Huckabee on taxes

[BucEyedPea]

No running away from this video.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_pLOC4krZI4&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_pLOC4krZI4&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Adept Havelock]

Like Sam Brownback, he wants to use the Government to "save the American family".

Big-Government "conservatism"? No thanks.

[Iowanian]

He wants to tax a product, that costs the tax payer money in health costs? Ok


Obama came out that he wants to raise the SS tax on all of us who work............

[Adept Havelock]

He wants to tax a product, that costs the tax payer money in health costs? Ok


Obama came out that he wants to raise the SS tax on all of us who work............


Last time I checked, Obama wasn't claiming to be a "Conservative". Huckabee is. :shrug:

I'll never understand this new-fangled "Big-Government Conservatism", and I'm rather glad that I don't.

[Chief Faithful]

Like Sam Brownback, he wants to use the Government to "save the American family".

Big-Government "conservatism"? No thanks.

Is your issue with 'Big Government' or conservatism?

I'm in agreement with you only because I don't like big government be it conservative or liberal. This trend toward big government conservatism makes me feel like there is no choice. The choice appears to be vote for big intrusive government or vote for bigger more intrusive goverment.

[Adept Havelock]

Is your issue with 'Big Government' or conservatism?


As I said, my problem is with so-called Big Government "Conservatism".

Seems quite clear to me. :shrug:

[Nightfyre]

As I said, my problem is with so-called Big Government "Conservatism".

Seems quite clear to me. :shrug:
It is mind boggling, isn't it? The paradox of big government conservatism, I mean. The only worse thing for me is how deeply rooted it has become in the Republican agenda.

[Adept Havelock]

It is mind boggling, isn't it? The paradox of big government conservatism, I mean. The only worse thing for me is how deeply rooted it has become in the Republican agenda.


Just another reason I've always refused to join a political party.

Damn, I love living in an open-primary state! I can tell the GOP and Dems to GFY, yet still have my say in the candidates they choose. PBJ

[patteeu]

It is mind boggling, isn't it? The paradox of big government conservatism, I mean. The only worse thing for me is how deeply rooted it has become in the Republican agenda.

It's not really all that mind boggling if you realize that it's not paradoxical. "Conservatism" is not a well defined term. During the 80's and 90's it came to be characterized by 3 main categories of ideological belief: (1) small government, (2) traditional values, and (3) strong defense. Many people consider themselves conservative primarily because of one or two of the three. I consider myself pretty conservative even though I'm a mixed bag on the traditional values. Ron Paul supporters have discarded (or at least redefined) the strong defense pillar (and many of the supporters are questionable on the traditional values pillar). Guys like Huckabee consider traditional values and strong defense to be the primary characteristics of conservatism.

[Chief Faithful]

As I said, my problem is with so-called Big Government "Conservatism".

Seems quite clear to me. :shrug:

That is what I thought based on your previous posts, but I was drawn off by the Obama defense. But, you are correct at least Obama does not pretend to be anything other than solution by big government candidate.

So what is worse a candidate that is truthful about his big government ambitions or the guy that claims to be conservative and proposes intrusive government solutions? For me I look for the least of two evils by seeking the candidate with the overall platform that is most libertarian and in the absence of libertarian the more conservative. Liberal big government makes me very afraid.

[Chief Faithful]

It is mind boggling, isn't it? The paradox of big government conservatism, I mean. The only worse thing for me is how deeply rooted it has become in the Republican agenda.

My concern is power corrupts good morals. Now that the Republicans have tasted the power that comes with big government how can it be turned?

[Chief Faithful]

It's not really all that mind boggling if you realize that it's not paradoxical. "Conservatism" is not a well defined term. During the 80's and 90's it came to be characterized by 3 main categories of ideological belief: (1) small government, (2) traditional values, and (3) strong defense. Many people consider themselves conservative primarily because of one or two of the three. I consider myself pretty conservative even though I'm a mixed bag on the traditional values. Ron Paul supporters have discarded (or at least redefined) the strong defense pillar (and many of the supporters are questionable on the traditional values pillar). Guys like Huckabee consider traditional values and strong defense to be the primary characteristics of conservatism.

You just made Huckabee sound like GW Bush. Do you believe that Regan is the reason for these three pillars? I do not remember Regan being overly successful with reducing government spending although he did reduce regulation.

[BucEyedPea]

All the Pub candidates, except one, are pretty much Bush clones, imo. That is how he is now ruling, not all based on what he promised: a more humble fp.

I somewhat agree with Pat's definition of conservatism....I just think it takes specifics as to how those three play out as conservativism, most particularly if they are done via the limitations placed upon govt by the Constitution. This is really Paul's position. It's the modern conservatives today that have re-redefined it—not Paul.

