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.
Look first conservatives can't claim America besides Ronald Reagan, please name the president that conservatives claim as conservative.
That's not the point or an accurate measure of how liberal or conservative or large or small the government actually is. If you start at the founding of the country and move to today, you will see the government's role in people's lives grow. Some of that was certainly good and some not. It's a matter of where different people draw the line and can vary on issues or policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
This is a conservative nation that rarely every seems to elect Presidents that conservatives claim as conservative..
Liberals also don't claim people are really liberal. To the right, Mr. Obama is liberal, but some on the left don't think he's liberal enough. You would find a similar disagreement to the other side if Mr. Romney had been elected where the conservatives wouldn't hink he was conservative and the liberals would. A sampling of personal opinions doesn't really determine it. Look at what government does and where the policies go. Mr. Romney would be more conservative than Mr. Obama, but certainly not compared to what was considered the role of government when the country was founded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Secondly, according to conservatives liberals own American culture. According to conservatives liberals dominate hollywood, the media, the largest cities, most of the largest states, public education, universities, teachers, lawyers, scientists, etc.
Why do conservatives feel so alienated from the culture that they claim is conservative? It doesn't make logical sense..
Not exactly. Those are some elements of American culture. Hollywood and universities don't really make up much of American culture, but they have a microphone which is the real complaint. Culture is complex. The Bible Belt is also a part of American culture. Some parts apply to some people and not others, but they are all American cultural influences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Also, if we are so conservative our government has had wage controls on certain industries, created huge government programs, like social security, medicare, medicaid that are compulsory, unemployment benefits, regulation of the air waves, of every industry.
Not sure what you meant here, but I assume you're saying that we are not that conservative if we added these things. At some level these things needed to be added - again a matter of degree. For example, caring for someone with disabilties and unable to care for themselves is not the same as 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Most people, though not the extreme conservatives, are willing to do the first; the debate comes at where to draw the line. If you consider where we were when the country was founded as conservative and where we are now, we have clearly moved away from that starting point as to the role of government. To the left, this is "progress," while to the right, it's a move away from founding principles. Again, the question is how far is enough and at what point is it too much?
We conservatives aren't looking for utopia.....we realize that there is no such thing.
When you lefties cite socialist utopias, you always talk about Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. These are countries without our constitution, but more importantly, ALL of their citizens are expected to contribute. They do not have large urban areas which suck off the teet of the productive. They do not import poverty, as we do and they are as populated as some of our largest cities.
Compare your opportunity to succeed in America to your opportunity in China, India and Russia.
Middle class wages and wealth are RISING in China, India and Russia. In fact the have some of the fastest growing rates of middle class, millionaire and billionaire creation on the planet.
It is not from today that the U.S. bank Goldman Sachs highlights the strength of emerging economies. Since 2001, after creating the term BRIC - the group formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China - the world’s eyes turned with more attention to the four countries. And in the post-crisis, things became even more evident. According to the bank over the next ten years, the BRIC countries will have a combined GDP of US$ 37 trillion and by 2050 will be – everyone – in the ranking of the five largest economies in the world, sharing space with the United States.
The report by Goldman Sachs shows that bank points out the reasons and opportunities that will arise with the emerging role of the coming decades. Consuming sectors, infrastructure and commodities have increased “drastically” due to the growing middle class in emerging countries.
“As the economic center of the world moves toward emerging economies in the decades ahead, we believe that the multinationals have an opportunity to position themselves for economic growth of the middle class,” says Goldman Sachs.
Over the next 20 years, projects the bank, China will assume its position as the global economy, with the 49th highest GDP per capita in the world. Brazil, in turn, will rise three positions and will be the fifth largest economy in 2030, with the 47th position of GDP per capita – the sum of wealth produced divided by number of inhabitants of the country. For 2050, the scenario is even better: China, United States, India, Brazil and Russia will form the top-five of the world economy. “In just 20 years, the world GDP will be dominated by the bloc’s countries and middle-income rather than by rich nations, as it is today,” says the bank.
With the wealth moving, a new consumer class begins to emerge with high purchasing power. By 2050, according to Goldman Sachs, the consumer market for manufactured products in emerging economies should grow at around US$ 10 trillion (worth two times more than Japan’s GDP – the second largest economy in the world – in 2009).
New York - Rising steel and oil prices in Russia, more honest disclosure in Brazil and booming economies in China and India have fuelled a spike in billionaires in the so-called Bric countries.
