# Resolved: Conservatives get whatever they want **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2014, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019 "2014-04-26T03:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/42 "2014-04-29T18:20:33Z")
**magellan’s** list is excellent. As a conservative, I agree with all of them except for the Christianity part and this one: “Pass a law making it illegal for a congressperson to vote for or against a bill without reading it in its entirety. If they haven’t read it, they don’t get to vote. If they do, and are later found to have lied about it, they lose their seat.” I don’t have an issue with this in theory, but in practice it would be too easy to abuse. I don’t want witch hunts in congress of who read what. Along those same lines I’d like simpler bills. There’s no need for legislation to be hundreds of pages long. Bills should be simple and address one thing. If you want to do a lot of stuff, you should have to pass a lot of bills. Example: “Comprehensive” immigration reform is a bad idea. Pass legislation (if we even need any) to secure the border. Once it’s secure, you can pass more legislation to deal with the people already here. That’s the only thing American voters will accept anyway, since there is no faith that the government will ever get serious about the border. Some more conservative ideas: Constitutionalist SCOTUS. Think all of the justices voting like Scalia all of the time. Don’t like abortion? That’s fine. Free up the states to ban it, thus overturning Roe. But you can’t ban it at the court level because it’s not in the constitution. Abortion is one example of many things that should be decided by amending the constitution. Enough people are in favor of it, including conservatives like me, that we could pass an amendment and not need Roe. Cut foreign aid way down to almost nothing. Only use it when it’s needed, such as paying off former nuclear powers to give up their nukes. Privatize social security. Wean us off the program by a combination of means testing and privatization to make it welfare for old people. Prevent all public sector employees from unionizing. This leads to disaster, as has been repeatedly proven. As **magellan** said, we need to reduce the corporate tax rate. What he left out is that we need to also reduce the number of loopholes so that the tax at the lower rate actually collects as much revenue as it does now. While we’re at it drastically reduce the amount of red tape that businesses are burdened with today. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/43 "2014-04-29T18:32:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not a lawyer and no that this can get complicated, but I’d try to control/limit outlandish judgements. Getting compensated should mean someone is entitled to a windfall the size of a big lottery award. What’s “outlandish”? How much should you get if, say, your newborn child dies as a result of malpractice? > [@Debaser](#): > > Constitutionalist SCOTUS. Think all of the justices voting like Scalia all of the time. Don’t like abortion? That’s fine. Free up the states to ban it, thus overturning Roe. But you can’t ban it at the court level because it’s not in the constitution. “Constitutionalist” is a meaningless term. You _can_ ban it at the court level because it _is_ in the Constitution, according to a majority of justices. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/44 "2014-04-29T18:40:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What does any of this have to do with “Judeo”? Surely you are aware that Christianity sprouted from Judaism? No? In fact, there are many of our legal concepts that go back to ancient Jewish law. Also, although Christianity was the norm, the founders were very embracing of minority religions like Judaism and Quakerism. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So, basically, Jefferson had problems with Christianity and Bible. But he believe in Jesus, so Christian! Sure, I’m sure we could come up with a definition of Christianity (and include the word AMERICA in all caps in it) that would make the USA a “Christian-founded” country, but that’s not the common sense of the word, and was even less so in the 18th century. You find it odd that someone who would adhere to the teaching of Jesus CHRIST would be considered a _Christ_ian more than anything else? Also, since we’re talking about not just the Founders here, where do you think most inhabitants of the thirteen colonies look to for moral guidance? Do you seriously think it was NOT Christianity? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, not that it matters. Sure it does. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That was a reference to the way dates were referred to back then. So, with all Jefferson’s genius and command of the language, you think he could not have found a way to right around it, maybe just leaving off the “In the Year of Our Lord” part? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And considering that the Constitution explicitly says that the most important law from the Bible and the Ten Commandments does not apply to the new country, and everyone is free to violate it, as well as the fact that nothing from the Declaration or the Constitution is uniquely Christian (much less “Judeo!”) I think there’s little reason to believe that either document has any more basis in Christianity than it does in Greek philosophy or pre-Christian Roman liturgy. Actually, that’s not the case. Can you point to a pre-Christian Roman religion (of which their were many) that was based on the beliefs that 1) their is one and only Creator and 2) had as one of its tenets that “…all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. 