Posted on 08/16/2006 8:36:15 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
Neocons tend not to be moderate regarding national security, but I am unaware of any of the notable ones suggesting some final solution of nukes and instigating a religious war against Islam is job one either. Keeping one's moral compass is what is job one, I would like to think, and parsing very carefully the consequences of a policy, in moral terms, of a more universal rather than tribal nature. A stong and safe American, with a robust internationalist leaning, at the moment is also job one in that regard, since at the moment, America is the lone superpower. Thus there is an element, within prudent limits, of a pax Americana about it.
There's a reason they call it the "Washington COM-post."
More of what I hear and read from people indicates that most insurgents are in fact foreigners. In fact, at one time, the percentage was all the way up to 90%.
It's not a red herring when Buchanan, among others, uses the term neo-con, as Jews are the only ones he mentions.
They're the "Amen corner" for the state of Israel. Another thing many of these paleos despise.
Oh, yes, the economy is "WONDERFUL", just so long as you are NOT involved in any sort of small business!
The Mega-Marts and global Mega-Corp's have moved beyond capitalism, they are into a whole new realm of market dominance, fueled by exported labor and imported goods.
The simplest start ups require millions just to open the door, mergers have replaced innovation and true competition, our former core technologies are now manufactured outside the country.
CEO's destroy whole U.S. based industries, and get multi-million dollar bonuses for it.
We certainly are "economically on fire", and it's our innovative small business base that is being consumed in the flames!
Gov. Org. has become the greediest, most ruthless business of all, it now actively seeks the destruction of small business in favor of the mega-corp's., since the mega's are easier to collect taxes from and enforce "regulations" against.
Neo-conservative my posterior, more like Neo-Fascist!
The current sham cannot be maintained indefinitely, something will have to give, I hope I am not around for the "correction" that has to come.
It's a red herring because when Pat uses the term, often attended with a list of Jewish names, but perhaps not always, it facilitates no productive discussion. It fosters perjudice and tribal instincts (in his case as a first crude cut at it, regarding which I might be persuaded otherwise, including the pre Vatican II Catholic sensibility of many of his ilk, about Jews, and well, regarding pluralism in general; they were and are very suspicious of them and it).
'The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism' is a good description of one neocon's move from socialism to capitalism, but it might be a stretch to call that an embrace of supply-side policy.
Neoconservatives were anticommunists, but that doesn't exclude socialism. The origin of the movement was in Great Society liberalism, and that hasn't been completely disavowed.
The small group of academic and government economists that developed supply side theory had little connection with neoconservatism, other than that they were contemporaries during the Reagan era.
What I admire about you, stinky, is your willingness to cover your first lie with a new one.
But since you want to discuss embarrassing yourself, how about that we begin with your assumption that Paul Gottfried had to be a neocon simply because his name is Jewish? Or perhaps you would prefer to discuss your claim to be a "deacon"?
Socialist economics doesn't work, and no neocon that I know of supports it, for that reason, primarily, although not exclusively. That does not mean there is an hostility to transfer payments per se. Neocons on that one, support such as a generalization, perhaps more than I, simply to keep the social peace. I support them when it stikes me as morally justified, as I see it. Supply side is embraced when it works, and not, when it doesn't. I personally think the supply side hard liners don't have the facts in their corner, about results, in many cases. For example, supply side works for example when reducing the highest marginal tax rate from 70% to 40%; it might work less well, or not at all, when reducing the highest marginal tax rate to say, 25%. That is an empirical question, rather than a moral question, I think most neocons would it as being. Of course free trade is about supply side, and that is largely embraced by neocons, for that reason, among others.
I know, and thanks for clarifying that.
I was just fending off sinkspur's libel. He can't think of anything intelligent to add to the discussion, so he thought he'd just go to his default mode of jew-baiting.
Yes... Reagan was no Goldwater...
America was and is too socialist to accept a Goldwater..
Most have no idea that (SSA) Social Security is PURE socialism.. Not like socialism but PURE socialism.. Reagan was better than Carter or any democrat just as Bush is better than Kerry or Gore.. The next president will be a RINO too, like Bush.. America does not want a real Republican.. You know like Gingrich..
Social Security is a Ponzi/PYRAMID SCHEME and you'd be surprised to know just how many people actually DO get it. :-)
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, so you ARE saying that Ronald Reagan was a RINO?
You think that Newtie is a true Conservative? ROTFLMAOPIMP Many thanks for that laugh *snicker* and for proving just how very little you know and understand. LOL, LOL, LOL
I don't know about nice, but it accurately sums up your dismissal of the reading I suggested.
Perhaps I should have used "jerk", since that is a term you evidently appear to be familiar with- at least when your pride is wounded and you strike out in childish anger.
But what would I know, I'm in my 50s and couldn't possibly provide you with any perspective that you lack- seeing as you lack nothing. "Wise beyond your years."- I think the Greeks called that "hubris", ordinarily I'd suggest you google that, but I wouldn't want you to risk a tantrum.
Yep!
David being a third generation a red diaper commie progeny has had a large deficit to make up.. And has done wonderfully.. Horowitz is an exception.. Collier too.. and a few other of Davids associates.. David Horowitz is an honest liberal(classic definition).. unusual for liberals.. What a guy..
I suspect David knows both parties are penetrated.. with socialists.. David knows what socialists smell like..
Conservative = same old, same old.. i.e. more of the same..
I'm a radical because it will take radical change to return this republic back to a republic.. from the democracy it has become..
A "conservative" is for same old same old.. thats why we continue getting same old same old..
'Supply-side' is a term tossed about with very little attempt at definition. A lot of self-described supply-siders know zilch about economics, and so the the issue becomes a muddle or gets reduced to nothing more than cutting marginal tax rates.
It was, originally, a contrast to the Keynesian policies of demand-management. During the 70s, Keynesian attempts at stimulating the economy stimulated mostly inflation.
A group of economists sought a way out of the impasse of no-growth and inflation (stagflation), and a triad of policies was proposed- deregulation, tight monetary policy, and cutting marginal tax rates. This was the basis of Reaganomics. It is interesting to note that none of the Reagan economists used the term 'supply-side' themselves. That was mostly done by the WSJ and related cheerleaders outside of the administration.
Free trade isn't necessarily supply-side, but that's another discussion.
Most of Collier's old comrades were red diaper babies, but I think he was the son of Republicans of long standing.
There was an empirical discussion about what fostered supply side, and based on experience, the Keynesian approach to effecting that lost favor, in substantial part, but not exlusively, because the nature of the economy changed, and the importance of international trade grew in import. Milton Friedman also prevailed up to a point, that money supply matters. But it mattered more, and became a more useful tool, when the Fed became more sophisticated in managing it due to powerful computers, and data collection.
And you're just someone who should be on another site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.