Thread: The Question for Conservatives in the Age of Obama

In 1971 to groups of economists came together, the supply-siders and the monetarists. They were brought together under the big tent of Reagan in 1981 when he ran for President. However, there have been many challenges to the Reaganomic movement. Many of the most reputable economists have moved away from lower taxes and deregulation, because they do not agree with the free market doctrine. Many of the economic advisors under Raegan did not serve under Bush. Some refused to serve under Bush because their viewpoints have changed so drastically from todays Republican stances.

The question to conservatives is whether they still think that cutting income taxes and other 'wealth taxes' will spur saving, investment and work effort? Will it be self-financing? Does economic regulation lead to criminal misconduct? Should the market (Wall Street) be the ultimate judge in the United States businesses live or die? I think free markets would have to agree that there should be no government intervention in the markets, but who do you think controls the markets if government is not involved? Is it the investor with $1 billion dollars or the small investor with $500 - $10,000?

Democrats say that corporations have full control in any kind of free market and that, in effect, creates an unfair environment for those with little money. They beleive that the rights of the poor are not as great as the rights of the rich in a free market. If an organization has the ability to coordinate with competitors to ensure that the market is not glutted, so that the possibility of profit is open, would this be consistent with free market beleifs even though the freedom of the small-time business owner may be infringed? Who would regulate something like that?

Last question for conservatives. By the way, these questions are for your own benefit because you will have to answer them in the public as the liberals will try to kill your base when the time is right. The time is almost right. Anyway, the focuse of economic policy in the future will be war, climate change - pollution whether it be waste or CO2, corruption and fraud including election fraud, the collapse of governing capacity, the perilous position of the international dollar, the position of immigrant in American society, whether legal or illegal, the achievemnt of universal healthcare as well as the crisis in housing and housing finacne and responses to disaster like Katrina. The important issues were pretty much first, but you can switch the orders around. The conservatives will need to tackle all these issues at once in 2016, because 2012 will go to Obama despite what you think. How do you plan to do this? Do you stick to some of your positions on some of these issues and change other positions of the party?

I would love a response to this thread. I know many of these questions are comprehensive and numerous, but were talking political death soon.

Low taxes and minimal regulation is still best for the economy.

In an age of corporate scandals and recession, it is probably a tougher sell.

But that doesn't mean it is the wrong idea.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Low taxes and minimal regulation is still best for the economy.

In an age of corporate scandals and recession, it is probably a tougher sell.

But that doesn't mean it is the wrong idea.

Would you consider the Bush Tax cuts as helpful to the economy despite the massive evidence to the contrary? Also, would you contend that a Republican administration that does not beleive in regulation would also hire regulators who were told to sit on there ass and do nothing? I would say that if a Republican Administration told officials not to regulate, and an official in the mortgage industry did what he was told, that the cause of the mortgage crisis could have something to do with that.

I think increased regulation for those who speculate with other people's money is essential. Reaganomics still apply, but we are in more of a global economy now and the people don't want all that pain.

So we are collectively fantasizing that we can spend our way to prosperity.

Won't happen...

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

Would you consider the Bush Tax cuts as helpful to the economy despite the massive evidence to the contrary? ....

really the total picture is that limited government promotes a healthy economy. Tax cuts are part of it. When you say Bush's tax cuts did not work you have to realize a few things. The tax rebates were made political by the Dems in congress. They voted it in only if it included giving money to people that paid zero in income tax. Well that is a drain on the economy. Also you are assuming that the tax cuts caused the economic problems of today. The problems of today are caused by over spending andbad defaulted loans.

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

Would you consider the Bush Tax cuts as helpful to the economy despite the massive evidence to the contrary?

Since the evidence that the cuts in tax rates produce MORE revenues......

Also, would you contend that a Republican administration that does not beleive in regulation would also hire regulators who were told to sit on there ass and do nothing?

When in fact they were urging congress to increase regulation and oversite of the mortgage industry?

I think we have left he ideals of Free economics founded under Reagan for Neo-Con and Socialist standards. The standard of the 80's was free market. Now nationalization has been the pretext since Clinton.