“The Dangers of Neo-Conservative Economic Policies”

[SnyderShrugged]

The dangers inherent in the foreign policy advocated by the neo-conservatives are well known. While many Americans have become increasingly aware of those dangers, far less attention has been focused on the dangers of neo-conservative economic policies. This issue is of critical importance right now, because many are mistakenly pointing their fingers at the free market as the culprit behind our current economic plight.

There are only a few in elected office who have any real loyalty to free markets and limited government. The agenda of neo-conservatives in the economy calls for a very active central government. Indeed, while there are some neo-conservatives who continue to use the rhetoric of limited government, and who oppose increases in the federal income tax as a way to maintain the political benefits that apply to those who talk about free markets, it is now the neo-conservatives who promote fiat monetary policies even more than those on the liberal left.

While I have been a strong proponent of cutting taxes on all Americans, and therefore supported the tax reductions offered by President Bush, the neo-cons argue that tax rate reduction alone is the key to “getting the government out of the way” of economic growth. Moreover, they invariably argue for tax reductions targeted toward the wealthy, and toward multinational corporations.

Over the years, I have offered several tax plans designed to assist hard working middle-class Americans to pay for their needs, whether these needs be health-care related, educational or to pay the costs of fuel. A few years back when I introduced one such bill, a prominent Republican approached me on the House Floor and asked, half in anger and half in amazement “why did you do that?” Shortly after that, the committee chairman at the time, also a Republican, sent out a release strongly attacking my tax cut bill.

So, while the liberal economic agenda includes more taxes and spending, the neo-con economic program simply looks to target some tax cuts to preferred groups, but ignore the economic big picture. The neo-con economic agenda is to “borrow and spend” and it is that agenda, even more than the tax and spend ways of many liberals, that has cast us in economic peril at this time.

Simply, on spending, the neo-cons and the liberals share views, just as they share similar views on foreign policy. While each side tries to claim the mantle of change, reality is that more of the same is not change.

The fiat monetary policy we now follow is the most significant factor contributing to our economic peril, and it is central to the neo-con agenda. As we hear new calls to empower the Federal Reserve Board, we should be aware that underlying all neo-conservative policies is the idea of monetary inflation. Inflation is the technique used to pay for the regulatory-state and the costs of policing the world.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[ACW]

Amen. Borrow and spend is worse than tax and spend IMO.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Borrow and spend is the same as tax and spend at the end of the day.

All that borrowing falls on the back of the taxpayers.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'll agree tax/borrow and spend is a terrible concept.

A much better concept would be for us to tax our population as little as possible and return to spending Federal monies on ONLY those eighteen things listed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Anyone remember that little bit of literary genius from our Founding Fathers, or is that another part of the Constitution that we want to see "evolve"

[JohnLockesGhost]

Borrow and spend is the same as tax and spend at the end of the day.

All that borrowing falls on the back of the taxpayers.

Tax-and-spend at least limits the government as it is much harder politically to raise taxes to pay for increases in government outlays. Borrow-and-spend allows politicians to "give" citizens goodies without having to raise taxes now, essentially allowing unrestrained growth.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Tax-and-spend at least limits the government as it is much harder politically to raise taxes to pay for increases in government outlays. Borrow-and-spend allows politicians to "give" citizens goodies without having to raise taxes now, essentially allowing unrestrained growth.

But that's deficit spending, and it just pushes the burden to a later generation.

Like me.

Thanks guys.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

But that's deficit spending, and it just pushes the burden to a later generation.

Like me.

Thanks guys.

Then maybe you and your fellows need to look into the approach that was so successful for our founders in the latter part of the 18th Century when they didn't like the taxation their government chose to implement.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Then maybe you and your fellows need to look into the approach that was so successful for our founders in the latter part of the 18th Century when they didn't like the taxation their government chose to implement.

You find me a man that will fix it, then find me a bunch of people to run for Congress that will support it--then we'll talk.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You find me a man that will fix it, then find me a bunch of people to run for Congress that will support it--then we'll talk.

Somehow I think you seriously missed my point. I'm talking the civil unrest of things like The Boston Tea Party and the actions against The Stamp Act. Leading to the activities of April, 1775.

[luckydevil]

Tax-and-spend at least limits the government as it is much harder politically to raise taxes to pay for increases in government outlays. Borrow-and-spend allows politicians to "give" citizens goodies without having to raise taxes now, essentially allowing unrestrained growth.

