Here's an interesting original e-mail I got from a conservative friend.

His brother wrote it, apparently:

"Why I am a Conservative"

The defining issue of the conservative movement for about the last fifty years is that the scope and size of the federal government is too large. Conservatives believe first and foremost in individual freedom and liberty, and that government should be the servant of the individual. The government should function, "of the people, by the people and for the people." When the federal government is too big, as it most certainly is now, it is no longer the people's servant, it becomes their ruler.

There are many different ways to illustrate this. The best perhaps is the tax situation. The government now is so huge that it requires an enormous amount of money to function. A middle-class couple making $150,000.00 a year, (a high school teacher married to a big city cop each with twenty years experience could qualify), will have to pay approximately 30% of their income--$45,000.00--to the government. This is a huge amount of money and by definition limits the freedom of this couple.

With this money, they could buy a new car. They could buy a boat. They could put a down payment on a home or even a summer home. They could deposit the money in a bank account. They could purchase stocks. Doing any of those things would improve the quality of their lives. Conservatives believe that it is a fundamental right of theirs to do so.

More importantly, doing any of those things improves the economy, which in turn, improves the quality of everybody else's life. Our couple buys a boat or a home or summer home; the boat or construction industry hires another worker. A stock purchase might fund a new business venture. Depositing money in a bank account enables the bank to lend money to an individual or to a business at a cheaper rate. Anything they do with their money short of hiding it in a mattress is good for the economy which in turn is good for the general well-being of the public.

Conversely, depriving them of this money--again, one middle-class couple in our vast population--diminishes the quality of their life and impedes economic growth. Now, nobody is going to argue that government should be abolished. Clearly, the federal government provides necessary services, such as national defense, law and order, roads, bridges, etc. And nobody's arguing that government should be prevented from helping the disabled, the truly needy, etc. The conservative view, however, is that government is too large, and spends much too much money on things which are not only not necessary, but which are detrimental to society in general.

Here are a few things I can think of right off the top of my head which can be abolished: PBS, Amtrack, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the DARE program, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of Agriculture; God, there must be hundreds of them. Now there may be parts of each which have a legitimate purpose, but almost certainly they can be pared down in part or in whole. Reducing taxes permanently would force government to reduce its size. As it stands now, it is on the brink of impossibility to eliminate a program once it comes into being.

(A good example of this is the DARE program. A number of years ago a study was done--at a cost of $300,000.00--to determine its effectiveness. The study showed that the percentage of high school children who started to use drugs after the inception of the DARE program did not change after ten years of its existence. Was DARE eliminated? Nope. It instead desperately tried to quash the report. See: http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0900g.asp)

In a broader sense, though, the size of government goes directly to the issue of power. How powerful do we really want our national government to be? Again the larger it is, the more pervasive its influence. Do we really want the federal government making decisions about our neighborhood schools? About what we can and can't teach our children? About marijuana use? About gay marriage? About sodomy laws in our neighborhoods? Shouldn't we have the right to determine the standards by which we live in our own community?

And no, I'm not saying that gay marriage should be banned, and I am not saying that sodomy laws should be stricken. I am saying that if San Francisco County wants to legalize gay marriage, strike down anti-sodomy laws and legalize marijuana, they should be able to do so, but the federal government should not impose these standards on Podunk, Alabama. Period. That's it. But the feds do so, primarily because they can.

Not to mention the rules and regulations and restrictions that go along with big government, much of which are created and enforced by appointed bureaucrats, not elected officials. One can't drain the swamp on my property because it might be a wetland. One can't plow the back forty because it may contain an endangered insect. One can't even sell a hot dog in the city of San Francisco without eighteen--count them, eighteen--permits!

Again, nobody is arguing that the EPA should be banned, or that the environment should not be protected, but at some point in time these limitations reach a point of diminishing returns. Agencies like the EPA, much like hundreds of other agencies, hold huge, unrestricted and unregulated power over us. And if we fail to abide by one of these hundreds of obscure, unusual, and in many cases, illogical rules, we can even be fined or jailed! Which brings up another problem, having to do with the "rule of law." There are so many of these rules and regulations that they are collectively impossible to enforce. Therefore, enforcing them, by necessity, becomes a selective process. You better hope you don't have an enemy in the EPA or the IRS. They have the power to make your life miserable.

