Tell Congress to stop Rx greed and cut prescription drug prices now! Here’s how.

Reply
Moderator
2
Kudos
531
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

531 Views
Message 1 of 22

Thanks everyone for your contributions. This thread became off topic and interpersonal and resulted in breaches of AARP community guidleines, and is now locked.

 

The guidleines are here:

http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
531
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
613
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

613 Views
Message 2 of 22

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

ONE thing is for sure. Lying truly does seem to be a trait among Conservatives. They can't try to pass a tax plan without lying:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/who-benefits-mixed-messages-gop-tax-plan-n821891

 

 


And the Washington post gave Pinocchios. So, which left wing opinion source do you want to believe?

 

And speaking of legislation - "We have to pass it to see what's in it" .... I rest my case.


If a "case" is to be formed on facts .............. you have no case to rest.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
613
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
600
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

600 Views
Message 3 of 22

Has anyone yet seen the newest CNN blip about the apple being an apple regardless?  This one features an apple sitting all by itself on the same flat surface it always did.  From 'off-screen' on the 'right' comes one of those artificial teeth thingys that chatter madly and meander across whatever base you put them on. This set of teeth has a label....it says, "distractions".  The voice over says something like, "it's still an apple".  I'm not certain of the exact words, I only saw it once in the middle of the night.  Just want to be accurate, donchasee? 

 

Gotta give the guy that comes up with these things a bonus somehow.  They are worth their weight in 'bit-coins'.  Yeah, that's right...I saw somewhere that they are the new 'gold-standard' for investors. Was that 'snarky' or what?

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
600
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
608
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

608 Views
Message 4 of 22

@ChasKy53 wrote:

ONE thing is for sure. Lying truly does seem to be a trait among Conservatives. They can't try to pass a tax plan without lying:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/who-benefits-mixed-messages-gop-tax-plan-n821891

 

 


And the Washington post gave Pinocchios. So, which left wing opinion source do you want to believe?

 

And speaking of legislation - "We have to pass it to see what's in it" .... I rest my case.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
608
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
626
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

626 Views
Message 5 of 22

ONE thing is for sure. Lying truly does seem to be a trait among Conservatives. They can't try to pass a tax plan without lying:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/who-benefits-mixed-messages-gop-tax-plan-n821891

 

 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
626
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
621
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

621 Views
Message 6 of 22

Well now that some got THAT out of the way, anyone interested in discussing the actual topic?  Do we REALLY need such "HUGE" tax cuts all at once?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is very low, but we have a huge debt.  And cutting revenue "HUGELY" is the right answer?  If it is, what in the Hell is the question?  Since when did "tax reform", that is supported by both sides of the political spectrum, equal HUGE tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy?

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

Ok...got your attention with the headline, but it's a real question.

 

First, note it doesn't say "What's Wrong With Being A Conservative?"  That could be an interesting topic but this one is about the tax plan.

 

Secondly, let's get on the same page about the corporate tax rate.  It is, as many know, high at 35%.  Should the richest country in the world pay a high corp rate or a low rate?

 

According to Forbes Magazine, "Among profitable large companies, 19.5% paid no federal income taxes. The average effective tax rate among the profitable large corporations was 16.1%." 

 

AND.....

 

When we compare the US tax rate with the tax rate of other countries, do we understand that it's an unfair comparison?  Tax rates should be compared in relation to the size of the economy of the countries.  Do you agree?  If you do agree, then it may interest you to know that we are no where near the highest and fall into the middle of the pack.  If you don't agree that it's relevant, here's an informative and SHORT, article which may be enlightening:

 

Actual U.S. Corporate Tax Rates Are in Line with Comparable Countries

 

 

Additionally, Americans are being asked to swallow the narrative that corporate tax rate cuts WILL stimulate job growth AND wages, though may studies show it's not necessarily true.  In fact, we could agree (maybe) that the last "YUGE" tax cut was Bush's and it was soon followed by record setting job LOSSES and steepest decline in GDP since the depression.

 

Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth

 

 

 

Bush gave everyone a tax credit thinking it was going to stimulate the economy....people would spend more.  It didn't work.  80% of Americans said they paid down their debts vs. going out and purchasing something.  Most economists agree the US didn't get the bang for the buck. 

 

Did the 2008 Tax Rebates Stimulate Spending?

 

 

We also know one political party consistently expresses concern about the National Debt  Agreed?  

 

We could probably all agree that our debt today is obscene; over $20 trillion and counting...  Agree?

