I’ll go to the Daily Dish to get this worthless horseshit fresh.

Last comment period, Rick. When you put your finger to the wind, does it get cold or become a divining rod? I aways wanted to understand the process.

Chiao forever, bore.

Forever? Forever and ever? Oh darling, please come back. I couldn’t bear the thought of you being out of my life forever. To never hold you again? To never kiss your sweet lips? To never feel your tender caresses?

I’l tell you the truth; 13 year old drama queens bore me. As do shockingly shallow dolts who obviously find most of the writing and comments on this site so far over his head he resorts to childish ploys to get attention. If you don’t know what people are talking about, I have one piece of advice; don’t open your mouth and let the whole world know how ignorant you are.

ed.

From what I could tell everything Goldwater said applies to BOTH the Democrats and Republicans. Unless I misread it, Goldwater admits this himself in the speech.

One thing is evident. Goldwater has an excellent grasp of the reasons the Founders constructed the Constitution the way they did. According to Goldwater, “…freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority.” That, of course, is the purpose of the Constitution.

Goldwater then says the Founders were just as concerned about “the masses” as they were about an “individual tyrant”. Again, Goldwater is spot on. A reading of the Federalist Papers shows they were more worried about the “tyranny of the majority” than anything else. So, it seems the Founders were concerned about power corrupting no matter where that power resides.

There was one thing that the Founders did not anticipate, but that Goldwater was well aware of. Large, powerful, multinational corporations. How would the Founders feel about this new center of concentrated power? Would they welcome it as the outcome of a free society? Would they want to restrict the power of corporations, the way they wanted to restrict the power of “the masses” and “absolutist tyrants”? A case could be made.

We know what Goldwater believed. He does not talk about corporations. He speaks only of individual businessmen.(I make cakes. You clean laundry. The neighbor owns a pin factory.) And we… “are hampered by a maze of government regulation… and direct government competition.”

For Goldwater government has no roll to play in limiting corporate power. Any time government acts as a countervailing power to these interests, it is a usurpation.

Strangely, although Goldwater says, “Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few deeply concerns me.” He says nothing about the accumulation of corporate power.

It’s posts like these that have made me an avid reader for years now. As one who really enjoyed William Buckley’s intellectualism in my youth, it’s nice to see that it’s coming back and there are people like you who will hopefully show the reactionary populist elements the light. I do believe that what the GoP and conservatives need right now more than anything else is a good long period of introspection - something that’s been missing, IMO, from conservative thought for a long time. Keep up the good work.

Andy

1. The average effective tax rate for a taxable federal return was 13.3% in 2004.

2. The top 1% of the population claimed 19% of the taxable income in 2004.(It says NOTHING about the gross income of this group.) That was an increase in taxable income of 2.2% from the previous year.

3. The average adjusted gross income or AGI of the top 1% in 2004 was $328,000.

4. the IRS said Nothing about the actual gross income of that 1%,but, I have a belief that someone who’s AGI was $328,000 in 2004 grossed considerably more. (You get to deduct the driver, the nanny, contributions to retirement accounts, jet fuel etc…) Martha Stewart knows how it’s done. So, I suspect, do Oprah and Bernie Madoff.

5. The piece said nothing about wealthy people who are tax cheats (e.g., t. dascle) or businesses that can never manage to turn a profit and therefore don’t pay income tax.

As a result we know nothing about this groups actual gross income. As a result, we know nothing about what percentage of their total income is taxed. (we of course can easily discover the deductions of anyone who uses the 1040 ez form, but they usually do not deduct business trips, face lifts, and the like.)

Of note, the g.a.o. issued a report in 2008 stating that about 2/3 of all corporations paid no taxes between 1998 and 2005. Many more had a quote “low tax liability”. Just like poor people, they weren’t makin’ any money, so they weren’t payin’ any taxes.

Yeah, the American wealthy have a tough row to hoe. I guess they will be moving to Canada, Britain, or Scandinavia to lower that awesome tax burden.

Rick, If I didnt know that you are a self acknowledged conservative, I would have thought that this was an angry rant from some one on DailyKos.

The much hated Nixon was President when EPA was established. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm
Any one who knows anything about Nixon also know that he liked business, dare I say BIG BUSINESS to be at the forefront of the American economy. I still cannot comprehend how Nixon allowed for the establishment of the EPA as his business buddies would have and did express opposition.

I think that we are well past the day when there were arguments about whether the EPA was necessary. You acknowledge that conservatives have come around to this fact as well.

“Of course not. Even most conservatives recognize the need for these agencies and departments. Now here’s the nuance – is there a way for conservatism to thrive, to be relevant in the context of what we now call “big government?” I think so and will explore that tomorrow.”

I dont think you get it - no one seriously has taken on the concept of a massive government - no one has the balls to do so. And no there is “no thriving” of conservative principles/thought when you start creating layers and layers of bureaucracy.

The argument against more Government was and is the same - it will be inefficient at best and down right useless at worst. The money for these extra departments does not grow on trees ( although Paulson/Geithner and the entire Democratic party seem to think otherwise). And no department that opearates out of Washington D.C. will have sufficient knowledge to deal with matters that are best left to local/State governments.

If any one remembers how Ray Nagin and the Lousiana State Government handled the hurricane season this time around in New Orleans, they can contrast it to how Nagin and the State Government worked in 2005. They actually took charge. They had FEMA in a supportive role - not in the MAIN role. They took the warnings seriously. Of course the fact that levees were rebuilt helped a lot too. But ask yourself this question - why is it that NO State Govt/City Govt cared about re-building the levees until disaster struck in the form of Katrina ?

