I find the idea of what is 'more supportive' of the free market to be a pretty nebulous idea. What if we removed all pollution regulation and allowed companies to irradiate or destroy large swaths of land that other people would have otherwise put to productive purpose? Is that more or less supportive of the free market? What about monopoly protections? Is allowing monopolies more or less free market? I think a better description is that they are both free market neoliberal parties, one of which favors greater regulation and the other less regulation.
But yes, the Democrats in America are way to the right of even many European conservative parties. That's why it's so funny when American conservatives try to label them communists or whatever.
Nope, not seeing any posts in there that say taxing the rich will solve all of soceity's problems. I'm going to need specific quotes.
Take your time.
wiki:
The Forum is best known for its annual meeting in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland. The meeting brings together some 2,500 top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals and journalists to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world, including health and the environment
Uh, NO.
I don't want to hear what corporate executives think is good economic policy. For corporations good economic policy makes the most money for their investors and pays the least money to its employees. They don't give a rats ass about anything else. Perhaps the part where they are a forum of "entrepeneurs" should have given you a clue as what their agenda is?
And for you to use this is trolling of epic proportions!
So if the tax rates are fine, then what is your problem now?
Reading comprehension failure. The tax rates on the rich should be raised significantly, that much is obvious, but I never once said that raising taxes on the rich would be the 'solution to all our problems'. That's just one element of the solution.
See you complain when people call you dumb, but then you keep saying dumb things. What are we supposed to do?
Okay. That's my point.
...give me some examples.
We are committed to an NHS that is free at the point of use and available to everyone based on need, not the ability to pay.
So I will just quote you then. I just proved to you that a significantly higher tax rate on the rich didn't even solve the budget problem, much less any others. Please excuse my use of the word "ALL".
Every time they are tried.
When have conservative economic policies ever worked?
Proof, links?
No one would ever say that such a tax rate would 'solve the budget problem.
You don't understand. When conservative policies fail it's only because they weren't conservative enough. There will never be an admission of failure.
When have conservative economic policies ever worked?
I'm specifically talking about the two main tenants of conservative economic philosophy in the last few decades:
1.) Trickle down economics. Give tax cuts to the rich and corporations, it will trickle down to the common man.
2.) Limited regulations across the board
I hear a lot about how this is what we need to bring back jobs in this country, but have yet to see any modern society prosper with either of these two tenants as the backbone of their economic philosophy. In fact, it appears the facts dictate the exact opposite of this.
But I'm willing to believe I'm wrong, Conservatives here's your chance. Prove me wrong.
Can I hold you to that?
Surely you must admit this is true of both sides.
Well for one example lets look at the UK Conservative Party's policy position on health care:
Their conservative party supports an entirely nationalized, free health care system for all citizens. While some Democrats might want that, the party as a whole was barely able to muster a majority for something hugely to the right.
There is not a single major European conservative party that I am aware of that has a health policy platform to the right of US Democrats on health care.
I'm willing to bet that I can point out a lot more cases where liberals admit a regulation was a bad idea than I can conservatives that will admit a deregulation was a bad idea.
I would wager that this is an effect of what entitlements do. Once they're in place, it's political suicide to remove them. As costs inevitably balloon out of control, the only option is reform. If we transplanted conservatives from the US to Britain, I don't think they would start calling for the removal of NHS, just like those here don't call for the abolishment of Medicare or Social Security.
Of course you can. Any person who believes that changing that one aspect would fix the federal budget is ignorant or stupid. It would be a step in the right direction though.
I don't really care what you try and hold people to however, as you approach this as an argument between fans of a sports team as opposed to things that really matter. You are clearly too dishonest to talk about this in an adult manner.
Perhaps. I bet I could point out a lot more cases where conservatives admit that too little spending was a bad idea than I can liberals that will admit too much spending was a bad idea.
It's kinda hard to have intelligent debate with threads like this anyways. The title alone is enough.
When have conservative economic policies ever worked?
Conservatives cost this country 1.3 billion over debt ceiling debacle
Who hates Obama the most?
I'm a Republican. Ask me anything.
How Republicans sabotaged (and will continue to sabotage) the recovery
I threw a few more in there for good measure. Those are just the recent one.
I agree that this forum doesn't benefit from trolling threads like the ones techs has been making. I hope he stops.
Depends on what you mean by "worked". If you happen to be super wealthy, then it's very likely that conservative economic policies have worked spectacularly over the last decade.
I don't want to hear what corporate executives think is good economic policy. For corporations good economic policy makes the most money for their investors and pays the least money to its employees. They don't give a rats ass about anything else. Perhaps the part where they are a forum of "entrepeneurs" should have given you a clue as what their agenda is?
And for you to use this is trolling of epic proportions!
wiki:
The Forum is best known for its annual meeting in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland. The meeting brings together some 2,500 top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals and journalists to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world, including health and the environment
Uh, NO.
I don't want to hear what corporate executives think is good economic policy. For corporations good economic policy makes the most money for their investors and pays the least money to its employees. They don't give a rats ass about anything else. Perhaps the part where they are a forum of "entrepeneurs" should have given you a clue as what their agenda is?
And for you to use this is trolling of epic proportions!
Actually every time you ask that question people give you multiple examples, to which you come up with excuses as to why they weren't really libertarian or that they weren't really successful by your definition.The two most obvious off the top of my head would be the US pre-FDR and Hong Kong.
That just makes me think you don't really understand what 'libertarianism' claims to be.
Those are your examples of actual libertarian style success stories?