Sunday, August 5, 2012

A Partial Rundown of My Many "Conservative" Positions

1) Am in favor of raising revenues as part of an overall deficit reduction package.......2) Am in favor of a progressive taxation system.......3) Spoke out in favor of extending unemployment benefits.......4) Spoke out in favor of a negative income tax.......5) Am strongly in favor of campaign finance reform (even to the point of publicly financing elections).......6) Am pro-choice.......7) Am pro- gays in the military.......8) Am pro-gay-marriage.......9) Was against both of the Iraq Wars.......10) Strongly opposed nation-building in Afghanistan.......11) Strongly opposed President Obama's surge in Afghanistan.......12) Am in favor of universal health-care coverage (through health savings accounts, subsidies, health boards, and catastrophic coverage).......13) Supported both of the President's (Obama) appointments to the Supreme Court.......14) Am strongly opposed to corporate welfare and crony capitalism.......15) Am in favor of lowering the limit on mortgage interest deductions.......16) Am in favor of doing away with the special consideration for capital gains (a possible caveat being that I would index it for inflation).......17) Am willing to consider breaking up some of the bigger banks in order to spread out the risk.......18) Am in favor of raising the cap on Social Security payroll deductions (no, not eliminating it like the progressives want to do but raising it $5-10,000).......19) Am in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood.......20) Am in favor of the assault weapons ban and doing away with the gun-show loophole and cop-killer bullets.......21) Am in favor of reducing military spending and closing unnecessary foreign military bases.......22) Am in favor of Medicare negotiating directly with the pharmaceutical companies.......23) Was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton (a censure I could have lived with).......24) Am against wire-tapping, water-boarding, and rendition (as opposed to Mr. Obama who still utilizes 1 and 3).......25) Was initially against the drone attacks in Northern Pakistan.......26) Consider Alan Greenspan to be the worst FED chairman in U.S. history.......27) My two favorite Presidents are Kennedy and Truman - both Democrats.......28) Could in fact live with the individual mandate as long as it applied to EVERYBODY (zero waivers - either everybody's in or nobody's in).......29) Haven't voted Republican for President since 1988 (identical to Jon Stewart).......30) Was in favor of the mosque being built near ground zero.............................................................................................Now, do I also have some ACTUAL conservative views? Of course I frigging do!! Everybody does (save, of course, for the idiots, psychotics, and true believers of the world). But to say that I'm a hard-core conservative of some sort is totally absurd.

33 comments:

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Also, as for this one:

".14) Am strongly opposed to corporate welfare and crony capitalism"

This is not a good one to have an an argument that you are not a conservative. These are hot-button issues now with Republicans, especially the "Tea Party". Much more so than with Democrats.

For the past several years, even during the end of the Bush administration, the Republicans in Congress have tended to vote against the bailouts/handouts/etc... while Democrats get them passed.

I'm starting to see talk of the "need" for another stimulus bailout. As this moves forward, rest assured that most of the opposition to it will come from Republicans.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, a fair numbr of these can cut across the partisan divide.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I doubt very much if you'll hear the word "stimulus" come out of Obama's mouth before Nov..

Rational Nation USA said...

" Am pro gay marriage."

I've heard this phrase as well as reading it on several sites and news sources.

Does " pro gay marriage" imply it should be encouraged and advocated? If it does I must get off the platform.

If it doesn't perhaps an improved phraseology would be "pro support of the right of gay and lesbian individuals to marry."

Words have meanings, I just want to be clear in the actual meaning on this one.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Les, you are obviously correct (though I must confess that I would love to compel Courteney Cox and Felicity Huffman to tie the not) in terms of the language.

d nova said...

the health savings account is a conservative idea. [in #12]

raising the social security cap only $5k-10k would be so trivial that it may as well be conservative. [#18]

i don't think you stated a position on raising the retirement age. have one?

i disagree with dmarks re #14.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, the health savings accounts are a conservative idea but the subsidies to poor people, the health boards, and catastrophic care provision are at the very least moderate. The retirement age? Yeah, I'd probably up it a good 6-12 months.

d nova said...

please rethink. upping retirement age requires keeping the old working, which requires compulsion of employers and reduces available jobs for the young.

dmarks said...

D nova: TARP? The handout to two huge auto companies? Other such giveaways: mostly opposed by Republicans and mostly supported by Democrats. And these are some of the biggest examples of corporate welfare in history.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...some of the biggest examples of corporate welfare in history.

False. The auto "bailout" was a loan that was paid back.

