Conservativism, Chronicles and Paleoconservativism

The American Conservative Union ^ | 12/30/2003 | Don Devine

[rdb3]

It appears you were correct.

[JohnGalt]

This post has so many misstatements and factually incorrect pieces, I cannot respond to it, but good to see y'all are on your last legs. Your polemics have devolved into mere propaganda which is what led to this mess in the first place and your apparent split with American conservatives.



1. Raimndo has never been a columnist for Pravada.

2. Sam Francis was allegedly fired for speaking at an American Renaissance conference, the head of which had a cover story on National Review the year before, prior to the anti-immigration necon purge in the early 90s.

3. The American Conservative Union has already spoken on National Review and the phony expatriate conservatives like the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage David Frum says it all.

4. Keene (or Devine if he wrote this article) seems to find a lot to agree with Fleming on, if not Francis.

5. Are you asking that question of the author of this article?

6. "

7. The American Conservative Union no longer considers you an actual conservative.

8. see #5

9. You are simply losing it.

10. The American Conservative Union seems to think so.

11. You should have begun this rant with an attack on the messenger and the American Conservative Union and demand that Jim Rob remove the link from the homepage.

[JohnGalt]

It may or may not be a good policy (I happen to agree with the devaluation), but, and I realize good government is not a big issue with you folks, but its intellectually dishonest to call a tariff protectionist, while devaluing the dollar through the use of an extra-Constitutional Executive entity 'the fed' is considered worthy of a free republic.

[JohnGalt]

We have no general disagreement, then, merely a tactical one and that was the purpose of this thread.

[JohnGalt]

Indeed.

Left of center, but they are conservative. They wish to conserve the Communist tendencies of their parents.

[CWOJackson]

"1. Raimndo has never been a columnist for Pravada."

Sure does make you wonder why Pravda prints all of justine's anti-American screeds.

[JohnGalt]

The phonycons are noted for their lack of wit which is why they rely on untruths, homo-baiting and teenage girls to save their sorry arses.

[CWOJackson]

Poor jg, I see you're very busy this morning. I know, it's a difficult job trashing the President on so many threads at the same time.

Nothing untrue about all of justine's anti-American BS being printed by Pravda. The real question is whether they pay him by the word or by the pound. That you defend justine is no surprise to me...birds of a feather and all that.

[hchutch]

To paraphrase Zell Miller, if Sam Francis is not a racist, then he is a racist's first cousin.

To be very honest, I find myself more at home with ATR and the NRA on most domestic issues and with the PNAC on foreign policy. I consider myself to be a limited-government conservative who favors a very big stick in foreign policy.

[JohnGalt]

Thanks for proving the point, Phonycon.

Did Andy Sullivan not send you a Christmas card this year?

[Cacique]

BTTFL

[ninenot]

Personally, I think tariffs are one component of a national economic strategy which assures prosperity for citizens.

In other words, the 'general welfare' of the people.

Properly constructed tariffs will reflect the difference in "variable costs" from country to country--i.e., since the USA imposes a variety of costs (EPA, FLSA, OSHA, IRS, etc., etc.) on domestic producers of good "X,", importing good "X" should carry a tariff which approximates the cost-of-doing-business in the USA.

In addition, the tariff should reflect subsidy benefits. If Country "A" subsidizes its product exports, the tariff charged to import from Country "A" should take into account that subsidy.

This is a "variable-cost" tariff proposal.

Some of the Founders preferred a "fixed-cost" tariff--like 5% of the value of anything imported.

Dunno which is better. The "flat tariff" is certainly easier to implement, but not necessarily accurate.

[CWOJackson]

That's all you have today? Are you getting exhausted by so much Bush-bashing that that is all you can come up with?

No wonder you're so frustration with being so politically irrelevent. At least you aren't throwing a tantrum like your Pravda buddy raimondo did last time her was here.

[JohnGalt]

I lean towards a variable cost tariff and eliminating direct federal taxation on the citizens. The government would figure out its costs and charge importers a rate that 'made sense' to the costs of enforcing contracts and maintaining the infrastructure.

This would allow the small vs large government (assuming the two party system) to have a tangible way to debate the size of the tariff. Still, I think the debate for the moment is correcting the currency situation in the open markets. Successive government for several generations now have adopted the worst habits of Roman Emperors in devaluing the currency rather than risk the political costs of taxation.

While currency markets have proven a powerful check on the power of the modern state, I do not believe in the long run its best to have Chinese banks determine US policy let alone what happens when the Middle East says 'enough with all that' and changes the currency of their petro dollars.

[JohnGalt]

No Bush-bashing here, simple conservative tactics discussion, but I can understand why you feel left out being a Phonycon and all.

Do you want to spend the next hour talking about the liberal media and the Clintons? Would that make you feel more at home?

[ninenot]

While you're at it: let's eliminate the Federal Income Tax on C-corporations, which will reduce cost-of-doing-business in USA by about 5-10% net, net.

Keep the individual income tax, but honestly credit all tariffs paid against the tax requirement instead of simply spending more money.

Into a reverie we go, imagining things never to appear...

BTW, the current drop in value of the USD v/ Euro will not affect PRC except that they will have to spend a hell of a lot more to buy oil and goods from Europe.

[CWOJackson]

No Bush bashing here...then this thread must be the exception for you. It's kind of hard to keep track when you're on so many threads bashing him.

As for conservative discussion...yes, I understand your Pravda buddy actually used to try and call himself conservative once also. He doesn't even pretent any more...he's finally found comfort in his anti-Americanism.

[KC Burke]

I assume you haven't seen this thread.

[JohnGalt]

I support, in theory, the devaluation, however I opposed the administration indicating in public that the strong dollar policy is to be maintained. In light of the tremendous debt financing the administration has undertaken, I find it something less than 'good government' practice.

I had latched on to Laffer flat-tax 'stuff' as early as the goofy Jerry Brown campaign in 1992, and I was thrilled with Steve Forbes in '96 and 2000 capturing the flat tax (along with Dick Armey) for the GOP. I agree that direct taxation may well be with us for the duration, so I am a political ally on that front versus the sales tax people, however, for the meantime, I think the currency debate is a better strategy that can unite conservatives on traditional lines.

However, conservatives and libertarians, will need to drop the old protectionist/free trade and strong dollar posturing rhetoric and seek out an alternative compromise if that is too happen.