stuff that makes me wonder

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios.

Are you speaking of the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives"? If so, then you're admitting a slanted point of view when you see the difference filtered through the eyes of liberals ("most liberals I know"). How about seeing it through the eyes of classical liberal "conservatives" such as the tea-partiers that liberals love to denigrate. They don't like or agree with liberals and so-called "conservatives" with either a D or R in front of their name who are "maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially." They are very much against the "crony capitalism," that, perhaps you've failed to notice, is supported by the Dems as well and who receive as much or more from big business as Repubs. The massive growth in wealth and power of both corporations and the Federal Government has risen under both parties, even though they may mouth promises and slogans to the contrary. There is a "progressive," anti-Constitutional belief in big central government power in both parties--the Dems just being farther down that road at this point than the Repubs, though a 100 years ago, Republicans were leading the progressive march. It is nearly useless to talk about that mushy center of both parties that more or less coalesces along the path of central power both in government and in business "too large to fail."

Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity.

The problem with this overreaching centralized power is that it sees all decisions on what's "best for the country as a whole" as its responsibility. Under the system this country was founded, most of those decisions began with individuals at local and State levels, and was fueled by an engaged citizenry who valued and were Constitutionally empowered to practice self government. The Central power was limited, though powerful within those limitations. Now, both parties have, approved by willing progressive accomplices in the Supreme Court, transferred much individual and local power to the Federal Government, and a few decide for all "what is best for the country as a whole."

It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes.

Adjusting various tax rates for various people is more of a political trick for power and goes against the only "equality" that the Constitution respects and a country of free individuals must have--equality before the law. It's a class war smokescreen to appease the many into thinking they are benefitting against those who oppress them, and are being protected by a nanny state that is actually making them dependent on continuous government growth to ensure that they needn't worry too much--the government will carry out the final two freedoms of FDR--freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of course, want and fear are two of the greatest motivators of individual action and responsibility. Once the government can take that burden from you, you are from then on in its care.

The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

I don't know about Omega Protein and Perdue or Bay health. And the things that various Republicans and Democrats have fought over have wavered back and forth to a mix beyond imperfection. Mostly, it was usually, in the past 100 years, none of their business, in the classical sense. They were too often deciding things we should decide for ourselves. One of the major differences, and there are many and of great weight, between classical liberal "conservatives" and "progressives" is that the latter want to create that quantum universe where they can throw a stone in the water without creating ripples. They don't see that their egalitarian, collectivist, legislation does not operate in a static world where nothing other than some impossible "equality" is forced, and do not recognize the dynamic nature of our universe--the force will create counter ripples. And those ripples will smooth into a new status quo, which, when the stone that is thrown is against individual freedom and responsibility in the name of a collectivist equality, that new status quo will be a more quiescent, less vigorous people, more and more marching after the same meager drummer.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

"conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially "

I hear this all the time from liberals, that Republicans are all in the pocket of big business. Zimmy, I'll concede that "big business" gives a lot of $$ to politicians, and that most of that $$ likely goes to Republicans. But please answer me this, Zimmy. If it's problematic when corporations buy political influence from Republicans, how is that any different from what happens when labor unions buy influence from Democrats? Labor unions also give $$ to politicians, and virtually all of it goes to Democrats. And when those Democarts reward the unions with insane benefits, that $$ gets confiscated from me in the form of property taxes.

Most towns and states in this country are crippled with debt from insane benefits promised to public labor unions (certainly it's a huge issue in New England).

So again, if you are concerned about Republicans selling favors to "business", why aren't you equally concerned when Democrats sell influence to labor unions?

"They invade Iraq for oil"

Excuse me? What oil? Presumably unlike you, I was there with a gun in my hand. I hear a lot of kooks say we invaded for oil, I'm just wondering where that oil is? We won in Iraq, so where is our loot? Do you think that all conservatives who supported the war, now all have their own oil wells? If so, where do I go to get mine? And if you think only conservatives wante dto invade Iraq, I suggest you look at the Senate vote. Those who wanted to "invade for oil" included right-wingers like Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer...

"It is just different priorities, I guess. "

Here's the difference in priorities. Conservatives think the best way to help those in need is that for those who can work, to get a good job, with upward economic upward mobility. Liberals would rather expand their voting base by giving all these people welfare, which has the side effect of crippling these people for life. Conservatives want everyone to be well off. Liberals want poor people to vote for liberals, even if that means crippling them by making them addicted to welfare.

Another difference in priorities...conservatives don't want to leave our grandkids with crippling debt. Liberals seemingly have no issue with that, because I don't know a single liberal who suggests that we need massive spending cuts and entitlement reform. And EVERY SINGLE TIME a conservative suggests that the only way to fix this is to cut spending, liberals shriek "YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!" Liberals frame the issue to make it sound like all we need to do is tweak taxes on the wealthy, but the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to tax our way out of this (if we could solve all our problems simply by tweaking taxes on the rich, no one would be opposed to that). Conservatives don't like this reality any more than liberals do...the difference is, we admit the ugly reality and want to roll up our sleeves and begin the difficult task of fixing it. Liberals would rather ignore the problem so as to get re-elected. And leave the problem for our kids and grandkids.

Tell me where I'm wrong.