Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTrying to divine the political future from the results of European Parliamentary elections always involves an element of entrail-gazing. Across the continent, people take the opportunity to register protest votes; this year, the turnout (43 percent) was at a historic low. But as the final results come in, two things are becoming clear: the center-right has gained at the expense of social democrats, even in France, Italy and Germany where voters might have been expected to give ruling conservatives a kicking; and the collapse of the left vote has let in an unprecedented number of far-right and neo-fascist candidates.
Far-right parties made gains in the Netherlands, where the anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders came second with 17 percent of the vote; in Hungary, where the anti-Roma party Jobbik took three out of 22 seats; in Austria, where the Freedom Party polled 18 percent; in Slovakia, where extreme nationalists won their first seats; and in Britain, which elected not one but two candidates from the British National Party--a racist, neo-Nazi group committed to white supremacy and to "reversing the tide of non-white immigration."
What explains this ugly result? Obviously, it's partly the economy: hungry creatures tend to turn against their neighbors. But it's also a loss of faith: in the idea of Europe; in mainstream politics (seen as disconnected and corrupt); and particularly in the center left's ability to come up with any alternatives. (A sliver of silver lining: in France, former sixty-eighter Daniel Cohn-Bendit's green coalition, Europe Ecologie, outpolled the Socialists in greater Paris and in the south-east.) In Britain, BNP leader Nick Griffin actually won fewer votes than he did five years ago; the reason he is now an MEP is that the Labour vote spectacularly collapsed. Because of the expenses scandal and Labour's recent implosion, Britain might be seen as something of a special case, but the pattern in Europe is similar. In Germany, France and Italy the center-left has been on the defensive, offering no alternative routes out of the recession.
For Britain's Labour Party, following on from last week's local elections, the European vote is one more nail in an already bristling coffin. Relegated to third place after the Tories and the UK Independence Party--a right-wing anti-EU group that used to be seen as marginal--Labour did worse than it has in any election since 1918. It lost Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists and Wales to the Tories; it lost acres of heartland which may never be recovered, leaving hard-working local activists and community politicians who've given their lives to the cause abandoned and betrayed. Whether or not Gordon Brown stays on as leader--and he is now being held in place by Scotch tape and Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair's old familiar--Labour is finished, possibly for decades.
While the media focus on Westminster plots and counter-plots, the real rot goes far deeper. Like an overdose of chemotherapy, the New Labour project appears to have killed the patient it was meant to cure. Back in the 1990s, faced with a political consensus moved to the right by Thatcherism and a decimated industrial base, New Labour had no choice but to go after middle class voters--so-called "Mondeo Man." The Spartan discipline imposed by Blair and his minions to keep MPs "on message" and silence the Labour left went hand in hand with a pernicious centralization that starved the party's roots--and allowed Blair to take the country into a hated war.
The dysfunctional marriage of Blair and Brown that festered for years at the administration's heart paradoxically may have contributed to its longevity. For those of us who couldn't bear to turn our backs on Labour altogether, Brown's brooding silence made it possible to project all sorts of hopes: perhaps he wasn't in favour of the Iraq war, perhaps he really was to the left of Tony Blair, perhaps his community roots would reassert themselves and put an end to the glibness and the glitz in favor of old Labour values.
Well, we were wrong, on all those counts. As prime minister, Brown has been a disaster; he has also turned out to be a brutal political operator, issuing threats by proxy and leaking negative stories about his own ministers to the press. Some of those ministers have behaved even worse, notably former Communities Secretary Hazel Blears who quit the cabinet on the eve of the local elections wearing a Cheshire cat grin and a badge that read "Rocking the Boat," so pulling the rug from under scores of local councilors standing for re-election. The party is at its own throat as it has never been before, even in the wilderness years of the Thatcherite 1980s.
Barring some unprecedented event, a year from now we will have a Conservative government. Which brings us back to the European elections. To please his own Eurosceptic wing, David Cameron has pledged to take the Conservatives out of the center-right EPP-ED alliance in the European parliament, which includes the parties led by Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy. Instead, he plans to form a new Eurosceptic caucus. To that end, he has been making common cause with far-right parties from the former Eastern Europe, such as Poland's fundamentalist Catholic Law and Justice Party, which considers homosexuality a "pathology" and climate change a hoax, and the Czech Republic's Civic Democratic Party, whose founder, Vaclav Klaus, sees Brussels as the new Moscow.
UKIP's success in Britain will put wind in Cameron's sails; Europe's new far-right MEPs will no doubt support his project. And even if their election has no direct effect on European policy, it will be that much more acceptable for mainstream politicians to blame their countries' ills on immigrants and minorities. On June 6th, D-Day's 65th anniversary, Brown and Obama met on the beaches of Normandy with some of the last veterans of Europe's fight against fascism. As the last memories of that struggle fade, the racism skulking in corners of this crowded continent is finding a space in which to assert itself once more.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
'...the racism skulking in corners of this crowded continent is finding a space in which to assert itself once more.' -- Maria Margaronis -- The Nation -- 8 June, 2009
'Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- http://www.nyt imes.com/2009/05/15/us/po litics/15judge.text.html?_r=2 &pagewanted=5
'Springtime for Hitler, and Germany!' -- The Producers
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/08/2009 @ 08:05am
Well, Ms Margaronis, you must remember that...except for the racist and neo-fascist groups, your average European "conservative" would be...
a moderate Democrat in the USA.
BTW, HonLib, care to quote the numerous variations on "Sotomayor is a racist" coming from Newt Gingrich? I think we're upto Vers. 2.3 now.
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 08:23am
<Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe," Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament, told party faithful in Brussels via video link from Berlin. "(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."
Graham Watson, leader of the EU's center-right Liberal Democrat grouping, said early results suggested a rejection of the Socialist approach.
"People don't want a return to socialism and that's why the majority here will be a center-right majority," he said.>
http://tinyurl.com/nrlffn
Every once in a while, the bright light of rational thought among voters surfaces. This is one of those moments. It brought a brief smile this old conservative.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:38am
Every once in a while, the bright light of rational thought among voters surfaces. This is one of those moments. It brought a brief smile this old conservative.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
So Liv - now Europe is a bright light?
Posted by OneVote at 06/08/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:38am
Uh, Larry...you think those European "conservatives" are going to vote to end their universal health care system?
And if not, given YOUR definition of a "marxist"...wouldn't they qualify???
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 09:11am
pfft...
sure there's some racism involved, but there's also a waking horror at the emergence of "eurabia".
and sure the economy's probably a part of the equation...but regardless sounds like common sense reaction to me, sans the hard core stuff.
action, reaction...
but no matter how right europe goes, they ain't going all ayn rand.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/08/2009 @ 09:30am
So Liv - now Europe is a bright light?
Posted by OneVote at 06/08/2009 @ 09:03am
I didn't say that. I was stating that once in a while people actually think and vote rationally instead of coping out to socialism
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:44am
action, reaction...
but no matter how right europe goes, they ain't going all ayn rand.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/08/2009 @ 09:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
Since I'm no advocate of Rand, I would be perfectly happy to see classic liberalism become the standard in Europe, just as I wish to see it here.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:50am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:44am
But again, since YOUR definition of a "marxist" in THIS country is somebody who supports things like universal health care from the Government....
aren't those European "conservatives".."marxists"?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 09:54am
Europe is going broke faster than we are at Obies rate....and it is good to see them at least take a look at what the mess they created and can't sustain.
