# Do Conservatives consider potential for long-term stability ("final state") in advocating policy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380 "2013-10-27T16:50:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/41 "2013-10-29T16:16:04Z")
Conservatives are the only ones who think about the long term. Gay people have been around for thousands of years, but gay “marriage” less than decade. No one knows how it will affect society but all of a sudden it is a huge crisis. I know some people will think that the professionally aggrieved will be satisfied and we will stop hearing about this issue, but once we have paid the danegeld we will not be so easily rid of this issue. America has the most liberal abortion laws in the world and one of the most religious electorates. Is pretending the constitution demands abortions really a long term stable solution in a democracy? The courts have been fighting this for over 40 years, why not allow democracy to solve this problem? Socialized medicine is unsustainable. Government spending on Medicare has gone up 67% in the last 10 years, spending on Medicaid has gone up 37.8%. Entitlements plus interest payments will take up the entire amount raised in taxes and everything else will have to be borrowed. This is less than ten years away. So the solution is to give the government more responsibility to pay for health care? The only way to keep the government solvent is to cut spending and look to have it pay less. What happened to Detroit, and Greece will happen to the US if action is not taken. We know that a society that has low taxes and low spending can work, because that was the US for most of its history. It created the richest country in the world, and no one starved in the streets. We also know that a government that keeps spending like tomorrow will never come will eventually have to have a reckoning. The US is speeding toward that reckoning and anyone who want to keep it from happening is accused of trying to kill the poor and old. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/42 "2013-10-29T16:40:06Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > No, it DOES mean they want to go back to separate fountains, they are just too cowardly to say so. There is little about the 1950’s worth idolizing with regards to equality. The tax structure was pretty good back then. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/43 "2013-10-29T19:12:56Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Or let’s look at the city level. Detroit, which has had strongly liberal politics for a long time, recently went bankrupt, having spent too much while driving away businesses and the middle class. Numerous other cities are following a similar path. Is this stable in the long term? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Detroit has been circling the drain for a long time. The city’s problems are clear: high taxes and regulations drive away business. The city government is corrupt, spends too much, has too many employees, and meanwhile can’t perform basic functions such a policing the streets. All of this is generally acknowledged even by liberals, and it’s been true for years. But the Democrats who have run the city have refused to change course. For years they’ve been unwilling to even consider loosening regulations on business, firing unneeded employees, and trimming expenses. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions show clearly that they weren’t thinking about long-term viability over the past few years. This is bullshit and you know it. Don’t make me school you. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/44 "2013-10-29T20:12:57Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > That sounds like a path to stagnation to me. And, in a way, sort of cowardly. That’s not the kind of nation I want this one to be. I can understand the conservative viewpoint without agreeing with it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/45 "2013-10-29T20:59:49Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > This is bullshit and you know it. Don’t make me school you. > > - Honesty Honesty, this sort of accusation of lying is explicitly forbidden by the ‘Lying and Liars’ sticky. Warning issued, don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/46 "2013-10-29T21:28:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Or let’s look at the city level. Detroit, which has had strongly liberal politics for a long time, recently went bankrupt, having spent too much while driving away businesses and the middle class. Numerous other cities are following a similar path. Is this stable in the long term? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Detroit has been circling the drain for a long time. The city’s problems are clear: high taxes and regulations drive away business. The city government is corrupt, spends too much, has too many employees, and meanwhile can’t perform basic functions such a policing the streets. All of this is generally acknowledged even by liberals, and it’s been true for years. But the Democrats who have run the city have refused to change course. For years they’ve been unwilling to even consider loosening regulations on business, firing unneeded employees, and trimming expenses. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions show clearly that they weren’t thinking about long-term viability over the past few years. This is silly. Detroit did not drive away business with “liberal” policies. Detroit lost its tax base in the same way that a lot of rust belt cities lost theirs through white flight, rising crime, and a number of other issues. Efforts to restore or rescue the city were not thwarted by “liberal” policies, but by two specific corrupt administrations. Detroit made serious efforts to bring industry back into the city. Unfortunately, bringing new and overhauled GM and Chrysler plants back did not have the desired effect when those companies ran into their own problems. Many mistakes have been made in Detroit, but claiming that they have been “liberal” mistakes is to ignore reality. As to the unions, they are simply trying to salvage the retirements of their membership–people who worked for the city for 30 and 40 years. I am sure that it is fun to accuse them of “liberal” policies, but I do not see any “conservatives” doing anything to prevent the need for bankruptcy or to protect the people who gave their service in good faith that they would not be kicked to the curb when they were too old to work. It may be that the unions are in a hopeless situation, but your accusation would make more sense if it was not couched in partisan rhetoric that ignored the facts on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/47 "2013-10-29T21:30:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > . . . thoughts. Pull this stunt again and you will receive a Warning. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/48 "2013-10-30T02:59:26Z")
