And again we find a conservative arguing with himself. Either liberals just want to spend or that they spend because they want to stay in power.
Which is it?
How can you not notice this hole in your logic large enough to drive a truck through?
Unbelievable. I say we all chip in and buy him a reading comprehension course.
Er, that was for Clothahump in case there was any confusion.
To Shagnasty I would point out that my argument is that there isn’t any strong reason to believe liberals love spending for the sake of spending. My question is about why conservatives are deciding to believe it… or at least claim to believe it even though they also provide the very motives that contradict such a belief. My observation is that conservatives seem confused about this issue. I’m not trying to slander anyone with this. Nor am I trying to make a point here. I am genuinely curious as to why you all think you are behaving as you are.
Alternatively you could attempt to construct an argument demonstrating where and why you think my comprehension has failed.
My apologies, Shagnasty. I didn’t read your last post carefully enough and thought that you had missed the point I was arguing. That’s why I restated it. Your point does actually address my contention. Yes, can we take a look at some examples, please? And note that we want people calling for more spending not to accomplish any particular goal but merely because more spending is a good thing in and of itself. No need for hundreds. 2 or three would be a good start.
You are denying a fundamental reality. There is a spectrum of conservative to various liberal thoughts on economic issues. They range from extreme libertarians who only want the government to provide the bare minimum of services for the country to survive all the way to people that are so economically liberal that they are basically socialists or quasi-Marxists.
All of those people exist in the real world. I think we are only debating about proportions here. True economic liberals believe, to the best of my understanding, that capitalism is only an engine that has to be harnessed in the pursuit of other goals. Those goals are usually social programs with defined benefits but I have heard the argument that any dollar spent is good one because it helps someone and keeps the economy moving. There is actually some merit to that argument but I don’t think it is good long-term policy.
I am old enough now to notice that the number of admitted economic liberals has dropped off greatly in the past decade and the decline is especially steep since the late 1960’s when such notions were popular. You may not have seen it yourself but there is good reason to believe that lots of different philosophies loved spending money just for the sake of doing it. It always had some vague goal but accountability and a cost/benefit analysis were rarely part of the equation. That applies to some conservative groups like the military as well and it must be stooped at all cost (no pun intended).
I don’t think you have shared your true views yet. They won’t apply to all liberals but maybe you have some good ideas. What are they?
But that’s not an end, in any meaningful sense. Wealth, in an of itself, is not a useful end.
Indeed , the fact that you claim the worth of programs is “dubious” is in contradiction with the original idea–it seems to signify that they aren’t just trying to spend money as an end in itself, but that they do have a greater end in mind, it’s just perhaps an end that you think can be handled better a different way.
You are going to break down quickly on philosophical grounds which is where the great divide lies. The simplest way to put is that outside entities shouldn’t coerce or force you to give up your personal property by appealing to a higher level cause that may or may not exist. Money is just an abstraction of your personal work and/or possessions so a tax rate hikes are the same as the police showing up at your door to take x% of your stuff just because someone else supposedly needs it more.
In reality, almost no conservatives believe in 0% taxes or complete individualism just like most liberals aren’t pure communists. It is just a tug of war about which side predominates.
No need for that; it’s manifestly self-evident. The posts are there for everyone to read for themselves.
I agree that accountability and efficiency are important to be sure but don’t see how a lack of them implies that the stated goal of a governmental program has to be a ruse. What do you think liberals and these conservatives you refer to could possibly get out of having the government spend more and more money?
Your description of “true economic liberals” seems to fit me fairly well. But I don’t want to argue about who is right about government spending. I’m interested in why many (but not all) of those on the right insist on believing that there is something wrong with their opponents… namely that they just like to see the government spend more and more money for no other reason.
I think you made an error there. Doesn’t kibitzing go in MPSIMS?
As a liberal, I admit I’m not fully convinced conservatives really like balancing budgets or paying off the debt. I’m still suspicious a lot of their drive is visceral, and motivated by abhorrence of having to look after people who are too different from themselves.
