A New Conservative Party

[WAB]

Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

Do you think "Republican" and "conservative" are synonyms?

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

Do you think "Republican" and "conservative" are synonyms?

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

I agree with you. I don't think that it's helpful to call people that we disagree with NAZIs. Having said that, I think that there are many wacko republicans who are deluded by Quanon and Trump who could easily become similar to Nazis in the future. But this group does not include all republican's.

 

[WAB]

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

I agree with you. I don't think that it's helpful to call people that we disagree with NAZIs. Having said that, I think that there are many wacko republicans who are deluded by Quanon and Trump who could easily become similar to Nazis in the future. But this group does not include all republican's.

Exactly. There are MANY Trumpers who are definitely headed down the road to fascism, and plenty who are already there, in full regalia.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've taken the liberty of painting actions to increase the deficit red, and actions to decrease it green.

In a third party scenario, a moderate could win. The problem on the right is that they are no run mostly by crazy religious people. But the problem on the left is that they don't understand that most people don't want to pay higher taxes. They want a strong economy. A moderate party that advocated for less taxes, better environment, better safety net, economic development, sane leadership that followed science could win big.

So ... You're a strong fan of "Modern Monetary Theory"?

And unless "most people" denotes "millionaires" in your dialect, I don't think the Party that wants to help most people financially is the one you seem to think it is.

I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

 

[Swammerdami]

Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

Do you think "Republican" and "conservative" are synonyms?

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

Your question ("Do you think ...") appeared to be addressed at me specifically, rather than at "most of the lefties." I most certainly do NOT consider "Republican" and "conservative" synonyms. (I have trouble getting TFT search to work, but I don't think I've ever written "conservative" at this board until just now.)

John Kasich and George Will are two top opinion makers whose credentials as "conservative" are not in doubt. Both endorsed Joe Biden for President. How many top GOP pols followed their lead?

George Will, BTW, formally left the Republican Party in 2016. By 2020 he wasn't just calling for the election of Biden — he recommended voting for Democrats across the board. Here's another question, WAB: Do you consider George Will a conservative?

It's an exaggeration to compare the modern GOP with Hitler's Nazis, but not by much. GOPsters tend to have a visceral hatred of Muslims and other "other" groups. (Today's Nazis hate Muslims more than they hate Jews; indeed Israel under Netanyahu with their persecution of Palestinians are ideological soul-mates of the modern GOP and Nazis.) GOP's coddling of their big corporate supporters, and ceding power to, and idolizing, their leaders are all marks of fascism. Inciting the January 6 attack was akin to Kristallnacht, albeit an incompetent version. They rig elections like the Nazis do, encourage their political supporters to act violently against political opponents. IIRC Hitler persecuted handicapped people; Trump ridiculed a handicapped reporter. Both Hitler and Trumpists promote a world-view that their country needs to unify against foreign enemies. Both use the word "communist" as a bugaboo.. Both the Nazi Party and modern-day GOP ask for unquestioning obedience from supporters. Et cetera

I will confess that I've started treating "Republican" and "Trump supporter" as nearly synonymous. That's because they've become synonyms. Republicans who hate Trump are generally afraid to say so publicly. The 70+ million votes cast for a sociopathic traitor demonstrates that "average" Republicans are almost all Trumpist. The ex-Republican George Will demonstrates that it is possible to be both conservative and to think rationally.

BTW, I do not consider myself a "leftie." I have written on this board to oppose the excesses of political correctness; I might write more on that topic but it would lump me with the idiots. I am very doubtful about parts of the Green New Deal. I do ally myself with the U.S. Left because the U.S. has drifted much too far to the Right: I hope the Left pushes us back toward the center. (I suppose there are European countries that are too leftist where I'd ally myself with the Right for the comparable reason.)

 

[Swammerdami]

George Will and I are certainly not the only ones able to distinguish "Republican" from "conservative." Nor the only centrists or even rightists calling for the destruction of the Republican Party. For example, Jennifer Rubin wrote an opinion piece titled "Stop trying to save the GOP. It’s hopeless."

Perhaps Ms. Rubin has shed her "conservative" self-label in the wake of Trumpism, but for many years she was so described, for example:

Early on, Jennifer Rubin, who writes for The Washington Post, threw down against Trump as well. The vitriol she receives as a staunch conservative and as a woman makes you understand just how deep the misogyny in the Trump forces runs.

