What does conservatism, as such, have to offer our society any more?

[WillJ8787]

If it has elected government and the rule of law, that makes it a system worth imitating, regardless of whether it counts as a "constitutional republic" by your definition.

Other than the U.S., what countries would you consider constitutional republics?

They can't really answer in an original way....their training is high school, then clown class at Fox news and News Max. They probably still listening to dead Dimbaugh....I can't fathom anyone listen to pre recorded Dimbaugh and that is what they play on Right am radio instead of moving on.

 

[Cubantripod]

Because we've seen what happens -- nothing good -- when economic policy is based on that kind of thinking. Let us have no more of Reaganism or Thatcherism. It only makes the rich richer while everyone else's incomes stagnate.

No we haven't seen what happens. You have confused capitalism with corporatism. Corporatism being what we really have.

No, too poor.

If you're poor, you already have an ID or you wouldn't be able to apply for government safety nets.

 

[YDB95]

2. Supply side economics - Why is is so difficult to grasp the concept that the economy does better when people are allowed to keep more of the money they earn?

Why is it so difficult to grasp that that is not an accurate description of supply side economics at all? It has more to do with letting the very rich keep more of the money they, well, didn't necessarily earn. The first thing you've got to understand is that the uber-rich don't work for their money; their money works for them.

 

[OldJourno]

Why is it so difficult to grasp that that is not an accurate description of supply side economics at all? It has more to do with letting the very rich keep more of the money they, well, didn't necessarily earn. The first thing you've got to understand is that the uber-rich don't work for their money; their money works for them.

Explain how they didn't earn it. Explain to me how if money works for the rich, how does that happen? Does that mean they put the money in the ground and grow it?
Or does making their money work for them mean investing?
You know that's not what you mean.
What it does mean is you just made my point for me. If the rich have money that will work for them, instead of being thrown into the government maw, it will create wealth for others as well.

 

[Lazaran]

.
How does a ponzi scheme or multi-level marketing scheme usually work OldUrinal???

Please illuminate us.

 

[YDB95]

If the rich have money that will work for them, instead of being thrown into the government maw, it will create wealth for others as well.

Then please explain why the exact opposite of that has happened every time the Republicans cut taxes on the uber-rich.

 

[CornusKousa]

A republic is a representative democracy.

No, it's a representative government.

It doesn't have to be a democracy, and if it has any sense it wouldn't be.

Because democracy, especially unrestricted democracy, is fucking trash and turns into a "two wolves and a sheep" dumpster fire, every fucking time. Our current affairs are a fine example.

 

[icanhelp1]

There is no dichotomy between a democracy and a republic. When people say something like that, what they usually mean by it, when they mean anything at all, is that the U.S. is a federal rather than a unitary state -- which is both true and important, but has nothing at all to do with any supposed difference between "democracy" and "republic." The United States is a democratic republic -- as opposed to, say, an aristocratic republic, like the ancient Roman republic, or the old Venetian republic, where the doge was elected but only the nobility could vote.

The word democracy is a nebulous term in which most modern governments fall into that category, a term democracy does nothing more than to denote a representative form of government and we as a constitutional republic fall into that category but that's where the similarities end. As a constitutional republic we are a collective of 50 states along with territories and possessions each with unitary governments and states rights. There are strict lines of divisions between the fed and the states. The constitution does grant the feds certain authorities under the supremacy clause but does not give the feds exclusive authority to rule. We have governors that are chosen by their respective citizens to conduct the people's business in each of their own states. Each state has 2 senators to represent and facilitate needs and wants of each state not the other way around, They are the states liaison between the federal government and state governments with a responsibility to their states not the other way around.

We have fed representatives which represent the collective of people of each state, each with unique needs and wants. Districts in each state **are again** a collective of mini forms of representation designed to give a voice to the larger collective *OUR REPUBLIC*

Our republic is design to provide authority from the bottom up not the top down. It's designed to limit the power of the federal government over its people not enhance or increase its power.

The left is pushing for a centralized form of government pushing a one size fits all and slowly diminishing states rights.

