Comments on: Q&a http://www.frumforum.com/qa Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: bbbeard http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-48447 bbbeard Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:54:36 +0000 #comment-48447 To which the obvious rejoinder is, "But do you want him to succeed?" Your answer is a dodge, and even Katie Couric would make you look like a fool. What Would Reagan Do? Would he really say, "Yes, of course, I want Mr. Obama to succeed?" Or do you think he would come up with a wonkish answer about marginal tax rates? Or do you think he would find a more charming way to say what Rush has said? "Well, some folks would like you to think that's the important question. I think the question is whether he's taking us in the right direction, and I don't think he is." David, the question is a rhetorical gambit. It poses the rainbow of policy choices in Manichean terms: either you are with us or against us. "If you want Obama to succeed, you must vote for his agenda. Otherwise in two years we will hoist you under the banner of hypocrisy: 'Senator Legghorn claimed he wanted our President to succeed. Than why did he vote against Barack Obama seventy-one times? Can Legghorn really be trusted?' " Rush called this bluff. I think his strategy will work better than yours. The question is: why are you allowing Democrats to frame the agenda? Because Obama is handsome and appeals to women? Sometimes I worry about you.... BBB To which the obvious rejoinder is, “But do you want him to succeed?” Your answer is a dodge, and even Katie Couric would make you look like a fool.

What Would Reagan Do? Would he really say, “Yes, of course, I want Mr. Obama to succeed?” Or do you think he would come up with a wonkish answer about marginal tax rates? Or do you think he would find a more charming way to say what Rush has said? “Well, some folks would like you to think that’s the important question. I think the question is whether he’s taking us in the right direction, and I don’t think he is.”

David, the question is a rhetorical gambit. It poses the rainbow of policy choices in Manichean terms: either you are with us or against us. “If you want Obama to succeed, you must vote for his agenda. Otherwise in two years we will hoist you under the banner of hypocrisy: ‘Senator Legghorn claimed he wanted our President to succeed. Than why did he vote against Barack Obama seventy-one times? Can Legghorn really be trusted?’ ”

Rush called this bluff. I think his strategy will work better than yours. The question is: why are you allowing Democrats to frame the agenda? Because Obama is handsome and appeals to women? Sometimes I worry about you….

BBB

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-52761 JJWFromME Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:02:06 +0000 #comment-52761 "There are changing normative behaviors in the US with the erosion of property rights as people end up living in homes they didn't pay for." Well, who pushed the the mortgages on them? This was a great show on that topic: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1242 Who made this all possible? Mr. Deregulation himself:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil “There are changing normative behaviors in the US with the erosion of property rights as people end up living in homes they didn’t pay for.” Well, who pushed the the mortgages on them? This was a great show on that topic: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1242
Who made this all possible? Mr. Deregulation himself:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil

]]> By: KZ http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-53145 KZ Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:53:31 +0000 #comment-53145 Great power curve-up In embryo, no! We cannot hope to understand this enormous upheaval without first ascertaining the social and political consequences. There are changing normative behaviors in the US with the erosion of property rights as people end up living in homes they didn't pay for. We have a rabble in this country that will plunder everything that comes into their view. Because of the uncertain validity of their legal claims to their new homes they are anxious for political protection. As Obama gins up support for his budget (a crucible of socialist change) he will seek their support because many of these squatters from the outset were from the dependent class. A classic quid pro quo here... We cannot allow for this great power curve-up to become comprehensive because capitalism is the present and the future of America not sweeping Marxist socio-economic reforms. Great power curve-up

In embryo, no! We cannot hope to understand this enormous upheaval without first ascertaining the social and political consequences.

There are changing normative behaviors in the US with the erosion of property rights as people end up living in homes they didn’t pay for. We have a rabble in this country that will plunder everything that comes into their view. Because of the uncertain validity of their legal claims to their new homes they are anxious for political protection.

As Obama gins up support for his budget (a crucible of socialist change) he will seek their support because many of these squatters from the outset were from the dependent class. A classic quid pro quo here…

We cannot allow for this great power curve-up to become comprehensive because capitalism is the present and the future of America not sweeping Marxist socio-economic reforms.