As for TARP, it was signed into law by President George W. Bush on 10/3/2008. It was devised and administered by the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. Also, The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion, but the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By 3/28/2012, the CBO stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $32 billion. This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of Reagan's savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s [source of FACTS: Wikipedia].

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The biggst piece of corporate welfare in U.S. history never actually happened. Yeah, I'm referring to Cap and Trade. Don't believe me? Just ask Peter Orszag............As for removing the cap completely on SS deductions and NOT raising the retirement age slightly, you'd be transforming Social Security into yet another welfare program, something that it was never intended to be.

d nova said...

the right has co-opted the left's opposition to corporate welfare and crony capitalism, but, down deep, conservatives still love both, and they don't hide it all that well.

d nova said...

reaganspeak to the contrary notwithstanding, welfare is not a dirty word. social security is and always has been a welfare program. i know that's hard to believe, but it's true by definition.

unfortunately, the way the 'contributions' are structured is hyper-regressive. i wouldn't say get rid of the cap all at once. maybe phase it out. it'll be good for the economy.

we've already raised the retirement age to 66. maybe that contributes to high unemployment now. i don't know. but keeping seniors working longer is bound to reduce job availability.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I always thought that Social Security was an insurance program.......We're eventually going to get back to full employment, d nova, and having people work a little bit longer isn't too much to ask (the life expectancy when FDR started the program was actually LESS than the retirement age was). And where I work, we have a lot of people who ARE working past their retirement age and they're some of our best workers and clearly contributing much to society and the economy.

Rusty Shackelford said...

What pray tell is this nova twit talking about? When exactly was the retirement age in the U.S. raised to 66?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I know that it isn't 66 now. Maybe they passed something to kick in down the road later.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Will,you cant just arbitraily raise the federal retirement age...this nova troll has no idea what their talking about...another,if I say it loud enough they will think I know what I'm talking about.nova should stick to prancing around in his tutu.

dmarks said...

WD said: "False. The auto "bailout" was a loan that was paid back."

Your claim is false. Let's look at the facts on the massive gift by the Obama administration to the auto industry corporations:

As of April 2012, out of the $80 billion in corporate welfare given by the Federal government with the possibility of some of it being returned, less than half has been returned. Even more than that, $37 billion, is out standing. Over $7 billion is "written off" as an outright no-strings-attached gift.

That's more than 44 billion remaining that might or might not be paid back. At least $7 billion is outright gift (a loss for the government). All of it might be.

"As for TARP...."

Your list of names is deceptive, WD, as you forget to mention that TARP was voted for and championed by then leader of the Democrats, then candidate, Barack Obama. His Democrats voted for it, and the Republicans voted against it. It is very much an Obama policy.

"...TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion, but the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion"

Looking at the entire bailout picture (no tricks to forget to count parts of it, and including the F&F and auto bailouts), the total cost is $602 billion. $211 billion is outstanding. That's more than twice the cost of the S&L bailouts, and far more than the very low $32 billion figure you came up with by intentionally leaving out a lot of the bailouts.

dmarks said...

d rove said: "the right has co-opted the left's opposition to corporate welfare and crony capitalism, but, down deep, conservatives still love both, and they don't hide it all that well."

It's not really a co-option. It is part of the smaller government idea. And while conservatives have embraced this, the left has gone and embraced corporate welfare. We have a big example of this in WD right here.

There is nothing to "hide". The opposition to corporate welfare among conservatives is deep and visceral.

d nova said...

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

d nova said...

will, yes, soc sec is a social insurance program, a form of welfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insurance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare

nothing wrong with people working as long as they can, voluntarily. but raising the age at which they can collect full benefits burdens those that can't keep working that long. and if employers are forced to keep workers on for more years, fewer jobs will be available for young workers.

we may get back to full employment as boomers retire, but you can't count on it lasting. rising productivity works against it.

w-dervish said...

dmarks lied: ...the left has gone and embraced corporate welfare. We have a big example of this in WD right here.

I'm very, very, very, VERY strongly opposed to corporate welfare. Do away with the oil company subsidies that the Republicans are fighting to keep. Break up the big financial institutions and we wouldn't have to worry about bailouts again.

And don't forget that it was the last Republican president, George W. bush, who was the biggest granter of corporate welfare in our nation's history. Dick Cheney's Halliburton made out like bandits thanks to bush's illegal wars, which were a bonanza for many other corporate contractors. The ability to hand out billions of taxpayer dollars to his cronies was one of the primary reasons bush launched these wars.

dmarks is the one who supports corporate welfare, because he supports the wealthy elites buying our politicians (Citizens United). When politicians are elected thanks to corporate money they are beholden to those corporations. And don't forget that dmarks strongly defends bush's illegal wars which represented crony capitalism and corporate welfare on steroids.

dmarks said...

