Feb 23 2011

Basic Difference Between Liberals & Conservatives

Published by at 11:07 pm under All General Discussions

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh briefly the other day and he was ranting on about the liberal nonsense of ‘shared sacrifice’, when it struck me how close he was to defining the basic difference between left and right.

After liberals screw things royally (the very example of F.U.B.A.R.) they go on and on about “shared sacrifice”. When the 2008 recession hit – due to their risky socialist schemes about home ownership and loading the nation down in bad home mortgage debt (which led to a near collapse of our economic structure and the wiping out of millions of people’s life’s work) – the answer was not justice and identifying those responsible. It was ‘shared sacrifice’ – as if the liberals who lined their pockets on that huge, unstable pile of bad loans where actually sacrificing squat.

The conservative model is success – the private sector and the entrepreneurs. The motto is ‘shared success’ – what liberals lamely refer to as ‘trickle down’. But the founding members of Microsoft and Apple understand they were swept up in the success of individuals like Jobs, Wosniak and Gates – and became millionaires in the process.

Liberals want shared sacrifice for their failures, but conservatives promote shared success in the American dream – based on American determination and ingenuity.

Gee, I wonder which one is the better long term investment??? Let me think on this a moment ….

24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Basic Difference Between Liberals & Conservatives”

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Suhr Mesa and Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Basic Difference Between Liberals & Conservatives http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/15954 […]

  2. dbostan says:

    Gee, A.J.,

    No more rants against the “far right”, listening to Rush….

    Are you sure you are OK lately?

  3. AJStrata says:

    Rush is usually half right – which is more than can be said for Hannity and Ingraham. And let’s just not talk about the ranting disasters of Levin and Savage.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    Ah…AJ is getting closer to understanding the definition of conservatism, which has nothing to do with “far right / bible thumper” kinda deal. The “far left” also has its share of bible thumping.

    Conservatism has everything to do with the pursuit of happiness and individual responsibility as law-abiding citizens under limited, self-government.

    Which is also what Levin talked about in his book. The message in his recent book is the same message as Matt Spalding’s recent book.

  5. WWS says:

    AJ, agree with you completely about the radio hosts. You’re right that when Rush is on, he puts things better than anyone – but way too much of the time, he takes the easy way out and just plays up to what his audience wants to hear. Of course even he admits that he considers himself an entertainer above and beyond any other calling.

    And everytime I try Hannity, I give up in disgust. I swear that he pays angry people with a New York accent to call his program and say stupid things, just so he can yell back and hang up on them. (happens every show I’ve listened to) I think it’s one of his producers.

    on the topic – here’s another HUGE difference between Republicans and Democrats, and it has been emphasized in the Court fights about Obamacare.

    Democrats stand for the proposition that there are no limits at all to what Government can do, as long as it is “For our own Good.” That’s why the DC decision on Obamacare yesterday held that *Thought* was now an “Action” subject to the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. (No kidding)

    Republicans stand in strict opposition to this – or at least they should. Constitutional Government is one with strict limits on what the Government Can and Cannot do, NO MATTER WHAT the motivation is!

    For Democrats, the Governmental Means always justify the Societal Ends. Far too often, Republicans have allowed this thinking to creep into their actions. We have to realize that if we don’t hold firmly onto the Constitution, we have nothing.

  6. lancair360 says:

    I think you basic argument is correct but in terms of actual policy Republicans are now adopting a “share the pain” approach by being totally focused on spending cuts to exclusion of economic growth. It’s as if they have completely forgotten the lessons of Reagan and Kemp. Spending cuts are important but growth is without question the more important of the two. “Two Santa Claus” Theory anyone?

    The current approach is not a recipe for consistently winning over the swing voters that we need. Sound money, pro economic supply-side policies and yes spending restraint are the ingredients for long-term republican success. We have not had this mix for a very long time and it’s time we go back to the basics.

    The only reason we made gains this last election is because the adminstration and the Dem’s so over-reached they offended the senses of a majority of Americans. They didn’t choose us, hell we didn’t even give them something to choose, they rejected the Dems. Until we figure this out we are going to get whipsawed every few years.

    http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/23/spending-cuts-economy-gop-opinions-contributors-louis-woodhill.html

  7. ivehadit says:

    Lancair, in my humble opinion, there will never be a party that all the people choose. Our society is more segmented today than ever before. The 50’s may have been the last time we had an homogeneous society.

    We now coalesce around power that can give us most of what we want (70/30 may be the best we can get now).

    AJ, we agree 100%. I have been saying the democrats are the party of deprivation for the past two years. And I will add some independents/evangelicals to that list as well…those who think we enjoy the American way of life too much. And I’m not talking about excesses. Imho, wealth is one of the by-products of self-fulfillment…where the world’s needs and one’s talents cross. Only in America, can one have the OPPORTUNITY to “be all one can be”….if the socialists would get out of the way.

  8. WWS says:

    Good point, lancair, but what Woodhill misses is that spending is far out of control that we no longer have that option.

    Because of our spending, we stand at the brink of a hyperinflationary depression. We have to cut spending NOW, even if, in the short term, it drives unemployment back up to 12% or thereabouts.

    Woodhill’s plan would have been good in 2005. Done now, it will collapse the country.

    I know you want a “good” option – we all want one of those. But we’re out of time – there are only pretty bad and REALLY bad options left. And any plan that doesn’t begin with dramatically cutting spending turns into the REALLY bad option REALLY fast.

    (FYI: REALLY bad means defaulting on T-bonds and SS payments. We’re closer than you think)

  9. ivehadit says:

    Ohhhh, you all have got to see the video over at Red State (see Conservative Blog advertising above) of Monica Crowley and Rummie. It’s fantastic! How I miss him!!!