]]> By: Mr.Conservative http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-54418 Mr.Conservative Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:52:47 +0000 #comment-54418 Semantics--I want President Obama's PLANS to fail in so far as he is creating a socialist state, destroying capitalism, subverting freedom and weakening our foreign policy standing (the letter to the Russians and their response, please, this is Jimmy Carter, part deux) If he changes course and begins to obey fundamental laws of economics, respect free markets, encourage wealth building and projects strength in foreign policy, this I pray President Obama SUCEEDS. There. Clear enough? David, did Bush's critics not personalize their criticism. It was never "Bush's plan failed" it was always, "Bush is a moron, Bush can't speak well, Bush's hubris turns off allies" blah, blah, blah Semantics–I want President Obama’s PLANS to fail in so far as he is creating a socialist state, destroying capitalism, subverting freedom and weakening our foreign policy standing (the letter to the Russians and their response, please, this is Jimmy Carter, part deux)

If he changes course and begins to obey fundamental laws of economics, respect free markets, encourage wealth building and projects strength in foreign policy, this I pray President Obama SUCEEDS.

There. Clear enough?

David, did Bush’s critics not personalize their criticism. It was never “Bush’s plan failed” it was always, “Bush is a moron, Bush can’t speak well, Bush’s hubris turns off allies” blah, blah, blah

]]> By: petty boozshwa http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-45910 petty boozshwa Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:27:34 +0000 #comment-45910 We need to be a proposition party, not an opposition party. Specific suggestions with dollar amounts of savings attached will be required until we wash off the stigma of incompetence GWB has bequeathed us. A couple of examples: I believe I've read that 27% of the inmates in our federal prisons are illegal aliens - the most notorious today is the repeat offender just charged with murdering Chandra Levy. Why not a treaty with some Central American or Caribbean country to incarcerate these parasites at $20,000 a year? With no return to the USA after discharge. Another example: anybody conceiving and bearing a child while on public assistance will be docked any social security contributions above minimum wage until the debt is repaid. This goes for father and mother, and grandparents if the principals are under 18. If the debt isn't repaid those contributors are barred from receiving benefits until 72 years old. We need to be a proposition party, not an opposition party. Specific suggestions with dollar amounts of savings attached will be required until we wash off the stigma of incompetence GWB has bequeathed us. A couple of examples: I believe I’ve read that 27% of the inmates in our federal prisons are illegal aliens – the most notorious today is the repeat offender just charged with murdering Chandra Levy. Why not a treaty with some Central American or Caribbean country to incarcerate these parasites at $20,000 a year? With no return to the USA after discharge. Another example: anybody conceiving and bearing a child while on public assistance will be docked any social security contributions above minimum wage until the debt is repaid. This goes for father and mother, and grandparents if the principals are under 18. If the debt isn’t repaid those contributors are barred from receiving benefits until 72 years old.

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-42562 JJWFromME Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:46:49 +0000 #comment-42562 sinz54:"We know that the unemployment rate is a *lagging* indicator of the health of the economy" I told you this before. Unemployment contributes to the bad economy. The reason why the called Reagan economists "supply siders" is that before that there were "demand siders" (although they didn't call them that). Go look up Keynes. This is settled economics. By the way Sinz, looks like you made it onto Dave Roberts blog at Gristmill: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/2/03623/14188 sinz54:”We know that the unemployment rate is a *lagging* indicator of the health of the economy” I told you this before. Unemployment contributes to the bad economy. The reason why the called Reagan economists “supply siders” is that before that there were “demand siders” (although they didn’t call them that). Go look up Keynes. This is settled economics. By the way Sinz, looks like you made it onto Dave Roberts blog at Gristmill: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/2/03623/14188

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-44991 JJWFromME Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:17:04 +0000 #comment-44991 jlloyd: "since the warfare itself is the ultimate goal." No that was the *conservative* intent of *its* class warfare: http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/2009/01/wingnut-welfares-manifesto-new-class.html But we're just trying to solve the problems. Go read Kirk and de Tocqueville and tell me they don't say modern industrial society can cause problems. That's why the New Deal happened. Minimum wage, the five day workweek, unemployment insurance, etc. Now we've got *different* problems. Climate change, unaffordable healthcare, education needs in a competitive world economy, etc. ...And I don't think he's doing much more than returning tax rates back to where they were in the previous decade. jlloyd: “since the warfare itself is the ultimate goal.” No that was the *conservative* intent of *its* class warfare:
http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/2009/01/wingnut-welfares-manifesto-new-class.html
But we’re just trying to solve the problems. Go read Kirk and de Tocqueville and tell me they don’t say modern industrial society can cause problems. That’s why the New Deal happened. Minimum wage, the five day workweek, unemployment insurance, etc. Now we’ve got *different* problems. Climate change, unaffordable healthcare, education needs in a competitive world economy, etc. …And I don’t think he’s doing much more than returning tax rates back to where they were in the previous decade.

