Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
hmm... coolidge left office in 1929
Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the 21st century, the Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the world's economy can decline.[2] The depression originated in the U.S., after the fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929, and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday). |
That's wrong.
The Great Depression started with the 1925 Recession and Housing Bubble Collapse triggered by Real Deflation and Surplus Labor, followed by the 1928 Recession caused by Real Deflation and Surplus Labor, followed by the 1930 Recession cause by increases in Income and Excise Taxes, Tariffs, and Surplus Labor, followed by the 1933 Recession caused by New Deal legislation, followed by the 1937 Recession caused by New Deal legislation, and those were followed by the 1946 and 1949 Recessions caused by Surplus Labor.
During Eisenhower's 8 years you had 3 recessions, the 3rd ending in 4th Quarter 1961. I would count those as well, since they were related to Electro-Mechanical Industrialization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
1) Patrick Buchanan: small decentralized government (Federal govt's primary concern is defense); protectionist in matters of trade (free trade, with limited protectionary tariffs to protect the American worker); humble foreign policy (walk softly with a big stick); limited immigration (allows for natural wage progression).
2) George W. Bush: huge centralized government; unbridled capitalism/trade agreements (which have gutted our industrial sector); imperialist foreign policy (everyone is a potential enemy); doors-wide-open immigration (ensures that wages are decline, while the rich get richer).
Pat Buchanan and George W. Bush.
Both are labeled by intellectuals as being on the "hard Right," yet both are very different.
Discuss
|
Discuss, what? The level of fail here? Or discuss your inability to construct a proper Poll?
George W. Bush is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
The fact that George W. Bush is a Republican does not alter the fact that he is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
The fact that Clinton had Neo-Conservatives on his White House Staff does not alter the fact that Clinton was a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist. Obama has Neo-Conservatives on his White House Staff, yet he is also a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
George H. Bush is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist. The fact that he is a Republican, and the fact that he had Neo-Conservatives on his White House Staff does not alter the fact that he is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
What's your definition of true conservatism?
|
Me.
A Conservative first and foremost strives for Stability.
It is stability which allows the federation to grow and prosper; the several States to prosper; which allows communities to grow and prosper; which allows the family to grow and thrive; and which allows the individual to grow and learn and achieve their fullest potential.
For that reason, a Conservative supports to the greatest document ever: the Constitution --- because it is the foundation of stability, from which all things flow.
A Conservative focuses on Unity.
Conservatives strive for unity in the federation, unity in the several States; unity in the comm
unity; and unity in the family.
Contrast that with Liberals who demand, coerce and threaten uniformity.
Conservatives recognize that unity allows for individualistic expression, whether that expression is at the federal level, State level; community level; family level; or personal level. You can be an individual and still be unified in thought, or in mind or in purpose or in reason.
Unity is good....uniformity is bad.
Conservative Priorities are consistent with Stability and Unity.
A Conservative's priorities are the family, the self, the community, the State and the federation in that order. That would be true for a Mexican Conservative: family, self, community, State, then the Mexican government. And the same for a German....family, self, the community (say Ritterhude), the State (in this case Niedersachsen) and then Germany, then perhaps the European Union. For a Korean it would be family, self, community (Taegu) and then Korea (since Korea is neither a federation nor confederation). The French would look at family, self, their community (eg Metz) then France, and perhaps the EU (as a confederation).
Again, this is at odds with Liberals, whose priorities are the national government, the individual as s/he relates to the national government, the individual as s/he conforms to the edicts of the national government and the individual as a puppet dangled on a string by the national government, since the existence and purpose of the individual is to service and serve the national government.
Conservative view places Government subordinate to the Individual.
Again, contrast that with Liberals who view the individual as subordinate to Government. The role and function of government in the Conservative mind-set is that of neutral arbiter. Government as a neutral party enforces laws and contracts, both of which foster stability. Conservatives also see government subordinate to both family and community.
Capitalist Property Theory is consistent with Stability, Unity and Priorities.
Pretty self-explanatory.
The Free Market Economic System is consistent with Stability, Unity and Priorities.
Liberals naturally will go for the knee-jerk Straw Man about "unregulated Markets."
Conservatives know that you can regulate Markets. Any person with half-a-brain would recognize that regulations come in three flavors: positive, neutral and negative.
A negative regulation is any regulation that coerces consumer transactions, whether the consumer relationship is household-to-household, business-to-business, household-to-business, business-to-government, or household-to-government.
Any regulation that introduces unnecessary costs is a negative regulation.
What Conservatives seek are regulations that are at the very least neutral, if not positive, and which enhance stability and foster unity. This also relates to the difference between unity and uniformity. Liberals demand, coerce and threaten uniformity and conformity, even when not in the best interest of family, individual, community or State.
Yeah, I'm talking about the Liberal "one-size-fits-all-everyone-go-to-hell" mentality.
Anyway, the fact that Buchanan might espouse one or two Conservative views does not make him a Conservative. What is the difference between Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Buchanan? No difference....they're all Nationalists....and Buchanan leans more towards Isolationism, and neither nationalism nor isolationism is a Conservative trait.
Discussing...
Mircea
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.
Right on!