  10. lancair360 says:

    WWS, I respectfully disagree. I don’t believe Woodhill misses anything as he rather methodically breaks down the math involved in his assumptions. I have seen similar calculations from others but the Woodhill article was published today so it seemed timely given our current discussion.

    Inflation, hyper or otherwise, is merely a monetary phenomena not a result of egregious spending. Thus my call for sound money in the previous post. Read this to mean a gold backed dollar as advocated by Nathan Lewis (www.newworldeconomics.com)

    Our ability to pay the debts you mention hinges on turning the unemployed back into tax payers and thus the need for economic growth. Driving unemployment back up to 12%, even in the short-run, merely exacerbates our fiscal problems. As that happens calls for spending cuts will be drowned out by the call for tax increases as a means of raising more revenue. The government then falls into a vicious cycle of stimulus followed by austerity followed by stimulus over and over again.

    As the math in the Woodhill article points out cutting $100B a year amounts to less than 10% of what is actually needed and nobody in either party has the stones to do more. Thus the Republican party by proposing to cut $100B and not focusing on growth is dealing itself a losing hand by being on the wrong side of the Two Santa Claus theory.

    Meaningful, long-term economic growth is the only real solution. Cuts of $100B/year, while symbolic, is merely putting lipstick on a pig. I’m not saying cuts shouldn’t be on the table but by emphasizing cuts versus growth we are not going to stay in power long enough to get meaningful reform.

    Lastly it is far easier to cut spending when the citizenry is not demanding more services from the government. During periods of economic expansion their basic needs are met via the privates sector and not the government. It is virtually impossible to make meaningful cuts in spending when the people are demanding more from their government. As an example look at how unemployment benefits continue to be extended despite the empirical evidence of how it actually prolongs unemployment.

    Again, I am not saying cuts needn’t be made. But I feel strongly that we are doomed to be a minority party if we choose to ignore growth in favor of spending. As Woodhill points out, merely raising forecasted GDP rate by “0.2 percentage points, to 2.3%, would eliminate the entire $121.6 trillion fiscal gap” and “do as much for federal solvency as cutting spending by $1.0 trillion per year.”

  11. WWS says:

    Lancair, my heart is with you and Woodhill. I *know* that we desperately need growth if we are ever to get out of this. But looking out at a rotten public sector which is consuming resources far beyond our ability to provide has, I suppose, caused me to lose hope that we can ever get back to growth without an extremely painful retrenchment first.

    Woodhill does a lot of good statistical work, but he doesn’t answer the crucial question, Where will the growth come from? Not from consumer spending, not at these levels of unemployment. (and it will take many years to reverse that) Not from housing, still dropping. Not from manufacturing, that’s moving to China. Where will this growth come from?

    I know one area where it could come from, but this will show how difficult the path is. Energy – there are fantastic oil resources waiting to be developed here in the US. Not just ANWR and the Gulf, but the Bakken, the Eagleford, and many other promising spots. Not only would this help our economy with the production, this would create tens of thousands of jobs across the country!!!

    BUT – none of this is going to happen as long as this President is in office, which means we’ve got two years before a plan like this can even get started.

    We don’t have that long. I want to find a reason to be optimistic, I really do. I just fear greatly that it is already too late, and that all we can do is to react to the financial dominoes as they begin to fall.

  12. jan says:

    Great discussion points between the two of you, WWS & Lancair. They both intertwine with each other to give a lucid argument on what the approaches should be in order to shift out of growth stagnation and deficit spending. However, if I would lean in anyone’s direction I think growing the economy, adding more jobs, decreasing burdensome regulation, and lowering taxes in places that would be stimulative to business is the way to go.

  13. Fai Mao says:

    The basic difference between liberals and cnservatives can be boiled down to two things

    1. Liberals believe that the end justifies the means and conservatives do not

    2. Liberals believe that their ideology trumps morality and conservatives do not

  14. kathie says:

    One is nice.
    The other is mean.

    One spends your money.
    The other spends his own.

  15. jan says:

    Kathie

    Well, that’s saying it in a nutshell!

  16. […] Basic Difference Between Liberals & Conservatives […]

  17. kathie says:

    jan, the mean/nice was borrowed from my daughter.

    So they are friends.

    GLOBAL JIHAD: The trio: Obama, Jeremiah Wright, Farrakhan, visit Libya together, meet with Gaddafi, receive praise, and $5 million. Finally, the truth about why Obama’s was silent for so long about the unrest in Libya, (especially in comparison to Egypt) and his kid-glove treatment of Gaddafi is exposed. We now know why the Obama Administration could not even bring themselves to mention Gaddafi by name and perhaps why Obama refuses to use the U.S. Navy, stranding Americans on a ferry in a Tripoli port on the coast of Libya.
    Rev. Jeremiah Wright even went so far as to warn Obama before the election that if word of the 2004 trip to Tripoli every got out “his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

  18. crosspatch says:

    The best radio show on the air is John Batchelor. If you can’t find his show locally, go to his website and download the podcasts. They will play on your computer.

    http://wabcradio.com/sectional.asp?id=33447

  19. crosspatch says:

    Hour 1 of yesterday’s show covers stuff like the new Boeing tanker plan. Hour 2 is Libya. He always has interesting guests. Isn’t’ a “call in” rant show.

  20. jan says:

    crosspatch,

    I love John Batchelor too! His interviews are insightful and interesting. You get tidbits and small details dealing with the issues of the day, all around the country and the world.