Tanenhaus is clearly the kind of person who has a shallow knowledge of conservative thought let alone the condervative movement of the 50’s and 60’s - If you truly want to be exposed to conservative thought, you are better off reading Goldwater - http://www.heritage.org/research/features/presidentsessay/presessay2004.pdf

Liberals have been always ready to distort movement conservatism as having been AGAINST policies instead of being FOR policies. Well, they never had the honesty to acknowledge that conservatives are for things that liberals just cannot stand - for e.g. take the idea of “tax cuts” - the basic principle behind conservative opposition to higher taxes is that it is an erosion of private property rights.

We can all reasonably agree/disagree on how much tax a government needs to collect from a person. But it is not our “patriotic duty” to pay taxes like Joe Biden and the liberals want you to believe.

Where does this “patriotism” lead us to ?? Every citizen has responsibilities to shoulder the cost of running a government that functions. But who shares how much of the burden ?

In 2004, when the Bush tax cuts were prevalent, the top 1% of income earners in this country shouldered 37% of the total income tax burden. http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2007/03/who_shoulders_t.html

You would’nt know this from the constant whining about how Bush favored the rich.

What we have currently is a system where in Government bureaucrats enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary tax payers. Any one who has been observing states like California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois will know this.

Your income is your private property - liberals want you to believe that Government is doing you a huge favor by letting you keep more of your own money. That is a laughable notion in itself. When you have 36% of the country not paying income taxes to the Federal Govt and the top 1% shouldering 36% of the total income tax burden.

So, you exist primarily to help the functioning of the Government according to liberals. which is exactly why you should feel patriotic for contributing your “fair share”. As always liberals will decide what is “fair”.

But if you ask them questions about this gross injustice, you are hater who is AGAINST things and NOT FOR things. Well, duh. I am for private property rights and keeping as much of my personal income as possible. The problem is liberals dont agree with that notion.

I would recommend to any one to read Goldwater again - you can clearly see what he is for and why he vehemently opposed liberalism.

By the way, when the baby boomers retire starting in the next 8 years and the biggest two Ponzi schemes known to man ( also known as Social Security and Medicare) finally come to their day of reckoning, I would LOVE to see what that GREAT PHILOSOPHY liberalism is going to do to deal with it.

No one would have the time to argue on whether conservatism is dead - we will ask ourselves - what did we do to get to these MASSIVELY underfunded entitlement programs ?

It is already starting with the states pensions programs in TATTERS. Folks at TNR are advised to look into this before writing post mortems about conservatism.

It is this schizophrenia that has marked the skein of conservatism from Taft to Bush; people actually want government to do for them, just not everyone else.

It’s my view that the current administration will cure everyone involved of that desire. Particularly if they manage to pass this “stimulus” bill.

As I said recently elsewhere, Ronald Reagan, good as he was, only managed to make it into the White House because of the walking disaster the Jimmy Carter turned out to be. Put another way, conservatism of itself doesn’t sell very well, until you see the results of liberalism.

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.”

I explore that idea and one put forward by another President that a large number of conservatives have come to adore. Unfortunately when I find the President who looked to dismantle government and actually took steps to do so, I find a D by his name. And when I find one that sought to put unenumerated powers into the federal government I find an R by his name. I am no ‘conservative’, nor do I see any way that the few, vital concerns of protecting the Nation can be made into a ’social good’ without having society dictated *to* by government.

That turns a necessary evil into an absolute one, where public morals and ethics are decided by government and bureaucrats, not citizens at large, and the role of government goes from curbing abuses to forcing people to do good. You get that with ‘big government’ no matter who is in charge, and the trend has been to put more power into government to dictate what is good to society, not to uphold society so that the positive liberty of the citizens can be protected by the negative liberties we invest into equal governance. Because no matter who gets into ‘big government’ their beliefs as to what is ‘good’ for the population will vary… and expand… until the regulations that burden the population are uncountable and everyone in society can be held at fault for something due to laws and regulations they can’t know about due to their being legion in number.

We have a word for what citizens become when that happens: subjects.

And yet we are born free.

Complex systems, including social systems, operate from some fundamental rules. In the most simple terms, all systems depend on a dynamic relationship between stability and change. For any entity to remain recognizable, it must have stability, or limits on change. For the same said entity to survive over time, it also must have the ability to adapt to changes happening around it. These are positive and negative feedback loops, respectively.

A government also requires stability or it flys apart into a dysfunctional mess and eventually anarchy. Conversely, a government must change or it becomes fossilized and unable to perform the most basic function. In the most stereotyped of descriptions, conservative has played the role of stabilizer and the liberals the agents of change. This is embodied in conservative dedication to tradition, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a strong, proactive military, all tools and symbols of keeping things as they are. Liberals tend to see the Constitution as malleable, the military as an agent of rigid enforcement of the status quo, and open to any and all new ideas, regardless of whose toes get stepped on. These are simplifications for the purpose of illustration.

It is hoped that one can be open to the idea that change and stability are necessary for the American Experiment to succeed. A review of American political history illustrates an ongoing pendulum swing between times when stability is more useful and times when change is more useful. Our enduring success requires both. And as you are pondering your positions, Rick, remember what we need to change changes over time and what we must preserve changes sometimes as well.

With regard to the “father of Capitalism”, there are many such groups. One of their web sites can be found here:

http://www.adamsmith.org

If this still seems like too much work, read David Brooks in the liberal New York Times.