The End of Conservatism

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: treewrestler @ 02/20/2008 9:30:03 PM

    A real conservative (conserves) why is this administration spending more than any in history , on a war over nonexistant W.M.D,s in Iraq weve allready won, we killed Sadam and both his sons, took over the country and set up free elections. I guess weve allready fogotten about Binladen. Aslong as we leave it up to contractors (making BILLIONS) and special interests to tell us when weve won it will take 10,000 years. MISSION ACOMPLISHED!!! good job men.

  • Posted By: treewrestler @ 02/20/2008 9:19:30 PM

    A true conserative (conserves). Why is this administration spending more than any other in history. still fighting a war started over nonexistant W.M.D,s. I thought we won the war after we killed Sadam and both his sons, took over the country and set up free elections. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED right, as long as we leave it up to contractors (making billions) and special interests to decide when weve won this will go on 10,000 years.

  • Posted By: jmland @ 02/20/2008 8:57:41 PM

    What planet is Frum from? Most Americans don't pay very much income tax? "after three decades of tax cutting, most Americans no longer pay very much income tax." Inflation has been tamed, the economy does not seem overregulated...This does not sound like the country I live in!

  • Posted By: Jaded @ 02/20/2008 8:45:59 PM

    I find that conservatives have a problem with Bush only in the amesty bill...but you all at Newsweek and the amensty supporters such as Fred Barnes and the other "elite" open border people who call themselves conservatives would be the only one's saying conservatism is dead......we conservatives out here in the real world...not NY or Washington DC would disagree.

  • Posted By: johnaperry @ 02/18/2008 8:50:34 PM

    It is easy for the chattering classes like Mr. Zakaria to forget that conservatives make up a plurality of this country. The problem is that elected officials get to Washington and live in the coastal liberal world, forgetting what their constituents believe. If you think conservatism is dead, why do the Democrats in Congress have an even lower positive rating than the President? Inside the beltway types like McCain and Sunday show commenators think conservatives are dead because they don't live near any--we are in "fly-over country". However, if you want to know where we went, just look what happened to the Congressional phone system during the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill. By the way, cutting taxes has led to increased government revenues--not lower government revenues, so the idea that the cuts could have been canceled and yielded more revenue is a fallacy. Keep on believing conservatives don't exist and be surprised again on election day like you were in 200 and 2004...Small government, strong defense and freedom will always prevail over the elitist forms of liberal socialism that the left continues to repackage and sell us.

    • Posted By: ceriman @ 02/20/2008 7:46:40 PM

      "Cutting taxes lead to increased government revenues"? Then please explain why the 6 years of Republican control in Washington under the Bush tax cuts lead the the largest deficits in history, and a doubling of the national debt (now at 9 trillion and rising).
      But if you really sincerely think "supply side economics" works, then go to your boss and ask for a pay cut. According to the Laffer Curve you should end up with even more revenue coming in since your boss will make more money!

    • Posted By: acommuterinla @ 02/19/2008 5:49:10 PM

      in what vacuum are you living? the Republican controlled Congress--in G Wubs 1st 6 years was on a spend and take no prisoners budget. A good part of our econmic woes today are directly attributable to supply-side economics. It is impossible to say that tax cuts and increase spending add to more reveunue.

    • Posted By: bobfbell @ 02/18/2008 10:49:40 PM

      Dear Mr. Perry,

      While I agree with you that many Americans agree with bedrock conservative principles on the size of government, defense, etc. the fact of the matter is that many of our most pressing national issues have either been ignored by or given short shrift by elected conservatives. How else to explain the out of control Federal spending, the absence of any meaningful attempt to , at least, explore practical solutions to the crisis in national health care, the aiding and abetting of a, fundamenally, approach to immigration policy which was nothing more than amnesty with no real solution to our open borders.

      My point is that millions of voters like you and me have been electing "conservatives" for years based on a very narrow and incomplete understanding of that philosophy and giving more credence to "theory" rather than reality. Sure, we often have a verfy poor choice of options at the polls but years of voting, over and over, for conservative, has not produced the results we want. In fact, our inertia has contributed to the co-option of conservatives once the get inside the Beltway. Until 2006 they played upon our loyalty to retain power and continue the status quo of "tell 'em what they want to hear and let's maintain the status quo."

