Economic libertarians, for their part, are not always evil, and they’re not even necessarily always wrong, but they are always crazy – that is, in the sense that economic Marxists are always crazy, see above.
Who exactly are “the haves”?
If I were to go to a conservative source such as the National Review or the Weekly Standard, what percentage of the articles on economic issues would be devoted to “defending the interests of the haves”?
Property owners, if I may play Devil’s Advocate. Most of us are born with no heritage.
That said I am a dreaded “classic liberal” like FA Hayek.
There is a certain appeal to thinking that you actually have a right to keep the stuff you’ve worked for.
The problem comes in when you draw the line of the “haves” so low that any middle class or higher person becomes one of them. It’s particularly galling to pay roughly 1/3 of my gross income as taxes, and hear about how the government needs more money to pay someone else because of a myriad of sob stories about racism, disadvantageous circumstances, bad luck, no health care, etc…
I already pay nearly the equivalent of 2 full time minimum wage earners in various payroll taxes, NOT including sales tax or property taxes; of course I’m for protecting that remaining part of what I earned from the predations of the government and by extension, all the “have nots” who seem bent on taking it from me.
And yet I’m evil for not wanting to part with more of my hard earned cash because some other asshole somewhere else’s life sucks?
Correct especially once you realize that everyone that has posted in this thread so far is in the top 1% worldwide if not the top 0.1% or greater. It is all relative.
I am a true moderate libertarian as well as a fiscal conservative. Taking someone else’s rightfully earned money is about as far from my values as you can get. Both recent Republicans and Democrats fail miserably on those fronts. I am only concerned with the overall economic health of the nation as well as my own family’s. Everything else is a secondary concern.
I truly do not care about the threat of 5% or 10% or the nation has to move into trailer parks and go through near starvation because of federal or state budget cuts simply because that doesn’t happen and, even if it did, they would still be better off than roughly half of the world.
Americans are a lot stronger and much more resilient than politicians will lead anyone to believe. Nobody will still starve in reality simply because people will create dynamic systems to prevent it the same way they did during the Great Depression and WWII. Human nature hasn’t changed since then.
OTOH, gigantic government programs are starting to bankrupt us and there is no end in sight. The best response the economic liberals can give is that we can afford the interest payments - for now - but that is about the same situation as a spouse that runs up credit card debt and claims that you afford the minimum payments so there is no issue. It is completely irresponsible.
The other liberal economic retort to the debt crisis is that the U.S. can never run out of money because the treasury can always order more. That makes complete sense if you lived on a lead paint diet as a child but none otherwise. It is true that the U.S. can always print more money but the potential consequences of that are disastrous in the long-term. It devalues the Dollar both at home and especially abroad and becomes like a death spiral in long-term.
Economic liberals claim that we can keep with our current fiscal policy and never suffer any serious repercussions for it. I think that is delusional and blatantly false. It may work in the short-term but it is like building a match and fireworks factory right next to each other. Sooner or later, the whole thing will just go BOOM and the consequences will be much worse than any gain you could have possibly had doing it the right way in the first place.
My question to economic liberals has been and always will be, why don’t you advocate balanced budgets, no deficit spending outside of emergency situations, and a program to pay down the national debt? That is the ONLY responsible way to run a long-term economy. There are no emotions involved in those decisions. The kindest thing to do for everyone involved is to not let the whole nation collapse as similar ones have throughout history because of emotional rather than rational concerns.
I like the logic!Debt isn’t spiraling though. The deficit is nearly stable compared to GDP and is not driven by social programs but by the Bush wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the economic crisis. Long term we do need modest spending cuts or revenue increases but that doesn’t make it irresponsible to borrow now on the cheap for prudent infrastructure improvements and to stimulate the economy.
Yes. For conservatives, small blocs of voters buy them. One word, two putzes: Koch.
Given the current government there, Australians would argue conservatives are wrong both societally and economically.
With cuts to everything from education to health care and manufacturing jobs being, literally, shooed offshore (all in the name of debt reduction – something the nation is well within its acceptable limits for), coupled with policies explicitly designed to vilify refugees, going as far as (again, literally) towing them back to whence they came (encroaching the sovereign waters of its neighbours and causing diplomatic spats in the process) and the resolute refusal to sanction gay marriage, not only in the face of overwhelming public opinion for same sex union (80%+), but also in spite of the fact the current serving prime minister’s very own sister is herself gay(!)… most rational, thinking, human beings can probably see why.
If you want to see what a ruling Tea Party would look like in the U.S., take a cursory glance over at Australia’s current government and witness the splendour. :smack:
This was kind of my reaction to the OP.
