Originally posted by whodey I would say that to remove medicare/medicaid would have the same effect those in the former USSR had when their government collapsed. After learning that communism had fallen, people asked the question, "But since the state is no longer in control of the market, from where will be buy bread?"
In short, people become accustomed to a certain lifestyle and once it become altered or threatened a personal crisis insues as a result.
In short, people become accustomed to a certain lifestyle and once it become altered or threatened a personal crisis insues as a result
this would be one definition of conservatism -- that it's important to conserve the current order and make no more than gradual incremental changes - that any kind of radical change that creates personal crises is bad.
With this in mind, any effort to "undo Medicare" or the other big programs would have to be done gradually - and the people would need to know where they could find another "source of bread". And of course, the new "source of bread" would have to be attractive enough to make people want to give up the current system.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra For starters, look at the development of the US public debt during Reagan's time in office.
Didn't he fight the Democrats to keep down the level of spending they wanted, wasn't that good for the levels of debt? Didn't the US win out in the competition against the USSR? That cost money. So why does this debt now become such an important issue for you even despite the fact he tried to keep down some spending and succeeded in keeping the US superpower status while Communism crumbled...
Originally posted by Melanerpes libertarianism is essentially what the term "liberalism" used to mean before it became a synonym for big government.
the US founding fathers were essentially libertarian - albeit a relatively moderate version that accepted the need for a certain level of government. They opposed the "conservative" statist positions (monarchy, state religions etc)
It ...[text shortened]... funny how the terms liberal and conservative mean almost the opposite of what they used to
I'm not so sure. For example James Madison said you can only own things if there's plenty of the raw materials you used left for everyone else. Libertarians generally seem to have a much stronger view about the right to ownership.
Originally posted by whodey Fear of change, eh? So who is advocating change today? Is it the statist liberal or the conservative? For example, with the advent of Medicare/Medicaid no one is advocating deviating from the federally mandated entitlements, rather, they are for simply "reforming" these failed policies. It is the conservative who is advocating for change by having the sta ...[text shortened]... s back in terror at such a notion fearing that religion has taken over the public sector.
As long as "right and wrong" are defined by the human rights ideology this country was founded on, sure, why not? In my opinion this would require me, as a teacher, to tell kids that laws against drugs, prostitution and gambling, the 21 or older restriction on alcohol, and quite a LOT of this country's actions are or were immoral.
Originally posted by whodey First of all, where do the parents get their moral fiber from? Were they not kids once? Secondly, where to children spend the majority of their week? Is it not at school? Of course, the modern day public school system is a relatively new phenomenon. It used to be that children only learned these things from the parents. In that regard it is a new societal experiment altogether. Now its the state that is helping to raise our children.
Massachusetts has had compulsory education in the 17th century, since before it was a state! Are you familiar with the Land Ordinance of 1785? The Founding Fathers, in the form of Congress, set up public education!
Originally posted by eljefejesus Didn't he fight the Democrats to keep down the level of spending they wanted, wasn't that good for the levels of debt? Didn't the US win out in the competition against the USSR? That cost money. So why does this debt now become such an important issue for you even despite the fact he tried to keep down some spending and succeeded in keeping the US superpower status while Communism crumbled...
Originally posted by eljefejesus Didn't he fight the Democrats to keep down the level of spending they wanted, wasn't that good for the levels of debt? Didn't the US win out in the competition against the USSR? That cost money. So why does this debt now become such an important issue for you even despite the fact he tried to keep down some spending and succeeded in keeping the US superpower status while Communism crumbled...
Maybe, but he also fought the Democrats to keep down the level of taxation. The USSR assured its own downfall. The US superpower status is crumbling mainly because of Reagan's policies.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Maybe, but he also fought the Democrats to keep down the level of taxation. The USSR assured its own downfall. The US superpower status is crumbling mainly because of Reagan's policies.
The first two statements are reasonable, the last one is far from supported.
Was Reagan really a conservative?
26 Aug '09 12:172 edits
Back to Top