      I do not know with the certainty you state that conservatives represent "a plurality." I do know that, in most elections, those registered as "independents" are the swing voters who often make the difference in deciding who wins and loses. My fear this time around is that there are millions of swing voters who have felt betrayed by the empty promises of the past seven years and three election cycles and who now are ready to switch horses because a Republican President and , up until 2006, a Republican controlled Congress failed to address fundamental problems in a responsible way.

      If, in fact, we are about to experience the landslide election many experts predict and if we lose the White House while ceding evenmore of a working majority to the Democrats (notice how many stalwart incumbent "conservative" Senators are retiring? What do they know and we don't?) I believe we face a couple decades as the minority party. And, no matter of justification of past incompetencd of reliance on one issue.....we fight the war on terror better than the liberals!" is going to stem the coming tidal wave.

      Bottom line; we may agree that the conservative agenda, by and large is superion in theory to the option, but to far too many Americans the label "conservative has negative connotations.

  • Posted By: bethyb @ 02/20/2008 3:34:02 PM

    My generation (age 28) is facing a whole host of problems that conservatives won't confront or summarily dismiss: global warming, the national debt that we are inheriting, Social Security (privatization is not the answer), education costs and corrupt student loan companies, the health care crisis, the cost of the Iraq War ($690 billion and counting), economic inequality, young people's debt, and what to do about gay marriage. The answer to all of these issues cannot just be "cut taxes," "deport," and "deregulate". These answers are utterly insufficient and even damaging, and I believe Americans, especially young Americans, are beginning to see that. 61% of Americans want out of Iraq-- completely out-- within a year. There is only one party willing to address the will of the people (not just special interests and rich folks) and that is the Democrats.

    • Posted By: lillea @ 02/20/2008 4:08:41 PM

      Conservatives are your best friend. Unfortunately, everything can't be fixed with the click of a button. You couldn't ask for people that love America more and are more determined to keep you safe. If you recall, our nation is one of the very few that hasn't been attacked by terrorists in 7 years. You have a conservative president to thank for that. I know you have brain washed into hating him, but he has kept us safe. He may not be a very good speaker, but he loves this land and has taken a lot of abuse from within and without to keep us safe. You can lay your head on your pillow every night with confidence that there are very good people working very hard to keep us safe. When you consider all the other stuff you mentioned, it is just a perk for living in a safe and free nation.

      • Posted By: ceriman @ 02/20/2008 7:24:30 PM

        I credit the military, the FBI, CIA, and the local police for keeping us safe, not the incompetents at the top. After all, if the Bush Administration had not distracted the military with a needless 2nd war, they could have kept their aim on Al Quada and we might have seen the end of that malignant organization. We also have someone in the Bush administration who treasonously outed a covert CIA operative, simply to get some political revenge. More recently, the Bush administration threatened to veto a security bill if it didn't make the Telecom companies immune from prosecution - protecting big companies is more important to Bush han protecting the people.

      • Posted By: spbach @ 02/20/2008 4:47:49 PM

        I disagree. The absolutely groundless war in Iraq has provided grist for the Islamists mill. So rather than helping us ot be safe, I contend that the forign policy of this president has made us less safe y providing perhaps the Islamists there best recruiting tool. The terrorists that the president would have us loose so much sleep fretting over are stateless groups without the resources of a full state. As such their attacks, while extremely painful can not be as frontal as an military attack by a foreign state. Nor can their attacks be avoided by military action. These groups are basically criminal gangs. And if you don't think criminal gangs don't use terror tactics just look at Mexico where narco gangs use terror to intimidate public and police alike. As criminals, law enforcement is the answer. What the President doesn't like is that international law enforcement takes international cooperation which doesn't seem to be his strong suit. Now if we get a state activily assisting a terrorist group like Afganistan, then there are certainly more drastic measures that can be used.