3) And that them is the concept of “liberty”? I’d love to see them if you know of any. But I’d be VERY surprised if you could even come up with one. Ditto for Ancient Greek religions. So, in the absence of that, what possibilities are we left with? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > How convenient that you handwave away _pretty much the only Founding Father to explicitly say something that explicitly answers the question ‘was the USA founded on the Christian religion’_. It does not comport with the rest of history, so I assume something else is afoot. Quite logical, if you ask me. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And by the way, what does any of this have to do with “Judeo”? What is “Judeo” about the founding of the USA? Seriously? There is no Christianity without Judaism. Have you never heard of The Old Testament? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/45 "2014-04-29T18:53:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Surely you are aware that Christianity sprouted from Judaism? No? In fact, there are many of our legal concepts that go back to ancient Jewish law. Also, although Christianity was the norm, the founders were very embracing of minority religions like Judaism and Quakerism. You can’t possibly be serious. So everything that is “Christian” is also “Judeo-Christian”? The church down the street is a “Judeo-Christian” church? Pat Robertson’s religion is “Judeo-Christianity”? Come on. That phrase itself is only a few decades old, and an obvious PC-esque nod. > [@](#): > > You find it odd that someone who would adhere to the teaching of Jesus CHRIST would be considered a _Christ_ian more than anything else? As you said, Jefferson rejects many of Christ’s teachings, as well as many teachings of Christianity itself, including the most important one – that Jesus was the son of God. > [@](#): > > Also, since we’re talking about not just the Founders here, where do you think most inhabitants of the thirteen colonies look to for moral guidance? Do you seriously think it was NOT Christianity? Most early Americans were Christians. That doesn’t mean the country was founded on Christianity. > [@](#): > > So, with all Jefferson’s genius and command of the language, you think he could not have found a way to right around it, maybe just leaving off the “In the Year of Our Lord” part? Is that the best you’ve got? With all his genius, if he meant it to be a Christian-themed document, don’t you think he would have put something other than the common format for dates that was linked somehow to Christianity? That’s the way dates were written – “In the Year of Our Lord” is like “A.D.” – it doesn’t mean the user of the phrase is Christian. > [@](#): > > Actually, that’s not the case. Can you point to a pre-Christian Roman religion (of which their were many) that was based on the beliefs that 1) their is one and only Creator No founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, refer to any “one and only Creator”. Creator, okay. But “one and only”? No. So this is certainly shared with other philosophies, including Greek and Roman. > [@](#): > > and 2) had as one of its tenets that “…all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. 3) And that them is the concept of “liberty”? Christianity does not have these last two tenets either. “All men are created equal” is self-evident, according to the Declaration. It’s not derived from the Bible or any Christian texts. > [@](#): > > I’d love to see them if you know of any. But I’d be VERY surprised if you could even come up with one. Ditto for Ancient Greek religions. So, in the absence of that, what possibilities are we left with? We’re left with no religion, because Christianity and the Bible certainly don’t say ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed with inalienable rights’, including ‘liberty’, unless you twist the words beyond recognition. > [@](#): > > It does not comport with the rest of history, so I assume something else is afoot. Quite logical, if you ask me. Actually, it does comport with the rest of history. Quite logical indeed. > [@](#): > > Seriously? There is no Christianity without Judaism. Have you never heard of The Old Testament? Again, ridiculous. How is “Judeo-Christian” separate from “Christian”? If they’re the same, then why use two phrases? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/46 "2014-04-29T18:54:32Z")
Treaties supersede anything else, as I trust you know. The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, sent by President John Adams to Congress, reads in part: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …” So get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/47 "2014-04-29T18:58:59Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Prevent all public sector employees from unionizing. This leads to disaster, as has been repeatedly proven. I’m unaware of any “disasters” related to to this. Some pros and cons, to be sure. But disasters “repeatedly proven?” ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/48 "2014-04-29T19:01:54Z")
Has anyone ever heard a Jewish person say “Judeo-Christian”? Seems to me it’s generally used by the right wing Christians, perhaps as a token of unwavering support for Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/49 "2014-04-29T19:05:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Treaties supersede anything else, as I trust you know. They do? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/50 "2014-04-29T19:07:35Z")
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land” There is no mechanism for ruling a treaty unconstitutional, or limiting its effects. Basic stuff, really. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/51 "2014-04-29T19:19:15Z")