I told the truth: "the left has gone and embraced corporate welfare. We have a big example of this in WD right here."

And in all of the big corporate welfare handouts of the past several years, the Dems support them (along with their leader) and the Repiblicans are against.


"I'm very, very, very, VERY strongly opposed to corporate welfare.

"Do away with the oil company subsidies that the Republicans are fighting to keep."

Which ones? Some of these are tax breaks. not subsidies.

And what about TARP and the other handouts? Did you and do you oppose them? I always did.

"Break up the big financial institutions and we wouldn't have to worry about bailouts again."

Sorry, why not just not have any more bailouts at all? That's no excuse for a nasty fascistic power grab.

"Dick Cheney's Halliburton made out like bandits thanks to bush's illegal wars"

There were no illegal wars. You refer to events that never happened. The UN and ICC disagree with you.

"The ability to hand out billions of taxpayer dollars to his cronies was one of the primary reasons bush launched these wars."

That is one nutty conspiracy theory you have going there. With no basis in reality.

After all, Bush did not want the wars. He didn't even start them. The terrorists did.

"dmarks is the one who supports corporate welfare"

Actually, I oppose it all. You can't come up with one example I favor


"because he supports the wealthy elites buying our politicians (Citizens United)."

No, I support the Constitutional right of every citizen to speak out.

"strongly defends bush's illegal wars which represented crony capitalism and corporate welfare on steroids."

No illegal wars happened. I defer to the autual authorities, not someone who hates Bush with a rabid illogical passion.

w-dervish said...

dmarks lied: "the left has gone and embraced corporate welfare. We have a big example of this in WD right here".

dmarks: And in all of the big corporate welfare handouts of the past several years, the Dems support them (along with their leader) and the Republicans are against.

The Democrats saved the financial sector from imploding and supported the only legislation bush would have signed. What we should have done: breaking up the financial institutions and bailing out the homeowners... that bill wouldn't have passed and, if it had, bush wouldn't have signed it.

The fact is that the leader of the Republicans and his treasury secretary signed (bush), and devised and administered (Paulson) this legislation.

dmarks: Which ones? Some of these are tax breaks. not subsidies.

Both.

dmarks: And what about TARP and the other handouts? Did you and do you oppose them? I always did.

I opposed TARP, but also opposed allowing the financial sector to implode. Why dmarks wishes we were now experiencing a deep and lasting depression is beyond me.

Sorry, why not just not have any more bailouts at all? That's no excuse for a nasty fascistic power grab.

Breaking up the financial institutions wouldn't be a "fascistic power grab". Just the opposite: it would decrease the power of the fascists.

dmarks: There were no illegal wars. You refer to events that never happened. The UN and ICC disagree with you.

There were illegal wars. Neither the UN nor the ICC have ever disagreed. You only imagine they have. Also, you ignored my point about Halliburton. I'll take that as an admission that they benefited GREATLY from the wars and agreement that bush funneled taxpayer money to his VP's company to personally beneift Cheney (the Halliburton stock he has went up significantly in value).

dmarks: That is one nutty conspiracy theory you have going there. With no basis in reality.

That bush funneled tens of billions to his cronies in "reconstruction" contracts isn't a "conspiracy theory" but a well-known fact.

dmarks: Bush did not want the wars. He didn't even start them. The terrorists did.

bush wanted these wars very, very much. He dreamed of going to war with Iraq even before he was "elected" president.

dmarks: Actually, I oppose it all. You can't come up with one example I favor.

The billions flushed down the toilet when bush's cronies got no bid "reconstruction" contracts. Despite overwhelming evidence you deny this even happened. Thus I must conclude that you support it.

dmarks: No, I support the Constitutional right of every citizen to speak out.

You oppose this right. You think those with the most money should have the right to speak the loudest and thus drown out the voices of other speakers with less money.

dmarks: No illegal wars happened. I defer to the autual authorities, not someone who hates Bush with a rabid illogical passion.

The wars were illegal. I base this on the facts, and NOT hating bush with "a rabid illogical passion". You defend bush with a rabid illogical passion. We know your defense is illogical because you insist things that almost everyone else knows never happened actually happened: WMD being found in Iraq, for instance... which is something that even bush admitted didn't happen.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Wrong, wd. Nancy Pelosi is the biggest granter of corporate welfare in U.S. history; cap and trade. Luckily for us, that one got stranded in the Senate.

dmarks said...

The wars were not illegal: the facts show they are not. As for the WMD, I referred to facts not a politician's mumblings.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Nancy Pelosi is the biggest granter of corporate welfare in U.S. history; cap and trade.