Ms. Rubin has other columns with a similar theme, e.g.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) used to be considered a middle-of-the-road Republican — before she exonerated Trump for plainly impeachable conduct. Now, she sounds just like him. Iowa Starting Line reports that Ernst now seems to embrace "a thoroughly-discredited QAnon conspiracy theory about U.S. deaths from covid-19 being a mere fraction of what has been reported.” Without any factual support — and with massive data to the contrary — the senator insists it’s all a plot:

"They’re thinking there may be 10,000 or less deaths that were actually singularly covid-19,” Ernst said, seemingly referring to the debunked conspiracy theory that only around 6% of covid-19 deaths were due to the virus. “I’m just really curious. It would be interesting to know that.”
Going even further, however, Ernst also suggested that doctors were intentionally falsifying coronavirus cases in order to receive more money for caring for the patient.
“These health care providers and others are reimbursed at a higher rate if covid is tied to it, so what do you think they’re doing?” she questioned the crowd.​

What may have started as a debunked conspiracy theory — that doctors are conniving to over-count patients — is now seriously propounded by a U.S. senator (as FactCheck.org reported: "multiple experts told us that such theories of hospitals deliberately miscoding patients as covid-19 are not supported by any evidence”). If anything, the number of official coronavirus cases, as Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has explained, is a fraction of the actual cases.

A question for those in the thread opposing the destruction of the Republican Party: If that Party changed its name to the QAnon Party — which it logically should do at this point — would you still support its continued existence?

 

[marc]

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

I believe the republican ‘tax cuts’ is pretty much a scam. Sure they cut taxes, like under Bush most people got back a couple hundred dollars. Millionaires got back hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile the republicans have to either massively increase the deficit, or cut funding for a bunch of programs that people need. On the state level, with the reduced federal funds coming in they can either let the programs be cut, or make up for it by increasing sales tax, property tax, licensing fees, sewage and utility costs, toll booths. Tax cuts sound nice, but we are actually paying for them one way or another.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

I believe the republican ‘tax cuts’ is pretty much a scam. Sure they cut taxes, like under Bush most people got back a couple hundred dollars. Millionaires got back hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile the republicans have to either massively increase the deficit, or cut funding for a bunch of programs that people need. On the state level, with the reduced federal funds coming in they can either let the programs be cut, or make up for it by increasing sales tax, property tax, licensing fees, sewage and utility costs, toll booths. Tax cuts sound nice, but we are actually paying for them one way or another.

There's no tax cut without a spending cut, and there's been no spending cut. If anything spending indicates that taxes have been raised, or maybe we should just say deferred.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

 

[TomC]

The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

There's another aspect to this.
The Democrats have become the party of fiscal sanity. That used to be a Republican thing, but now it just isn't. Both parties spend a lot. But the Democrats are more "tax and spend", whereas Republicans are more "borrow and spend".

Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

There's another aspect to this.
The Democrats have become the party of fiscal sanity. That used to be a Republican thing, but now it just isn't. Both parties spend a lot. But the Democrats are more "tax and spend", whereas Republicans are more "borrow and spend".

Tom

Completely agree. But there are some on the left that believe that the economic pie is fixed. And when Bill Gates stock portfolio increases by 5%, that is taken from the poor.

 

[ronburgundy]

Avoiding this kind of fracture within the party is precisely why 43 Republican Senators voted to acquit Trump and thereby prove they share his complete lack of regard for Democracy and the rule of law. Conservatism is by definition incompatible with the inevitable progress that happens within a free democracy. Those who seek to conserve the past and traditions and thus oppose change and progress will eventually become so out of step with the majority that their only recourse is to destroy democracy itself. That is what the Trump 2020 campaign and "stop the count" was all about, what continued support for him is all about, and as proven this weekend, what the vast majority of the GOP leadership are all about.

 

[WAB]

I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

It helps to earmark it for something.

I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

The Politics of Donations

NYT's Yeahbuts

 

[Deepak]

I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

Who are these people you're talking about? I can't recall anyone talking about increasing taxes being anything other than a means to collections, which are used to fund programs. I've not encountered anyone saying that taxation is remediation.

I mean, whether you agree with them or not, Dems' spending priorities are not exactly secret or constantly changing.

