How can anyone with AS be a conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

The New Deal programs have generally been considered highly successful. Your criticism is meaningless, especially as it applies just as much (if not more) to conservatives, who never consider the consequences of blowing massive holes in the budget.


In personal income? If so, they aren't struggling to make ends meet. I don't care where you live in this country, $250,000 buys a pretty comfortable lifestyle.


Others have posted them, repeatedly. From another thread:



Yes. Were you not paying attention during the Reagan administration? He "simplified" the tax code significantly- and in doing so massively transferred the burden from the rich to the middle class. George W. Bush also passed tax reforms that transferred the burden of supporting government from the rich down to the middle class.

Or in more recent times, take the "Fair Tax" that has been peddled by Huckabee and others and sold as a way of "simplifying" the tax code. A very high national sales tax, as opposed to the current mildly progressive income tax, would hit lower-income individuals disproportionately. Every Republican tax proposal has the effect (and the intent) of shifting the tax burden downwards and thus redistributing wealth upwards.


I may be rude, but I am also right.


Paul is nowhere close to the mainstream of the Republican party. The important considerations are only the major factions, such as the Tea Party, the Evangelicals, the neo-cons, and the "fiscal conservatives."


The GOP is currently pushing for huge cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. They have in the past attempted to privatize Social Security. It is no secret to anyone who pays attention to politics at all that the Republicans would, eventually, like to eliminate these programs.


How about that, yet another goalpost shifted. You were claiming that the US is taxing corporations to death.

And incidentally, the House Republicans did fight to avoid resolving the loopholes. They have been pushing for a "tax holiday" that would reward megacorporations for taking advantage of those loopholes.

Tea baggers, who seem to be rapidly becoming the Republican mainstream, have said time and time again that they want to do away with social programs, whether it's social security (which they refer to as a ponzi scheme), medicare and medicaid, and even the postal service. Anyone claiming that the current goal of the Republican party isn't to rid America of it's social programs is either lying, is highly ignorant and naive, or just doesn't have enough sense to turn on the news (the real news, not Fox).
And by the way, the rich can undergo a tax hike, and will never have to worry about having enough to eat, a place to sleep, or having healthcare. Take away social programs from the poor and middle class, and watch people go hungry, homeless, and without medical care. And we Aspies are supposed to be devoid of empathy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think I'd really rather just let articles speak back and forth. I tried to grab a fair round for what I could find, some had both sides of the debate available, others didn't.

Some overall analysis of the New Deal:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=176
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835397.html
http://www.fee.org/nff/three-myths-of-t ... epression/

My own opinion - programs need to be in place for the sick, disabled, and elderly, its a given. So much of the New Deal was above and beyond that.


Its a trick I'd call browbeating hypnosis - act authoritative, keep the dynamics on animalistic terms where the inferior/lesser party knows they're inferior, and from there - like an attractive person scorning an unattractive person like they're bad little kid it seems to subconsciously lend an air of infallibility to the person who's doing the scolding.

Luckily I've had people try it on me enough in my life that it doesn't go very far.

150 years ago, none of them had yet been born.

Oh, my bad.

Some of my liberal acquaintances ITRW use "Mindblind", "Headblind", and "Closed-Minded" interchangeably, and in the context that whoever they are referring to has already made up his or her mind and can not be persuaded to change it.

How else am I going to convince someone expressing their own self-pity as anger that even though their situation may be bad now, it is possible to make it better in the future?

Of course, some folks are so deep into their misery that they can't believe that: (1) anyone else has ever suffered as bad as they have, or (2) no one could ever get out of a situation as bad as theirs.

I do not hold contempt for liberals, just their Nannyist policies.

Why don't you drop your whining pedantics and open your mind to some practical applications of liberal policy? Why don't you drop your own hostility toward those of us who have been in the same state you are now, and eventually worked our way out of it without relying on handouts? Why don't you just admit that you are afraid to even try to make something of yourself?

Of course, if you are mentally or physically disabled, then I take that last one back; but if you are not, then I suggest that you do something about it, and quit crying about how "unfair" it is that we do not live in a Nanny state.

As for that "bitter old curmudgeon" crack, you left out the words "successful", "respected", "trusted", "employed", and most of all, "loved".

Ms. Roses, welcome to the fray. I agree in pinciple with most of your post, but I must expand on one of your statements...

Unfortunately, for many of us it all comes down to a choice between "the Lesser of Two Evils" and not voting at all. I voted McCain/Palin in '08, simply because I could see no real hope in voting Obama/Biden, other than causing Jesse Jackson and others like him to shut up about how no black man stood a chance to be president in a white-dominated society.

As it turns out, Jesse Jackson was wrong, and I was right...

That's another reason why I'm so down on religion - its un-necessary and often dangerous influence on political issues.