Lastly, big government is bad because every four years there is the potential that it will come under control of someone who one dislikes and even fears. Bill Clinton is a very good example of this from my standpoint, but I have no doubt that those on the left dislike and fear George Bush just as much. A small federal government ensures that whatever mischief our leaders get us into will be limited. John Adams said it very well in a letter he wrote to Jefferson: "Power always sincerely, conscientiously . . . believes itself right. Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast Views, beyond the comprehension of the Weak; and that it is doing God service, when it is violating all his laws." In this instance he was talking about the need for checks and balances, but the argument is entirely applicable to Big Government: it cannot be allowed to run rampant over us simply because it thinks it is right because the reality is, everybody thinks they are right.

This is a brief summation of the conservative philosophy and is, frankly, entirely in concordance with the classic liberal philosophy of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the primary concern of which was freedom for the individual. It was this philosophy which led mankind, in one nation after the other, to overthrow centuries of political oppression. It is more than a little ironic that liberalism today is defined by those who desire an increase in the size, power, and scope of government, and by those who seek to limit the freedoms and liberties that so many brave people over the years shed their blood to achieve."


Here's my answer (I bring up the Christian stuff because I know he is one, as we've talked about it before):
Two thoughts:
1. What he describes is much closer to libertarianism, not conservatism.
2. I find it interesting what he thinks we should cut. The biggest part of the federal budget is the DOD. Now, the DOD can't find $1 trillion of our tax dollars. That would pay for all those departments your brother thought should be cut. In any budget, if you really want to get it under control, you have to go after the biggest part with the most waste. That would be the DOD. They account for 21% of federal discretionary spending, more than any other department. You look at all the money missing from the biggest department, and that would save us a lot of money right there.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2007/db20070413_898070.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Your brother obviously isn't a farmer, though there's a lot there to trim, or a Native American, and he obviously doesn't care about education or thinks it all should be entirely local when that's been shown to be a problem. Two cents of everyone's tax dollar goes to education while seventy cents goes to pay off war debt and to pay for the current war. Considering how much of that is waste and just plain "lost" (gone into someone's private pockets), that would be the place to start.

I look at liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism (the three main political groups in the US today) like this: liberals follow the Second Greatest commandment and love our neighbors as ourselves, conservatives follow personal greed in a public way, and libertarians follow personal greed in a private way. Liberals don't want our neighbors to be poor, to not get health care, to not have anyone help them. All liberals I know, as opposed to Communists, want the government to help but not to control--in other words, we want to help the poor by giving better opportunities and possibilities, not just keep them downtrodden but give them a leg up. Conservatives want the poor to stay poor and the rich to get richer. They want corporations to get more tax breaks and federal welfare dollars than people, all in the hopes of being that rich person someday. Libertarians want the government to keep them safe and that's it. They want no controls on the free market--usually until they get hurt, and then they want someone to help them out, but that's another rant.

If you carefully read the Gospels, I think it's clear Jesus was a liberal. He told us all to sell all we had and give to the poor, He threw the money changers out of the Temple, He railed in the Seven Woes against the powerful who kept power through dissemblance and hypocrisy, and He told us all that whatever we do to the least of these, we do to Him. That doesn't sound like "pull your own self up by your own bootstraps, and let's drown the government in the bathtub" conservatism to me. That sounds a lot more like a liberal, especially considering some of our problems are so big there's no way individual churches and Christians can tackle them effectively. The deacons in the early church were given their postitions to make sure the poor and destitute were taken care of. Why can't our government have deacons for the American people?

The facts are wrong, the reasoning is wrong, it's wrong wrong wrong.

A middle-class couple making $150,000.00 a year, (a high school teacher married to a big city cop each with twenty years experience could qualify), will have to pay approximately 30% of their income--$45,000.00--to the government.

1) A teacher and a cop together would make $150,000?!?!? Where does he live that pays its public servants so well?
2) 30% of their income? NOPE. Nobody pays 30% of their income to the feds. Just doesn't happen. See: progressive graduated income tax system.

With this money, they could buy a new car. They could buy a boat. They could put a down payment on a home or even a summer home. They could deposit the money in a bank account. They could purchase stocks. Doing any of those things would improve the quality of their lives. Conservatives believe that it is a fundamental right of theirs to do so.

And the money they DO pay to the government makes sure that:
1) They will be buying a car that has to meet safety and mileage standards, built by trained workers and manufactured under adequate conditions.
2) The home they buy will be financed by a company that is regulated by that same evil government to make sure they don't change the interest rate on them willy-nilly, or sell the mortage to someone else who will.
3) The bank account is also insured by the government, so in case their bank does something really stupid (like blow their money on rotten investments), they'll still have it! Gosh, what a deal!
4) Those stocks are in companies that also have to responsibly represent their earnings and financial condition - thanks to that same big evil government!

Man I just can't imagine living in the dreamworld that conservatives inhabit. Must be wonderful.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

Scroll to the bottom.

