...and if you believe that... read this...
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
2006-08-01 10:18:42 · 12 answers · asked by omnimog 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The gap is increasing between the rich and the poor. The rich get richer through investments and not by their innovation or hard work (with some exceptions). We need to value new ideas and hard work not how much money a person has. A new class of royalty is being created. they are getting more powerful. Why should someone be able to buy lakeshore property and shut others off from public bodies of water, why should a family own land generation upon generation without end without paying for the privilege. It is my opinion that giving everyone $100 off their taxes has the same effect as giving a very few $10000 each...If you are doing well, in a country that is a good climate for investment, you should be a part of the group that pays higher taxes because you are doing so great...it's not ruining them to pay taxes, it's just cutting into the profit...it's income tax, not a tax on how much you have. I'm all for a national sales tax system instead of an income tax on non essential items. but, we should tax the net returns of "old money". People with loads of money that just sit on it are not doing the rest of the country any good...it's parasitic. citizerns take part in society, they make things, they provide a service, and they create culture.
Bush and the conservatives (republicans) represent the richest people. The richest of our population need a voice as much as anyone...maybe even a louder voice; but they are not the sum of this country. The rich need to be allowed be to be flexible to provide companies for others to have employment and share in this wealth. A balance needs to be maintained. If labor unions were too powerful, investments would be slow...but it is not the case at this time, the gap is widening and needs to be maintained.
2006-08-01 11:23:38 · answer #1 · answered by kentonmankle 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Interesting thesis. I like the opening statement because it addresses something Liberals lack: a strong simple message.
But this message is about what Conservatives are. Though an accurate description of the Ruling Class of the conservatives, it's a definition of a small part of the sum total of conservatism. It defines them about as well as they define Liberals.
Conservatives have characterized Liberals using only the issues of most marginalized groups and on issues where even Liberals are divided. If the Liberals or Progressives defined the term "Conservative" in the same narrow way, then there is a chance that the "spin-hungry" voters might really examine the issues rather than equating Liberals with the most extreme issues.
Perhaps then, the people who don't examine the issues in depth would just not bother to vote, which is as it should be.
2006-08-01 18:02:49 · answer #2 · answered by Dee G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't read the whole thing because the basic premise is wrong. We don't want to dominate everyone, just liberals. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Really the premise is wrong. Conservatives want freedom of religion, free trade, speech, etc. The very things America is supposed to represent. Maybe it isn't the definition that you want, but that is what it means now. Maybe it's the definition of liberal that has radically changed. Socialism, Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, Historic Revision. I'm sure not all of these apply to all liberals, but in general that is the impression I get on liberal position. If I'm wrong sorry.
2006-08-01 17:48:42 · answer #3 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope that you are being sarcastic! Bush is not anything close to an Angel of Peace. Look at the world and the shape it is in.
2006-08-01 17:31:40 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I leafed through the article. I'm not impressed.
Bush has many many many issues where he differs from the electorate, and his base.
Nice try with the leftist articulation of conservatism, but it falls quite flat.
2006-08-01 17:38:38 · answer #5 · answered by trc_6111 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe Bush is a great President, theres no other worthy of the position!!
2006-08-01 17:30:28 · answer #6 · answered by Katz 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if i did not know any better i would think you were on to something there. not. keep trying though an a for effort anyway.
2006-08-01 17:45:46 · answer #7 · answered by rmisbach 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush is a douche bag, and hes my president.
2006-08-01 17:22:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is too biased and not based in fact. no real sources are provided
2006-08-01 17:26:24 · answer #9 · answered by DEP 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush is a chimp
2006-08-01 17:24:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