Moscow is now home to the most billionaires with 79, followed by New York with 58, Forbes said in its annual list of the world's richest people.
The world's richest man, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim, retained his crown for the second year in a row and made more money than any of the other 1 209 billionaires in the past year: $20.5bn, taking his fortune to $74bn.
The magazine said China nearly doubled its number of billionaires to 115, while Russia and Brazil posted two-thirds jumps to 101 and 30, respectively. It was the first time countries outside the United States produced over 100 billionaires.
India added six billionaires, taking its total to 55, "but the average net worth ... is huge - $4.5bn for an Indian billionaire versus $2.5bn for a Chinese billionaire", said Forbes CEO Steve Forbes.
Russia's billionaire growth was attributed to a commodities boom, while Brazil's increase came from stricter disclosure rules and a stronger currency. In China and India, strong economies helped create billionaires from a range of industries.
"The bottom line is Brics, commodities and Asia Pacific," Forbes told a news conference on Wednesday. "There is a global commodities boom. But as we should have learnt ... commodities can go up very sharply, they can go down very sharply."
The Reuters Jefferies CRB commodities index rose 17% last year and is up another 8% this year as copper and gold hit record highs, grains are near their 2008 peaks and, most recently, oil surged beyond $100 a barrel.
Brazil, Russia, India and China produced half of the world's 214 new billionaires, double last year's 97 newcomers. The Asia Pacific was home to 105 newcomers, three-quarters of whom earned their fortunes from stakes in public companies.
The truth of the matter is most of the new wealth creation and growth in middle class income is coming from Asia, Latin America and Africa.
(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The middle class is receiving less of America's total income, declining to its smallest share in decades as median wages stagnate in the economic doldrums and wealth concentrates at the top.
A study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center highlights diminished hopes, too, for the roughly 50 percent of adults defined as middle class, with household incomes ranging from $39,000 to $118,000. The report describes this mid-tier group as suffering its "worst decade in modern history," having fallen backward in income for the first time since the end of World War II.
"As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America's middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being," Pew said in its report. "Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some -- but by no means all -- of its characteristic faith in the future."
Three years after the recession technically ended, middle class Americans are still feeling the economic pinch, with most saying they have been forced to reduce spending in the past year. And fewer now believe that hard work will allow them to get ahead in life. Families are now more likely to say their children's economic future will be the same or worse than their own.
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 12-07-2012 at 01:26 PM..
Middle class wages and wealth are RISING in China, India and Russia. In fact the have some of the fastest growing rates of middle class, millionaire and billionaire creation on the planet.
That's not the point or an accurate measure of how liberal or conservative or large or small the government actually is. If you start at the founding of the country and move to today, you will see the government's role in people's lives grow. Some of that was certainly good and some not. It's a matter of where different people draw the line and can vary on issues or policies.
Liberals also don't claim people are really liberal. To the right, Mr. Obama is liberal, but some on the left don't think he's liberal enough. You would find a similar disagreement to the other side if Mr. Romney had been elected where the conservatives wouldn't hink he was conservative and the liberals would. A sampling of personal opinions doesn't really determine it. Look at what government does and where the policies go. Mr. Romney would be more conservative than Mr. Obama, but certainly not compared to what was considered the role of government when the country was founded.
Not exactly. Those are some elements of American culture. Hollywood and universities don't really make up much of American culture, but they have a microphone which is the real complaint. Culture is complex. The Bible Belt is also a part of American culture. Some parts apply to some people and not others, but they are all American cultural influences.
Not sure what you meant here, but I assume you're saying that we are not that conservative if we added these things. At some level these things needed to be added - again a matter of degree. For example, caring for someone with disabilties and unable to care for themselves is not the same as 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Most people, though not the extreme conservatives, are willing to do the first; the debate comes at where to draw the line. If you consider where we were when the country was founded as conservative and where we are now, we have clearly moved away from that starting point as to the role of government. To the left, this is "progress," while to the right, it's a move away from founding principles. Again, the question is how far is enough and at what point is it too much?
So basically you are saying you can claim America as conservative because you want to and that what is or isn't conservative is very flexible gotcha.
This idea of looking at the founding of nation as some type of litmus test for the role of government forever and ever in a society is fc ki ng dumb. I hope you are not suggesting that.
The American government has grown as American society has grown. The American government has done more as the US population wanted it to do more, as the conditions required it to do more.
There is always a debate about the role of government, but that is no longer where conservatives reside. They reside on the side of everything the government does is bad and a failure and better left not done. This is an ignorant position to take in a complex society, but it is the one conservatives articulate.