  • Posted By: Chaotician @ 02/16/2008 8:11:34 PM

    How ironic that one of the oldest "Conservatives" in congress is viewed as the liberal conservative needed to recover the image. This is one republican, ex, that is doing all that he can to make conservatism, The Republican Party, and especially the so-called Christian...Right footnotes of this despicable regime that encapsulates all that is wrong, immoral, and corrupt in our society! McCain is the best of the worst and a poor choice to lead the nation into the new world of the 21st century; we are certainly in no world that bears any resemblance to that of the imperialistic nation states of Europe or the communist nations of China and USSR; using policies and ideas for such times is a receipt for more disasters like that perpetrated by George and Dick!

    • Posted By: Twister52 @ 02/17/2008 4:04:35 PM

      No, you're definitely not a Republican any more. Republicans don't have all the answers but the increasingly "take care of me" attitude of sooooo many Democrats combined with their "the war on terror is unnecessary" perspective shows that the Democrats are even more lost than the GOP. I find it ironic that your log-in name reveals what would happen if America threw away her conservative values and fully embraced the ideals of contemprary Democratic thinking.......chaos.

      • Posted By: Cazador72 @ 02/18/2008 12:30:31 AM

        Twister, that is a load of baloney. No Democrat would tell you that the "war on terror is unnecessary". What we say is that it needs to be rational and focused. When we attack a country where Al qaeda was not, run our military into the ground and divert our attention from where Bin Laden actually is, then you we are getting away from the objective. Remember this, in Iraq we are not fighting the war on terror, we are fighting Bush's war for his own legacy.

        As far as the take-care-of-me mentality. Please realize that government subsidies have not stopped, they are going to the healthcare , the drug and the oil industries. Three industries that have reported record profits in the last seven years. Yes, we are actually subsidizing companies making record profits!!!

        • Posted By: AdirondackAl @ 02/18/2008 1:04:19 PM

          But we spend far more subsidizing people who do nothing but vote Democrat every four years.

          • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/20/2008 7:03:13 PM

            Source? And wasn't it President Clinton who restricted welfare benefits, effectively ending the era of the career dole-taker? I call shenanigans (because it's nicer than the real definition of your post).

  • Posted By: Patrick May @ 02/20/2008 5:43:12 PM

    Republicans are not Conservatives, they just play that role on TV. Real Conservatives want limited government, strong defense, and lower taxes. Repulicans are caught up in social engineering becuase they sold their conservative roots to the Christian right. Real Conservatives don't care about abortion or gay marriage. They only care about immigation if the people coming here want to work...and they do.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/20/2008 5:51:35 PM

      Well said, and exactly why I left the Republican party. Neocons tout "freedom" because it sells, but they're for anything but.

  • Posted By: Spacer @ 02/20/2008 5:44:11 PM

    "Political ideologies do not exist in a vacuum. They need to meet the problems of the world as it exists. Ordinary conservatives understand this, which may be why???despite the urgings of their ideological gurus???they have voted for McCain. He seems to understand that a new world requires new thinking."

    What McCain seems to "understand" is that the world requires new wars. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

  • Posted By: smugamer @ 02/20/2008 5:44:10 PM

    Comments like this are the reason I will never trust right-wing nuts to run our country.

    For the past 7 years, your type has this incredibly annoying habit of insisting that anyone who disagrees with President Bush in any way hates this country. That's the entire Republican party line. Yet every single one of you did nothing but disagree and trash Clinton when he was president. You support hypocrisy in its worst form, and now you're running scared because it's not working anymore.

    Every man makes mistakes. Bush I made mistakes. Clinton made mistakes. And yes, George W has made mistakes. The difference is--George W has made ALOT of them. Partisan blinders don't change that.

    The sad reality for people like you is, the majority of this country is finally waking up to the fact that how a president handles management of the United States is more important than whether he is a Republican or Democrat. It took George W Bush bungling things so badly to make them see that, but they do.

    I don't care about what party our president is in. I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat if he was competent--but it's going to take a hell of a performance to win back my vote after Bush II. II want competence in our coutnry's leader. Bush has been incredibly incompetent.