Too bad we can't do the same here.
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/08/2009 @ 10:10am
The traditional left in Britain has been severely discredited by the arrogant, elitist, anti-democratic, and incompetent rule by Brown's Labour regime. The democratic will of the people has been expressed against the current course of the country, quite likely against the massive bailouts for corrupt bankers who are largely to blame for the economic crisis devastating the country, against the plight of working-class people who witness their jobs vanishing apace and their life prospects dwindling, against a thoroughly corrupt Parliament that is now caught up in a widespread expense-account scandal, against mass immigration that is unnecessary and destructive of British society, against hardcore multiculturalist ideology and pervasive political correctness, against the ongoing construction of the "soft-totalitarian" national-security state (seemingly using Orwell's 1984 as a how-to manual), against increasing subservience to the anti-democratic and faceless EU bureaucracy, against the pathetic performance of the National Health Service and education system, and not least of all against the Olympian arrogance of the Brown regime that is particularly absurd given the increasingly bleak realities experienced by large segments of the British population.
For the good of the political left and of democracy and of the British people, Brown must go. His successor will probably need to hold an election quickly in order to gain a shred of democratic accountability, although Labour will likely be punished severely by the voters for all its many sins, just as the GOP was in the US in 2006 and 2008.
Posted by feinfein at 06/08/2009 @ 10:38am
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/08/2009 @ 10:10am
Welcome back.
Has your nap calmed you?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 10:43am
.....now Europe is a bright light?
Posted by OneVote at 06/08/2009 @ 09:03am
Not yet.....but the trend line is all-important!
As Europe's economic literacy gains, for the global reality today, and the Eurabian tendency to burka personal liberty is more exposed, they are waking up.
The gap in productivity and economic output between Europe and the US will now close much more rapidly....I may need to give European equities a bit more weighting once CapandDie and UHC are more fleshed out.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:04am
Conservatism does not tolerate, nor does it consist of white supremacy or neo-nazism.
Yet, as always, leave it to a lib, in this case Maria Margaronis in the article above, to raise the specter of that stuff when mentioning Europe moving to the right.
Libs have no compunction about throwing the mud and doing whatever they need to do to advance the leftist cause, but of course last year during the electin campaign if anybody dare question any thing about Obama (such as his past records and associations), they were condemned for negative campaigning and worse.
Also up above, Maria Margaronis describes Geert Wilders as "....the anti-Islam campaigner....", in a context as though that is a bad thing.
Why is anti-Islam bad, given that the guidebook for the Religion of Peace, the Koran, preaches death to those who are not Islam.
The Koran consists of contradictory stuff.....people will cite passages from the Koran that preach love of others and accomodation of other faiths, etc....but the Koran also contains the stuff about death for those who are not Islam, etc.
The Koran was written at different points in time when the view of Mohammed differed as to tolerance of others. The hate stuff is the more recent, and is what guides things today.
The supposed hysteria (about what turned out to be a false report anyway) about Korans being flushed down toilets at Gitmo was misplaced.
If the Religion of Peace truly is the religion of peace, then those in the religion who truly believe in peace would be the first groups to advocate that there ARE portions of the Koran that should be ripped out and flushed down toilets, wouldn't they?
But they don't. Yet Maria Margaronis infers Geert Wilders is wrong.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 11:08am
Typo above,
"electin campaign" should be "election campaign".
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 11:10am
Again, I would just ask MAASCH, HAPP, SJCHER...
do these European "conservatives" intend to dismantle universal health care in their countries?
If not, what makes them "a trend" that is exactly like most mainstream Democrats in the United States???
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:16am
do these European "conservatives" intend to dismantle universal health care in their countries?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:16am
To my/our knowledge, their health care system isn't driving the political dialogue and given their sub-replacement fertility of native Euros, it's a problem that will resolve itself IF they can downsize Islamic migration and reduce the welfare system that supports it.
Perhaps the Europeans are smarter than you are crediting them!
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:26am
Reviewing the continent as a whole, the end result seems to be less dire to me than portrayed here. Yes, there is a swing to the right: approx 16 seats (out of 736 seats).
The centre-left (=social democrats) ánd the centre-right (epp) have both lost. The left more than the right. However, aside from several 'rightwing one-issue-parties', Liberals and the Greens have gained as well. For Americans, liberals in Europe are rougly socially moderate to progressive but their main issue is economically being "free-marketeers".
The EPP (christian democrats) are socially and economically conservative but a lot of conservatives (in some countries like the NL maybe even majority) also have strong views on keeping social welfare intact and could be viewed as moderate to even progressive on some issues in US-terms, both socially and economically.
The groups that have gained ground are the more outspoken parties: Nationalists/fascists, Eurosceptics, Greens, and Liberals. And the centralist parties (social dems and christian dems, the ruling parties) have lost some ground, social dems more than christian dems.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 11:57am
1: Mask is right. The conservative movement in Europe would be considered moderate, some would even be considered liberal by the standards of SJ and ANTI.
2: It's called eb and flow. The US took a hard right lurch in '94 and 2000. Then we woke up and lurched backto the center in 2006 and 2008. Each group over reaches, get's caught with pants down or wallets open and the electorate tries the alternate again.
3: When times get rough, nationalism and right wing politics usually rise to the top of the curd.
4: The right "won" 40% of 40%. They won 40% of the 40% of voters that bothered to show up. To take this as a signal or sign of anything is probably like saying the fall of Saddam will bring peace to Iraq by 2005.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 11:57am
Nice synopsis.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 12:01pm
If the Religion of Peace truly is the religion of peace, then those in the religion who truly believe in peace would be the first groups to advocate that there ARE portions of the Koran that should be ripped out and flushed down toilets, wouldn't they?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 11:08am.
What portions of the bible should be ripped and flush SJ? How about for starters those that call for genocide, enslavement, and rape of non believers?
Deut 20 "13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies."
And so what else should be ripped from the bible and flushed? Maybe this one?
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. "
Would you advocate just rippng the whole of Deuteronomy and flushing it?
Posted by Extraneous at 06/08/2009 @ 12:02pm
luckily our islamic population is largely moderate and mainstream. most seem to accept secular american democracy.
but the situation in europe is a whole different deal. many muslims in europe are actively to passively involved in undermining western secular democracy. its untenable and will result in serious ugliness.
most strains of islam are incompatible with secular democracyand who knows how many eurabian muslims are patiently practicing ketman and secretly having bloody fantasies of imposing sharia law and taking their revenge for all others not believing as they.
if they stay away from that stale anti-jewish crap and don't go all hitler...
VIVE LA "NEW EUROPEAN RIGHT!"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/08/2009 @ 12:02pm
do these European "conservatives" intend to dismantle universal health care in their countries.
Posted by Mask
======================================
If you mean the EPP (christian democrats): not in a million years. They also don't want to get rid of the rest of the welfare system: they are basically christians and firmly believe government is in the best position to provide basic humanitarian support for the poor and the under-priviliged.