I like to identify myself as a Moderate - one who would apply Liberal ideals in a fiscally Conservative fashion (ie, eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in our social systems). Then again, I could accept the Secular Conservative label, as well, since (1) you don't have to be religious to be conservative; (2) removing religion from conservatism shifts its focus a little more to the left; and (3) religion has no effing place in running a secular nation.

What conservatives have failed to acknowledge is that, back in the good old days before the horrible nanny state, life was pretty short for most people, and undernourishment and homelessness was rampant. That changed when the government began taking an interest in people's welfare. And while it can be argued that longevity has increased in modern times due to medical science, the fact of the matter is, without government medical coverage, those new medicines and techniques would be out of the price range of most middle and lower class individuals.
The nanny state's looking pretty good from my perspective.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That depends on what you call a "Nanny State". I refer to the Wikipedia Article on "Nanny State":


Now, I can go along with "public health interventions" that actually work to improve quality of life: government-subsidized programs for immunization, truth in labeling, and limiting the sale of harmful substances. I can also see the need for anti-smoking laws, speed limits on roads, and mandatory spaying/neutering of dogs.

What I do not favor is the idea that just because someone has something that I can earn for myself, there ought to be a law that requires that person to give a "fair" portion of it to me. And while I do not favor monopolistic corporations, I also do not favor labor unions driving up the cost of manufacturing with their exorbitant demands for extraordinary wages and benefits. Neither do I favor protectionist laws requiring foreign competitors to charge higher prices on high-quality goods that they can make cheaper than the same products can be made domestically, while at the same time every foreign company hired as "outsourced" labor should be required to adhere to the same employment laws that domestic companies must follow - no child labor, 40-hour workweek, bonus pay for overtime, equal pay for equal work regardless of gender, religion, politics, et cetera.

In a Nanny State ... well, let's take Florida for example. Recent efforts put into law the requirement that anyone receiving State Assistance must pass a test for illegal drug use. Failure or refusal means that State Assistance is cut off. Compliance means that the benefits continue.

I am in favor of a nation-wide policy of this sort being put into practice, but only if the testing is of a random segment of the population.

1. Select all those people receiving assistance whose SSN ends with the digit "0".
2. Roll two dice. If the result is 10 or higher, that group gets tested that month (1 in 6 chance that you number would be called every month).
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for all other people receiving assistance, while incrementing the final digit before each roll of the dice.

This would tend to discourage people from using their State Assistance checks for illegal drugs, but would this be an implementation of "Nannyist" policies? Maybe by degree, but a stricter policy would be to have every recipient pee in a cup before they could be issued their next check.

in my opinion, liberal social policies are generally "good" (as opposed to "evil"), but it is their slip-shod application for irresponsible beneficiaries that ruins it for everyone (among other flaws). I would like to see these policies actually work for everybody's benefit, even if it means putting the most able of beneficiaries to work as well.

Well there is variation between people even people with AS...I lean more towards a lot of liberal socialst veiws I guess because I am one of those people who is having a lot of trouble with some AS related things and other mental disorders......and cannot even get a freaking psychological evaluation because I cannot afford it which means I can't really apply for disability or medicaid. I plan to look into any resources that might be able to help me...so don't anyone jump on me for not already knowing what resources there are.

But anyways I think someone who really struggles with AS might oppose some of the 'survival of the fittest' type conservative veiws as they would understand how hard it can be for even people without AS to survive in such a society.

I mean hey I think its punishment enough that I feel like a freaking burden because I cannot handle a job on top of college, I would love to be able to do that.......though lots of people like to tell me how I'm just not trying hard enough and how they think I can work. But hey everyone is still entitled to their opinions wether they are conservative, liberal, socialist or whatever.

In my opinion though, those found to be ablest bodied to work by the most hard hearted conservatives may in fact not be able bodied - or may in fact have a psychological or developmental disorder. Right wing politics have become so intertwined in plans to sort "the wheat from the shaft," that virtually no one's benefits would be safe. Scott Walker's plans for drug testing the recipients of benefits in Florida is actually driven more by politics than it is in the name of law and order. I see more of conservative vindictiveness in these so called reforms, based on the assumption that the poor are getting a free ride.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

because people with as can look beyond the liberal crap spouted through the media and think for themselves.

Also helps that Walker owns a chain of quick care clinics that do drug testing. So if you are a Florida state employee or aid recipient and want to make sure you'll pass the new state test, slip him $35 and see.

Well then, propose an alternative. I hope it will be one that would guarantee that when a person is able to work, that he or she is put to work. Otherwise, capable people will just collect their hand-outs on a monthly basis without ever being productive. There just seems to be something ethically or morally wrong with such a practice - it is too analogous to parisitism.

No, I am not slamming those who are willing, but unable to work due to some disability or handicap. I am expressing contempt for those who are fully capable of working, and who believe that it is both ethical and moral to take without giving - a non quid pro quo arrangement, as it were.