Edit: Conservatives believe that it is a fundamental right of theirs to do so.

That sounds more like a libertarian than a conservative.

be ineffective it was counterproductive and the GOP still clings to it like they cling to their abstinence only programs.

Conservatives are destroying the country with their hair brained schemes. They're oblivious to the damage they're doing and they think the worse it gets the more we should listen to them.

Please consider this contribution I offered recently in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2678226&mesg_id=2687918

If you like what you see it might useful to look upthread for more.

want government in your life in order to rein in those social ills that offend them (ie the gay lifestyle).

i don't remember anyone wanting to amend the constitution so much like when the rwers were in charge.

The Huckster wants to rewrite it with Bible verses. Others, like bush, just ignore it (when they're not spitting on it).

Weren't the conservatives in the Revolution the ones who supported the monarchy? Weren't they the slaveholders and secessionists in the Civil War? Didn't Prescott Bush do business with Hitler?

Liberals hate America? What a sick joke.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some
tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first
swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe
to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety
and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's
medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid
medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.
Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal
fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his
shampoo.

His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents
because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was
putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and
takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some
environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries and government from
polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his
government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and
transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation,
which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.


Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay,
medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy
liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's
employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills.


Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's
money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan
because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was
educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his
father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car
is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal
fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third
generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't
want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until-some big-government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

Joe is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and
a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take
care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host
keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that Joe's
beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his
day. Joe agrees. "After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of
themselves, just like I have."

You have my vote!

:D

:bounce:

A Mini Cooper can crash into your living room just as an SUV can, but the blame still goes to the driver. Only a big government can protect its citizens against itself and against the corporations, and "shrinking the government" always starts with removing those protections.

Would anyone want DARE in their kids' lives? And DARE also is part of a wider philosophy that states that for an individual to become a high school principal, they must obsess on the drug issues constantly. To the detriment of other programs.

But the irony is that almost every single RW family I know has taken advantage of the "huge" government and its handout system. A co-worker's son injured his hand, and she rushed him out to California so that he could sign on to a local poverty program and have his hand taken care of for free. Mind you, I am not disproving of the program - it is just that it is total hypocrisy to say that government shouldn't have these programs and then to sign up for them. (BTW the family was about to come into a 400,000 inheritance - so this thirty something "child" was not even poor.)

And almost all of us at DU know that the government's welfare programs to the rich should be ended.

But the writer of this screed doesn't stop to comment on that.

He send back a reply with parts of the original underlined and said that I needed to re-read it. :eyes: Yeah, English major that I am, I can't read. So, I responded that the problem probably lies in definitions--when he says conservative, does he mean old-school classic conservative or neo-conservative? There's a big difference, and I tried to explain that. We'll see what he says.

It really pissed him off when I mentioned the Bible verses and that conservatives really want to keep people poor. The latter one was a low blow, I'll admit, but, in effect, it's true. I tried to explain to him that cutting funding to programs that help the poor keep people poor. As for the Bible stuff, he and I will just have to agree to disagree on that.

who would pay the salaries of the teacher (school district employee) and the cop (city or county employee) in the first place?

"I'll take Conservative Reasoning for $200, please, Alex." "Sorry, KamaAina, you already ran the category."

They could buy a new car, sure... but where would they drive it with no roads or bridges? Where would you park it safely with no police protection? Oh! Would the cop make that much at all if it wasn't for tax dollars? How about the teacher?

Buy a boat? Forget it, you would have to go 3 miles from any shore to where the water wasn't toxic. Down payment on a house? How much does insurance cost when you don't have a fire department available?

What an idiot.

I won't even go into our huge argument on First Nations Peoples. We've had to agree never to bring that up again.

I love it when Hubby beats him in golf, though. :D

decides they want to get rid of the FBI which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and expands the power of the executive branch to unbalancing levels, get back to me.

sounds like it.

I'll have to ask him. I have no idea whom he voted for last Tuesday.

Where almost HALF of it is defense???????????

Meanwhile these CLUELESS IDIOTS should look and see who is actually VOTING FOR laws such as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.

These FUCKING CLUELESS IDIOTS build up this completely FALSE idea of liberals and DON'T BOTHER WITH FUCKING FACTS and build their worldview on FAIRY TALES.

THESE PEOPLE INFURIATE ME!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

Some days I think the DOE was invented to destroy American education.

They go on and on about family values, social and fiscal responsibility, yet keep getting caught with their pants around their ankles and their hand in someone else's pocket. What they're doing in there is anyone's guess, but I prefer to think of it as a semi-nude, consensual mugging 'cause the alternative is just too creepy.