Liberals think Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Truman, FDR, JFK, and LBJ were all liberals.
I don't think that Carter, Clinton, or Obama are particularly liberal although of the three President Obama is the most liberal of the bunch.
That is a lot of liberal Presidents. This means that according to liberals America has elected a lot of liberal Presidents.
Conservatives claim just one in the last 80years. Like I said, I think Calvin Coolidge is the next president that conservatives claim.
Throw in the fact that conservatives think liberals dominate most of the common pop culture, most of the common media, most of our public education, most universities, most of the largest cities, most of the largest states, most of the tech industry, etc and so
All of these things add up to America not being a conservative nation.
So basically you are saying you can claim America as conservative because you want to and that what is or isn't conservative is very flexible gotcha..
No, I'm not. I would say that the country was historically more conservative and the country has shifted. I would say this shift has been more in social issues but is starting to happen in fiscal issues as well. I
f you don't think those terms have evolved or that the perspective on whether a person is conservative or liberal depends on whom you ask, then you're kidding yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
This idea of looking at the founding of nation as some type of litmus test for the role of government forever and ever in a society is fc ki ng dumb. I hope you are not suggesting that.
Not suggesting that all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
The American government has grown as American society has grown. The American government has done more as the US population wanted it to do more, as the conditions required it to do more.
Yes, see above where I talk about the shift.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
There is always a debate about the role of government, but that is no longer where conservatives reside. They reside on the side of everything the government does is bad and a failure and better left not done. This is an ignorant position to take in a complex society, but it is the one conservatives articulate.
Liberals think Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Truman, FDR, JFK, and LBJ were all liberals.
I don't think that Carter, Clinton, or Obama are particularly liberal although of the three President Obama is the most liberal of the bunch.
That is a lot of liberal Presidents. This means that according to liberals America has elected a lot of liberal Presidents.
Conservatives claim just one in the last 80years. Like I said, I think Calvin Coolidge is the next president that conservatives claim.
Throw in the fact that conservatives think liberals dominate most of the common pop culture, most of the common media, most of our public education, most universities, most of the largest cities, most of the largest states, most of the tech industry, etc and so
All of these things add up to America not being a conservative nation.
You make the mistake of generalizing conservatives into your little box of what you think they believe across the board. I thought liberals didn't do that, but there I go doing the same thing I guess.
No, I'm not. I would say that the country was historically more conservative and the country has shifted. I would say this shift has been more in social issues but is starting to happen in fiscal issues as well. I
f you don't think those terms have evolved or that the perspective on whether a person is conservative or liberal depends on whom you ask, then you're kidding yourself.
Not suggesting that all.
Yes, see above where I talk about the shift.
You make the mistake of generalizing conservatives into your little box of what you think they believe across the board. I thought liberals didn't do that, but there I go doing the same thing I guess.
I would say you are defining the past as more conservative to support your current thinking. It does not work that way. This nation was always liberal was founded on liberal principals.
Conservatives as we know them didn't come into existence until after the NEW DEAL programs and really after the great society programs.
Conservatives who attempt to claim some ideological link with the nation's founding are bsing themselves.
And usually twisting our nation's history in the process to fit their narrow ideological lenses.
Look man, if you want to pretend that there is some type of diversity of opinion amongst conservatives be my guest. I don't see it, don't read it, don't hear it.
Conservatives all spout the same nonsense.
But that is not what this thread is about.
It is about the lack of any nations adopting the modern American conservative world view. It speaks to the utter disaster that is conservative public policy ideas.
I would say you are defining the past as more conservative to support your current thinking. It does not work that way. This nation was always liberal was founded on liberal principals..
In some ways. The nation was founded on individual liberty which was a liberal principle. The modern liberal movement has more to do with government provided services at the federal level which is not the founding principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Look man, if you want to pretend that there is some type of diversity of opinion amongst conservatives be my guest. I don't see it, don't read it, don't hear it.
I know you don't. Maybe you should find some new sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Conservatives all spout the same nonsense.
While you're at it, why don't you tell us what liberals all do, what southerners all do, what blacks all do, what Latinos all do, what Asians all do, what northerners all do and add in any other type of ridiculous generalization that you would likely find appalling if it didn't fit your own bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
It is about the lack of any nations adopting the modern American conservative world view. It speaks to the utter disaster that is conservative public policy ideas.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
Conservative utopias only exist in the minds of "magical thinkers", who prefer to cherry-pick the features they like all around the world (unregulated, aka, "free" markets, few taxes, no unions, no EPA, OSHA, etc.), while conveniently ignoring the less "convenient" parts (theocratic governments, repressive regimes, little to no middleclass, wide-scale pollution, corruption, etc.).