BrainGlutton, what do you mean by the word “wrong”?
The word can be more or less synonymous with “evil,” but since the OP made a distinction between wrong and evil, I don’t think that’s what is meant here.
Or it can mean"demonstrably incorrect"; but there are plenty of positions held by social conservatives on which there is not a single demonstrably correct answer.
Or it can mean “what I don’t agree with”; “what I think is bad”; but then the comments I quoted above apply.
“Deficit” isn’t the same as “debt.”
As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. national debt as held by non-US-government parties is twice was it was just five years ago, and the highest it has ever been except for World War II. All adjusted for inflation. It is astoundingly high.
Yes which means the typical social democratic (progressive, liberal in US terms) position does not rest on any consistent logic. The same people are typically at best suspicious of nationalism. But only in a nationalist context would their own money, unless they are pretty low on the economic totem pole in the US, not be better taken from them to distribute to ‘have nots’ in other countries.
OTOH the concept of ‘the property I earned within a system of the rule of law is mine’ is a pretty pure and consistent position.
Note though I’m not saying public policies have to be, or ever really are, based on simple consistent positions. Progressive taxation and a welfare state are realities which aren’t going away. The real debate is one of degree, methods, priorities (growth v ‘fairness’, without pretending those always pull in the same direction which they often don’t), etc.
I think the contradiction though between a ‘post modern’ sort of POV which tends to denigrate nationalism (‘flag waving’) and a view that ‘the 1%’ should pay a lot more, when a significant portion of Americans are in the global 1%, and even more if it’s the global equivalent % of the magic ‘over $250k per couple’ that was harped on so much, is worth considering when the left leaning rhetoric gets too purple and ‘aux barricades’…
But one other point about ‘social conservatism (or liberalism)’ is that politics is really not all about economics. This is a mistake made by both sides’ thinkers but the left more, eg the working class GOP voters who are ‘voting against their own economic interests’. Besides the often dubious validity of that claim (it’s at least reasonably arguable that high spending, taxation and regulation will in the long run harm working class people, and those who vote GOP simply realize that) it assumes economics does or should underlie all political sentiments (and everything else in the world) and that’s just not how people work. And Democrats are at least not pointing in totally the wrong direction when they, still often unfairly, call downscale GOP voters ‘racists’. Whatever race may or may not have to do with anything, those downscale GOP voters also despise liberal elites. They hate their values, they think are fundamentally corrupt. Just offering those traditionalist people more govt goodies to be paid for by ‘the rich’ isn’t going to magically change that. It’s a culture gap, just like ‘economics’ is not the only reason Chinese people in China aren’t just Americans with different economic interests. Economics is really not everything.
I gotta admit, I’m not seeing a debate in the OP, just shaded ranting. I’m on the edge about moving this one. If I don’t see a real debate appear I’m finding this lost puppy a new home.
A common mistake, but not mine.
Yes but the debt for FY 2014 isn’t going to be much higher than FY 2013. We were spending a lot more (and taking in less) early in the Great Recession but since now the deficit has mostly stabilized compared to the size of the economy that means that we are no longer taking on big chunks of debt as one might assume from Shagnasty’s and your posts. Yes, the debt total is high but is not considered unmanageable (I’m not buying all those low interest T-Bills so more people think that than just me.) I’m not saying we shouldn’t look to pay it down long term but it’s not a crisis that should make us ignore our short term interest in increased government spending.
Then what are the optimum results, if not something related to morality? I think many so-called “economic conservatives” forget that wealth, in isolation, has no real value. A lot of people appear to see a strong economy as an end, rather than a means to one. But what is the purpose of gaining economic security and wealth if not to increase the happiness and well-being of the population?
On top of this, I’d say nothing has values or morals unless we decide we want them there. We don’t have to apply morality to economics, but we don’t have to pretend it’s a law of nature, rather than a choice, either.
I don’t see conservatism as a means of gaining wealth as much as I do security and ballance. I have no problem with any kind of welfare but believe that individuals should be held accountable for behaviors and circumstances they should have had control over. I would love to see a paralell goverment run healthcare system, I also believe in investing into education as a taxpayer. If social programs could be better managed those deserving individuals would be much better cared for.
I always wonder what conservatives mean when they say “indivuduals should be held accountable.” Are you saying that if a person doesn’t go to school, it’s OK if they can’t find a decent job? I mean, OK in the sense that you are fine with them being on food stamps and so forth? Or do you consider food stamps a palliative that they don’t deserve and would rather see them starve? What about a woman who has kids but no father for those kids? Should her children go hungry? Should she be homeless? What, exactly, is “accountability” in your book?
Go and find out.