be a liberal and always be a Democrat....thats just the way it is.....I know hundreds just like him.....
Click to expand...
Ahh but you're wrong. I was a republican for 23 years. I only switched to becoming a Democrat when that moron Bush invaded Iraq and the Republican party walked lock step with him into that immoral debacle. I pointed out before the invasion of Iraq that it would be a debacle and why it would be a debacle and I was called a traitor for doing so. Turned out I was right and took no little pleasure in telling wing nuts like you "I told you so."

So that's just more evidence about how you base almost all your arguments on false assumption.

But don't kid your self. I didn't leave the Republican party or my principles. It was republicans who decided that right wing extremist, like you, were more important then more moderate and mainstream people like myself. It was the Republican party that left me.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Quite the contrary. I was raised by a physician who WAS a pro-business Republican (and is now a pro business Democrat). I was a Republican for 23 years and was actively involved with recruiting for the Repbulican party when I was in college and I was a member of the young Republicans. I probably know more about Republican party politics and policy then you do. In fact, I would call your response a case of psychological projection. I've just provided you with lucidly analyzed objective data from sources that, if anything, have a pro-conservative bias. It is you who is unable to look the data in the eye and draw the inevitable conclusion of, "Well the facts prove that this (supply side economics) does not work.". So if anyone is a "lemming" and a follower being told what to do, it is you.

As for your irrational and emotional appeal to the 911 attacks. This is pretty much the standard and lame rebuttal to these facts refuting supply side economics/Reaganomics by right wing conservatives (well that and calling people traitors). If you have any iota of objectivity or analytical skill you'd have to draw this conclusion. If the 911 attacks were such a drain on the economy then why did the economy grow at an average rate of 2.5% for the 4 years after the attacks? According to supply side theory even this modest increase in the economy, combined with the Bush tax cuts, should have resulted in increased Federal revenues. Why didn't it? Can you explain that?

I can. It's because supply side economics/Reaganomics doesn't work.
Click to expand...

What type of economics do work?
 
bravo said:
Some 50,000+ people worked in the World Trade Center, New York, while another 200,000 visited or passed through each day. The complex had its own zip code, 10048.
The WTC was one of most important business and banking centers in the world...an integral part of the US economy....

May 2001, unemployment rate at 4.1%
The aftermath of 9/11 effectively froze the nation's economy. And President Bush enacted his first round of tax cuts.

In spite of this devastating terrorist attack, SEVEN out of the eight Bush years enjoyed an awesome economy....exceptionally low unemployment and lower taxes FOR EVERYONE, rich and poor alike....

And thats just the way is was...its FACT, undeniable FACT......(Note...a Democrats took over Congress in the last year of Bush, 2008)

Gross National Income in PPP dollars (Gross National Income, expressed in purchasing power parity dollars to adjust for price level differences across countries) rose from 10 trillion in 2001 to almost 15 trillion in 2008....
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gnp_mktp_pp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gnp
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call 2.5% growth "AWESOME".

Let me ask you this then, if what you're saying is true then how comes that combination of economic growth and tax cuts resulted in some of the largest deficits in our nations history? Why is that? If what you're saying is true, and supply side economics/Reaganomics works, why wasn't there a Federal surplus?
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I think most reasonable people would agree that the Keynesian system is a time tested and proven one. Supply side economics/Reaganomics has as much validity as dielectic economic policy, which is to say, none.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people better versed than I to discuss monetary issues but I don't think being reasonable has anything to do with showing Keynesian economics is not the best economic system. And then to argue that freer markets and lower taxes has no validity? Sorry, not with you on that one.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry but you either haven't been paying attention or you were in a coma during the Bush years. Republicans have talked about government spending but what they mostly have done is borrow and spend because their basic fundamental policy, i.e. supply side economics/Reaganomics simply doesn't work. The only difference between conservative fiscal policy and far left liberal fiscal policy is what they spend the money on. Not how much they spend.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sorry Mott, where did I say I was a republican? Or that the previous administrations were fiscally conservative? No where? Really? Not a damned spot? Huh that's odd, because it would mean you're argument doesn't hold much water.....
 
bravo said:
Lets be truthful here,....the reason you reject Conservatives is because you have a skewed, far left view of what it is, its motives, it goals and its values....simply put, you're a pinhead....your belief system is driven by mediamatters, the huffingtonpost, Chris Matthews and the chief Peckerhead, Sir Olbermann the Asshole....

You were probably raised by Democrats, and brainwashed by the liberal public school system, never generating an original political idea of you own....in a word, a lemming....a follower, waiting to be told what to think and what conclusions you should come to for your own good.....


You can't even use simple logic and reason why the economy did what it did in those early Bush years....probably never heard of 9/11 and can't fathom the strain it put on the US economy and how it affected us for years.....
Click to expand...

That is by far the finest answer to a ":special post" by a Mr. Liberal that I've ever had the privilege to read! :good4u:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Quite the contrary. I was raised by a physician who WAS a pro-business Republican (and is now a pro business Democrat). I was a Republican for 23 years and was actively involved with recruiting for the Repbulican party when I was in college and I was a member of the young Republicans. I probably know more about Republican party politics and policy then you do. In fact, I would call your response a case of psychological projection. I've just provided you with lucidly analyzed objective data from sources that, if anything, have a pro-conservative bias. It is you who is unable to look the data in the eye and draw the inevitable conclusion of, "Well the facts prove that this (supply side economics) does not work.". So if anyone is a "lemming" and a follower being told what to do, it is you.

