Where Is The PROOF That The Conservative Agenda Works?

[Carthoris]

ummm you are so wrong...another thread was started
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/422497-wheres-proof-librulism-works.html but we guess people was showing the answer so the OP left it..if you like I can bump it up for ya...

Im starting another thread "Why the Government could be replaced by Creme Bruleeism"

I actually did read that thread previously. There is no proof that any political ideal works, and there is doubtful to ever be. A few points:

1) Every type of country succeeds and fails depending on many many reasons. I can think of exceedingly poorly run countries, but I can't think of one that is ran in a great way. Maybe if you use a sliding scale you can point out a 'good' government.

2) No country has kept its government in tact for very long. America is 230 years or so, and we have one of the most stable and long lasting governments in the world. You might say a country has existed for X amount of years, but how long has the Government existed?

3) Define Liberal. I'm not sure you can declare that Modern Liberalism been around long enough to declare success. Our 'conservative' parties in the USA are actual Liberal themselves. More conservative than the far left perhaps, but that is like saying an ice cube is hot because you are comparing it to dry ice.

4) Define success. Is it longevity? Is it wealth? Well being? Happiness? You could argue that the Indians had a very successful conservative life before the white man came to America or that the tribes in S America that have no understanding of the modern world live just as they have for a long long time and are happy with their lives. The Amish society has done well for a long time, as well as other conservative groups.


The only chance we have of a successful world is that our technology becomes near unlimited to the point where everyone can have whatever they want for free. At that point Government at the levels we have will simply cease to be needed. There is a reason we call all the types of government and economics that we have 'theories' or 'schools of thought'. It is because none of them are proven.

 

[Carthoris]

I didn't say that the rich didn't pay those taxes as well, I said that the poor DO pay taxes. The rich do not pay in proportion to what they make with regard to sales tax, they pay in proportion to what they spend.

Poor people pay sales taxes the same way, based on how much they spend. I think that is fair.

Income tax only makes up like 1/3 of our countries revenues. If we went back to the spending of last decade we could almost just do away with income tax altogether and still make it. All we had to do was just not increase spending and everything would of been fine.

 

[londonfog]

Im starting another thread "Why the Government could be replaced by Creme Bruleeism"

I actually did read that thread previously. There is no proof that any political ideal works, and there is doubtful to ever be. A few points:

1) Every type of country succeeds and fails depending on many many reasons. I can think of exceedingly poorly run countries, but I can't think of one that is ran in a great way. Maybe if you use a sliding scale you can point out a 'good' government.

2) No country has kept its government in tact for very long. America is 230 years or so, and we have one of the most stable and long lasting governments in the world. You might say a country has existed for X amount of years, but how long has the Government existed?

3) Define Liberal. I'm not sure you can declare that Modern Liberalism been around long enough to declare success. Our 'conservative' parties in the USA are actual Liberal themselves. More conservative than the far left perhaps, but that is like saying an ice cube is hot because you are comparing it to dry ice.

4) Define success. Is it longevity? Is it wealth? Well being? Happiness? You could argue that the Indians had a very successful conservative life before the white man came to America or that the tribes in S America that have no understanding of the modern world live just as they have for a long long time and are happy with their lives. The Amish society has done well for a long time, as well as other conservative groups.


The only chance we have of a successful world is that our technology becomes near unlimited to the point where everyone can have whatever they want for free. At that point Government at the levels we have will simply cease to be needed. There is a reason we call all the types of government and economics that we have 'theories' or 'schools of thought'. It is because none of them are proven.

I love Creme Brulees..remember to give generously and to not be conservative

the questions was "show proof that liberalism works..not who has or had the oldest government and in that thread several countries were pointed out...

Define Liberal: Giving generously, Open to new behavior or opinions, a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties..

 

[canndo]

Poor people pay sales taxes the same way, based on how much they spend. I think that is fair.

Income tax only makes up like 1/3 of our countries revenues. If we went back to the spending of last decade we could almost just do away with income tax altogether and still make it. All we had to do was just not increase spending and everything would of been fine.

I don't think so, Given that there is no federal sales tax. We had a deficit and a national debt back then as well. Now poor people do pay taxes on the Federal level as well, they simply do not pay income tax to the Federal government. I am not sure that you understand that the poor pay a greater percentage of their income on necessities than the rich do.

 

[Carthoris]

I love Creme Brulees..remember to give generously and to not be conservative

the questions was "show proof that liberalism works..not who has or had the oldest government and in that thread several countries were pointed out...

If a country cannot stay together under a type of government it can hardly be considered to work, can it? My point was that there are not really any long term liberal countries.