    Oh, and by the way... I love this country and our soldiers. The Bush administration has done wrong by both. It's not unpatriotic to question your leaders, as you'd acknowledge if you looked back at everything your blind partisans threw at Clinton when he was president. The entire Republican senate was trashing him while our soldiers were in Kosovo. Support our troops, indeed.

    I'm sick of incompetence. I'm sick of stupidity. And I'm sick of right-wing nut jobs like you telling me I'm a traitor to this country because I think we deserve a leader with some intelligence and integrity.

    Take the partisan blinders off. Judge our presidents by what they do instead of what party they call home. Whoever wins in November--Obama, Clinton, or McCain--I expect competence, and most of this country is the same. So keep living in your small little right-wing partisan nut job world. The rest of us will live in the real one.

  • Posted By: JiminPuyallup @ 02/20/2008 5:25:24 PM

    One truth is that liberals would rather fight their own countrymen, than those who wish to do us harm,, sad very sad. What a country we will have if they win, sad.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/20/2008 5:32:58 PM

      Your statement is pitifully ironic. It's the conservatives who have declared war on women and homosexuals, the poor, teachers, scientists and non-Christians (oh - right - you don't consider any of those your "countrymen," do you?). Never mind. To many of us, it's the conservatives who wish to do us harm. Sad, indeed.

  • Posted By: forgiven99 @ 02/20/2008 5:25:01 PM

    When the Republicans were winning elections there was talk of the end of liberalism and a permanent "Republican Majority". Now that the Democrats are winning geniuses such as Fareed Zakaria are talking about the end of conservatism and a permanent "Democratic Majority". The Democrats will have their chance to mess up our economy and country soon enough; then people will vote for Republicans again. It's a vicious cycle never to be broken.

  • Posted By: JiminPuyallup @ 02/20/2008 5:14:21 PM

    Did it ever occur to people that the idea of liberalism is the one that is out dated? Wow as far as the people who view liberalism as being popular and any one who says otherwise as being wack jobs need to look no farteher than their mirrors to know what is true. IAs it turns out if you agree with the left than you're in and if you don't than you must be the devil or just insane. What about them being the party of inclusion, what a lie. Idiots!

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/20/2008 5:23:35 PM

      It is encouraging, though, how much more courteous liberals are in their discourse. Must mean they don't have to resort to name-calling to make the merits of their positions clear, eh?

  • Posted By: forgiven99 @ 02/20/2008 5:21:18 PM

    You know, when the Republicans were winning, there was word of a permanent "Republican Majority". Well, that didn' t happen. Now the Democrats are winning and they are talking about the end of conservatism and a permanent "Democratic Majority." This will also prove false in time. Democrats will have their chance to mess up our economy and our way of life and then people will vote Republican again. Then the Republicans will screw it up and back we go again to the Dems. It's a never ending cycle.

  • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/20/2008 5:15:21 PM

    Where conservatism blew it for me was when it shifted from fiscal responsibility to promoting religion and a narrow view of "morality." The Clinton witch hunt was the last straw for me - I left the Republican party in the late 1990s and am now a strong supporter of Barack Obama. If Republicans can stay the heck out of people's bedrooms, and return to a focus on (first getting, then) keeping this country healthy, I'll give them a second look. Until then, I can only hope *social* conservatism will come to be seen as just another failed experiment.

  • Posted By: gsb12 @ 02/20/2008 5:14:46 PM

    Edmund Burke, a political theorist writing at the time of the French Revolution, watched the liberal french revolution "destroy the good with the bad." The modern conservative functions as an anchor, keeping the Left grounded in reality, so that rampant 'progress' doesnt destroy the good with the bad. As long as the Left continues to view 'change' as the answer to everything(change for the sake of change), there will also be a strong conservative movement in America

  • Posted By: dknowlton75075 @ 02/20/2008 5:10:12 PM

    A man stands to the side of a house and describes his view. Another man stands on the other side and describes his. What they describe is different because they are looking at the house from two different points of view. If they were to compare notes they might accuse the other of misrepresenting what the house looks like. They might even call each other idiots and nincompoops. Rational people however would realize that they are both looking at the same barn and be able to put the two views together to create a more complete picture.