It did not become law, thus the corporate welfare wasn't granted.

dmarks: The wars were not illegal: the facts show they are not. As for the WMD, I referred to facts not a politician's mumblings.

The wars were illegal under international law. They can only be declared not illegal if the facts are ignored. As for WMD, I refer to facts and not the mumblings of a crazy crank (dmarks).

At least we're in agreement about the bush administration funneling millions to Halliburton. Even if we can't agree that bush and company are war criminals, certainly we can agree that they are thieves who majorly ripped off the taxpayers.

dmarks said...

I already gave you the documentation of the WMD that Saddam secretly stockpiled. You have no reason to deny them anymore.

The justified retaliations were legal under international law.

Legal government expenditure does not make one a 'thief' I thought you were pretty strict about the use of that word. I guess not anymore.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I already gave you the documentation of the WMD that Saddam secretly stockpiled.

Impossible, since Saddam cooperated (albeit reluctantly) with the inspectors and they found the vast majority of the WMD.

dmarks: You have no reason to deny them anymore.

I do. The tiny amount of "WMD" that was found was old, degraded and misplaced. Marcus made the same point and you agreed with him! Did you forget?

dmarks: Legal government expenditure does not make one a 'thief'...

What happened to your greedy whining about government workers comming after taxpayers with guns? I thought you said the government collecting taxes was analogous to pirates on the high seas?

I guess it's a different story when the money is being funneled to Republican contractors to "rebuild" after we destroy infrastructure in an illegal war.

George bush is a con man that stole billions. But if you like you can call it "redistribution". George bush took money from the middle and lower class and redistributed it to the wealthy.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

She granted and was overturned. Intent counts, wd.

dmarks said...

WD said; "Impossible, since Saddam cooperated (albeit reluctantly) with the inspectors and they found the vast majority of the WMD."

Not true at all. The Blix right before the 2003 invasion had him saying that Saddam was still not complying, even though compliance was improving. This was only the latest delay in Saddam blocking inspections that were supposed to have been completed a decade before.

Yes, they had found the vast majority of the WMD. But not the remaining stockpiles, which Saddam, in a violation of the cease-fire, kept hidden.

"The tiny amount of "WMD" that was found was old, degraded and misplaced. Marcus made the same point and you agreed with him! Did you forget?"

It was indeed a large stockpile. It is only "tiny" compared to much larger stockpiles, and if (like WD) you want to lie about how nice WMD are. Degraded? Only partially so.

One of hese WMD make Ritter, WD, and the others who claim Saddam had none into liars. A large stockpile, such as what was found, makes them much worse.

I don't care what Marcus said.

"What happened to your greedy whining"

I made no greedy whining. Asking me about something I actually said next time.

"I guess it's a different story when the money is being funneled to Republican contractors to "rebuild" after we destroy infrastructure in an illegal war."

A fantasy story, because what you described in the above paragraph never happened.

"George bush is a con man that stole billions."

Hahahah. Bush derangement syndrome kicks in.

"George bush took money from the middle and lower class and redistributed it to the wealthy."

This did not happen, actually. In reality, he reduced taxes on the middle and lower classes (along with the upper classes). Which means he took LESS money from all classes. No redistribution at all.

dmarks said...

And catching up on missed points.'

WD, the UN and ICC disagree with you on Bush being a war criminal.

Here are the facts. Close to three years ago, Francis Boyle officially "... requested that the International Criminal Court Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales.[6]"

The ICC's response? Nothing. It was not worthy of handling. Beneath contempt: a silly letter from a loony that gets filed away. Ignored by the authorities because it's all bogus.

And looking beyond Boyle... from Wikipedia: "The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed"

That's hundreds of cranks sending their form letters to the ICC. The ICC saw them, read them, and tossed them out. If they had any merit, the ICC would have acted. But none of them did.

You use the ICC's chilling dismissal of Boyle's poorly thought out case as proof somehow that Bush is guilty. I let this insanity of yours speak for itself.

There is similar silence from the UN.

You claim Kofe Annan's off-the-cuff statement as some sort of support for your side. When it really does little or nothing. The Secretary General is not a dictator who formulates and puts forth UN policy on the fly, especially in side comments in interviews. The UN has specific procedures for its resolutions. And after all Bush has done, all of times Bush said that he is acting in proper intepretation of the existing UN resolutions, the UN has not objected. Not at all. It has chosen to side with Bush. Also from Wikipedia:

"The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so"


The ICC and the UN have said one thing. WD says another. I believe the actual authorities, thank you.