Define Liberal: Giving generously, Open to new behavior or opinions, a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties..

Classical Liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. This is the original 'liberal' ideal. The newer one is Social Liberalism.
Also, one might point out that conservatives in this country give much more generously than the liberals to charities.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#cite_note-google.com-0

 

[Carthoris]

I don't think so, Given that there is no federal sales tax. We had a deficit and a national debt back then as well. Now poor people do pay taxes on the Federal level as well, they simply do not pay income tax to the Federal government. I am not sure that you understand that the poor pay a greater percentage of their income on necessities than the rich do.

Only 1/3 of the federal revenues are personal income tax. We payed our debt off back then and the debt was from fighting wars, not just random things that someone wanted to do. It wasn't until our generation that they really just stopped caring if the debt was mounting. As the graph below shows, it is 1/3 of our revenue.

In this graph you plainly see that if we had capped our spending at 2002 levels (8 years ago) that we would have a surplus every year. It isn't that I am against social security and unemployment and all that. I just think you have to realistically have a plan to fund the things you want. Robbing the rich isn't a plan since even if you completely took all of their money they wouldn't be able to pay the tabs currently. Does anyone think we are better off than we were in 1995 or 2002 or 1980? What has really changed except how much money our government wastes?

Regarding the percentage they pay for necessities... I realize that. It would be hard not to. My point is even poverty level people can afford necessities. It is when they spend money on things that aren't necessities that there is an issue. I am not saying poor people shouldn't be allowed to have fun or buy a 2nd car. I am saying that the government shouldn't subsidize it. Also, keep in mind that people who live in poverty do so because they are uneducated, unmotivated, or made poor choices. Why not work on those causes of the poverty. Giving money to the poor to live on without teaching them to take care of themselves is a lot like giving someone who has their leg trapped under a rock pain meds instead of helping to take the rock off.

 

[Carthoris]

I had creme brulee the other night while drinking Unibroue Trois Pistoles. It was a nice pairing and the creme brulee was great. Id say it is probably one of the best I have ever had. I will be going back to try the banana foster soon.

 

[londonfog]

I love dark ale too...but with Creme brulee...have to just take your word on the pairing...if I ever get the chance to do the two together I will just so I can see..

 

[UncleBuck]

creme bruleeism is a poor foundation for an independent, individualistic country like ours. perhaps a more group-focused, collectivist type of country could make it work, perhaps south korea or vietnam.

pumpkin pieism is much more well-suited to our country and its 'melting pot' type of culture. anyone who thinks otherwise had ought to get his or her head examined by a competent professional.

 

[Carthoris]

I love dark ale too...but with Creme brulee...have to just take your word on the pairing...if I ever get the chance to do the two together I will just so I can see..

Really, any dark and hoppy beer would pair well. The trois pistoles was a bit fruity, but it came off well still. I initially wanted a barley wine, but they aren't exactly on every menu.

 

[Carthoris]

creme bruleeism is a poor foundation for an independent, individualistic country like ours. perhaps a more group-focused, collectivist type of country could make it work, perhaps south korea or vietnam.

pumpkin pieism is much more well-suited to our country and its 'melting pot' type of culture. anyone who thinks otherwise had ought to get his or her head examined by a competent professional.

I can barely stomach pumpkin pieism. You weirdos really have no clue do you, pumpkins are more like a vegetable. For fuck sakes, its filled with something called 'endosperm'. That sounds like another name for vegetable to me! So, in closing, don't eat sperm pie.

 

[GreenThumbBill]

This is such a silly concept for a topic. It presupposes that politicians and political agendas are actually put into place to help the country as a whole. America was sold, bought and paid for a long time ago. Politicians are just puppets. The "conservative agenda" is just a scam established by the owners of this country to project the illusion that the people have a choice and a voice. We don't. We're slaves and we will be until we die or until a major natural disaster destroys all governments, militaries and most of humanity. Deal with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE

 

[UncleBuck]

I can barely stomach pumpkin pieism. You weirdos really have no clue do you, pumpkins are more like a vegetable. For fuck sakes, its filled with something called 'endosperm'. That sounds like another name for vegetable to me! So, in closing, don't eat sperm pie.

see, that illustrates the problem with "your side", a bunch of raging anti-intellectuals.

i guess you won't be planting osteo flowers this year, despite their beauty, because their botanical name is "osteospermum" and that would just be too much for a neanderthal like yourself to handle, now wouldn't it?

i know this graph will confuse and confound someone of such dizzying intellect as yourself, but i think it proves my case very well.



http://graphjam.memebase.com/upcoming/?pid=26036&from=recMap4