The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

[icanhelp1]

I think it's essential. We're $38 trillion in debt and we just keep adding debt. We need to cut spending.

When you run a deficit, there are only three things to do: raise taxes (which may help in the short term, but are a net negative long term), borrow (how we got this huge debt), or just create money out of nothing (inflation.) All of those are harmful.

The only alternative is to cut spending wherever you can. We need a major reduction in government, especially at the Federal level.

Try cutting spending with democrats. Dems went bullshit bat crazy over DOGE.

 

[SkyBubble]

I think we should have a flat tax. IMHO

Better than what we hvae. I'd lvoe to do without income taxes at all.

 

[SkyBubble]

If you ever hear a pol promise to solve budget problems by eliminating waste, ask if he intends to solve energy problems by eliminating friction.

There is plenty of waste, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can start there, though.

 

[Wilson23]

The only alternative is to cut spending wherever you can. We need a major reduction in government, especially at the Federal level.

That's the kind of "austerity" measures the IMF demands as a condition for loans. No country in the world has ever benefited from them.

 

[Wilson23]

Try cutting spending with democrats. Dems went bullshit bat crazy over DOGE.

It's obvious now -- even to you -- that that was the only rational reaction to DOGE.

 

[SkyBubble]

No, the IMF (which I would withdraw from) includes increasing taxes in their so-called "austerity."

And you're wrong again about no country benefitting. You embarrass yourself with every post.

 

[Wilson23]

IOW, you don't have the intellectual capacity to consider any information that contradicts your preconceived narrative.

Oh, I've read a lot of RWs' books -- that's how I know they're always wrong.

 

[SkyBubble]

I don't believe you.

 

[HisArpy]

I think we should have a flat tax. IMHO

The hugest problem with a flat tax is that there's no restraint on Congress from raising it whenever they want to. A percentage point here, one there, and the next thing you know we're all paying 35% again.

What the flat tax requires is a Constitutional amendment limiting the percentage amount and PROHIBITING any other tax regardless of name or function.

Do that and Congress suddenly gets the rug pulled out from underneath its griftbag sycophants and NGO's.

Which is why it'll never ever happen.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Just because you can't even try to refute what was said doesn't make me a troll.

You said dumb shit and got checked for it. Grow up.

I didn't get checked. I didn't bother trying to refute your nonsense because its so bad I was asking the people who actually stay here full time these days if you were even worth time.

 

[icanhelp1]

The hugest problem with a flat tax is that there's no restraint on Congress from raising it whenever they want to. A percentage point here, one there, and the next thing you know we're all paying 35% again.

What the flat tax requires is a Constitutional amendment limiting the percentage amount and PROHIBITING any other tax regardless of name or function.

Do that and Congress suddenly gets the rug pulled out from underneath its griftbag sycophants and NGO's.

Which is why it'll never ever happen.

I was suggesting a flat tax where everyone has skin in the game. We don't have a revenue problem we have drunken sailors running the country.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oh, I've read a lot of RWs' books -- that's how I know they're always wrong.

That's how we know you have a reading for comprehension problem.

 

[Wilson23]

The hugest problem with a flat tax is that

it's flat. If Warren Buffett pays the same percentage as a his secretary, there's something wrong with that system.

 

[SkyBubble]

Flat rates are fairer and better for teh economy than graduated tax rates. And it will encourage bringing assets back into the country.

 

[Wilson23]

Flat rates are fairer and better for teh economy than graduated tax rates. And it will encourage bringing assets back into the country.

Then why don't other industrialized countries use them? Is everybody out of step but Sammie?

N.B.: Looking at how other countries address a given field of public policy is always where the policymaking process should start!

 

[SkyBubble]

Then why don't other industrialized countries use them? Is everybody out of step but Sammie?

Well, yes, essentially. They use them to redistribute income, but the more income you redistribute the less income you have.

 

[Wilson23]

Well, yes, essentially. They use them to redistribute income, but the more income you redistribute the less income you have.

That doesn't hurt businesses. The more income is redistributed, the more customers they have.

 

[SkyBubble]

That doesn't hurt businesses. The more income is redistributed, the more customers they have.

Patently false. How hard are you going to work knowing a large chunk of what you produce will be taken from you and given to people who don't work as hard or at all? Go back and read the history of Plymouth Colony.

Once again, you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[HisArpy]

I was suggesting a flat tax where everyone has skin in the game. We don't have a revenue problem we have drunken sailors running the country.

Which is why a flat tax without a Constitutional amendment fixing the rate won't work. Congress will just pass a bill raising the percentage and spending will continue to be out of control.

 

[Wilson23]

Patently false. How hard are you going to work knowing a large chunk of what you produce will be taken from you and given to people who don't work as hard or at all? Go back and read the history of Plymouth Colony.

Once again, you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The old tax system, with a 70% top bracket, never discouraged anybody from working.

And I think you're thinking of Jamestown, not Plymouth.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I was suggesting a flat tax where everyone has skin in the game. We don't have a revenue problem we have drunken sailors running the country.

No. We have a revenue problem. To claim otherwise is insanity.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Patently false. How hard are you going to work knowing a large chunk of what you produce will be taken from you and given to people who don't work as hard or at all? Go back and read the history of Plymouth Colony.

Once again, you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Pretty damn actually. The reality is nobody hard works there way to that level of income. If you took 90% of every dollar I made over on million dollars in a given year I'm making over one million dollars that year. Lets take a worst case scenario. I stop working. There is NO person in the history of ever that is so valuable that them stopping at that point means nobody can pick up the slack.

 

[icanhelp1]

No. We have a revenue problem. To claim otherwise is insanity.

Fix these problems first before raising taxes;

"Reducing improper payments and fraud. Since fiscal year 2003, cumulative improper payment estimates reported by executive branch agencies have totaled about $2.8 trillion. This includes $162 billion for fiscal year 2024. With respect to fraud, GAO estimates that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022. GAO has recommended many actions Congress and the executive branch could take to address improper payments and fraud risks. These include enhancing identity verification through data sharing, restoring fraud-related reporting requirements for agencies, and developing fraud estimates for highly vulnerable programs."

 

[Chadrone]

I didn't get checked.

You're right, you got fuckin' smoked like a clown.

I didn't bother trying to refute your nonsense because its so bad I was asking the people who actually stay here full time these days if you were even worth time.

You're dismissed little bitch.....

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.

The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.

Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.

The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.

The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.

Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

Everything else is just rationalization.