I’m sure we’d find that “Conservatives” are not all alike, and “what they want” would be a very contentious issue. The “moral majority” types would be fighting the libertarian-leaners, for example. If the Democratic Party were stripped of all power, we’d soon see a number of deep divisions in the Republican Party. BTW, are we taking “Conservatives” as equivalent to “Republicans”, or are we only talking about true conservatives? Because (as a part-time conservative) I don’t consider the Republicans to be very conservative, at least not since the beginning of GWB’s administration. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/52 "2014-04-29T19:26:53Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > **magellan’s** list is excellent. As a conservative, I agree with all of them except for the Christianity part and this one: > > “Pass a law making it illegal for a congressperson to vote for or against a bill without reading it in its entirety. If they haven’t read it, they don’t get to vote. If they do, and are later found to have lied about it, they lose their seat.” > > I don’t have an issue with this in theory, but in practice it would be too easy to abuse. I don’t want witch hunts in congress of who read what. > > Along those same lines I’d like simpler bills. There’s no need for legislation to be hundreds of pages long. > > Bills should be simple and address one thing. If you want to do a lot of stuff, you should have to pass a lot of bills. > > Example: “Comprehensive” immigration reform is a bad idea. Pass legislation (if we even need any) to secure the border. Once it’s secure, you can pass more legislation to deal with the people already here. That’s the only thing American voters will accept anyway, since there is no faith that the government will ever get serious about the border. > > Some more conservative ideas: > > Constitutionalist SCOTUS. Think all of the justices voting like Scalia all of the time. Don’t like abortion? That’s fine. Free up the states to ban it, thus overturning Roe. But you can’t ban it at the court level because it’s not in the constitution. > > Abortion is one example of many things that should be decided by amending the constitution. Enough people are in favor of it, including conservatives like me, that we could pass an amendment and not need Roe. > > Cut foreign aid way down to almost nothing. Only use it when it’s needed, such as paying off former nuclear powers to give up their nukes. > > Privatize social security. Wean us off the program by a combination of means testing and privatization to make it welfare for old people. > > Prevent all public sector employees from unionizing. This leads to disaster, as has been repeatedly proven. > > As **magellan** said, we need to reduce the corporate tax rate. What he left out is that we need to also reduce the number of loopholes so that the tax at the lower rate actually collects as much revenue as it does now. > > While we’re at it drastically reduce the amount of red tape that businesses are burdened with today. Thank you and **magellan** for your lists. This is exactly what I was looking for. Now, are there any places where these things have been implemented (obviously, adjusted for local language, etc.)? What are they like? ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/53 "2014-04-29T19:37:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So people would like to abandon the electoral college and have the President elected by pure popular vote. There is a move afoot in some states right now to make this a defect reality. New York, for instance either passed or is trying to pass a bill that would dictate that all electoral votes would be awarded to that candidate who won the national popular vote. I’m trying to figure out what the main argument against this is. (The popular election of the President.) It must have been discussed during the Framing. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/54 "2014-04-29T19:48:23Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Has anyone ever heard a Jewish person say “Judeo-Christian”? Seems to me it’s generally used by the right wing Christians, perhaps as a token of unwavering support for Israel. I don’t know, but I suspect it’s something like that. It’s common knowledge that Christianity came from Judaism, and so the phrase “Judeo-Christian” (which is only a few decades old, of course) is redundant, and seems only useful as a political nod. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/55 "2014-04-29T19:52:56Z")
I want to pay a tribute to Curtis Le May. He barged in here several years ago, a very brash thirteen year old. He then changed his avatar name to a more wise, powerful and influential lord. > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > The best models of what such a society would look like can be seen in the current Southern United States along with Latin America and post-Soviet Russia. There’d still be a semblance of democracy with regular elections even if does become more harder for poor and minority voters to cast a ballot and civil liberties will generally be respected. At the same time there’d be massive income inequality, far higher rates of poverty, and lower average life-spans. There will be all sorts of socially conservative legislation but crime, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs, prostitution etc. will be far more widespread in a poorer society. With regards to immigration, I suspect the pro-business faction would triumph over the nativists and we’d see the existence of what are essentially indentured servants by the millions in the form of “guest workers”. … And posts the best, most reasonable message in the thread! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/56 "2014-04-29T20:02:40Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > I’m trying to figure out what the main argument against this is. (The popular election of the President.) It must have been discussed during the Framing. Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, just another example of giving the slave states disproportionate power to keep them from doing what they eventually did anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/57 "2014-04-29T20:03:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t know, but I suspect it’s something like that. It’s common knowledge that Christianity came from Judaism, and so the phrase “Judeo-Christian” (which is only a few decades old, of course) is redundant, and seems only useful as a political nod. It’s also useful in speaking of things held in common by both religions, such as the Old Testament and the God described therein, not to mention other OT contents such as the Ten Commandments, the creation and flood narratives in Genesis, and a whole bunch of other stuff. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/58 "2014-04-29T20:08:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, just another example of giving the slave states disproportionate power to keep them from doing what they eventually did anyway. Here, let me fix that for you: “Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, giving the less populated states a way to not be overrun by the more heavily populated northern ones.” Don’t mention it. Glad to help. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/59 "2014-04-29T20:11:16Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > I’m trying to figure out what the main argument against this is. (The popular election of the President.) It must have been discussed during the Framing. To add, it’s also why why have two houses of congress. The House of Representatives, which directly represent state populations. And the Senate, in which each state has two and only two representatives. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/60 "2014-04-29T20:13:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Has anyone ever heard a Jewish person say “Judeo-Christian”? Seems to me it’s generally used by the right wing Christians, perhaps as a token of unwavering support for Israel. Yes. I’ve seen rabbis on TV talk about Judeo-Christian beliefs, as applied to a society. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/61 "2014-04-29T20:15:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > - Flat or Fair Tax, which also allows us to shrink the IRS to a fraction of its current size > - Voucher Schools > - Abolishment of Minimum Wage > - Reduce corporate tax rate to be more competitive with the rest of the world > - Make every state a right to work state I’ll second those who appreciate your candor, and these do seem like the kinds of things we typically hear from conservatives. I disagree with some more than others and I won’t discuss each one, but let’s just take the first five. As a generally liberal-leaning fiscal conservative/moderate, here are what I think the consequences would be if they were enacted: _- Flat or Fair Tax_ This is regressive taxation that apparently assumes that 10% of a billionaire’s income has the same impact as 10% of a poor family’s income. But for the poor family, living hand to mouth, it may mean they can no longer afford adequate food or clothing; for the billionaire, it may mean one less race horse in his stables (not that he would likely even notice). To the conservative this apparently qualifies as “fair”. It would actually be the biggest driver yet of the growing gap between the 1% and most of the rest of society, contributing to growing social destabilization. _- Voucher Schools_ This means the government should basically abdicate responsibility for secular and scientifically sound education. The basic idea of vouchers is to allow some factions the “freedom” to educate their kids according to their own standards, which as we’ve already seen in some conservative initiatives, in Texas and elsewhere, includes rewriting science on subjects like evolution and climate change to indoctrinate the politically correct viewpoint that these things don’t exist, and even some creative revisionist history celebrating conservative heroism. The idea of vouchers, in other words, is that ideology is much more important than facts. _- Abolishment of Minimum Wage_ Apparently it would be great to go back to 19th century Dickensian England and establish workhouses again. Those were the days! _- Reduce corporate tax rate_ There **is** such a thing as a corporate tax rate that is too high. There is also such a thing as one that is too low. When some major corporations manage to pay no taxes at all, or even get net tax credits, I’d say the **effective** corporate tax rate might be too low. It might be appropriate to lower the nominal tax rate while eliminating many of the outrageous loopholes, but I’d hardly adopt reduction of the corporate tax rate as a permanent mantra. (I’ve actually heard some conservatives suggest that, since corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer, all corporate taxes are consumer taxes and therefore the only correct corporate tax is zero!) _- Make every state a right to work state_ Another wish for the 19th century, which conservatives seem to be obsessed with (except when they’re pining for the 18th century) – this one aimed at abolishing unions. Combined with eliminating the minimum wage, this ought to be terrific for the working poor. What could possibly go wrong? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019.md?page=4)