Most people when asked what their taxes should be will say less than now, and greater than zero.

I'm genuinely baffled by this comment.

 

[Deepak]

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

The Politics of Donations

NYT's Yeahbuts

Honest question, did you read the linked paper, or simply cite the abstract since it was called out in the NYT article? I haven't had the chance to read the article, but I have read this paper before and it doesn't quite support the generalized assessment you're drawing:

Before we discuss our results, it is important to acknowledge that, as with all research, this study is subject to several limitations. First, our measure of philanthropic giving is the aggregate amount of people’s charitable contributions on their tax returns. This is limited for a couple reasons. First, not all people who make charitable donations itemized their tax returns, potentially underestimating the overall level of charitable contributions. However, Deb, Wilhelm, Rooney, and Brown (2003) estimated that itemized contributions account for 60% of total contributions. Second, it is conceivable that itemized donations capture, at least in part, charitable donations that provide high levels of private benefit, such as neighborhood associations, sports clubs, and churches. Likewise, our measure of tax burden is based on itemized returns and does not capture the content and aim of government spending—whether it is redistributive public spending policies or other types of government efforts, such as spending on infrastructure and economic development. Future analysis might link specific types of government spending (e.g., infrastructure or social welfare) with philanthropic behaviors in the community (e.g., donations to religious, education, arts, or social service organizations). Finally, we are not testing how political ideology affects the charitable behavior of households. Rather, we explore a place based phenomenon by aggregating individual-level characteristics to the county level.

 

[TomC]

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also.

In my experience, that's not true.
The reason for confusion concerning statistics is simple. Oftentimes, tax deductible expenditures are referred to as charitable donations. But, here in the USA, most are not. Church tithes are tax deductible, but churches generally spend their income on services for the church community, not charity. Giving money to the local Philharmonic might get you more social status, but it's not charity. Donations to an anti-abortion operation might get you good reviews for your favorite politicians, but it isn't charity.

Then there's all the donations of time and expertise.

Claims that conservatives are more charitable than liberals are, in my experienced opinion, uninformed and self-serving.


Here's the basic difference. Conservative people tend to have a church to support. They give money and time to the church and consider themselves justified. Liberals tend to give to individual causes that they care about. Liberals tend to give to charitable causes, conservatives tend to give in a more self-serving way.
Tom

 

[ronburgundy]

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

It helps to earmark it for something.

I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

Most white conservatives claim they are not racist, but the evidence proves otherwise, thus, most conservatives are full of shit and hide where they really stand.

The Politics of Donations

NYT's Yeahbuts

First, your own article actually refutes your claim. The final sentence of the abstract says, "Ultimately, total levels of redistribution—both private and government—are higher in Democratic-leaning counties."
IOW, Democrats act to redistribute more money toward the poor, they just do so through a combination of charity and passing government programs to help the poor.

In addition, this analysis separates "charity" between giving to one's own religious congregation, vs. giving to more general religious organizations, and giving to non-religious charities.

[P]"We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."[/P]

They find that all the extra "giving" of Republicans is to their own congregations to which they belong. IOW, they are self-servingly "giving" to their own ingroup and to promote their own dogma, and to advance their own political interests, since Churches get away with far more political activities than non-religious non-profits charities do. Also, since we are talking about congregations that appeal to right wing conservatives, some of that "giving" is going towards denying people's human and civil rights (anti-choice and anti-gay laws) and to pay for programs that abuse children, such as gay-conversion therapy and creationist education that lies to kids about science.

 

[Deepak]

Another bit from that NYT article:

Charitable giving does not match government aid
Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

It also bears mentioning again that small scale donations by people who don't itemize is completely ignored. The study simply does not support the conclusion that private charity is better - and in fact if measurement were more accurate, both to capture giving that's not deducted, and remove private benefit write-offs, the mere observation that conservative areas give more to charity is most likely a mirage.

 

[ronburgundy]

It also bears mentioning again that small scale donations by people who don't itemize is completely ignored.

This is really important, especially due to the "religious" vs "non-religious" giving. Giving to one's church on a regular basis is far easier for a person to just estimate at year's end (or just make up) without have to keep constant track of, compared to more sporadic donations to varied causes. Given that churches get exempted from most filing requirement of non-religious charities (like reporting donations or being audited), church donations can be guesstimated by taxpayers without much worry of having good records for it.