The European Liberals might be more inclined towards more "free market solutions" in healthcare insurance but even they won't dare to jeopardize the universality of the different European healthcare systems.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 12:06pm
sjchermak-The Bible is filled with contradictions,also, which is why people can make effective arguments that support contradictory views, by quoting the Bible.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/08/2009 @ 12:06pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 11:08am
Full Name:
Michael Donald Bray
Claim to Notoriety:
Vocal and violent activist on behalf of a theocratic United States. Convicted of string of bombings against women's health care clinics providing abortion in the mid-1980s. Author of A Time to Kill , a book offering religious justification for the murder of abortion providers.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 12:15pm
SOME conservatives are OK with the bad ol' gubbament. otto von bismark gutted the democratic socialists for a several generations by adopting a big chunk of their social ideas and implementing them.
after 2 world wars germany seems to have a pretty healthy private sector yet, even with all their "socialism" bugaboo stuff.
I'M a progressive conservative, but have no stomach for the combination of antinomian, anarcho-libertarian, satano-aynrando, science denying cromwellian ludditism that has passed for "conservatism" in this crazy country for the last three decades plus.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/08/2009 @ 12:16pm
Again, amazingly, the Right so desperate for a glimmer of hope that they'll take an election result, which would be the equivalent of...
"Bernie Sanders" beating "Angela Davis" for his Senate seat in Vermont.
The fact that "Angela" lost is supposed to bring great comfort to them?!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 12:25pm
luckily our islamic population is largely moderate and mainstream. most seem to accept secular american democracy.
Posted by ibbleblibble
===================================
That's not any different from the islamic population in many European countries. Most are moderate and accept secular democracy.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 12:33pm
Since I'm no advocate of Rand, I would be perfectly happy to see classic liberalism become the standard in Europe, just as I wish to see it here. Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:50am | ignore this person | warn this person
Seems there's some real cracks in the foundation of U.S. "conservatism". Those who try to draw direct comparisons to "conservatism" in Western Europe do so at their own peril.
See, when I threw stones at the Ayn Randies a short time ago, folks like Happy went all medieval and stuff on me. Wasn't so happy sounding at all.
The right's gotta line up on this vision thing; it's a real problem for you guys, this rugged individualism stuff that is.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/08/2009 @ 12:58pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/08/2009 @ 12:58pm
They've got a real problem. As memories fade and the demographics die off, even the Myth of Reagan doesn't resonate much anymore.
And the only CONCRETE example that they can show the public of "What conservatives will do if they get power"....is Dubya and the GOP Congress.
Short-term they MUST hope that Obama fails...if he succeeds, then for the majority of Americans the entrenched image of "what happens when THEY win"?...
will be 8 years of relative peace and prosperity under Clinton (a Democrat) and the same under Obama (a Democrat)....and two Bushes who gave us wars and recessions...one at the same time!
That's an image they haven't had since Hoover and it took a moderate WORLD WAR HERO like Eisenhower to break them out of it.
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 1:30pm
"Bernie Sanders" beating "Angela Davis" for his Senate seat in Vermont.
Posted by Mask
======================================
LMAO.
It's charging it a bit, but not by much.
Another thing to consider here: these were European Elections. A lot of Europeans view the Europe Parliament still as something alien with only minor implications for their personal life.
I can imagine a lot of voters feeling comfortable voting more extreme for something that won't have consequences for their personal life; while they would be more moderate in their vote when it would have been national elections.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 2:01pm
For me the most puzzling thing about the results is the dramatic difference between the results in Poland where the votes were divided between the hard right and the very hard right and where there's no left to speak of and in Germany where the die Linke party (formed from the East German SED) polled pretty well (especially in the Laender that comprise the former DDR). Go figure!
for di Linke results see http://die-linke.de
for full country-by-country results see http://www.bbc.co.uk/election09
Posted by sparky62 at 06/08/2009 @ 2:06pm
They've got a real problem. As memories fade and the demographics die off, even the Myth of Reagan doesn't resonate much anymore.
And the only CONCRETE example that they can show the public of "What conservatives will do if they get power"....is Dubya and the GOP Congress.
Short-term they MUST hope that Obama fails...if he succeeds, then for the majority of Americans the entrenched image of "what happens when THEY win"?...
will be 8 years of relative peace and prosperity under Clinton (a Democrat) and the same under Obama (a Democrat)....and two Bushes who gave us wars and recessions...one at the same time!
That's an image they haven't had since Hoover and it took a moderate WORLD WAR HERO like Eisenhower to break them out of it.
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 1:30pm
Mask's favorite hobby is revisionist history.
He loves saying Reagan raised taxes. This like saying Michael Phelps didn't set his Olympic record because he trailed in the 100 meter Butterfly until the last 1/2 second.
The fact is that Mask knows that Reagan lowered both individual and corporate taxes. The fact is that they were lower at the end of his 2nd term than the 1st day of his 1st term.
As to spending, he was lied to by a Democratic Congress. I recommend reading the Reagan Diary to see Reagan's comments on how the Dems not only went back on their promise to cut spending, but threatened the defense budget if Reagan attempted a veto.
And the mythology of Clinton. I guess Mask means the president who was drug against his will to implement a balanced budget and welfare reform. The same Clinton that then proceeded to take credit for both?
<Deficit delusions - Pres Clinton's economic performance>
http://tinyurl.com/kmpsp4
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:06pm
Britain is about ten years ahead of the US. It realized the inherent unfairness and rampant corruption of capitalism and conservatives long before we did. So, it moved left. Now, Labour has been corrupted by the same evil forces that control Obama, namely bankers, neocons and conservatives. And even Americans are figuring out Obama is bought and paid for, but like Britons, we have little or no power to change it and no candidate who wants to.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/08/2009 @ 2:06pm
Britain is about ten years ahead of the US. It realized the inherent unfairness and rampant corruption of capitalism and conservatives long before we did. So, it moved left. Now, Labour has been corrupted by the same evil forces that control Obama, namely bankers, neocons and conservatives. And even Americans are figuring out Obama is bought and paid for, but like Britons, we have little or no power to change it and no candidate who wants to.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/08/2009 @ 2:06pm
You're joking, right? Britain has been socialist for decades.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:18pm
Britain is about ten years ahead of the US. It realized the inherent unfairness and rampant corruption of capitalism and conservatives long before we did. So, it moved left. Now, Labour has been corrupted by the same evil forces that control Obama, namely bankers, neocons and conservatives. Even IQ-challenged Americans are figuring out Obama is bought and paid for, but like Britons, we have little or no power to change it and no candidate who is able or wants to.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/08/2009 @ 2:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:06pm
Reagan RAISED corporate taxes with the 1986 Tax Reform Act....oh, sorry..."closed loopholes"...oddly the SAME THING Obama's calling for?!?!?!?
He was "lied to by Congress"?!?!?? So Ronnie could read them Russkies and knew how to stare them down...but Tip O'Neill flabbergasted him??? Okay, if that's your story.
And how does ADDING Cabinet-level positions like Department of Veteran's Affairs and 250,000 Federal employees "cut government"???
As for Clinton, revisionist history held that Newt created the economic boom of the 90s and the balanced budget. Yet, we were told (by guys like Rush) that Clinton's "massive tax hike" of 1993 was going to "cripple the economy as it started to rebound" from the recession of 1991-1992.