This also omits the history of the movement which arose more clearly during FDR in opposition to FDR. On defense and foreign policy the traditional, historical stands were not based on what we're seeing today: pre-emptive war, nation building etc. The conservatives were the true "classical liberals" in the earlier part of the 20th century, even before, particularly before fp began morphing under McKinley-TR-Wilson etc. It can be looked up and verified.

[Adept Havelock]

So what is worse a candidate that is truthful about his big government ambitions or the guy that claims to be conservative and proposes intrusive government solutions?

IMO, it's the guy who does the latter, as I see Huckabee doing. :shrug:

As you said, Obama isn't pretending to be anything but a "Big Government" guy. Huckabee seems to want to use the government for his own version of Social Engineering, he just won't admit to it.

[patteeu]

You just made Huckabee sound like GW Bush. Do you believe that Regan is the reason for these three pillars? I do not remember Regan being overly successful with reducing government spending although he did reduce regulation.

I think there are a lot of similarities between GWBush and Huckabee in this regard.

Yes, I think Reagan is largely responsible for defining the conservatism of the last 30 years. He didn't have much success in the traditional values area either. But he did have an impact on political culture. Before Reagan, "conservatism" wasn't the favorable label it has become and "liberal" wasn't widely viewed as negative. He also had a huge impact on the way Americans think about taxation.

[Cochise]

Before Reagan, "conservatism" wasn't the favorable label it has become and "liberal" wasn't widely viewed as negative.

But once people saw conservatism in contrast with the sweater years of the Carter administration, liberal became a pejorative. That is significant.

[patteeu]

All the Pub candidates, except one, are pretty much Bush clones, imo. That is how he is now ruling, not all based on what he promised: a more humble fp.

If the Iraq war is the only issue you look at, you might have something there. If not, you have to contend with the fact that there are significant differences between individual candidates and Bush (e.g. Guiliani is pro choice and Bush is pro life; McCain wants to close Guantanamo, Bush hasn't.).

I somewhat agree with Pat's definition of conservatism....I just think it takes specifics as to how those three play out as conservativism, most particularly if they are done via the limitations placed upon govt by the Constitution. This is really Paul's position. It's the modern conservatives today that have re-redefined it—not Paul.

This also omits the history of the movement which arose more clearly during FDR in opposition to FDR. On defense and foreign policy the traditional, historical stands were not based on what we're seeing today: pre-emptive war, nation building etc. The conservatives were the true "classical liberals" in the earlier part of the 20th century, even before, particularly before fp began morphing under McKinley-TR-Wilson etc. It can be looked up and verified.

What you call my definition isn't something that reflects my philosophy, it's something that reflects the way the American public have generally understood of the term since the so-called Reagan Revolution.

You can complain that the big government defense policy of Reagan and other cold warriors wasn't really true conservatism all you want, but in the general parlance, it came to be one of three pillars of what people think of as conservatism thanks to Reagan.

Whatever conservatism meant at the dawn of time or back in the days of FDR and his opposition, it now effectively means some combination of the 3 things I described in my previous post. Ron Paul is trying to change that public perception. Part of that effort involves trying to recast the strong national defense pillar of Reagan's conservatism as an evil and counterproductive plot of the neocons and (IMO disingenuously) conflating those policies with the big government tendencies of recent Republican officeholders.

[patteeu]

But once people saw conservatism in contrast with the sweater years of the Carter administration, liberal became a pejorative. That is significant.

I agree. That's what I was trying to say.

[Nightfyre]

I guess my definition of conservatism is pre-reagan and that is what makes it a paradox for me.

[patteeu]

I guess my definition of conservatism is pre-reagan and that is what makes it a paradox for me.

If your goal is to understand what others are trying to say, I recommend trying to take into account generally accepted definitions of terms in addition to your own idiosyncratic alternatives.

I'd expand on my previous post by saying that of the three pillars, traditional values seems to be the one that most quickly gets you labeled as a right winger or an ultra conservative.

[Nightfyre]

If your goal is to understand what others are trying to say, I recommend trying to take into account generally accepted definitions of terms in addition to your own idiosyncratic alternatives.

I'd expand on my previous post by saying that of the three pillars, traditional values seems to be the one that most quickly gets you labeled as a right winger or an ultra conservative.
Well, conservatism is relative, not necessarily what you defined either. Conservatism is
The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.

[BucEyedPea]

...own idiosyncratic alternatives.
They're not mine and only appear idiosyncratic to those uninformed of history. There are shades of conservativism.

[banyon]

They're not mine and only appear idiosyncratic to those uninformed of history. There are shades of conservativism.

It's been a rough day for ya on the forum, so I won't point out some of your more interesting "informed" historical references. :)

[patteeu]

Well, conservatism is relative, not necessarily what you defined either. Conservatism is

*irrelevant definition removed*

They're not mine and only appear idiosyncratic to those uninformed of history.

I see no real reason to argue with either of you about this. I explained why people who are considered to be "conservative" by the mainstream don't necessarily have to be in favor of small government. You can ignore the truth if you want or you can argue that that definition is impure or ahistorical (over the longer term) if you'd like, but the fact remains that what I've described is an accurate reflection of the way the term has come to be used over the past few decades.

