Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(A) The risk of government debt is that we'll create ("print") too many dollars.
(B) The private sector ALREADY creates dollars on its own, via the Federal Reserve, without the Federal Government
so put (A) and (B) together and hopefully you realize the futility of "fiscal conservatism" in today's system. americans and their politicians simply do not understand their own economic system well enough to implement fiscal conservatism. This applies to left, right, socialist, and libertarian.
If you shrink the size of government, but keep the central bank pumping out money to the primary dealers, you're not actually reducing the monetary supply -- you're just shifting more power to the banks.
Fiscal conservatism (e.g. shrinking government) will only work as intended if you re-work private sector monetary policy (specifically, bank lending) from the ground up in a way that creates fewer new dollars 'from thin air'. Bottom line: We run government deficits NOT because Americans are 'big spenders', but because the private sector has been creating too much new currency for the public sector to keep up.
Good post and a interesting angle and one that I did not take in consideration. I doubt that the banks who own our gvt would go for any re work of the system. The other alternative is too get a Volker in the FR chairman seat that will raise interest rates and at the same time make some cuts. Hmmm maybe that is not such a hot idea since it would send the economy into a tail spin. I just wonder if Barnanke has put us inside of a box that we can't get out of with all the QE?
Rove is a problem as is Krauthammer, Kristol, Luntz and the Republican money bundlers. We also have a problem with the media that labels all Republicans as conservative. They tried to sell McCain and Romney as conservative. They are not. I would say that if Obama goes way too far, and scares more people with his freedom grabs, we have a better shot of electing a Libertarian that's a fiscal conservative but they are going to have to be financed by the little people not Wall Street.
You know, I really think Hillary Clinton would be more totalitarian than Obama. People will think they are getting Bill Clinton, round two, but they'll just be getting a nastier meaner version of Obama.
The only good things that I can think of in regards to President Hillary Clinton is that she doesn't have the charisma or charm that Obama has and that I don't think that as many people will blinded by identity politics as with Obama.
A black President always seemed more historic than a woman President. Hell, Pakistan has elected a woman President. Electing a female President just seems like one of those "We'll do it when we get around to it" things rather than a "Look how far we have gone" type of thing.
Hillary is also much less likable. Obama is a relatively good speaker (at least in comparison to Bush or Kerry or Gore or Romney) and is pretty charming. Now, I have come to realize that he is charming in the same sense that con artist or cult leader is charming and charismatic, but it does appeal to the electorate and it has a way of smoothing out his gaffs. Hillary gets snarky and combative when challenged and she can say some stupid things that can come back to haunt her:
Also, this one isn't going to sound good, but she is starting to look old. Every time I see her she always looks more haggard and old than before. Come 2016 and she going to be 69 (which will be as old as Reagan when he first came to office) and she will very much be looking it. If the Republicans select someone younger than 60 and who is not a complete idiot; it will look like Kennedy versus Nixon in the debate all over again.
Note: I fully expect the Republicans to do something stupid and select someone who is completely unelectable.
Rove is a problem as is Krauthammer, Kristol, Luntz and the Republican money bundlers. We also have a problem with the media that labels all Republicans as conservative. They tried to sell McCain and Romney as conservative. They are not. I would say that if Obama goes way too far, and scares more people with his freedom grabs, we have a better shot of electing a Libertarian that's a fiscal conservative but they are going to have to be financed by the little people not Wall Street.
You know, I really think Hillary Clinton would be more totalitarian than Obama. People will think they are getting Bill Clinton, round two, but they'll just be getting a nastier meaner version of Obama.
I would have left Krauthammer out of the above. I think he is brilliant, though he has from time to time said things that I wouldn't agree with.
Bill Kristol is an "establishment Republican" that should be shunned. He's not the kind of "conservative" that I am (or I suspect that you are).
Rove was our biggest problem in the last two Presidential races, as well as John "go-along-to-get-along" McCain.
