How long does it take before a conservative is proven right?

Question

Does it surprise anyone that when a conservative makes a point he/she is called a racist, bigot, warmonger, corporate america shill, etc....then 10 years later his point is proven correct?

A good example would be Dan Quayle and the Murphy Brown incident. Criticizing people for purposely having children out of wedlock was seen as blasphemy then, but now people are starting to say "hey, maybe having 2 incomes is a smarter way to do it. perhaps a child actually needs a father-figure in their life...hmmm"

You can find another example of a conservative being right today, with the Bush tax cuts that liberals vomited when they saw. Perhaps in 15 years, after liberals rule the gov't and thousands of americans are dead, they will say that the conservatives had it right and we should have faught the terrorists instead of licking their boots and cowering in fear.

Answer 1

I totally agree! I mean it's like they don't see what should be done and then when the "bad" guys do it they tell the world. Once it is over with then they say "oh that was my idea" I think that it will take a very long time before people will recognize that conservatives are proven right. Some of my closest friends can't even see it and I am constantly arguing with them about it.
It seems like it will take the "after the fact" before a conservative's ideas are right. And for it to happen "before the fact" might only happen when pigs learn to fly.....

Answer 2

The Perfect Liberal example is how the European Countries and Japan flourished when forced to accept liberal precepts. Now that some of those are being reversed those coiuntries are starting downhill.

A Perfect example of what happens with Conservative Precepts is Iraq. They installed a Libertarian prototype government there, and we can all se how well that is working out.

Another similar example is Afghanistan. Even aside from the "no help" except for Kleptocrats, the decision during the Reagan era, to push aside liberal elements of Afgan society and supply funds to the Conservatives , like the Taliban and Bin Laden. That worked out well too.

Answer 3

You actually enjoy the fantasy of thousands of Americans dead, if it made you right, don't you?

The Government has no business legislating what is or isn't an acceptable family group. I thought Republicans were supposed to be for smaller government!

We already have thousands of Americans dead, because Bush's tax cuts meant he couldn't afford body armor. Bush wasn't wrong to fight terrorists, he was wrong to pick a fight with Iraq at the same time. It opened up a second front where there wasn't one before, and he flanked himself. The man has no capacity for tactical thought, and fires any general or advisor who disagrees with him.

I guess I've got to answer your question with another. How long will it take before a conservative IS right?

Answer 4

Generally, what happens to liberal policy is that the feel good part wears off and the consequences, intended or unintended, kick in and now they are up s*** creek, and have to start paddling fast.

Example - Go to LA for 2 weeks. Observe liberal policy in action for yourself. WHAT A MESS!!!


EDIT: Yeah. 1. Bush has the legislative power to make a tax cut. You people need to read up about how government works. 2. Bush's tax cuts kept him from being able to buy body armor. However, the $100 million in unrefunded, but fully refundable unused airline tickets by the government from 97-2003 has nothing to do with the fact that government is always deficit spending and always needing more money.

Answer 5

Bush shows typical Republican policies and that is sacrifice the long term stability for short term financial gains. Bush lies and gets the US into an ill advised war which to date has cost the US over 2,300 American lives and $500 billion in US tax payer dollars and who has benefitted? Big oil which has the sell out Republicans in their pocket and the terrorists themselves who could not have found a better recruitment tool than GW. Bush pushes across huge tax breaks for the top 15% and wants to continue them without end. Again, who benefits? Mostly big business that also has the sell out Republicans in their pockets. The US will be paying for the lies, scandals, corruption, and extortion this administration has thrust upon it for decades to come.

Answer 6

Uh, the same applies to liberals. They're often attacked and then proven correct. The idea that this, or anything else like it, is a partisan phenomenon is ridiculous. Get off your high horse.

Answer 7

It usually takes a Democratic Administration that has failed on all it's promises (like the Clintons promised health care) when they were in office.

When we drop out of Iraq because of the Dems, the libs will get tired of being threatened in their own neighborhood by extremists and will want to start over what Bush designed.

Answer 8

Yeah, they sure were right when they said that freeing the slaves would be the downfall of our society. This is just one example, I could find many - you've only come up with a few questionable examples yourself.

Answer 9

Taken together, President Bush's two large tax cuts are likely to do great harm, but only long after the president has left office. And for what benifit? A little current demand-stimulation that could readily be achieved by measures that would do more good in the near term and cause no damage in the long term.

Much has been said about the effect of the tax cuts on the books of the federal government: budget deficits, debt, and the assets and liabilities of the trust funds. It is as though what mainly mattered was the effect of the budget on the budget. It's the wrong focus.

Decisions about taxes, public spending, and the supply of money are in effect choices about national output and employment, and about how the output is divided between private and public uses, and between consumption and investment. They also affect the distribution of income.

Put aside the possible need for near-term demand stimulation. The likely durable effect of the tax cuts will be to slow down growth in the supply of goods and services available to Americans.

Tax cuts increase taxpayers' after-tax incomes. Taxpayers typically spend some of the extra income on consumption. Unless the government reduces its spending on consumption dollar-for-dollar, total consumption, private plus public, will be higher. Barring a supply-side miracle (a reckless gamble), the share of output left over for investment will be smaller.

Less output will be available, over all, for increasing or improving the stock of infrastructure, housing, and business-owned plant and machinery, for enhancing the skill and health of workers, for research that adds to usable knowledge, and for adding to American-owned wealth abroad by way of a surplus of exports over imports.

Because the president's tax cuts will almost certainly reduce national investment, the economy's capacity to produce output for our own use will grow more slowly. As a result there will be less output available in 15 to 25 years, precisely when more output will be most needed - when our relatively few grandchildren who will produce it will have to share it with our many retired baby boomer children.

Reshuffling Social Security finance will not change that - not unless it reduces the share of output absorbed by consumption. (I leave aside the possibility of a large influx of immigrant workers.)

Preoccupation with the effect of the tax cuts on the budget is likely to cause us to compound the damage.

If, for example, we shrink the deficit by cutting federal spending on research and public health, or on grants to state and local governments that subsidize their spending on education or infrastructure - in other words, if we skimp on government investment - we will retard growth.

The president seems to believe that most nondefense public investment is "waste, fraud and abuse." He is mistaken. To take an obvious example, much private investment requires, for its own productivity, streets and roads that are largely the product of public investment.

In our political debates we typically argue about taxes, government spending, and high or low interest rates as though they were bad or good in themselves, in no relation to what allocation of the national product we want those policy instruments to achieve.

Yet, there are choices to be made here, not about deficits or debt as such, but about the best use of our labor and material resources.

For the near term, and also for the longer run future, how much growth in demand, and therefore output and employment, should the policy-makers aim for, with what margin of safety against inflation? How much consumption would we have to forgo to make room for the investment that would be needed? How much of the investment should go into new business plant and equipment, into housing, into more and better public infrastructure, into research and education? How should the output left over for consumption be divided between provision of private goods and of public services, and between the consumption of the well-to-do and what is left over for the chronically poor?

Neither the president nor his senior advisers seems to have confronted any of these choices. One has to wonder whether they have even understood them. Instead they bamboozle us, and most likely themselves, with slogans. Yet, whatever the government does about its budget - and the Federal Reserve about money - will powerfully affect the outcome