There's really no need to get defensive about this. It's not like I'm saying that this 3-pronged definition is good and your definitions are bad. I'm just trying to help you both understand the world outside your respective heads just a little bit better.

[Adam]

No running away from this video.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_pLOC4krZI4&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_pLOC4krZI4&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Holy crap!

[BucEyedPea]

Argument or no argument, if you did your research, you'd find what I posted to be generally correct.

[patteeu]

Argument or no argument, if you did your research, you'd find what I posted to be generally correct.

Your trip down ancient memory lane is irrelevant to the point I was making. And it's irrelevant to the topic of Mike Huckabee. If you do some research on what this thread has been about, you'll find that I'm generally correct.

[Baby Lee]

It's not really all that mind boggling if you realize that it's not paradoxical. "Conservatism" is not a well defined term. During the 80's and 90's it came to be characterized by 3 main categories of ideological belief: (1) small government, (2) traditional values, and (3) strong defense. Many people consider themselves conservative primarily because of one or two of the three. I consider myself pretty conservative even though I'm a mixed bag on the traditional values. Ron Paul supporters have discarded (or at least redefined) the strong defense pillar (and many of the supporters are questionable on the traditional values pillar). Guys like Huckabee consider traditional values and strong defense to be the primary characteristics of conservatism.
I don't disagree, except that to my naive teenage eye, the Reagan years were more about limited government and strong defense, with; first off, a wary alliance with 'traditional values' interests, and second, a stance on 'traditional values' that was more 'stop disrespecting our values even if you find them stuffy and outdated' than 'we need to transform society to our vision of values.'

The profile of 'traditional values' in the conservative movement was claimed by traditional values warriors as they became more and more influential in bringing out the vote. They weren't the core of what Reagan was seeking to establish.

It's the problem of power. Having people respect your views is no longer enough. Now they need to follow them.

[BucEyedPea]

Your trip down ancient memory lane is irrelevant to the point I was making. And it's irrelevant to the topic of Mike Huckabee. If you do some research on what this thread has been about, you'll...

My trip down memory lane? ROFL You even diss history when it doesn't agree with your pov. It's not irrelevant. It's very material to conservativism or at least how it was at one time: limited govt. It shows how the movement arose, changed and came to what it is today. It is called pale-conservativism now. It is also not irrelevant to Huckabee either as it addresses taxes, low ones, being part of conservativism. It's only "irrelevant" to you because you can't confront the truth.

Do reasearch on my own thread? Wow! Pat, you really getting desperate...this my thread on Huckabee and taxes. I think "big govt conservativism" came up as a point within it by a poster. A relevant, and accurate description to many.

[patteeu]

My trip down memory lane? ROFL You even diss history when it doesn't agree with your pov. It's not irrelevant. It's very material to conservativism or at least how it was at one time: limited govt. It shows how the movement arose, changed and came to what it is today. It is called pale-conservativism now. It is also not irrelevant to Huckabee either as it addresses taxes, low ones, being part of conservativism. It's only "irrelevant" to you because you can't confront the truth.

Do reasearch on my own thread? Wow! Pat, you really getting desperate...this my thread on Huckabee and taxes. I think "big govt conservativism" came up as a point within it by a poster. A relevant, and accurate description to many.

It's irrelevant to my explanation of why some people consider Mike Huckabee a conservative despite his shortcomings in the "small government" area. Your thread or not, if you'd pay a little more attention to what's actually being said instead of what you want to respond to, you'd have known that.

[BucEyedPea]

Rolling Stone has an article on Huckabee which covers his taxes which RS actuall likes about him.


For Huckabee, such lines aren't just lip service. As governor of Arkansas, he outraged Republicans with his plan to expand health coverage for children, his embrace of refugees from Katrina and his support for subsidized higher education for the children of illegal immigrants. Worse still, from a Republican standpoint, Huckabee showed little hesitation in raising taxes to pay for such programs — one analysis claims that new taxes initiated during his tenure resulted in a net tax increase of $505 million. Even Max Brantley, editor of the Arkansas Times and one of Huckabee's most ferocious critics, concedes that the candidate's populism isn't an act. "I don't question his sincerity on that," he says of Huckabee, who, like Bill Clinton, grew up in modest circumstances. "He identifies with ordinary people."

Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17324246/matt_taibbi_on_mike_huckabee_our_favorite_rightwing_nut_job/2)

Don't mind the ordinary people part, depending on how it's done though makes a difference to me.

He's not good for illegal immigration.

He's also an Armageddonite. I didn't care for the article dissing his religious beliefs, since most wouldn't effect policy but I do about the Armageddon stand.

[Baby Lee]

Pithy

The news is worse for liberals, who want to transform people, than it is for conservatives, who want to leave people alone.