As for your irrational and emotional appeal to the 911 attacks. This is pretty much the standard and lame rebuttal to these facts refuting supply side economics/Reaganomics by right wing conservatives (well that and calling people traitors). If you have any iota of objectivity or analytical skill you'd have to draw this conclusion. If the 911 attacks were such a drain on the economy then why did the economy grow at an average rate of 2.5% for the 4 years after the attacks? According to supply side theory even this modest increase in the economy, combined with the Bush tax cuts, should have resulted in increased Federal revenues. Why didn't it? Can you explain that?

I can. It's because supply side economics/Reaganomics doesn't work.
Click to expand...
So, you were a republican, but never believed in the platform? You believe in Keynesian system? Reaganomics don't work, but it took Bush's invasion of Iraq to change your mind about Republican fiscal policy?

Are you an idiot?

Or are you just a liar?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry but you either haven't been paying attention or you were in a coma during the Bush years. Republicans have talked about government spending but what they mostly have done is borrow and spend because their basic fundamental policy, i.e. supply side economics/Reaganomics simply doesn't work. The only difference between conservative fiscal policy and far left liberal fiscal policy is what they spend the money on. Not how much they spend.
Click to expand...
Typical dumb-assed bullshit mistake of the liberal - assuming Republican policies have been fiscally conservative. Never mind the almost incessant complaints from conservatives about how republicans - especially under GW - spend too damned much. You completely ignore 8 years of bitter complaints from fiscal conservatives about how the republican party has betrayed fiscal conservatism. But like all liberal democrats, you assume that if democrats are fiscal liberals, then republicans are automatically fiscal conservatives. Well, they may RUN on that principle, but they sure as hell do not ACT on that principle.

IF (and franlky, I doubt it) you were ever actually registered republican, it was probably to please your republican Daddy. But from the straight-from-the-donkey's-ass anti-conservatism crap you spew on a daily basis, it is obvious you have always been a far left liberal.
 
cawacko said:
There are plenty of people better versed than I to discuss monetary issues but I don't think being reasonable has anything to do with showing Keynesian economics is not the best economic system. And then to argue that freer markets and lower taxes has no validity? Sorry, not with you on that one.
Click to expand...
Don't put words in my mouth Wacko. I didn't say that. What I've said is "Supply Side Economics/Reaganomics doesn't work". Which is true. We've had pretty strong recent evidence of where a lack of regulation will get you in the so called "Free Market" that went a long way towards supporting the Kenysian point of view.
 
Good Luck said:
So, you were a republican, but never believed in the platform? You believe in Keynesian system? Reaganomics don't work, but it took Bush's invasion of Iraq to change your mind about Republican fiscal policy?

Are you an idiot?

Or are you just a liar?
Click to expand...
Maybe I was an idiot for believing in it in the first place. Iraq wasn't the only reason why I switched sides. Let's say it was the straw that broke the Camels back. I made two points with that post. #1. I'm not the wing nut liberal ideologue Pavo is accusing me of, he in fact is the right wingnut. #2. I'm capable of looking at cold hard facts and based upon those facts concluding "Hey I'm wrong about this." Which I was about Supply Side Economics. It is a fiscal system that does not work. The facts prove that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Maybe I was an idiot for believing in it in the first place. Iraq wasn't the only reason why I switched sides. Let's say it was the straw that broke the Camels back. I made two points with that post. #1. I'm not the wing nut liberal ideologue Pavo is accusing me of, he in fact is the right wingnut. #2. I'm capable of looking at cold hard facts and based upon those facts concluding "Hey I'm wrong about this." Which I was about Supply Side Economics. It is a fiscal system that does not work. The facts prove that.
Click to expand...

Is supply side economics the same as capitalism? And are those the same failed policies of the past eight years, that bush alone agreed with?
 
Good Luck said:
Typical dumb-assed bullshit mistake of the liberal - assuming Republican policies have been fiscally conservative. Never mind the almost incessant complaints from conservatives about how republicans - especially under GW - spend too damned much. You completely ignore 8 years of bitter complaints from fiscal conservatives about how the republican party has betrayed fiscal conservatism. But like all liberal democrats, you assume that if democrats are fiscal liberals, then republicans are automatically fiscal conservatives. Well, they may RUN on that principle, but they sure as hell do not ACT on that principle.

IF (and franlky, I doubt it) you were ever actually registered republican, it was probably to please your republican Daddy. But from the straight-from-the-donkey's-ass anti-conservatism crap you spew on a daily basis, it is obvious you have always been a far left liberal.
Click to expand...
And Zoom was pretty spot on with his rebuttal to Pavo. Faced with the facts and drawing objective conclusion based on those facts that contradict your right wing world view you just go with the ad hom attacks.

What about the questions I asked? Why are you conservatives running from them? Why are you supporting an economic system which has been aptly demonstrated, doesn't work? (and throwing Bushco under the bus aint gonna work here)

I'll repeat the question again. Based upon the principles of supply side economics/Reaganomics, why would there be a decrease in Federal revenues if the economy is growing and we cut taxes?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Is supply side economics the same as capitalism? And are those the same failed policies of the past eight years, that bush alone agreed with?
Click to expand...
I'm not an economist but I think it would be safe to say that SSE/Reaganomics is just one point of view and would not be defined as the whole of capitalism.
 
Moot you just accused me of racism again. You were beat down to a bloody pulp last time for that transgression. When are you going to learn? :pke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top