And since the economy was showing improvements BEFORE Gingrich enacted a single bit of legislation when he took office in January 1995 (that's a "five")....how did he do it? Time machine?
Also how much did Gingrich cut, specifically?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 2:22pm
Again, I would just ask MAASCH, HAPP, SJCHER...
do these European "conservatives" intend to dismantle universal health care in their countries?
If not, what makes them "a trend" that is exactly like most mainstream Democrats in the United States???
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:16am
There are no European conservatives...But Happ is correct..their socialistic systems will have to die from the inside..they already are part way there with rationing, plus the wealthy moved many of thier assets years ago, now they are waiting for the immigrants to pare down to 2 kids instead of 8...could be tough...people go to Europe to get the free health care..not contribute to European fabric or life.
As Obama looks to rape the productive class here by stealing what they have left after he raises their taxes to pay for health care here....oh well.
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/08/2009 @ 2:44pm
Reagan RAISED corporate taxes with the 1986 Tax Reform Act....oh, sorry..."closed loopholes"...oddly the SAME THING Obama's calling for?!?!?!?
He was "lied to by Congress"?!?!?? So Ronnie could read them Russkies and knew how to stare them down...but Tip O'Neill flabbergasted him??? Okay, if that's your story.
And how does ADDING Cabinet-level positions like Department of Veteran's Affairs and 250,000 Federal employees "cut government"???
As for Clinton, revisionist history held that Newt created the economic boom of the 90s and the balanced budget. Yet, we were told (by guys like Rush) that Clinton's "massive tax hike" of 1993 was going to "cripple the economy as it started to rebound" from the recession of 1991-1992.
And since the economy was showing improvements BEFORE Gingrich enacted a single bit of legislation when he took office in January 1995 (that's a "five")....how did he do it? Time machine?
Also how much did Gingrich cut, specifically?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 2:22pm
I'll give you this, at least you are consistent is misstating and distorting the truth.
Were tax rates lower in 1988 than in 1980? The answer is yes
Did O'Neil and the Dems lie to Reagan about their commitment to reduce spending? Yes
Again, O'Neil would stand at the steps of the Capital as each Reagan budget proposal was delivered to hold a press conference in which he would label Reagan's budget proposal as Dead on Arrival.
The economic boom of the 90's was due to Reagan, not Clinton, not Gingrich. The changes in tax structure for corporations and for capital gains allowed the investments that created the dot com boom. Most of that R&D was begun before Clinton ever took office.
And Clinton was against the Bal Budget -that's the fact.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 3:06pm
Then Reagan got congress back by lying to them about Iran Contra, the Halabja attacks and so much else.
OF COURSE it was all Reagans doing and Clintons fault. If it were any other way anti wouldn't have two sticks to rub together. If Clinton had any success, it must have been due to something that happened 4-12 years before he took office, the same way that Obama is at fault for our current economic mess.
For a continuation of this logic (sometimes called Flogic) see:
"There are no European conservatives"
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/08/2009 @ 2:44pm
none. nope. Anti-Islamic neo-nazis are not "real" conservatives.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 3:06pm
Gee, Larry...you make Reagan sound almost like a...
"messiah" or something???
heheh
BTW, DID corporate taxes increase with the 1986 Tax Reform Act...yes or no? And PLEASE try to make the case that closing loopholes is NOT a "tax increase"...
so I can use it for Obama's plan!
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:29pm
And yes, JOMAMMA your record of perfect predictions will stand, Europe will fall, we can see that by the list of world economies. The failing EU is....oh...1st.
Well, let's look at some individual socialist failing economies..
Germany = 4th
France = 5th
GB (socialist for decades) = 6th
What about 2nd, surely not a socialist country?
Whoops, Japan, universal healthcare and subsidies for auto industries and their workers.
Dammit!
OK 3rd then...
Damn! China, the world largest socialist nation.
OK, The USA....nope socialism since post WWII, combined with capitalism. What do you know? A combination of the two works pretty good.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/08/2009 @ 2:44pm
But again, MAASCH, what's to celebrate? Going from "The Daily Worker" readers in charge to "The Nation" readers in charge (heheh)...is a "victory"?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:31pm
Anti-Islamic neo-nazis are not "real" conservatives.
Posted by crabwalk
====================================
Hmmm. Sure about that?
What's "real" conservative anyway?
Some Republican ‘conservatives' and Democratic Blue Dogs would be more aligned with European Liberals. In the US, they probably call themselves ‘Libertarians', or conservative ‘independents', though we know they always vote conservative). A lot of the current Republican ‘conservatives' crop would be found on the European extremist rightwing fringe (Newt, Rush, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Palin).
A few (Specter, Snowe, Murkowski) in the EPP. The Cristian Democrats in Europe like Angela Merkel.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 3:45pm
"Were tax rates lower in 1988 than in 1980? The answer is yes"
Posted by antisocialist ======================================
And what about Obama's taxrates versus Reagan's 1988 taxrates?
LMAO
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 3:52pm
The Left- Center parties lost because they abandoned their principles to win elections. They did not protect ordinary people. When you behave Conservative "light", taking away people's jobs, along with their social safety nets, they will had you your head. They deserve their loss!
Posted by pjcasey at 06/08/2009 @ 4:01pm
He loves saying Reagan raised taxes. This like saying Michael Phelps didn't set his Olympic record because he trailed in the 100 meter Butterfly until the last 1/2 second.
The fact is that Mask knows that Reagan lowered both individual and corporate taxes. The fact is that they were lower at the end of his 2nd term than the 1st day of his 1st term.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:06pm
That's MASK for ya......straight line only thinking.......and only picks those segments that fits his Kool-aided brain!
Hey, MASK, gold is down today......crisis of confidence in the dollar and Obamanomic is over.......(for today).
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:06pm
BTW, DID corporate taxes increase with the 1986 Tax Reform Act...yes or no? And PLEASE try to make the case that closing loopholes is NOT a "tax increase"...
so I can use it for Obama's plan!
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:29pm
It's not relevant.
They were lower when he left office than when he came in. And Mask, were they lower in 1988 then they were in 1986?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:10pm
Granting that the elections to the European Parliament are fairly meaningless and therefore not perfect guides to the political leanings within the nations of Europe...
The basic fact is that as manufacturing jobs have been outsouced from Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the working class has been weakened and the social democratic and labor parties have distanced themselves from the social class that formed their base. These center-left parties became mere echos of the right wing parties and often led the governments that imposed privatization, free trade agreements and labor law in the center-left version of "Only Nixon can go to China".
This phenomenon didn't surprise those of us on the left who have always stood for the political independence of the working class and against "all-class" parties where workers had to bend to the will of the "liberal" or "nationalist" petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie in the interest of precious "UNITY." These alien class elements increasingly came to dominate the center-left workers' parties, especially with the spread of the U.S. model of electoral campaigns that emphasize lots of expensive TV commercials over grassroots activism.