Yep, from a limited/small government standpoint, tax and spend is significantly better than borrow and spend( it also doesn't add the burden of higher interest rates). People actually understand the cost of government when their taxes get raised. It also tends to be better for longer term economic health. Starving the beast strategy is a massive failure.

This is just another reason why people who actually believe in limited/small government and the free market should never vote republican.

[Mark The Homer]

You find me a man that will fix it, then find me a bunch of people to run for Congress that will support it--then we'll talk.

You're also going to need to find a hundred million or so voters who agree with it.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Yep, from a limited/small government standpoint, tax and spend is significantly better than borrow and spend( it also doesn't add the burden of higher interest rates). People actually understand the cost of government when their taxes get raised. It also tends to be better for longer term economic health. Starving the beast strategy is a massive failure.

This is just another reason why people who actually believe in limited/small government and the free market should never vote republican.

Yeah. Turns out the beast has a credit card with no limit and doesn't care about backruptcy.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

You're also going to need to find a hundred million or so voters who agree with it.

That too

Somehow I think you seriously missed my point. I'm talking the civil unrest of things like The Boston Tea Party and the actions against The Stamp Act. Leading to the activities of April, 1775.

I see.

Well count me out.

[mjah]

Anyone remember that little bit of literary genius from our Founding Fathers, or is that another part of the Constitution that we want to see "evolve"

Ironically, many of the most vocal advocates of Constitutional "evolution" are also the most vocal opponents of real-life Evolution.

Screwing up the Constitution and blocking Evolution instruction in schools -- two hideous practices competing for the same name: "Unintelligent Design."

True conservatives, you can take your party back any day now...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I see. Well count me out.

Then please don't complain. If you aren't actually willing to DO something to CHANGE the system then your complaints will fall on deaf ears from this poster, and from the government whose actions you're seeking to modify.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Screwing up the Constitution and blocking Evolution instruction in schools -- two hideous practices competing for the same name: "Unintelligent Design."

Ummm.... mjah you do realize that you can't find the word "EDUCATION" anywhere in Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution, right? That means it's not the Federal Government's problem. It should be dealt with at the state and local levels.

[luckydevil]

Then please don't complain. If you aren't actually willing to DO something to CHANGE the system then your complaints will fall on deaf ears from this poster, and from the government whose actions you're seeking to modify.

Please, what have you done? You live in Mass and you complain all the time.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Please, what have you done? You live in Mass and you complain all the time.

Why do you think I own and collect the firearms and other items I do, lucky. There will come a moment. Maybe in my lifetime, and maybe not; when the American people will rise again to return this government to its proper form. The more I see the more likely I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

[mjah]

Ummm.... mjah you do realize that you can't find the word "EDUCATION" anywhere in Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution, right? That means it's not the Federal Government's problem. It should be dealt with at the state and local levels.

Ummm... that's perfectly fine, MSF. I wasn't connecting the two ailments in terms of their solution -- just by a shared name and an often-shared set of patients.

But if you want to get all lathered up about it for some reason, don't let me stand in your way. :whoknows:

[mojobo]

Why do you think I own and collect the firearms and other items I do, lucky. There will come a moment. Maybe in my lifetime, and maybe not; when the American people will rise again to return this government to its proper form. The more I see the more likely I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

would the over/under for this to happen be 4.5 years?

[Riggo-toni]

Neo conservatives aren't.

You'd think after LBJ we'd know better than to elect a President from Texas. Then again, you'd think after what a lousy job his father did on the domestic front, we wouldn't put another George Bush in the White House. Thank heaven there's no Richard Nixon Jr.....

[Mass_SkinsFan]

would the over/under for this to happen be 4.5 years?

That's probably pretty close, mojobo. I figure one cycle with Obama ought to be enough to get a fair number of the right-thinking Americans loading ammo and collecting firearms.

[FanboyOf91]

Neo conservatives aren't.

You'd think after LBJ we'd know better than to elect a President from Texas. Then again, you'd think after what a lousy job his father did on the domestic front, we wouldn't put another George Bush in the White House. Thank heaven there's no Richard Nixon Jr.....

There's a George P. Bush out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P_Bush

[PokerPacker]

You find me a man that will fix it, then find me a bunch of people to run for Congress that will support it--then we'll talk.

I think he was leaning more on the side of armed revolt...

[Thiebear]

Drill and Sell.