I think Romney was being told what and what not to say by Rove and the elitists. They should have let him be himself, because I think he would have won (in spite of the Democrat machine and election fraud they were running). I believe he knew (and does know) what our real problems are, and we would have been better off today, had he won. At least we would not have the Obamacare albatross around our necks, and the boot of Obama's government bureaucrats on our throats.
I agree with you about Hillary. She is downright evil. Obama is bad, but she would be far worse.
As soon as a fiscal conservative sees a threat to his voting base; say, a military base closing in his district due to defense budget cuts resulting in unemployment and loss of business, he will find a justification in government spending.
Is there a fiscally conservative martyr out there? Anyone?
People who care about the nation more than their personal gain need to elect politicians who care more about the people than their personal gain. It can happen. It's not very likely, but it can happen.
Republicans haven't fought hard enough in the arenas of education and entertainment. Even on the occasions when Republicans have held some power they haven't done anything to reduce the Democrat indoctrination, so that now we have generations of citizens who are educated, entertained, and informed by teachers unions, Hollywood, and mass media who are ready and willing to abuse their positions for partisanship. I mean even on this forum you can see liberal after liberal who is unable to think for themselves.
But there is a breaking point where a (peaceful) revolution will take place. You saw it in 2010 when the Democrats overreached. And you see the Democrats trying to use wars on women and claims of racism and coverups to distract from their abject failure to competently govern in an attempt to avoid a repeat of 2010. The American spirit isn't broken yet. The ship hasn't sailed. The American spirit is beaten down but it's not gone.
You sound like a freaking parrot for FAUX NOOZE! Does Rupert Murdoch have his hand up your rear?
As soon as a fiscal conservative sees a threat to his voting base; say, a military base closing in his district due to defense budget cuts resulting in unemployment and loss of business, he will find a justification in government spending.
Is there a fiscally conservative martyr out there? Anyone?
What's that sound? ... Crickets chirping ...
There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative. Well, there is, but they are all "fiscal conservatism for thee but not for me"
Sounds a lot like Ron Paul participating in pork barrel spending for his district. Of course, his "justification" was that he was just returning his constituents' money to his district . Yeah, I bet you a portion of those dollars he "rescued" came from my wallet, that hypocrite. There's no way to tell how much of that federal spending his district got were his constituents' money in the first place
We had conservatism between the years 2000 to 2008, wasn't that good enough? Didn't it work out as intended? We funded the war machine {good for our economy} and overthrew a couple of dictators and spread democracy, created lots n lots of jobs, jobs, jobs, and I see people clambering for more conservatism. Isn't this great, or what?
Bush 43 was no Reagan conservative.
War spending (I think a response to terrorist attacks was necessary, both to 9/11/2001, and the attack on the USS Cole, which Clinton ignored) is unavoidable. We cannot sit and do nothing when we are attacked, and expect to remain a free nation.
Not only that, as the leader of the "free World," we are expected to defend against threats to the "free World." What would it mean to those who look to America as a beacon of hope in the world (there are still many oppressed people in the world, who look to America as "light" in the darkness of their oppression) if we did nothing?
The act of war itself is not aggression if it is in defense of liberty. It is necessary for the preservation of the soul of mankind. The Crusades of the past were in response to, and to fight back against the agrression and wholsale slaughter of the Christian world by Muslims, who believed they were doing the will of "Allah" (their god). The Christian world was under threat of extinction at the hands of Islamic hordes.
This has not changed, as Islamists have once again taken up the sword against Western civilization, Christianity and Judaism in particular, and anyone not Muslim, and have vowed to bring the entire world under Sharia.
Freedom can only be achieved and maintained through limited government, as our founders established it. What we have been seeing in the last half century is an errosion of the idea of limited government, a disreguard for our Constitution, which was designed to keep government in check, and we have been inviting a return to the kind of government that our founders sought to gurard against.
Freedom hangs in the balance.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 08-04-2013 at 07:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Yeah, I bet you a portion of those dollars he "rescued" came from my wallet, that hypocrite. There's no way to tell how much of that federal spending his district got were his constituents' money in the first place