The beginnings of a solution would be for workers to force their unions to fight back against the continued dominance of Capital (plant takeovers, strikes, etc.) and sever all institutuional ties to the center-left parties. The existing parties that stand for working class independence need to examine whether they have real differences in their programs or are just maintaining themselves for sectarian reasons. Independent mass parties of the working class could then work with other parties on particular issues but should refuse all permanent blocs or mergers with them.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/08/2009 @ 4:22pm
Since I'm no advocate of Rand, I would be perfectly happy to see classic liberalism become the standard in Europe, just as I wish to see it here.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009
OK, maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but pleased define "classic liberalism" Anti. I would be amazed what you think classical liberalism is and why you would like to see it in both Europe and the USA.
And BTW, Britain is not socialist any more than we are. And if most conservatives think that Europe is too liberal, maybe it's because they have actually been under fascist rule and know it when they see it. Hmmm, that must explain why so many Europeans called W a fascist.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/08/2009 @ 4:30pm
OK, maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but pleased define "classic liberalism" Anti. I would be amazed what you think classical liberalism is and why you would like to see it in both Europe and the USA.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/08/2009 @ 4:30pm
Happy to oblige, may be surprised.
<Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism, and market liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government
Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. The ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law." For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty, over a pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."
Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: ">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 5:06pm
Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: ">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 5:06pm
I suspect you know, classical liberalism is Ayn Randism...exaltation of the the individual above the state!
We've come full circle....the Libs of today, are liberty-killing fascists and socialists.....nearing tyrannical/dictatorial levels.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 5:54pm
antisocialist. That definition of "classical liberalism" is extremely vague. Did classical liberals vote for the Democrats in the last elections? Because this definition of classical liberalism is more in line with the Democratic Party than with Republican Party in this century. Especially the recognition of individual rights.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 6:04pm
antisocialist. That definition of "classical liberalism" is extremely vague. Did classical liberals vote for the Democrats in the last elections? Because this definition of classical liberalism is more in line with the Democratic Party than with Republican Party in this century. Especially the recognition of individual rights.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 6:04pm
Your problem is that this definition is not mine. It has been in existence since before the US became a nation.
Most likely your confusion stems from a lack of adequate teaching on the subect in the public education system. If you understood the real polical roots in this country, you would know about the overlap between Jeffersonian Democracy which led to the Democratic Party and the further development of Republicanism in the middle of the 19th century.
Classical liberalism and neo liberalism are unrelated. Even more unrelated is the Democratic Socialism of much of today's Democratic Party which bears no resemblance to the Democrats of 50 years ago. In fact, John F Kennedy was the last of the Democrats to align under classical liberalism.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 6:25pm
Additional writing on Classic Liberalism by John Goodman PHD
<Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.>
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 6:39pm
Thank you for your postings, "polderjongetje." They are all enlightening!
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/08/2009 @ 7:50pm
Yeah.........
But they still like Obama.
And that's what counts.
Posted by bleedingheart at 06/08/2009 @ 7:53pm
BTW, DID corporate taxes increase with the 1986 Tax Reform Act...yes or no? And PLEASE try to make the case that closing loopholes is NOT a "tax increase"...
so I can use it for Obama's plan!---Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:29pm
It's not relevant.---Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:10pm
Larry, why is it soooooooo hard for you to admit that "once" Ronald Reagan raised taxes?
It's almost..."cult-like"...where the head honcho is NEVER wrong.
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 9:03pm
this definition of classical liberalism is more in line with the Democratic Party than with Republican Party in this century. Especially the recognition of individual rights.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 6:04pm
This is ObamaSpeak you emulated, right? My laugh of the night, your declaration that the Dem party is in line with "the recognition of individual rights"!
Just like Magic (that's The Messiah) saying today, the econ stimulus (Pork bill in truth) is doing such wonderful things....but geeze, the recession will just hang around a LOT longer and oops, the unemployment rate somehow just crept up on him...but, it's Bush's fault...and oh, it's 1984 all the time w/him and his thrilled followers!
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 10:17pm
"But after assurances she would be publicly introduced at the event, the former vice presidential nominee and her husband strode across the stage with Gingrich and his wife as the event started, getting applause from the crowd of more than 2,000 horny Republicans. "
Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 8, 2009; 10:48 PM
Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2009 @ 10:53pm
Limbaugh's back on French Fries!!
Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2009 @ 10:54pm
We've come full circle....the Libs of today, are liberty-killing fascists and socialists.....nearing tyrannical/dictatorial levels.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Not until the Obamantion that makes desolation gets his private gestopo army he dreamed of in Colorado during the election!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/08/2009 @ 10:57pm
The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats have sounded the death knell of the American economy and national pre-eminence of world nations.
This is the guy that was an "empty suit" of senseless rhetoric in campaign mode reeling in all the fools for the Demoncrats. Enjoy the fruits of your political labor!
A real unemployment rate of 15% and a faux one of 9.4, almost 80% of GDP will be needed just to pay on our debt that is reaching exponential proportions, all that is left is for the Demoncrat rats to leave the sinking ship!
Blame Bush who had NOTHING to do with all the banking and finance laws passed by Demoncrats that created this financial blackhole, yea thats the ticket!
Barney, Ted, and the boys and girls playing doctor are still trying to figure out whose money is left to take for their newest schemes and the same fools still want more handouts for the non-productive, illegal aliens, and anyone else looking for a handout! What a team!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/08/2009 @ 11:05pm
And what about Obama's taxrates versus Reagan's 1988 taxrates?
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/08/2009 @ 3:52pm |
Can somebody respond? Larry? Obama's 2009 tax rates versus Reagan's 1988 tax rates?
Also Larry of the G-d thing. Does Happy's use of word Messiah for Ob-ma have your blessing? Or are you silent on this and the Reagan tax hike-loophole thing??
Anyone claiming the French are going to dismantle the Eiffel Tower or healthcare?
Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2009 @ 11:28pm
antisocialist: "Most likely your confusion stems from a lack of adequate teaching on the subect in the public education system. If you understood the real polical roots in this country, you would know about the overlap between Jeffersonian Democracy which led to the Democratic Party and the further development of Republicanism in the middle of the 19th century. "
No, there's no confusion. The problem you don't seem to recognize is that it's your own projection that makes you belief the current crop of Republicans espouse "conservative" ideals in line with "classical liberalism". They have never espoused it, and never will. They only use it as propaganda, it does not match their actions. Conservatives don't believe in "free market": they believe in corporations dictating the market. Their ideal is companies dictating to customers that they "can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
Conservatives believing in individual rights is of course the biggest joke pulled on US voters. They don't care for you, they only care for the "Plight of the Not Yet Rich Enough", especially the burden of the White Christian Heterosexual Male.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/09/2009 @ 07:09am
Not until the Obamantion that makes desolation gets his private gestopo army he dreamed of in Colorado during the election!-----Posted by BigPasture at 06/08/2009 @ 10:57pm
Yet you still have no "escape plan", RIO?!?!?!?!???