]]> By: jlloyd http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-41342 jlloyd Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:52:34 +0000 #comment-41342 Sinz - Obama campaigns and governs with centrist platitudes. What I intended was that not only should conservatives get some explicit statement of intent from the left when defining success (and often, that is enough to expose their true nature- e.g. "spreading the wealth, eliminating coal, causing electricity to skyrocket, etc.), but once they commit, we can get them to explain how they intend to achieve their success. We now see the "how" - endless expansion of government, enormous debt (which is by definition un-democratic, since most of those who will wind up paying aren't voters, or even born yet), subsidizing inefficiency and punishing productivity. Ultimately, it is all endless class warfare, which will never result in success, since the warfare itself is the ultimate goal. Sinz –
Obama campaigns and governs with centrist platitudes. What I intended was that not only should conservatives get some explicit statement of intent from the left when defining success (and often, that is enough to expose their true nature- e.g. “spreading the wealth, eliminating coal, causing electricity to skyrocket, etc.), but once they commit, we can get them to explain how they intend to achieve their success. We now see the “how” – endless expansion of government, enormous debt (which is by definition un-democratic, since most of those who will wind up paying aren’t voters, or even born yet), subsidizing inefficiency and punishing productivity. Ultimately, it is all endless class warfare, which will never result in success, since the warfare itself is the ultimate goal.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-47176 sinz54 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:33:58 +0000 #comment-47176 jlloyd sez: "I also think we should turn the question around to ask what the President views as success." Having some experience with other liberals, I'm sure I know how he would answer: He considers "success" as reducing the unemployment rate and putting the unemployed back to work. But we conservatives know better. We know that the unemployment rate is a *lagging* indicator of the health of the economy; the economy can be recovering even when unemployment remains high, as it did throughout most of Reagan's first term. Thus if your policies are all geared toward putting people to work, you are liable to come up with all kinds of short-term make-work schemes that may pay people to show up, but won't grow the private sector, which in the long term is the true engine of job creation. However, I realize that's a tough argument to make in times of high unemployment. It asks Americans to have patience and wait for longer-term solutions to kick in. Americans were willing to give President Reagan's program a chance to work, even if it took years--because back then, the debacles of the Carter presidency had made Americans more trusting of Republicans than Democrats. That's no longer true today. jlloyd sez: “I also think we should turn the question around to ask what the President views as success.” Having some experience with other liberals, I’m sure I know how he would answer: He considers “success” as reducing the unemployment rate and putting the unemployed back to work. But we conservatives know better. We know that the unemployment rate is a *lagging* indicator of the health of the economy; the economy can be recovering even when unemployment remains high, as it did throughout most of Reagan’s first term. Thus if your policies are all geared toward putting people to work, you are liable to come up with all kinds of short-term make-work schemes that may pay people to show up, but won’t grow the private sector, which in the long term is the true engine of job creation. However, I realize that’s a tough argument to make in times of high unemployment. It asks Americans to have patience and wait for longer-term solutions to kick in. Americans were willing to give President Reagan’s program a chance to work, even if it took years–because back then, the debacles of the Carter presidency had made Americans more trusting of Republicans than Democrats. That’s no longer true today.

]]> By: Republitarian http://www.frumforum.com/qa/comment-page-1#comment-49316 Republitarian Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:04:13 +0000 #comment-49316 It's amateur hour at the GOP. Instead of talking up things like the tax holiday or the importance of reduced capital gains in stimulating investment, they're like trout to newly tied flies taking every piece of bait the Whitehouse throws at them. It's pathetic. The Republicans had better find a message (any message other than defending Rush Limbaugh) and stick to it. Or, it's going to be a blood bath for the GOP in 2010. It’s amateur hour at the GOP. Instead of talking up things like the tax holiday or the importance of reduced capital gains in stimulating investment, they’re like trout to newly tied flies taking every piece of bait the Whitehouse throws at them. It’s pathetic. The Republicans had better find a message (any message other than defending Rush Limbaugh) and stick to it. Or, it’s going to be a blood bath for the GOP in 2010.

]]>