    People are so busy blaming everyone but themselves for this mess we're in. That is a recipe for disaster. If my business operated this way we would go out of business. When we have a problem at work, we all get together and figure out what the solution is and go fix it. We do that over and over again and each day build our business stronger. We are led by the desire to serve our customers, value our people, operate with integrity, reward our stockholders, and contribute to our community. Does this sound like our federal government?

    In politics, we argue, point fingers, and make accusations -- we do everything accept come up with a viable solution to what ails us. If a Democrat comes up with a good idea, then a Republican shoots him down and calls him socialist or communtist or liberal or in support of big government. If a Republican comes with a good idea then a Democrat calls him a fascist or a rascist or greedy or in support of big business. It's pretty sad that we can't come together as AMERICANS and agree on a win-win solution. Enough of this Liberal vs. Conversative nonsense. Wake up people!!!! UNITED WE STAND... DIVIDED WE FALL.

    In President Washington's farewell address, he warned against parties because of the divisions they would cause amongst us:

    "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration...agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one...against another...it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

    Excerpts taken from --> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

  • Posted By: bfp9130 @ 02/18/2008 1:26:38 PM

    Great quote laduca74, we also should teach a ton more history as well. So many know more about American Idol, than they know about our founding fathers. We forget hisory and repeat it constantly, you would think that some day we would learn. The day that conservatism dies is the day that this country ceases to be the country our founding fathers built. I shudder at the idea. Do we want to end up like France?

    • Posted By: mnjam @ 02/18/2008 1:53:31 PM

      May God forbid. The French produce more per man hour than the US. They have much lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates at all ages, while spending less than half of what we do on health care, even though the portion of their population over 65 is significantly higher than ours. Awful. It's awful.

      • Posted By: rrdalton @ 02/18/2008 11:48:06 PM

        1) No, they do not produce more than us - close but not as much (http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL) Moreover, French productivity is significantly overstated as a result of their appalling unemployment rate (if the USA fired the bottom 5% of its workers or France created jobs for its excess unemployed, the gap in productivity would become even wider in our favor - we just prefer to pay people to work even if they are a little less productive than their co-workers, France just keeps them on the dole),

        Of course, it could also be that French productivity looks good for the same reason their infant mortality rate looks so good... they fudge the numbers. Read this (http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm) to find that they simply do not count inconveniently premature births in their statistics. Same for a bunch of the other supposedly superior healthcare systems around the world.

        By the way, infant mortality statistics disproportionately impact life expectancy rates, so overall, it looks like everything you "know" is WRONG

        • Posted By: mnjam @ 02/19/2008 9:07:54 AM

          P.S. French life expectancy is higher than ours at all ages, not simply at birtth. An average 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 yo French person has a longer life expectancy than an average American. The same is true for the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia, Canada. Low life expectancy in the US cannot be ascribed to our third world infant mortality rates. How you can defend those is also beyond me. Are you proud? You are a typical CONSERVATIVE. Anti-fact, anti-science, anti-American.

          • Posted By: rrdalton @ 02/19/2008 4:08:53 PM

            mnjam

            Clearly you are the challenged party in this exchange when it comes to being anti-fact, science, and American (and if this is the best reply you can muster, you are rhetorically challenged as well). Life expectancy statistics for every age are affected by every premature death and the earlier the premature death the more it changes the life expectancy estimate for the entire population ??? to quote the WHO website, ???Life expectancy at birth reflects the overall mortality level of a population. It summarizes the mortality pattern that prevails across all age groups - children and adolescents, adults and the elderly.???

            As for ???defending ??? USA infant mortality statistics ( a really pathetic straw man, by the way) ??? yes, I defend them as more accurate, honest, and useful than the practices of other countries which arbitrarily ignore the reality of thousands of live births, especially if they do so to misrepresent the effectiveness of their health care system. Are you defending the practice of pretending that a live birth was a still birth?

            PS ??? regarding your little tirade about productivity data, it is interesting conjecture but not a viable argument. You assume that the change in exchange rates occurred in a vacuum - that nothing else changed in the equations that are used to generate productivity statistics. No change in hours worked, no change in the price of goods and services produced, no change in the quantity of goods and services produced, no change in employment rates, etc. As for the article on phantom GDP, even the author refers to the tenuousness of its calculations due to the lack of data.