 

Now, that same party who constantly expresses concern of the debt, is now telling us that the debt really doesn't matter that much and it will decrease as the economy grows.  Sounds good, in theory, BUT, as indicated above it has proven to be the case.  Tax cuts under Reagan did indeed create job growth but there was a significant pent up demand at the time.  Tax  cuts DIDN'T stimulate job growth OR wage growth under Bush.....or grow much at all, previously prior to Reagan.

 

So, why aren't we addressing this issue in a more conservative (meaning cautious) manner?  Why aren't we dropping the corporate rate slowly to determine it's impact each year?  Why aren't we linking, on an annual basis, following year tax cuts based on this years impact?  In other words, suppose we reduce corporate tax rates by 5% and say we expect GDP of "X", job growth of "Y" and wage growth of "Z" and wait one OR two years and if the goals are achieved or exceeded, the following year the corporate tax rate will be cut another 5% (or whatever) or raised if necessary keeping in mind the current average rate is already under 20%?  Tie future tax rates, both corporate and individual based on current indicators.  Does that make any sense?  It works pretty well for the COLA.  We can adjust the indicators when necessary, as we should be doing with the COLA, understanding they will be adjusted differently by whomever has control of the WH and Congress at the time (elections have consequences). But just taking such a HUGE leap and making very important predictions of results has proven to be foolish many times in the past.  Isn't that "Washington as usual"?  Why is anything related to tax revenue permanent?  Shouldn't it be based on current needs, economic conditions?  If it was tied to these factors, we could mitigate all the political wrangling about whose going to be taxed higher, whose going to be taxed less, who gets this tax break, etc.

 

Wouldn't it make far more sense to take a "conservative" approach and not just believe the Conservatives?  Doesn't it?  Because if the economy doesn't grow as advertised, the debt will grow "Yugely"  Why make anything "permanent" and just hope based on a theory that's shown not to be accurate more often than not?  Many companies are saying they'll take their savings and pay it to share holders.  Not a bad business strategy, but it's not the effect Conservatives are selling.  Shouldn't we, as a country, be smarter than that?


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
621
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
619
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

619 Views
Message 7 of 22

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

See....problem is that some, not all you understand, claiming to be conservatives really are not.what that means. Those who do that unknowingly have to be considered ignorant at some level.  Those who do it knowingly have to be doing it deliberately with full intent to deceive.  What they say, why they say it, when they say it, how they say it where they say it and to whom they say it doesn't matter much.  An intentional falsehood made with deliberate intent to deceive is a lie is a lie is a lie. That's a comment about actions without attribution to any one particular person or group of people.  

 

If anyone chooses to crawl in under that umbrella, so be it.  I suppose you could also say if the shoe fits, and it suits you, go ahead and wear it. Your decision whoever you might happen to be.


What is your definition of a Conservative except someone who doesn't lie?


Well...this seems like deja vue all over again.  As I recall, you were trashing 'liberals' some time ago and I gave specific definitions for 'liberal' and 'conservative' just so everyone could be on the same page for once. I take it you've forgotten. 

 

It did seem to me people were talking past one another.  When that happens what they really meant to say just wasn't getting through. It also struck me that that actual meaning was being deliberately distorted in order to increase the impact to a specific segment of the population at large.  That seemed disingenuous to me, something guaranteed to divide and not unite. It was abhorrent then and it is now.

 

But, I'll play with you on this one more time because it does suit my purposes and you presented the opportunity.  Foolishly, I'd say, but that's not my problem.  Oh, and as usual, the definition comes from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, the one often used for legal references when such things are called for.  You know, the clause legal documents use that says something to the effect that whereever a term is not defined herein it shall be as defined by...........and here they insert the authority they intend to be used when needed.  So....one more time.

 

'conservatism'  a.  1.  the disposition to preserve what is established and to promote gradual development rather than abrupt change.  2.  the principles and practices of political conservatives, esp. pf the British Conservative party; Toryism.

 

'Conservative' adj.  1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions etc.; and to agree with gradual rather than abrupt change.  2.  cautiously moderate; a conservative estimate.  3.   traditional in style or manner; avoiding showiness.  4.  of or pertaining to the Conservative party.  5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism;  6.  having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative;  7.  math [irrelevant here]  8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits etc.  9.  a member of a coservative political party esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.  [the rest is redundant] 

 

Now, I said before that you were not a 'Conservative', the term 'radical' being the more accurate term to use, especialy the word 'extreme'.   Nothing has changed. It is not I who have caused the term 'conservative' to lose the honor it once meant when used.  You did that.

 

Oh, the definitions of 'liberal' and 'radical' will be found in the same source. It's the one I habitually use especially when engaging with people who either don't know what a word means or wilfully distort what they actually do mean for their own purposes, communication not being one of them.

 

I hope that is as complete as necessary.  It is the only answer you will get.

