The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

[Chadrone]

You seem confused.

I'm not the one who cited the most capitalist economies on the planet as a shining example of socialism.

You fucking retard.

 

[Wilson23]

You seem confused.

Comes of being part of a deeply confused faction.

 

[Wilson23]

Nope....becoming a conqured islamic shit hole is dumb.

THAT has nothing to do with Scandinavia. You're talking like Anders Breivik now.

 

[stxjimmy]

Where is all the most prosperity and equity.

Definitely confused.

Stop drinking whilst you post and tighten up your grammar.

I answered your question.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

An apolitical person might be called "conservative" if generally old-fashioned and traditional.

oh ok

in other words lol conservative means someone who is old school from a depending year decade and or era

 

[SkyBubble]

David Sockman was Director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Ronald Reagan. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed Stockman wrote that, contrary to what Reagan promised during the 1980 campaign, it never was possible to cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget by 1983 "if not sooner" without eliminating farm and business subsidies, and making deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. He added that most Americans, and at least a plurality of Republican voters would oppose those cuts.

Beginning with the Reagan administration, when Republicans have the power to do so they cut taxes for the rich and raise military spending. That is the reason for the increase in the national debt to more than the yearly Gross Domestic Product.

Except that Stockman is wrong. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenues over 10 years, but for every new $1.00 added, we spent $1.73. SPENDING is the problem.

And we should eliminate corporate welfare and farm subsidies. All government programs that pick winners and losers need to go. That's not the proper function of government.

 

[kitten_needs]

Except that Stockman is wrong. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenues over 10 years, but for every new $1.00 added, we spent $1.73. SPENDING is the problem.

And we should eliminate corporate welfare and farm subsidies. All government programs that pick winners and losers need to go. That's not the proper function of government.

i would suggest most government "programs" need to go. they all cause problems.

 

[SkyBubble]

AI Overview

Yes, countries with universal or "free" healthcare systems generally show better health outcomes, including longer life expectancy, lower child mortality, higher use of preventative care, and greater overall well-being, compared to countries lacking such coverage, like the U.S., which struggles with disparities and poor ranking despite high spending. While these systems, often funded by taxes, can face challenges like wait times, they focus on public health and reduce financial barriers, leading to healthier populations.

Key Health Indicators & Outcomes:

• Life Expectancy:
  Studies consistently find higher average life expectancy in nations with publicly funded healthcare.
  
  
• Child Mortality:
  Universal systems are linked to lower rates of infant and child mortality.
  
  
• Preventative Care:
  Access to free care encourages more preventive doctor visits and management of chronic conditions, reducing emergency room use.
  
  
• Well-being & Smoking:
  Higher rates of reported excellent health, lower depression, and greater smoking cessation are seen in countries with universal coverage.

Why These Systems Work:

• Universal Access:
  Everyone gets care, removing financial barriers that stop people from seeking treatment.
  
  
• Focus on Prevention:
  A single system has more incentive to invest in public health measures (like obesity prevention) rather than just treating illness.
  
  
• Reduced Disparities:
  Universal care significantly reduces health inequalities tied to socioeconomic status.

Untrue. The care is lesser and it takes forever to get it. Waiting lists as long as your arm. There is a reason people form those countries who can so often come here to get healthcare.

We've seen way too many stories where the only solution the government-run system would offer was death but people were offered a chance to come to America and get healed.

 

[Wilson23]

i would suggest most government "programs" need to go. they all cause problems.

There are are countries that have a lot more of those and no reason to regret them.

 

[SkyBubble]

THAT'S no pillar of conservatism!

Wrong again. You keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Wilson23]

Wrong again. You keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

Judging by how conservatives behave in office, they don't give a rat's ass for the rule of law.

 

[kitten_needs]

There are are countries that have a lot more of those and no reason to regret them.

what works in one place doesn't mean it works somewhere else

 

[Wilson23]

what works in one place doesn't mean it works somewhere else

There's no reason why Scandinavian social democracy can't work here, nor British gun control.

 

[kitten_needs]

There's no reason why Scandinavian social democracy can't work here, nor British gun control.

because most people here aren't stupid enough to go that route. if you dont like it, then go to one of those countries.

 

[Wilson23]

because most people here aren't stupid enough to go that route. if you dont like it, then go to one of those countries.

There is no stupidity in going THAT route. No country that has has regretted it. And I prefer to remain in this one and change it.