Meanwhile, the moment they can find anything "imperfect" about our own government (especially under Democratic control), they wanna throw the whole lot out!
Conservative utopias only exist in the minds of "magical thinkers", who prefer to cherry-pick the features they like all around the world (unregulated, aka, "free" markets, few taxes, no unions, no EPA, OSHA, etc.), while conveniently ignoring the less "convenient" parts (theocratic governments, repressive regimes, little to no middleclass, wide-scale pollution, corruption, etc.).
Meanwhile, the moment they can find anything "imperfect" about our own government (especially under Democratic control), they wanna throw the whole lot out!
Not so -- There are exceptions, most notably among the would-be theocrats of the Christian Right, but I believe that the majority of those in the conservative camp would agree with the proposition that economic and personal or expressionary/artistic freedom are unitary and inseparable. and that interference with one often leads to interference with the other.
This concept is most directly advanced by the movement's libertarian wing, and many of them trace their values to the teachings of Locke, Friedman and Ayn Rand, It was Rand's stridency, however, which sowed the seeds for a clash between the ideologically-motivated libertarians and the "neocon" oor "pop-con" faction which was the driving force behind the sudden, and divisive emergence of Rick Sanrorum, et al, this past spring.
The Tea Party, for the most part, as well as the majority of Ron Paul's followers, draw most of their support from people who live close to the street, the shop, the field and the factory floor -- people connected with small individual enterprises (or local branches of larger ones). They know why over-centralized large-scale planning often defeats itself, and many timrs provide the "real-world" interim approches which keep things running until a workable compromise can be formulated.
Unfortunately, the externe and unjudicious actions of a few, combined with the anonymity offered by the Internet and other recent developments, turned the entire movement into a target of opportunity for the manipulators at the head of the Democrats' usually-unwieldy coalition of single interests, most of whom are inherently short-sighted and authoritarian in their orientation.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-09-2012 at 10:48 PM..
So basically you are saying you can claim America as conservative because you want to and that what is or isn't conservative is very flexible gotcha.
This idea of looking at the founding of nation as some type of litmus test for the role of government forever and ever in a society is fc ki ng dumb. I hope you are not suggesting that.
The American government has grown as American society has grown. The American government has done more as the US population wanted it to do more, as the conditions required it to do more.
There is always a debate about the role of government, but that is no longer where conservatives reside. They reside on the side of everything the government does is bad and a failure and better left not done. This is an ignorant position to take in a complex society, but it is the one conservatives articulate.
Liberals think Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Truman, FDR, JFK, and LBJ were all liberals.
I don't think that Carter, Clinton, or Obama are particularly liberal although of the three President Obama is the most liberal of the bunch.
That is a lot of liberal Presidents. This means that according to liberals America has elected a lot of liberal Presidents.
Conservatives claim just one in the last 80years. Like I said, I think Calvin Coolidge is the next president that conservatives claim.
Throw in the fact that conservatives think liberals dominate most of the common pop culture, most of the common media, most of our public education, most universities, most of the largest cities, most of the largest states, most of the tech industry, etc and so
All of these things add up to America not being a conservative nation.
Just a couple of points:
Many conservatives claim JFK was conservative.
Campaigns are often as much or more about the candidate as they are about the issues. The 2012 Democratic campaign was unquestionably directed more at vilifying Romney the man than at championing liberal governing philosophy over conservative governing philosophy.
If two big government candidates run and the more conservative of the candidates win as in Bush v Clinton, then you can have a conservative victory without died in the wool conservatives necessarily claiming the winner as their own.
LBJ has the distinction of being a champion of civil rights at the same time as being a massive and unrepentant racist. Liberals claim the former but ignore the latter.
You can respond to the changing needs of society in specifics that were not included or possibly even envisioned in the constitution without sacrificing its principles.
Liberals consistently ignore states' rights. Either we have massive federal healthcare legislation or people will die in the streets. Either we nationalize student loans or nobody will be able to go to school. Congress withholds state funding unless the states spend the funding exactly how Congress tells them to. Etc. And this works because the liberals got senators to be elected by popular vote so nobody at the national level is there representing state governments.
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.