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 07:38am
The gap in productivity and economic output between Europe and the US will now close much more rapidly....I may need to give European equities a bit more weighting once CapandDie and UHC are more fleshed out.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:04am
You know, the rise of multinational corporations is behind much of this - the dismantling of social safety nets using the false promises of economic liberalism. In a world of plentiful resources and unlimited opportunity, the mantra was birthed. The world today is a far different place than at the dawn of the industrial revolution and mercantilism. Back to the future just isn't going to fly, but it may be good for short term profits of individual businesses who seek the stamp of legality to walk away from social responsbility.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2009 @ 08:52am
I didn't say that. I was stating that once in a while people actually think and vote rationally instead of coping out to socialism
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh.....I thought perhaps that you were willing to relax your jingoism as long as Europeans were like minded with your political, economic and social philosophy. Just checking - wondering if that "bright light" had shined your way.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2009 @ 09:48am
"As Obama looks to rape the productive class"
(quote of the day)
not only is it poorly worded, it's totally obnoxious.
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 11:18am
No, there's no confusion. The problem you don't seem to recognize is that it's your own projection that makes you belief the current crop of Republicans espouse "conservative" ideals in line with "classical liberalism". They have never espoused it, and never will. They only use it as propaganda, it does not match their actions. Conservatives don't believe in "free market": they believe in corporations dictating the market. Their ideal is companies dictating to customers that they "can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
Conservatives believing in individual rights is of course the biggest joke pulled on US voters. They don't care for you, they only care for the "Plight of the Not Yet Rich Enough", especially the burden of the White Christian Heterosexual Male.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/09/2009 @ 07:09am
As you are new here, I will not go too hard on your obvious cognitive disability.
If you had viewed the blog pages of the Nation for any length of time, you would find that conservatives like myself and several others have consistently dismissed most of today's Republicans as not being true conservatives.
It is for that reason as I have also repeatedly noted that I often vote 3rd party.
The rest of your post is just regurgitating of far left talking points which shows your are not someone given to actually thinking for yourself. When I see a post from you that actually contains some evidence that you can think on your own, I'll re-engage with you.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:36am
"you would find that conservatives like myself and several others have consistently dismissed most of today's Republicans as not being true conservatives"
i'd really like to see evidence of this.
"have consisently dismissed" sounds more like your attitude towards democrats and progressives, and not not republicans.
serious, larry, show us 10 quotes of yours in which you "dismissed" republicans. ok, i'll give you a break: 5 quotes.
ive you
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 11:51am
serious, larry, show us 10 quotes of yours in which you "dismissed" republicans. ok, i'll give you a break: 5 quotes Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 11:51am
<Actually, it is right here at the Nation, the only forum where I participate that I have on numerous occasions cited my criticisms of Bush. In fact, recently I had commented to Imnobody about my reservations and those of many evangelical Christians about Bush during the 2000 election. We were concerned he would be more like his father instead of a true conservative.
Our greatest fears were not realized as he did uphold life (stemcell vetoes), put conservative justices on the Supreme Court, lower taxes, and show strength in the war on terror. These issues outweigh the negatives, especially the war on terror.
That said, conservatives have remained in disagreement with Bush on a number of areas, these being at the top of many conservatives lists including me.
His support for federal involvement with education
His expansion of medicare
His failure to reduce domestic spending
Not taking a stronger stand on the hoax of "manmade global warming"
Not using emergency powers to authorize drilling in ANWR
Not taking a stronger stand with Israel against Hamas and the "Palestinians"
Not pulling out of the UN and telling them to relocate elsewhere
Failing to adequately respond to those who falsely claim we have a health care crisis in this country.
http://tinyurl.com/nq89ck
this was on a 2007 thread. What is unfortunate is that the Nation when they blocked my LVLIBERTY1 id, also purged all of my postings. But you can see where others responded to me on that thread.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:30pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:30pm
It's true...Larry only LIKED Dubya. Now for adoration...try this one-
Oh, Larry...did RONALD REAGAN ever raise taxes?
ever?
(and watch cultishness...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 12:39pm
Darla,
This was from a 3/18/06 dialogue with New Dawn
<I am not hesitant to cite what I believe are and have been Bush's shortcomings as President. After all, there has never been a perfect president and never will.
Some of Bush's key mistakes/shortcomings:
1.Failure to control Congressional spending-no vetos
2.His own endorsement of more funds for Federal spending on Education-as you know, I believe this is the responsibility/decision of state and local governments and is not an enumerated power given to Congress or the President
3.The border situation (which we have discussed previously)-this should be at the highest priority for Bush and Congress. However, both are afraid and courting the Hispanic vote and therefore are unwilling to face the issue head-on.
4.Bush and the Republican Congress have failed to sufficiently address our nation's infrastructure needs. This is an area of blindness for Republicans because it is non-defense spending. Yet it is mandated in the Constitution in Article 1, Sect 8 subparagraphs 3 & 8:>
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:43pm
BTW, more fun facts...and something to note when the Right starts in on Obama's unemployment rate-
Guess what the unemployment rate was TWO YEARS AFTER the Reagan tax cuts were implemented? (1983)?
(Hint- It was higher than it had been under Carter or before Reagan's cuts.)
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 12:47pm
And this one Darla
Response to New Dawn 8/23/06
<LL, if you've got problems with the way the country is being run, why would you come here and rail against the very people you ridicule about not being in power instead of doing something, anything, to hold those who are in power accountable???>
You would have no way of knowing the conversations I have had over the years with Party officials. I have submitted platform proposals since 1980. Nor would you know about the verbal lashing I gave them this year when they asked for financial support. I informed the party that until they get their act together to once more be the party that tries to reduce Federal spending, they will not get a penny from me. I also told them that if that that means losing seats, then they should hurry up and revert back to what the party stands for.>
As I noted, unfortunately the Nation purged my LVLIBERTY1
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:49pm
It's true...Larry only LIKED Dubya. Now for adoration...try this one-
Oh, Larry...did RONALD REAGAN ever raise taxes?
ever?
(and watch cultishness...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 12:39pm
Mask, this gets so old..
I don't care about the intermediary steps. The bottom line for his presidency is what counts. And the fact is that Reagan lowered both individual and corporate income taxes so that they were far lower when he left office than when he took office.
the one tax he raised that is consistent with conservative principles was the gasoline tax since that is a user tax.
you can keep trying this misinformation campaign but the truth will always speak against you.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:52pm
"you would find that conservatives like myself and several others have consistently dismissed most of today's Republicans as not being true conservatives"
uh, antisocialist, those "criticisms" you posted are actually the core of the current GOP platform.
so, i rebuke them all.
criticizing bush is not sufficient for criticizing the party.
just so you know.
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:18pm
heck, bush was the worst president in the history of the united states, and he destroyed the country.
so criticizing bush is easy.
i want you to break with the GOP platform, which you have endorsed (repeatedly).
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:19pm
criticizing bush is not sufficient for criticizing the party.
just so you know.
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:18pm
If you read, you would see I criticized both. But then I didn't expect you to acknowledge that you were wrong about me.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:20pm
btw, drilling in alaska is NOT a "conservative" idea. it's a republican idea, and a terrible one at that.
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:22pm
antisocialist, both of your lists were directed at bush.
please re-read, they all start with "he/him"
meaning: bush
there are NO criticisms of the GOP platform, or the GOP per se.
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:23pm
here are the titles to both your lists:
"Some of Bush's key mistakes/shortcomings:"
and the second, all begin with "his":
"His support for federal involvement with education His expansion of medicare His failure to reduce domestic spending Not taking a stronger stand on the hoax of "manmade global warming" Not using emergency powers to authorize drilling in ANWR Not taking a stronger stand with Israel against Hamas and the "Palestinians" Not pulling out of the UN and telling them to relocate elsewhere Failing to adequately respond to those who falsely claim we have a health care crisis in this country."