            If you have contrary data specifically on labor productivity where the two nations are compared on the basis of widely recognized standards in a report generated by a reasonably objective source, please, bring them on. Until then, the 2006 OEDC data stands

            • Posted By: mnjam @ 02/20/2008 11:29:07 AM

              No, you don' get. Life expectancy can be calculated at birth AND at every age thereafter. Life expectancy at 65 is how long the average 65 year old will live. It has nothing to do with infants who died before reaching 65.

              Exchange rates are quite real, as anyone with any business experience knows. There is no reason to believe that US output increased enough to make up for the decline of the dollar from $1.20 to $1.45 per Euro.. Moreover, Business Week is an entirely credible source for the proposition that US GDP is being overstated, whether in 2006 or 2007.

              • Posted By: rrdalton @ 02/20/2008 5:07:37 PM

                Regarding the infant mortality and life expectancy data, I provided a link to an article that eviscerates the commonly used statistics about USA/French infant mortality. As you have not questioned that, I will not belabor the point and move on to the life expectancy data.

                You state, ???Life expectancy can be calculated at birth AND at every age thereafter.??? This is essentially true but not necessarily germane. Large scale life expectancy information (as opposed to, for example, an insurance company???s data on its policy holders)is limited by the availability of comprehensive, reliable, and comparable mortality data, not to mention limited resources for processing that data. Instead, the WHO and other organizations produce life tables based on estimation MODELS THAT ARE INDEXED TO LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH DATA. WHO has repeatedly revised their methodology to reduce the impact of infant mortality but every set of explanatory notes I find on their website concedes that it is a factor.

                Nonetheless, I will make this minor concession to you ??? in the absence of valid infant mortality data from the French, I cannot assume that, if their actual infant mortality rates were compiled, their life expectancy data would change enough to equalize the difference with the USA at any or all age category. However, I make that concession easily because it is not particularly relevant. Why not? Life expectancy data, at any age, is just an estimate - an estimate with a margin of error, depending on the source, of around 2-3%.

                Run through whatever source you are using at whatever age categories you choose and you will find that virtually all the life expectancy data for all modern Western nations fit within the margin of error. So, (please pardon this straw man ??? turnabout is fair play) apparently your argument is that we should fire five percent of our workforce, decrease our average income over 25%, and lower our GDP by a whopping $3.6 trillion (based on per capita GDP) in order to secure the benefits of a healthcare system that may OR may not extend our lives. I will pass on that offer.
                nter Your Comment

              • Posted By: rrdalton @ 02/20/2008 5:06:56 PM

                Let???s start at the beginning ??? you contested another writer???s assertion that we do not want to be like France (I interpret that in the context of a discussion of political systems ??? not an indictment of French culture but of French government) and made three statements that you apparently believed were factual, defensible, and bolster an apparent belief that the policies and practices of the USA are inferior to those of France. These statements were: ???The French produce more per man hour than the US,??? they have ???lower infant mortality rates,??? and they have ???higher life expectancy rates.??? You elaborated in your support of the French healthcare system but I have not yet contested those assertions ??? just the three mentioned above.

                I have countered your productivity statement as both unsupported by the data and because it does not really bolster your contention. I have countered your statements about infant mortality and life expectancy as not defensible and, I am adding as a counterpoint the assertion that they do not really support your contention either.

                Regarding productivity, the most recent available data simply differs with your statement. You have posited an interesting and even plausible supposition that the data will change with the completion of the 2007 analysis (although France???s history of low growth in real GDP and current labor unrest makes this dubious). However, there are many factors that go into the productivity numbers and until they are evaluated by people with skills and resources that neither of us has available, your original assertion remains unsupported. (By the way, I do not question Business Weeks credibility ??? in fact I concur with them - that their estimate of phantom GDP is not based on enough data to be reliable, that other factors may mitigate phantom GDP and that $66 billion in phantom GDP since 2003 is not huge ??? especially compared to something close to $50 trillion in GDP for the three years covered.)