 

[LLCox]

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom.

"pillar' is too polite. Fence post is more like it. That screed sounds more like the Russian constitution. The first second and third pillar is taking care of the rich.

 

[Sean Renaud]

because most people here aren't stupid enough to go that route. if you dont like it, then go to one of those countries.

There is no evidence that most people aren't smart enough to go that route. What there is proof of is a conservative media and the Right have disproprionate strength in the United States. I'm not going to abandon my home. I'm going to improve my home. Make America Great NOW.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Except that Stockman is wrong. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenues over 10 years, but for every new $1.00 added, we spent $1.73. SPENDING is the problem.

And we should eliminate corporate welfare and farm subsidies. All government programs that pick winners and losers need to go. That's not the proper function of government.

Revenues increased yearly before Reagan cut the top tax rate fronm 70% to 28%.

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. The military budget doubled. I agree with you about corporate subsidies and subsidies for agribusiness. Like many Americans I am sentimental about family farms, so I am in favor of subsidies for family farms.

 

[Wilson23]

Like many Americans I am sentimental about family farms, so I and in favor of subsidies for family farms.

There's no future. Just because the agribiz factory-farm model is more economically efficient. American Gothic can't compete.

 

[SkyBubble]

Solid fact. Market economies are so fucking bad we avoid them for a fucking reason.

History proves you wrong on that.

Solid fact. Market economies are so fucking bad we avoid them for a fucking reason. have an option which isn't what people are talking about.

And it's market economies that give you options. The incentive to improve your own lot drives innovation and expansion. We have these computers we're using because of market capitalism. We have devices you can carry in your pocket that have more computing power than the entire Johnson Space Center had when men walked on the moon because of market capitalism. We have houses, abundant food choices, etc., because of market capitalism.

Teh Pilgrims almost starved under the "common store." They switched to a system where you keep what you produce and they had an abundance. This has been the same story with every communal experiment in America and abroad. Socialism removes incentive, denies consumers and producers choice, and always winds up in an authoritarian system in a desperate effort to make it "work."

 

[SkyBubble]

Judging by how conservatives behave in office, they don't give a rat's ass for the rule of law.

More falsehoods from you. Projecting again.

 

[SkyBubble]

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. The military budget doubled. I agree with you about corporate subsidies and subsidies for agribusiness. Like many Americans I am sentimental about family farms, so I am in favor of subsidies for family farms.

Every time we've cut taxes, it's led to revenue increases. The economy grows. Taht broadens the tax base. Also, the lower rates bring more offshored money back into the country.

The problem is spending. Reagan had to deal with a spend-happy Congress controlled by Democrats for most of his term. Unfortunately.

As for family farms, the best way to help them is to stop subsidizing agriculture, ban the Chinese and other hostile entities from owning any farmland (or anything), and reduce the regulatory burdens on them.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Every time we've cut taxes, it's led to revenue increases. The economy grows. Taht broadens the tax base. Also, the lower rates bring more offshored money back into the country.

The problem is spending. Reagan had to deal with a spend-happy Congress controlled by Democrats for most of his term. Unfortunately.

As for family farms, the best way to help them is to stop subsidizing agriculture, ban the Chinese and other hostile entities from owning any farmland (or anything), and reduce the regulatory burdens on them.

What happens when we cut taxes for the rich is that the national debt goes up.

 

[spacekowboy]

Which of the pillars is shooting women in the face for calling you fat?

 

[YDB95]

Every time we've cut taxes, it's led to revenue increases. The economy grows. Taht broadens the tax base. Also, the lower rates bring more offshored money back into the country.

That is literally the exact opposite of the truth. Reagan passed a huge tax cut in 1981 and it led to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Dubya did the same twenty years later and it led to an even worse downturn.

The problem is spending. Reagan had to deal with a spend-happy Congress controlled by Democrats for most of his term. Unfortunately.

Nope. The Senate was Republican-controlled for all but the last two years of his term, and while the House was nominally Democratic, the balance of power rested with conservative Southern Democrats who often voted Reagan's way. As the Gipper himself once tried and failed to say, facts are stubborn things.

As for family farms, the best way to help them is to stop subsidizing agriculture, ban the Chinese and other hostile entities from owning any farmland (or anything), and reduce the regulatory burdens on them.

Regulations are there in the first place for a reason. Bureaucrats in DC do not dream up regulations for the purpose of making life harder for businesspeople.