Message to ?Conservatives

Vanity | Feb. 11, 2004 | Nix Two

[sauropod]

Nope.

[labolarueda]

"What exactly about the immigration reform has you so riled up? You are jumping to so many bogus conclusions, I don't even know where to start. You call it amnesty, and I ask you WHEREIN lies the amnesty?"

Bush is not kicking out the hispanic illegal aliens, ergo it's an amnesty.

His amnesty proposal will hurt him very badly at the polls as it will determine whether our Western culture will survive or be replaced by an alien one with a consequential civil war.

[Texasforever]

It's divisive and counterproductive.

No it isn't. It is a fight between one group that wants to see the GOP to win and another group that does not. It is not a conservative debate it is a "debate" between two opposition parties.

[.30Carbine]

WE NEED OUR JUDGES!

All caps definitely called for there! I'm loving this!

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for coming to my defense.

Actually, I feel that being singled out as a real irritant to the anti-Bush types is an honor. ;)

It means they can't refute my arguments, so they resort to personal attacks.

[sauropod]

There there...

Let's not get all fussy...

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Doesn't change the facts of what I'm trying to get across to people who just don't listen.

Well then, it seems what we have here is a failure to communicate.

[EternalVigilance]

There you go again. Painting with such a wide brush that you take in everybody but yourself and your merry little band of friends.

It's the dumbest way to win votes for a candidate I've ever seen.

Or are you trying to drive votes away from GW?

[NMC EXP]

Sound right to you?

No.

Your post made no sense. Try again if you have a point to make.

Regards

J.R.

[Lazamataz]

And my attitude is what it is. If YOU don't like it, who are you really fighting? Conservative bashers? Not me, man. I'm as Conservative as they come. I can just see a tad farther down the road. As far as I see, these conservatives who threaten us with Socialism are no conservatives at all.

Maybe he could toss us a bone and use his Bully Pulpit to make sure the Assault Weapons Ban never reaches his desk....?

[EternalVigilance]

Actually, I feel that being singled out as a real irritant to the anti-Bush types is an honor.

So you resort to lies?

[Texasforever]

Let's not get all fussy...

You will know when I get "fussy". I have been a pussycat so far.

[.30Carbine]

Real conservatives take responsibility for their actions

I agree, and when real conservatives take action, they do so responsibly!

[sauropod]

J.R. is a good guy. Leave him alone.

[FairOpinion]

"Yeah. I'm on a mission to get people around here to quit bashing conservatives.

It's divisive and counterproductive."

===

And what do you consider the constant Bush-bashing that goes on around here "in the holy name of conservatism"? Do you consider that uniting and productive?

Over 80% of the people here support Bush -- I view the loud anti-Bush elements as divisive.

[NeoCaveman]

"Fluffy, pretty clouds. Mmmmmmmmmmm......."


How were the skies like when you were young?

They ran on and on forever and
When I, we lived in Arizona
And the skies always had little fluffy clouds in them
And, ah, they were long, clear...
There were lots of stars at night
And, ah, when it would rain it would all turn
They they were beautiful
The most beautiful skies as a matter of fact
Ah, the sunsets were
Purple and red and yellow and blue and on fire
And the clouds would catch the colors everywhere
That's it's neat 'cause I used to look at them all the time when I was little
You don't see that

Firing different sounds
Firing different sounds

Little fluffy clouds
Little fluffy clouds
Little fluffy clouds
Little fluffy clouds

[EternalVigilance]

Well then, it seems what we have here is a failure to communicate.

That is a fact.

[dasein64]

"Unappeasable" is the operative word. IMO a good many of the Bush bashers are mostly interested in promoting whatever third party they belong to. They are willing to throw over a fierce defender of America's freedom for the sure betrayal of that freedom by any one of the pro UN RAT presidential candidates. President Bush will just have to win reelection this November without their help, and he will.

[Ben Bolt]

I'm wondering why folks refuse to vote in the best interest of the Republic . On the other hand I see you have some laughter in the mean time .

[GOPcapitalist]

Other than listening to the demons wail about the deficit, what difference has it made in any of your lives? None.

It actually has made one substantial, albeit indirect, difference. The economics of national income accounting derive an identity in which the trade balance for the nation as a whole, IM-EX, equates to the relationship between savings and investment for the nation as a whole, S-I. Put another way, when investment exceeds savings we will have a trade deficit. This little chart from the Congressional Budget Office displays the historical presence of this tendency along side trade surpluses and deficits for the last 30 or so years.

As you can see in it, when I exceeds S, trade has almost always gone into negative territory.

So how does this relate to deficits? Well, American citizens aren't particularly known for their savings habits even though they do still save a little. But one major participant in the U.S. economy has no clue what the word "save" even means nor has it for a long time. That participant is the U.S. government and they spend every penny they take in and then some. So what happens when deficits rise? Federal government savings, or lack thereof, automatically put the U.S. economy deep into the hole before individual saving are even considered in the equation virtually assuring that they will fall short of investments. The result? We have to go abroad to finance our investments, which means more trade in imports. So all of a sudden we get a trade deficit that is huge!

Now, is having a huge trade deficit a bad thing? Not necessarily in itself nor should currently having one be too much of a cause for concern from an economic perspective. But it does do one thing undesirable: large trade deficits, and even simply having large imports, are history's favorite scapegoat for economic hardship. They are always the very first thing that gets targetted whenever the economy isn't operating at perfection (and it doesn't even have to be a bad or recession economy - anything short of 110% boom is enough cause for people to start scapegoating the trade deficit, always has been, and always will be). So whenever trade deficits persist for a long time, a combination of mistaken popular opinion in the masses and outright political demagoguery by those who want electoral gain by pandering to the masses (or alternatively an inefficient industry) starts clamoring around for higher tariffs, more agriculture subsidies, and bad old fashioned government protectionism. When they do that even supposedly conservative free trader republicans like Bush start caving and giving them their tariffs to shut them up (much as he did with the steel tariffs a year or so ago, and more recently textile tariffs). The longer it lasts, the worse it gets and eventually free trade initiatives (which are economically beneficial and productive to us) start to suffer by either stalling before completion or, worse, being repealed or violated after the fact. That means higher prices for consumers, which hurts us all.

So in that sense, the budget deficit by way of exacerbating the trade deficit, which in turn gives a scapegoat to protectionists who then use it to succeed in stalling or backtracking on the move towards free trade, comes around to hurt you, me, and everybody else who ever buys anything by causing higher prices than we would otherwise have to pay.