There’s more cherry-picking in this thread than… I dunno… one of your busier cherry orchards. ---
**Author:** ![Arete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Arete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arete)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/49 "2013-10-30T03:22:09Z")
I’d say that the short-term thinking endemic in American politics is not a “conservative” thing. It’s a natural flaw of Republics and similar forms of governments with officials who serve for a short period of time and are thus always seeking reelection. If I am governor of a state, anything that does not begin to show positive results before the next election is not going to benefit me. It doesn’t matter if the program I instated will go down in flames twenty years from now; I’ll be long since retired by then, and the blame will fall onto whoever is unlucky enough to be in office at the time. All that matters to me if I’m keen on being reelected is that it looks good while I’m governor. For example, “Reaganomics” was a short term boon, but has over time greatly contributed to our current economic strife. Reagan didn’t pay for it. As long as we have Republican and Democratic representative governments, that incentivization towards short-term thinking is going to be a major issue. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/50 "2013-10-30T16:02:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is silly. Detroit did not drive away business with “liberal” policies. Detroit lost its tax base in the same way that a lot of rust belt cities lost theirs through white flight, rising crime, and a number of other issues. Efforts to restore or rescue the city were not thwarted by “liberal” policies, but by two specific corrupt administrations. > Detroit made serious efforts to bring industry back into the city. Unfortunately, bringing new and overhauled GM and Chrysler plants back did not have the desired effect when those companies ran into their own problems. > > Many mistakes have been made in Detroit, but claiming that they have been “liberal” mistakes is to ignore reality. > > As to the unions, they are simply trying to salvage the retirements of their membership–people who worked for the city for 30 and 40 years. I am sure that it is fun to accuse them of “liberal” policies, but I do not see any “conservatives” doing anything to prevent the need for bankruptcy or to protect the people who gave their service in good faith that they would not be kicked to the curb when they were too old to work. It may be that the unions are in a hopeless situation, but your accusation would make more sense if it was not couched in partisan rhetoric that ignored the facts on the ground. “Mistakes have been made in Detroit” by whom? By liberal politicians. Crime, white flight, and greedy unions are not natural phenomenon that just hit a city like a random tornado. They are results of liberal policies instituted by liberal governments. Crime in Detroit was a big issue during elections in the 60s. Liberals thought that the police force was overzealous and campaigned on a promise to reign in the police. They won the munincipal elections and crime skyrocketed. From 1960 to 1970 the murder rate went up 300% and the robbery rate went up 750%. You can’t expect people to live in a city that is not safe so everyone who could started to leave, first the rich, then the middle class, then the poor. The liberal politicians drafted the laws that allowed the city unions to have binding arbitration in disputes with the city and the resultant pensions they won bankrupted the city. Liberal policies were behind the bankruptcy of Detroit. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380/51 "2013-10-30T17:18:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Hmmm. Let me offer my personal opinion. (Politically I’m libertarian, by the way.) I see it exactly the opposite way around. Liberals are the ones who seem to refuse to consider the long term. > > For instance, in the two years that Obama was President and Democrats controlled Congress, the federal deficit soared to record highs. In the long term, the deficit may be slightly lower than the amounts we had in '09 and '10, but they are certainly going to remain high. Moreover, Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 10-15 years (depending on which projection you use). Social Security will follow Medicare into bankruptcy not too long thereafter. Does anyone really think that we can continue piling up money at the current rate, while the two biggest government programs are heading into bankruptcy. Is this going to be stable in the long run? The record high deficit increase was under Bush’s last year not Obama and even there, it was the result of an economic implosion. Social security can be made solvent over the long term merely be removing the cap. Medicare and Medicaid is where you are correct. There was an opportunity to address medicare and medicaid during the oabmacare debate but when the Democrats proposed modest reforms to medicare, the Republicans jumped on them. Then when Paul Ryan tried to address it from the right side of the aisle, the Democrats returned the favor. Paul Ryan’s plan sucked but there is a compromise that could be made if everyone wasn’t trying to use medicare to bludgeon the other side. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-consider-potential-for-long-term-stability-final-state-in-advocating-policy/672380.md?page=2)