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:26pm
here is antisocialist's completely brainless suggestion for conservatives:
"Failing to adequately respond to those who falsely claim we have a health care crisis in this country"
priceless!
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:27pm
antisocialist,
95% of your posts are about ripping democrats, progressives and socialists (w/ little substance)
4.8% are ripping obama per se (again, w/ little substance)
and 0.2% are merely questioning, but not ripping, conservative pricinples.....
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:29pm
95% of your posts are about ripping democrats, progressives and socialists (w/ little substance)
4.8% are ripping obama per se (again, w/ little substance)
and 0.2% are merely questioning, but not ripping, conservative pricinples.....
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:29pm
Maybe because this is a socialist blog and I'm not likely to find a lot of conservatives to debate with?
And no substance. I post in one week, more substance and documentation of my views and claims than you have since you started visiting this site. I always back up my positions. I don't attempt to defend any position that I cannot back up with documentation.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:36pm
Perhaps Darla you should have put your glasses on when you say I only directed my comments towards Bush.
<Bush and the Republican Congress have failed to sufficiently address our nation's infrastructure needs. This is an area of blindness for Republicans>
<You would have no way of knowing the conversations I have had over the years with Party officials. I have submitted platform proposals since 1980. Nor would you know about the verbal lashing I gave them this year when they asked for financial support. I informed the party that until they get their act together to once more be the party that tries to reduce Federal spending, they will not get a penny from me. I also told them that if that that means losing seats, then they should hurry up and revert back to what the party stands for>
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:42pm
More for Darla,
And this Darla is from a cover letter I wrote to then GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman in 2006.
<Mr. Mehlman, I have been a faithful party member for 38 years and worked for Republican candidates now for 46 years (going back to Nixon in 1960). I am tired of seeing a President I support 200% and a Congress which I am unhappy with fail to live up to their full beliefs and potential. Just as I did in 1984 during the Reagan years, I am sounding the alarm again as both the President and Congress have gotten off course. Attached is a Word file with a brief draft dealing with several key areas that I believe if implemented would allow the GOP to maintain control of Congress and dramatically improve the President's image with the American people. If you do not open email files I will be happy to send the document intact inside of an email. I want our party to continue to succeed in our vision for the current and future security and prosperity of America. But as someone who has closely monitored and participated now for these many decades, I can tell you that unless action is taken at least closely parallel to what I am submitting, you will in all likelihood lose control of the House and perhaps even the Senate in this November's election. This also would place in grave danger the possibility of a Democrat elected president in 2008.>
Turns out I was pretty prophetic about the results as the party did not change back in 2006 or 2007.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
ok, that's 2 criticisms (out of 5).
and out of the volume of your posts on this site, that pretty much falls into that 0.2% category i stipulated.
in other words, 2 out of 2000 are "critical" of the GOP
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:48pm
antisocialist, letters you wrote to the GOP don't count
i want actual POSTS.....
you're picking for pearls in a vast ocean....
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
"Failing to adequately respond to those who falsely claim we have a health care crisis in this country"
priceless!
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:27pm
Well let me add some context of the rest of that portion of my complaint.
<We don't have a health care crisis, we have a situation where many if not a majority of Americans do not engage in positive and productive health habits. Americans overall do not make good proactive choices about their health. That is why our rates of diabetes, obesity, heart, cancer, and related issues are so high. Simply changing their habits would change our healthcare costs dramatically within a few years.>
and my next dialogue with SRJenkins provides even more context.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
antisocialist, letters you wrote to the GOP don't count
i want actual POSTS.....
you're picking for pearls in a vast ocean....
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
For the first few years I didn't save many of my posts and as I noted, the Nation purged all of posts under my LVLIBERTY1 blog name. So the Nation has hamstrung that capability for me.
And maybe you have the time, but I don't have the time to look under every thread from the past 4 years to find a response to me by someone so that I can satisfy your number request. The principle remains that I am on record here going back at least 3 years as critical of Bush and the Republicans for failing to uphold conservative principles.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:54pm
"we have a situation where many if not a majority of Americans do not engage in positive and productive health habits. Americans overall do not make good proactive choices about their health."
this is an argument against reforming the health care system?
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:56pm
the one tax he raised that is consistent with conservative principles was the gasoline tax since that is a user tax.-----Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:52pm
Well, it's a miracle you admit that, but...
so there were NO corporate tax increases in the 1986 Tax Reform Act that RR signed?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 1:56pm
"t I am on record here going back at least 3 years as critical of Bush and the Republicans for failing to uphold conservative principles"
3 years = 3 posts = 1 "critical" post/year
but seriously, larry, thanks so much for trying!
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
I bet Darla agrees that a majority of Americans do not engage in positive and productive health habits. Americans overall do not make good proactive choices about their health, and thus, Darladoon will immediately stop damaging her health by smoking marijuana.
Right Darla? Because under collectivism, as a taxpayer, should we really have to pay for your bad choices? I don't think so. And in the future we'll be able to use the full force of the government to FORCE you to stop, in our effort to be fair to everyone.
Posted by freiheit1 at 06/09/2009 @ 2:01pm
freiheit-Smoking marijuana has fewer health risks than most medications that it can replace.Marijuana is very effective when used to combat depression,anxiety disorders,OCD,chronic pain,the side effects of cancer treatments,alcoholism,drug addiction,insomnia,and many other problems.Medications are far more expensive,have horrid side effects,are not natural,and can be quite addictive and can cause your death if you stop taking them too quickly..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2009 @ 2:13pm
Thanks, I'm nobody, and I whole-heartedly agree with your brief assessment of pharma. I hold the industry in contempt and their creation of diseases that require a "treatment" is moral hazard defined. I sometimes even wonder if the $multi-billion cancer industry is really interested in a "cure". I even go so far as to say big pharma is the real driver behind the drive to nationalize health care in the US. What better way for them to create a cartel protected and backed by the FORCE of the federal government?
But I also won't condone the health benefits of pot based on your grouping it with more serious problems. You are merely saying handguns are really quite safe when compared to morters.
Although personally I don't think either should be illegal, pot, like alcohol, is not really good for you from a medical care standpoint.
Posted by freiheit1 at 06/09/2009 @ 2:25pm
freit-I'm not comparing handguns to mortars.I'm saying that there are many health problems that people have that require some form of treatment and natural herbs,like marijuana,are much better than the alternative,in many cases.Alcohol has been proven to be good for you if used in moderation.That is particularly true of red wine.Non drinkers have about the same life span as alcoholics.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2009 @ 2:40pm
Well, it's a miracle you admit that, but...
so there were NO corporate tax increases in the 1986 Tax Reform Act that RR signed?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 1:56pm
Why would it be a miracle when conservatives believe in User taxes over income taxes?
Secondly,the '86 Tax Reform Act attempted to close loopholes which is only due to both Dems and Republicans constantly rewriting tax law to favor their election contributors.
But the bottom line is the only thing that counts. Reagan reduced the corporate tax rate by 30%.
