Economics: Conservative vs. Liberal?
Well conservatives typically believe in three major points. 1. Trickle down - when we give the rich tax cuts, they will spend more money on labor and production, and the lower classes will get more money than if you cut taxes for the lower classes. 2. Government is almost always inefficient - Government should not regulate businesses or other economic factors because money will be lost when government interferes. 3. The gov't should keep a low national debt- When gov't gets loans from foreign government it gives those governments power and entangles America in foreign issues. Liberal counterpoints 1. The rich get richer with tax cuts- the trickle down effect is not effective, it is better to tax the rich and allow the poor to have fewer taxes. 2. It is the Gov't's job to help people- People are poor because of social inequalities, and the Gov't needs to give basic care. The social good outweighs the inefficiency. 3. Globalization is a good thing, as the United States becomes more interwined with the other countries, the less poverty the world will see, and the more compasionate everyone will become. Conservative counterpoints: 1. The poor don't lose that much money in taxes- They are poor taxes are the least of their worries. 2. The gov't cannot help everybody- Private charities should be used to help the poor. 3. Most conservatives concede that fighting globalization is a losing battle. However they argue that America should remain as independent as possible, especially when it comes to money owed to others. American politics is tilted toward liberalism, even the republican party is extradionarly liberal in economic ideas. Sorry for the length.
Why do some moderate conservatives say, "I didn't vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary". Isn't this a lie if they actually voted for Trump? Couldn't they have not voted instead?
I think it’s a perfectly valid thing to say.After all, Hillary was actively promoting herself as a vote against Trump. In fact, the entire Democratic Platform now is that while they’re obviously corrupt warmongers, they’re not quite as bad as the Republicans.I myself voted against both Hillary and Trump by voting for Jill Stein. I had no particular illusions that Stein had a good chance of winning, but after the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, I couldn’t in good conscience vote for the people who not only screwed Bernie, but the entire progressive base in forcing us to vote for someone who hates us with a burning passion and would work tirelessly against anything approaching economic justice or moderation and restraint in foreign policy.Voting against Hillary was extremely easy. So was voting against Trump. Too bad this isn’t a democracy, or we might have ducked both of those bullets in 2016. As it is, we’re forced to choose between Warmongering Servant of the Billionaire Class A, or Warmongering Servant of the Billionaire Class B.If either of the major parties ever sees fit again to give us a candidate who isn’t a warmongering servant of the billionaire class, I’m back in, but the major parties are getting worse, not better.Surprisingly, the Republicans might be more ripe for a takeover by people interested in economic justice and fairness. After all, the party despised Trump, but reluctantly acquiesced to the will of the people. The Democrats, on the other hand, hate nothing more than the will of the people.The Democrats actually hate the people at this point, and I find that remarkable. I wonder how much of that is due to Citizens United and outside forces, and how much of it is directly attributable to the corrupting influence of the Clintons and the DLC. It seems an awfully large corruption to blame it all on Hillary, but she really is quite a corrupt person.
Why do conservatives always win economic debates in the United States, despite the deep inequality and structural injustice in the country?
Because Conservatives understand economics better than liberals, who tend to think closer to Marxist terms.Here is a question to consider. In a classroom, some students get 100s on their tests while others get 40s and the rest get something in between. In another classroom, some get 30s and some get 60s and the rest are somewhere in between. Well, there is a far greater disparity in the first classroom than in the second. but which class is doing better?The same applies to countries. Would you rather be poor in America or poor in India? In fact, the poor in America are mostly better off than the middle class in places like India. Here we are arguing about a $15 an hour minimum wage. In many countries, people work to get that much in a 10+ hour day.Disparity is not the problem at all.I will leave with this quote from renowned economist Friedrich Von Hayek: “If Socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”
Don't the terms "conservative" and "liberal" explain enough who the wiser party is?
Conservative's definition is "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." But, clearly, this country needs change. The economy is slipping, there's more violence and illegal activity than ever before, and the troops being sent to Iraq continuously is absurd. There's no progress. And when I think of a conservative, I picture someone who is inclined not to speak openly, and someone who is more conformed to society. However, liberal means "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties," or "favorable to progress." Doesn't this say enough? Liberals always want change and to better everything the best they can. They favor the people. They speak out, and conservatives just don't. Conservatives rarely favor the rights of the people over the rights of the state. I'm saying liberals make more sense.
Why don't conservatives admit the truth: it's not about "ideology", it's simply a matter of "i dont care"?
about you because you make less money than me? Why don't republicans admit that they don't accept democracy. They want an aristocracy, supported by right-wing Christians as their attack dogs to run down everyone who thinks the Republic should serve the entire people and not just the privileged classes of upper middle class, super-rich, and other profiteers.
I'm rather conservative except in matters discussing gun rights and abortion. What can I be classified as?
There are two types of conservatives: social conservatives and economic (or fiscal) conservatives.As the name suggests, social conservatives are conservative when it comes to social issues. This means a social conservative would be in favor of policies such as banning gay marriage, banning abortion, lax gun control, bringing Christianity back to the forefront, etc.Economic conservatives are conservative when it comes to economic philosophy and policy. This means an economic conservative would be in favor of policies such as low taxes, reduced government spending, minimal government debt, free trade, and overall limited government involvement in the economy.It’s possible to be both a social and economic conservative, to be just one, or to be neither. You say you’re “rather conservative”, except when it comes to abortion and gun rights. Since abortion and gun rights are both social issues, it sounds like you could be an economic conservative but not a social conservative. It’s hard to say, though, without hearing more of your opinions. In what ways do you consider yourself to be conservative? What are your opinions on other social issues? It is possible to be a social conservative without agreeing with every single social conservative ideology, as long as you agree with social conservatives on the majority of social issues.