 


I hope you understand that my response was to the post cited, not your past dictionary definitions.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
619
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
643
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

643 Views
Message 8 of 22

@rk9152 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

See....problem is that some, not all you understand, claiming to be conservatives really are not.what that means. Those who do that unknowingly have to be considered ignorant at some level.  Those who do it knowingly have to be doing it deliberately with full intent to deceive.  What they say, why they say it, when they say it, how they say it where they say it and to whom they say it doesn't matter much.  An intentional falsehood made with deliberate intent to deceive is a lie is a lie is a lie. That's a comment about actions without attribution to any one particular person or group of people.  

 

If anyone chooses to crawl in under that umbrella, so be it.  I suppose you could also say if the shoe fits, and it suits you, go ahead and wear it. Your decision whoever you might happen to be.


What is your definition of a Conservative except someone who doesn't lie?


Well...this seems like deja vue all over again.  As I recall, you were trashing 'liberals' some time ago and I gave specific definitions for 'liberal' and 'conservative' just so everyone could be on the same page for once. I take it you've forgotten. 

 

It did seem to me people were talking past one another.  When that happens what they really meant to say just wasn't getting through. It also struck me that that actual meaning was being deliberately distorted in order to increase the impact to a specific segment of the population at large.  That seemed disingenuous to me, something guaranteed to divide and not unite. It was abhorrent then and it is now.

 

But, I'll play with you on this one more time because it does suit my purposes and you presented the opportunity.  Foolishly, I'd say, but that's not my problem.  Oh, and as usual, the definition comes from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, the one often used for legal references when such things are called for.  You know, the clause legal documents use that says something to the effect that whereever a term is not defined herein it shall be as defined by...........and here they insert the authority they intend to be used when needed.  So....one more time.

 

'conservatism'  a.  1.  the disposition to preserve what is established and to promote gradual development rather than abrupt change.  2.  the principles and practices of political conservatives, esp. pf the British Conservative party; Toryism.

 

'Conservative' adj.  1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions etc.; and to agree with gradual rather than abrupt change.  2.  cautiously moderate; a conservative estimate.  3.   traditional in style or manner; avoiding showiness.  4.  of or pertaining to the Conservative party.  5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism;  6.  having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative;  7.  math [irrelevant here]  8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits etc.  9.  a member of a coservative political party esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.  [the rest is redundant] 

 

Now, I said before that you were not a 'Conservative', the term 'radical' being the more accurate term to use, especialy the word 'extreme'.   Nothing has changed. It is not I who have caused the term 'conservative' to lose the honor it once meant when used.  You did that.

 

Oh, the definitions of 'liberal' and 'radical' will be found in the same source. It's the one I habitually use especially when engaging with people who either don't know what a word means or wilfully distort what they actually do mean for their own purposes, communication not being one of them.

 

I hope that is as complete as necessary.  It is the only answer you will get.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
643
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
656
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

656 Views
Message 9 of 22

@MIseker wrote:
limbauh/fox/hannity /tea party conservatives. the party of no. if people need something, call em losers. perpetuate the class war. I remember when republican didnt do that. before hate radio, consevative was a brand of Republican. Now, most self called conservatives are acolytes of hate and divisive speech.


Well, if there is a movement towards neoMarxism saying "no" seems quite conservative as well as very logical. It seems some approve of saying "no" to others exercising their free speech rights even to the point of supporting masked, armed thugs in the street.

 

I have heard of no one calling everyone who needs something "losers". 

 

"Class warfare" - what do you suppose the call for wealth redistribution is?

 

"Divisive speech" - what do you suppose dividing us for political purposes is? Look at some of our posters calling "All live matter" racist. How divisive can you get!!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
656
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
655
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

655 Views
Message 10 of 22

@alferdpacker wrote:

@bkohatl wrote:

Nationally known Libertarian and Conservative John Stossel illustrates the point better than anything else I can think of. All during the Hurricane Katrina Disaster in 2005, he excoriated the US Government for helping the people in its wake. Basically, Republican Stossel said, it is your problem, shut up. Now, the punchline, in 2012 when Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey. Mr. Stossel has a vacation house in New Jersey? Now guess who was among the first to apply, very quietly, for aid from the Federal Government. Yes, the man who was nothing but cold-blooded to the 100,000's suffering from Katrina, sought as a millionaire to be the first at the trough for his very expensive vacation home. That is the way it always works. I would love to meet a "Conservative" who would say the former, but not do the latter. 


White supremacists, white nationalists, alt-right, KKK, Nazis, Birchers, Libertarians, etc, etc, are also unquestionably conservatives who - just like trump - suck.

 

Oh yes - conservatives have to lie to support their inherent dishonesy...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
655
Views