Social programs voted in by the collective of representation is one thing but were are perilously close to tyranny by party majority rule where the majority wins all the time, *THAT* is antithetical to our republican form of government. one size does not fit all, and our founders were well aware.

The left wants to eliminate the EC, pack the courts, end filibuster, federalize voting laws, *et cetera* *et cetera* slowly consolidating centralized power over states rights. The left is usurping individual rights in the name of equity, soon to follow is the elimination of freedom of choice, the elimination of our bill of rights starting with the infringement on 1st and 2nd amendments.

 

[icanhelp1]

No we haven't seen what happens. You have confused capitalism with corporatism. Corporatism being what we really have.



If you're poor, you already have an ID or you wouldn't be able to apply for government safety nets.

You are spot on with conflating corporatism with capitalism.

What the left is trying to do is eliminate individual responsibility and accountability placing the blame for failure on everything but themselves which in their mind justifies a government take over in the name of equity and social justice. *The government knows best bumper sticker* and we as citizens are surrendering our individual rights to these progressive socialist. Shame on us!! Soon freedom of choice and equality under the law will be nothing more than a memory exchanged for globalism and one size fits all.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The word democracy is a nebulous term in which most modern governments fall into that category, a term democracy does nothing more than to denote a representative form of government and we as a constitutional republic fall into that category but that's where the similarities end. As a constitutional republic we are a collective of 50 states along with territories and possessions each with unitary governments and states rights. There are strict lines of divisions between the fed and the states. The constitution does grant the feds certain authorities under the supremacy clause but does not give the feds exclusive authority to rule. We have governors that are chosen by their respective citizens to conduct the people's business in each of their own states. Each state has 2 senators to represent and facilitate needs and wants of each state not the other way around, They are the states liaison between the federal government and state governments with a responsibility to their states not the other way around.

We have fed representatives which represent the collective of people of each state, each with unique needs and wants. Districts in each state **are again** a collective of mini forms of representation designed to give a voice to the larger collective *OUR REPUBLIC*

Our republic is design to provide authority from the bottom up not the top down. It's designed to limit the power of the federal government over its people not enhance or increase its power.

The left is pushing for a centralized form of government pushing a one size fits all and slowly diminishing states rights.

Social programs voted in by the collective of representation is one thing but were are perilously close to tyranny by party majority rule where the majority wins all the time, *THAT* is antithetical to our republican form of government. one size does not fit all, and our founders were well aware.

The left wants to eliminate the EC, pack the courts, end filibuster, federalize voting laws, *et cetera* *et cetera* slowly consolidating centralized power over states rights. The left is usurping individual rights in the name of equity, soon to follow is the elimination of freedom of choice, the elimination of our bill of rights starting with the infringement on 1st and 2nd amendments.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The short version of the above.

Government type= Democracy.

All the rest of the words revolve around the US constitution.

BTW, can you point out to me where in the constitution that the filibuster is written in?

 

[icanhelp1]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The short version of the above.

Government type= Democracy.

All the rest of the words revolve around the US constitution.

BTW, can you point out to me where in the constitution that the filibuster is written in?

The second Clause of Section 5 of the constitution states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” This is an important provision because legislative rules often influence substantive outcomes. For example, the House Rules Committee determines which amendments may be offered to particular bills, thus shaping the debate on and ultimate content of legislation. Precedents interpreting Senate rules dictate preferential recognition of the Majority Leader over other Senators, a significant advantage for the Leader in setting the chamber’s agenda.

"Senate Rule 22 is a high-profile example of the power of legislative rulemaking. That rule establishes a three-fifths threshold (rather than a simple majority) to invoke “cloture” and thereby limit debate. In recent years, each party has accused the other of abusing the right of extended debate. Leaders of both parties threatened to change Rule 22 unilaterally to insulate certain questions from the super-majority requirement of cloture. A Republican threat to utilize this co-called “nuclear option” failed to materialize in 2005. Eight years later, Democrats who had opposed the nuclear option when they were in the minority successfully invoked it when they were in the majority to speed confirmation of nominees. Meanwhile litigation brought to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 22 failed because the Constitution explicitly reserves questions of Congressional self-governance to the Senate and House themselves. See, e.g., Common Cause v. Biden (D.C. Cir. 2014)".

Section 5 of Article 1 does not contain all of the “How To” instructions for legislative proceedings. The impeachment process, for example, is set forth in Section 3. The process for overriding presidential vetoes appears in Section 7. Several constitutional amendments have revised legislative procedures, such as the Seventeenth Amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. But Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution is important because it establishes some of the most fundamental building blocks of our time-honored system of government.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The second Clause of Section 5 of the constitution states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” This is an important provision because legislative rules often influence substantive outcomes. For example, the House Rules Committee determines which amendments may be offered to particular bills, thus shaping the debate on and ultimate content of legislation. Precedents interpreting Senate rules dictate preferential recognition of the Majority Leader over other Senators, a significant advantage for the Leader in setting the chamber’s agenda.

"Senate Rule 22 is a high-profile example of the power of legislative rulemaking. That rule establishes a three-fifths threshold (rather than a simple majority) to invoke “cloture” and thereby limit debate. In recent years, each party has accused the other of abusing the right of extended debate. Leaders of both parties threatened to change Rule 22 unilaterally to insulate certain questions from the super-majority requirement of cloture. A Republican threat to utilize this co-called “nuclear option” failed to materialize in 2005. Eight years later, Democrats who had opposed the nuclear option when they were in the minority successfully invoked it when they were in the majority to speed confirmation of nominees. Meanwhile litigation brought to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 22 failed because the Constitution explicitly reserves questions of Congressional self-governance to the Senate and House themselves. See, e.g., Common Cause v. Biden (D.C. Cir. 2014)".

Section 5 of Article 1 does not contain all of the “How To” instructions for legislative proceedings. The impeachment process, for example, is set forth in Section 3. The process for overriding presidential vetoes appears in Section 7. Several constitutional amendments have revised legislative procedures, such as the Seventeenth Amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. But Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution is important because it establishes some of the most fundamental building blocks of our time-honored system of government.

So it is a procedural rule, based upon a 1806 rule change...IE it is not constitutionally protected, not ingrained anywhere in the constitution to promote bipartisianship, and can be erased at any point time, if so voted on....

 

[pecksniff]

Other than the U.S., what countries would you consider constitutional republics?

And if the Constitutional Convention had gone with the Hamilton plan, would that be a constitutional republic?

 

[pecksniff]

If the rich have money that will work for them, instead of being thrown into the government maw, it will create wealth for others as well.

Government also creates wealth. It is not some kind of parasitic growth on the private sector. A government job is as legitimately a job as any other.

 

[pecksniff]

The fact remains that in terms of socially desirable economic outcomes, social democracy is better than supply-side or laissez-faire -- and there is no constitutional reason why we can't have it here.

 

[CornusKousa]

Government also creates wealth.

LOL....then why does it need the IRS to go confiscate wealth before it does ANYTHING?????

It is not some kind of parasitic growth on the private sector.

Again, the existence of taxes is REALITY based proof otherwise.

The fact remains that in terms of socially desirable economic outcomes, social democracy is better than supply-side or laissez-faire --

If you're a freedom loathing leftist who wants to enslave the productive members of society....sure.

For us liberty loving folks who don't want to be slaves to the welfare state, you're fucking delusional.

and there is no constitutional reason why we can't have it here.

Except the whole states existing and the super majority of them flat out rejecting your communist utopian bullshit.

 

[WillJ8787]

At least he is delusionally consistent...lol.

 

[CornusKousa]

At least he is delusionally consistent...lol.

Where am I delusional??

 

[pecksniff]

If you're a freedom loathing leftist who wants to enslave the productive members of society....sure.

In Sweden or Denmark or anyplace that has social democracy, they're not enslaved, they're empowered.

 

[CornusKousa]

In Sweden or Denmark or anyplace that has social democracy, they're not enslaved, they're empowered.

Because for sometime it was responsible, so yea, it can work, so long as most of it stays honest and truly virtuous to the system.

But even that, for a number of reasons, is starting to not be the case and even they are struggling with the reality of trying to manage a welfare state with a rapidly growing number of freeloaders.

And the USA is just too big and diverse of a place to get all 330 million folks on board with working for the collective good.

I don't think most (D)'s want Scandi style social liberalism. They want more centralized power to control everyone's social and thus economic value, they want the votes to validate it, that's democratic socialism. Everything they say and do demonstrates that they're more Venezuela than Norway.

 

[Rightguide]

So it is a procedural rule, based upon a 1806 rule change...IE it is not constitutionally protected, not ingrained anywhere in the constitution to promote bipartisianship, and can be erased at any point time, if so voted on....

It's protected by the Senate's constitutional right to make it's own rules. Only the Senate can change it. Go back to school.

 

[pecksniff]

I don't think most (D)'s want Scandi style social liberalism. They want more centralized power to control everyone's social and thus economic value, they want the votes to validate it, that's democratic socialism. Everything they say and do demonstrates that they're more Venezuela than Norway.

Well, I don't hear any Dem, not even Sanders if he counts as one, calling for the nationalization or socialization of the means of production.

 

[ll74]

No, it's a representative government.

It doesn't have to be a democracy, and if it has any sense it wouldn't be.

Because democracy, especially unrestricted democracy, is fucking trash and turns into a "two wolves and a sheep" dumpster fire, every fucking time. Our current affairs are a fine example.

"Our" republic is a representative democracy.

 

[Rightguide]

The word democracy is a nebulous term in which most modern governments fall into that category, a term democracy does nothing more than to denote a representative form of government and we as a constitutional republic fall into that category but that's where the similarities end. As a constitutional republic we are a collective of 50 states along with territories and possessions each with unitary governments and states rights. There are strict lines of divisions between the fed and the states. The constitution does grant the feds certain authorities under the supremacy clause but does not give the feds exclusive authority to rule. We have governors that are chosen by their respective citizens to conduct the people's business in each of their own states. Each state has 2 senators to represent and facilitate needs and wants of each state not the other way around, They are the states liaison between the federal government and state governments with a responsibility to their states not the other way around.

We have fed representatives which represent the collective of people of each state, each with unique needs and wants. Districts in each state **are again** a collective of mini forms of representation designed to give a voice to the larger collective *OUR REPUBLIC*

Our republic is design to provide authority from the bottom up not the top down. It's designed to limit the power of the federal government over its people not enhance or increase its power.

The left is pushing for a centralized form of government pushing a one size fits all and slowly diminishing states rights.

Social programs voted in by the collective of representation is one thing but were are perilously close to tyranny by party majority rule where the majority wins all the time, *THAT* is antithetical to our republican form of government. one size does not fit all, and our founders were well aware.

The left wants to eliminate the EC, pack the courts, end filibuster, federalize voting laws, *et cetera* *et cetera* slowly consolidating centralized power over states rights. The left is usurping individual rights in the name of equity, soon to follow is the elimination of freedom of choice, the elimination of our bill of rights starting with the infringement on 1st and 2nd amendments.

As you know, in a republic the powers of the government are limited and cannot be changed by the sitting government itself. While a democracy can be a representative democracy with majority rule and elected representatives but there are no limits on the majority. There's a reason why the Constitution forbids any other form of government except a "republican form of government."

 

[CornusKousa]

Well, I don't hear any Dem, not even Sanders if he counts as one, calling for the nationalization or socialization of the means of production.

Sure he did, he ran on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBev15LBVY

Kamala did....didn't...then did...then didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pkP8FMcRs&t=124s

But she supported the bill so no backsies!!

While at about the same time put out a video explaining why liberalism sucks and communism is where it's at!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4kowE_YIVw

Maxine waters has done just that with oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs

This goes on and on....

And let's just talk for a min about all the ancillary controls which effectively are ownership of the means of production. There isn't a single industry or business the democrats want to let the individual run. They want FEDERAL control over every bit of it.

Because they're authoritarian control freaks.

And yes not all of the party is openly hammer and sickle card carrying DSA types like She Guevara

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41WlQt7ZToL._AC_.jpg

BUT.....the party caters to them because they are the rioting mob and the mob gets whatever it wants.

And that makes them complicit.