Some other facts on the effect of Reagan taxcuts
The top 1% share of taxes paid increased 60% by 1988 from 17.6 to 27.5%
The top 5% share of taxes paid increased 28% by 1988.
The bottom 50% meanwhile decreased by 30% in their share of income taxes paid.
And this on corporate taxes
<Over the last 60 years, the U.S. tax code has dramatically shifted away from corporate taxes and toward taxes on individuals, especially through the payroll tax, the financing backbone of Social Security and Medicare. In the 1950s, the corporate income tax brought in, on average, one of every four dollars in federal tax revenues. By the 2000s, however, it raised just one of every 10 tax dollars>
http://tinyurl.com/mkcgn5
And as you know, I favor completely eliminating the corporate tax since the reality is that corporations don't pay this, their customers pay the tax. this tax hurts wages and consumer prices.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:53pm
Fine...so closing corporate loopholes is NOT an increase in corporate taxes.
I'll just hang onto that....heheh. Unless you want a second caveat or two?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 3:07pm
Mask, for you and the other corporate bashers.
S Corporations which are the small business owners like myself represent 68% of all corporations in the US.
Yet the left tosses this word around as if most corporations are large publicly traded entities.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 3:21pm
Antisocialist: "conservatives like myself and several others have consistently dismissed most of today's Republicans as not being true conservatives. "
Only when it became clear they were a bunch of losers, that is: AFTER the last elections. And only when you're confronted with the disconnect between what Republicans are "supposed" to stand for (according to you), and what their actions actually reveal.
But tell me, who of the current batch of Republicans do you particularly and "consistently" dismiss and who can you actually support?
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/09/2009 @ 5:55pm
And as you know, I favor completely eliminating the corporate tax since the reality is that corporations don't pay this, their customers pay the tax. this tax hurts wages and consumer prices.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:53pm
Shouldn't we allow the market to work and allow corps the choice of whether they pass the cost of the tax on to consumers with a higher price than those that simply eat it?
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 6:37pm
for the record:
i don't SMOKE marijuana! (i eat it, alice b. toklas taught me the recipe)
how many times do i have to say this??
and whether americans have good/bad habits isn't the point!
depriving someone of health care is wrong.
Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2009 @ 7:25pm
Only when it became clear they were a bunch of losers, that is: AFTER the last elections. And only when you're confronted with the disconnect between what Republicans are "supposed" to stand for (according to you), and what their actions actually reveal.
But tell me, who of the current batch of Republicans do you particularly and "consistently" dismiss and who can you actually support?
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/09/2009 @ 5:55pm
There aren't many I would support. That's why I end up voting 3rd party so often.
In the Senate, Coburn, Inhofe, Cornyn, Shelby, Thune, Brownback, Bond, Isakson has been improving, Roberts (KS) decent, Crapo, Burr, Ensign who also used to be my Congressman,
House: Dana Rohrbacher, Ron Paul, Connie Mack, Pence, Royce, Gallegly, Cantor, Ryan, and there are some others.
Non elected: Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Prof Walter Williams (all of these African Americans), Palin,
Some Issues great, some not so great: Buchannon, Gingrich, Limbaugh,
That's a fair list, but not conclusive.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 3:21pm
Larry, I personally have never signed a bill that "closed corporate loopholes" (i.e. what the Right used to and WILL call a "corporate tax hike" as soon as Obama and the Dems do it, due to no real knoweldge of the 1980s except myth).
Now Ronald Reagan on the other hand....HE did do that to American business.
So technically, I'M more "pro-business" than he was...heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 8:30pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:37pm
BTW, find it a great relief that you can count only a half-dozen US Senators and the same US House members who meet YOUR standards.
But I noted you included John Cornyn.
That the same John Cornyn who told Rush and Newt to STFU over Sotomayor?!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 8:32pm
@antisocialist. Well, that is odd. You denounce Bush for not being a proper Conservative, yet your list features the strongest backers of Bush in Congress.
And funny that as a self proclaimed "antisocialist", you happen to support Palin. Even I - as a non-Murcan - know that Palin owns her State's resources, taxes the companies that use them, and gives the tax revenues to the people of her State. That's socialism-pur-sang: the State owning the means of production and use them to benefit the citizens.
And Palin is extremely happy with that, see her latest interview with Hannity.
LMAO
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/09/2009 @ 8:50pm
That the same John Cornyn who told Rush and Newt to STFU over Sotomayor?!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 8:32pm
how does he vote on conservative issues? Cornyn has a 92 out of possible 100 from the American Conservative Union.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 9:10pm
Where's the free market movement against the Realtor 6% scam? Insidious, everyday-evil corporate-laws masking as "regulations" dominate the so-called marketplace. To get licensed & keep your license as a silly realtor, you have to agree to the 6% (3+3) evil. The "market" for marketing your house outside the sanctioned MLS Realtor database is wide open for anyone interested in product placement way way off to the side.
Corporate-law kills what could be a much free'r market in housing, healthcare and innumerable sectors, and cheek fake-Happy, the Reverend, Rush, there's statistically minimal pushback from so-called free-marketers.
Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2009 @ 9:16pm
@antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:52pm: "the one tax he raised that is consistent with conservative principles was the gasoline tax since that is a user tax."
@antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:53pm: "I favor completely eliminating the corporate tax since the reality is that corporations don't pay this, their customers pay the tax. this tax hurts wages and consumer prices."
First: their is an obvious contradiction here: the first ‘user tax' is consistent with ‘conservative principles', yet the ‘consumer tax' - because in your view that is what it amounts to - is not?
Second: you obviously have never done a course in Economy 101. Taxes don't influence prices. Prices are determined by how much you can sell for a particular price. It's basic supply and demand stuff. Consumers are only willing to part with their money if the price is right. When the price is too high, your revenue and profits will go down because you will sell less; when the price is too low, your revenue and profits will be too low too because you have not taken full advantage of the market.
Consider a prostitue who's not being taxed and willing to give you a blow job for $35,-. That price sounds okay to you so you're buying his or her service. Now consider that under new legislation, that service is being taxed. Is that blow job suddenly worth $50,-? No. If he or she is a wise businessmann or woman, the service will still be $35,- because the market already had decided that that was the correct price. If not, than he or she had not taken full advantage of the market and the service should have cost you $50,- in the first place.
Taxes only eat into income, *after* the price is determined by the market and after the deal is closed.
Posted by polderjongetje at 06/09/2009 @ 9:19pm
By the way I'm conservative: I place the military, oil and minerals and natural resources of America, and the health (healthcare) of America all in the sacred defense/ security sphere. Adam Smith: first duty of government is defense of the country.
None of these - military, energy, healthcare - should be ravaged by corporate profiteers.
Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Pfizer, Aetna should compete for peripheral positioning, not dictate the market.
Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2009 @ 9:39pm
The BNp won a seat, that's all. European views haven't shifted right. If you want to prove it has you need opinion poll results to prove it
Posted by zebra1 at 06/10/2009 @ 05:03am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 9:10pm
Exactly....and yet he tells Gingrich and Limbaugh they need to can it!
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 07:39am
Exactly....and yet he tells Gingrich and Limbaugh they need to can it!
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 07:39am
on Sotomayor, not on conservative issues.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 09:26am