If I come across one of these drunken-sailor liberals with a hard-on for NASA, he’s got my vote. I can’t get enough of space-exploration shit.
I read them too, and 2sense is right on target. He has found a genuine logical problem with what the conservatives on this board are saying. They begin by setting out to defend a claim that spending is an end in itself for Liberals. But then the argument they give to defend this claim defeats the claim itself! Because their arguments attempt to explain what end Liberals have other than spending for the sake of spending.
Either you want spending just for the sake of spending, or you want spending for the sake of (to take one example) staying in power. Both can’t be true.
If a conservative thinks liberals want to spend so they can stay in power, then what explains that conservatives’ use of “spending for its own sake” rhetoric? They’re not saying what they really think, or else, their thoughts are incoherent. In the latter case correction is called for. In the former case, we have to ask why their words don’t match their actual thoughts.
Like 2sense I was expecting conservatives to deny that they really think liberals just want to spend for the sake of spending. I figured that was such a blatant and obvious straw man that any conservative with a brain would disavow it immediately.
But instead I saw conservatives with brains wholeheartedly embracing it. I was kind of shocked by this.
And then I saw conservatives with brains trying to defend it–but doing so incoherently, in a way that immediately undercut the claim!
Something’s fishy here. Something’s going on that conservatives aren’t letting us in on. What I’m wondering now is whether they understand it themselves.
Do Conservatives Understand… stop right there. The answer is no. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, conservatives have a simple but incorrect answer.
I’m as liberal as they come. But I don’t believe that government should run everything. Practical people (and it seems that liberals have this distinction to themselves) realize there are things that government does better and things that the private sector does better, and the ideal goverment knows where to step in and where to step back. Managing road systems- government. Developing software- private. Drug testing and oversight- government. Farming- private. And so on. The conservative view is that government is by definition incompetent to handle anything except the military. When conservatives rant about that there is a spending problem,not a revenue problem or that government is not the solution, it is the problem, they’re just parroting bumper stickers. When it comes time for the grownups to take over and run things the right way, the liberals need to be in charge.
I really don’t like to eat salt, but I put in on all of my food except cereal and cookies. This is not because I want to eat salt but because I want my food to taste better. Therefore I am shocked to see anyone insinuate that I like eating salt.
The liberal plan to solve every problem.
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Create a bureacracy
- Spend all the money from Step 1 plus 10%
- Watch problem get worse
- Explain problem is lack of resources and power
- Go back to step 1
Oh, please. Saying liberals “just want to spend” is nonsensical in the extreme. It’s a statement in support of the notion that it matters not a bit if the spending has some benefit or not. It’s perfectly logical that a liberal would be, as a default, pro-spending, because they believe that the spending has some benefit: to the poor, to stay in power, etc.
More important, you’re playing a game by using the same phrase when, in use, different meanings are clear. “All liberals want to do is spend, spend, spend” is clearly hyperbolic. If someone says that do you really think they think that liberals want to spend more than make sure the country is safe, eat a cheeseburger, or have sex with a hot model. No, it’s hyperbole. But you want to take that and inject into a GD as if it has been offered as a thoughtful, well crafted statement of position. Please. :rolleyes:
That’s about as ridiculous as saying that the conservative plan to solve every problem is:
- Cut taxes on the rich.
- Continue to spend money anyway.
- Watch problem and debt get worse.
- Explain problem is high taxes.
- Go back to step 1.
At least the strawman liberal position has a revenue stream to it.
Oh no, the politicians who don’t cut the budget aren’t true conservatives.
I think this is more what us liberals have in mind:
- Create a progressive tax structure that includes everyone with the means to contribute
- Establish an entity designed to carry out the stated goals and a budget for doing so
- Expend the budget, as budgeted
- Evaluate for effect
- Modify techniques, if appropriate
- Continue to evolve the program to meet changing needs