                More significant, however, is that you have not responded to the matter of why French productivity data does not support your overarching assertion of French superiority. High unemployment rates (France has averaged around 9% for most of this century and worse in the decade before) inflate productivity numbers and high unemployment is widely recognized as a strong indication that a government???s economic policies are failing. France is far behind the US in a multitude of other economic indicators (GDP per capita and real growth rate for examples). You have completely failed to make a believable case that French economic policies are preferable.
                (continued next post)

        • Posted By: mnjam @ 02/19/2008 9:02:15 AM

          WRONG, rrdalton.

          The link provided shows French GDP of $49.4/hr and US GDP of $50.4/hr AT THE END OF 2006.

          Since the end of 2006,, the Euro has gone from around $1.20 to around $1.45 (Google it), thanks to good CONSERVATIVE government. Therefore, French GDP/hour is now considerably higher than ours.

          Moreover, it is increasingly clear that US GDP is being overstated and needs to be adjusted downwards for the past several years. As Business Week reported in July: BusinessWeek's analysis of the import price data reveals offshoring to low-cost countries is in fact creating "phantom GDP, " reported gains in GDP that don't correspond to any actual domestic production. www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_25/b4039001.htm?chan=search See also: S. Houseman, Outsourcing, Offshoring, and Productivity Measurement in U.S. Manufacturing. www.upjohninst.org/publications/wp/06-130.pdf

          In short, French GDP/hour is CONSIDERABLY HIGHER than US GDP/hour.

          CONSERVATISM: anti-fact, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-American.

      • Posted By: bfp9130 @ 02/18/2008 3:22:18 PM

        I would like to see the stats on that claim. US productivity is unmatched. As for health care. I everyone started buying their own you would see a crash in cost never seen in human history. Markets always provie things for least cost. Have you read anything behind the riots in France? + I do belive their unemployment rate is in the 8-10% range. Is that taken into account in your stat?

        • Posted By: mnjam @ 02/19/2008 9:21:04 AM

          I'm self-employed. I buy my own. The price did not crash. It is HIGHER for people who buy their own, as expected from a government subsidized oligopoly. We do no have a free market in health care. We have a choice. (1) Go back to a free market by abolishing insurance, all care to be paid with cash on the barrel or by charity. (2) To have an insurance system which can and does force providers to compete on cost and quality, which an oligopoly of private carriers will not and cannot do.

        • Posted By: howdy @ 02/19/2008 2:49:26 AM

          Its true when everyone does start buying health care the price crashes. Just look at oh Canada or Western Europe. Everyone buys health care through the government and they pay 1/3 less of their GDP to cover eveyone and get better health outcomes. Besides I'd rather trust the goverment to cough up the 200K for my life saving op, rather than hoping some insurance corp will pay out 200K of THEIR money to save my life.

  • Posted By: edpeepers @ 02/20/2008 4:57:53 PM

    lillea: I have a conservative president to thank for terrorists not attacking us in the last 7 years? Um, Sept 11, 2001? That was less than 7 years ago, lest ye forget, and under the not-so-secure eye of a... you guessed it, conservative president!

    No, times they are a changing. Democrats need to stop defending themselves with this "contrary to popular belief" stuff -- they ARE the popular belief! Only a few wacky people clinging to the past seriously think that Democrats are loveless, lawless, God-haters. Stop taking the trolls seriously and stand up for yourselves.

    For what it's worth, I'm an independent and not a big fan of either party, but it's nice to see most of the conservatives and liberals finally uprooting a little bit so we can work together and actually fix things for a little while. I know most folks out there are reasonable people, so don't let the extremists get you down. :)

  • Posted By: clifore @ 02/20/2008 4:52:08 PM

    Part of the problem with conservatism is that even conservatives don't know what it is. Conservatives used to be opposed to government intrusion into personal privacy. Now most conservatives support warantless spying, certainly a betrayal of their principles. Conservatives used to support a balanced budget, now they never meet a tax cut they don't like, whether the country can afford it or not. Just what is a conservative anyway?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse