Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-04-2013, 02:52 AM
 
Location: Southern California
15,080 posts, read 20,474,184 times
Reputation: 10343

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If Conservatives can rid themselves of the social hardliners the Liberals can kiss their ass goodbye.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2013, 04:55 AM
 
25,021 posts, read 27,933,813 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenere View Post
Going forward, will a president with fiscal conservative ideas ever get elected?

When I see candidates like Gary Johnson receive an astounding 1% of the vote, I think not.

History suggests that it is very rare for governments to willingly shrink, so I think the ship has sailed on this one.
Good
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:04 AM
 
374 posts, read 721,774 times
Reputation: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If Conservatives can rid themselves of the social hardliners the Liberals can kiss their ass goodbye.
This is one of those terrible arguments I hear too often. Particularly the ones who chugged some Obama kool aid, but don't want to be labeled as "Liberal."

There was a presidential candidate referenced in the original post of the thread who has conservative economic policy alongside pro-marriage equality, pro marijuana legalization, pro choice, etc.

He received a jaw dropping 1% of the popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:15 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,544,279 times
Reputation: 6392
Not until there is another financial crisis and the SNAP cards stop working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:23 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,803 posts, read 41,013,481 times
Reputation: 62204
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric View Post
Considering that when I started attending local Republican Party meetings in 2001, I was outright told by the chair that fiscal conservatives were not welcome (because Karl Rove said so) I would say no.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:24 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,733,597 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenere View Post
Going forward, will a president with fiscal conservative ideas ever get elected?
thankfully, no. The facts are:

(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.

Last edited by le roi; 08-04-2013 at 05:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:46 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenere View Post
Going forward, will a president with fiscal conservative ideas ever get elected?

When I see candidates like Gary Johnson receive an astounding 1% of the vote, I think not.

History suggests that it is very rare for governments to willingly shrink, so I think the ship has sailed on this one.
It's a good question. But, we had better get our fiscal house in order, because this ship is sinking fast.

Unfortunately, politicians love to spend money. Republicans talk of cuts in spending, but no real cuts are ever even considered, as the "baseline," against which cuts are measured, is itself never crossed. Thus the only thing we ever do is to reduce the rate of growth in any budget item. Nothing is ever actually cut.

Of course, Democrats don't even want to go that far. They are against any and all reductions, characterizing all as "draconian." The President symbolically closes down the White House tours, in a childish response to feigned "cuts," in spite of the fact that such closure isn't necessary, helps nothing, and only punishes those least responsible for government spending, school children visiting Washington D.C. to explore our history, and learn about our government.

The problem we have is that too many in Washington subscribe to the notion that government spending cures all economic ills, when in fact, it is often the cause of economic problems. This is because the printing of money causes inflation, government picking of "winners and losers" upsets the natural tendancy of the free market to correct itself, and in order to fund "programs" purported to be for the benefit of the economy, money must be extracted from the free market economy, which has a negative impact on the growth of business and therefore the creation of jobs.

As Reagan said, "Government is the problem."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:48 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,544,279 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
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'.
You mean like before the Clinton era repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999?

Yeah, that was so long ago, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:53 AM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,241,253 times
Reputation: 2279
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 06:02 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric View Post
Considering that when I started attending local Republican Party meetings in 2001, I was outright told by the chair that fiscal conservatives were not welcome (because Karl Rove said so) I would say no.
I think Karl Rove is the Republican's biggest problem. I wish someone would tell him to sit down and shut up.

Republicans were most effective under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. If we had Newt today, along with 'Tea Party Republicans' (I know, some of you think the "Tea Party" are idiots) we could accomplish great things. We could reduce taxes, and spending, and truly give the economy a huge shot in the arm.

Clearly, Obama's policies do not work, and they never have. All of his policies have been tried and failed in the past. Can we remember Jimmy Carter? Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Last edited by nononsenseguy; 08-04-2013 at 06:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top