The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]
The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.
And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]
Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race , the so called conservatives believe that the only way we cut the budget is to cut social programs for the poor , if it goes to the wealthy or favored business then it is essential .
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
can someone define conservative and liberal in American politics, it is confusing to me. I mean liberals want to control every aspect of your life with government and conservatives want to expand corporatist america and maintain an imperialist military base across the world. This is what I get from seeing the ones that say they are conservative and liberal in politics. [/quote]
Most people think I am liberal , I do not. I think I am more fiscally conservative than most of the so called conservative . I think our Government is supposed to serve the people (ALL PEOPLE)
and that is where I get the Liberal tag
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
can someone define conservative and liberal in American politics, it is confusing to me. I mean liberals want to control every aspect of your life with government and conservatives want to expand corporatist america and maintain an imperialist military base across the world. This is what I get from seeing the ones that say they are conservative and liberal in politics. [/quote]
The only difference is where the two groups want to redistribute wealth. One wants to redistribute upwards, the other downwards. And they both jerk off onto your back and tell you it’s raining.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
can someone define conservative and liberal in American politics, it is confusing to me. I mean liberals want to control every aspect of your life with government and conservatives want to expand corporatist america and maintain an imperialist military base across the world. This is what I get from seeing the ones that say they are conservative and liberal in politics. [/quote]
The only difference is where the two groups want to redistribute wealth. One wants to redistribute upwards, the other downwards. And they both jerk off onto your back and tell you it’s raining.[/quote]
The idea of Ron Paul as president terrifies far more than the idea of Bachmann or even Perry as president considering the global repercussions, economic and military, that would happen.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
The idea of Ron Paul as president terrifies far more than the idea of Bachmann or even Perry as president considering the global repercussions, economic and military, that would happen.[/quote]
Exactly right - the same man who, in January 2011, praised Bradley Manning for his indiscriminate leaking of highly sensitive documents to WikiLeaks…wants to be our Commander in Chief.
Why he is even in the conversation is beyond me, but hey, the nutballs love him.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I was serious, what makes a candidate conservative.
What makes a candidate a liberal?
I don’t care so much about labels, but how much their policies align with what I take from the constitution.
[/quote]
You ask a difficult question, because the term you want defined can have different definitions dependent on who you ask and in what context you ask.
To make it simple, a true liberal should be a person who belongs to the traditions of liberalism and that a true conservative should be a person who belongs to the conservative tradition. The problem however is that the ideology of conservativism from Burke to today is a liberalist ideology. In other words Burke where a liberalist. However the difference back then( the late 1700`s )where beetwen radical liberals and moderate liberals. Burke gave the moderate( conservative ) liberal a face by writing a book where he critised the revolution of france and the bloodshed in it. The difference is also perhaps found in the two party system of old england with the wighs and torys who both can be said have been more or less liberal and conservative at various stages of the political history of England.
In an American context I understand the meaning of the terms liberal and conservative absurd and misleading. After what I understand as an outstander of american politics, I do understand that conservativism is in fact liberalism and that american liberalism is a vague centrist and pragmatic form of liberalism with some influence from moderate socialist ideas and cultural-liberalism( called often social-liberalism ).
ps. The clearest and simplest defintion of conservative would be a person who would want to preserve what are and that a person who want to go back to an older way of life are actually a regressive person aka the opposit of a progressive person who wants to push the society forward in a positive direction( what he thinks is positive offcourse for the society )
This is how I see it, so you might get a different answer from someone else.
[/quote]
no you are making my point. Everyone says this person or that person is conservative, but how can they be a conservative as a big government progressive. Just because you are a self proclaimed social conservative, does not makeyou conservative. At least not to me.
And many would say my lifestyle is regressive. I have a jobe with one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers, but started a small farm, moved mmy parents in and am going back to that lifestyle. of course bring some good ole science and permaculture with me.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
can someone define conservative and liberal in American politics, it is confusing to me. I mean liberals want to control every aspect of your life with government and conservatives want to expand corporatist america and maintain an imperialist military base across the world. This is what I get from seeing the ones that say they are conservative and liberal in politics. [/quote]
The only difference is where the two groups want to redistribute wealth. One wants to redistribute upwards, the other downwards. And they both jerk off onto your back and tell you it’s raining.[/quote]
hey we agree on something, I hate this two party system of corporate welfare and wealth distribution.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
First, someone making $50k a year pays hardly any taxes.
Second, corporations don’t effectively pay taxes - those are passed on to the consumer through the cost of goods produced.
Third, shareholders pay taxes on the corporate profits distributed to them.
Fourth, “subsidy” is a subjective term. If you mean tax breaks then the above applies. If you mean a Solandra type deal then yes, that is a (almost) direct subsidy.
Sorry, but there really is no wealth transfer “upwards” per se in your scenario. If there was, then seeing how the wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes, then the wealthy are transferring wealth to the wealthy which would constitute a “lateral” not an upwards transfer of wealth.
Think it through.[/quote]
I’ll define “upward redistribution” as benefits to corporations made by the national government. This is something that occurs, correct? “upward redistribution” is just a label. Let’s not get into semantics, you can call it “x” for all I care.
Since “x” can include tax payer money, and an individual earning 50K pays taxes, and “x” is a mechanism that allows a corporation to become make more money, and it is possible for owners of the corporation to benefit from an increase in revenue by increasing their own wealth, and if it is possible that owners of said corporation to make more than 50K per year, then the taxes of the individual earning 50K can be used to increase the wealth of an individual making more than 50K.
“vast majority” doesn’t include all tax payers. This means that not all transference is lateral.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Only thing is, it doesn’t make sense that wealth can be distributed upwards. Think about it.[/quote]
Upward meaning subsidies to corporate buddies. Taxes from the guy making 50K per year can move in this direction can’t they?[/quote]
First, someone making $50k a year pays hardly any taxes.
Second, corporations don’t effectively pay taxes - those are passed on to the consumer through the cost of goods produced.
Third, shareholders pay taxes on the corporate profits distributed to them.
Fourth, “subsidy” is a subjective term. If you mean tax breaks then the above applies. If you mean a Solandra type deal then yes, that is a (almost) direct subsidy.
Sorry, but there really is no wealth transfer “upwards” per se in your scenario. If there was, then seeing how the wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes, then the wealthy are transferring wealth to the wealthy which would constitute a “lateral” not an upwards transfer of wealth.
Think it through.[/quote]
I see the subsidize and other forms of corporate welfare first hand. Grants, company specific tax breaks, customized regulations to eliminate upstarts and competitions.
The lobby of the union, global corps, and special interest groups make these possible.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You can certainly nitpick but my points stand. Bottom line is there is no major problem in our country where wealth is being transferred upward.[/quote]
I thought your point was that there was no upward transfer. Is it now that it exists but isn’t a major problem?