Comments on: What is Conservatism?

By: cathy wilson

cathy wilson — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:26:23 +0000

Is it just me or is conservatism in this country focusing more and more on money and less and less on morals? I know the economy is a mess but if you trace it back to the root of the problem, it all boils down to no physical morals, no business morals, no respect for the law and the constitution,anything goes now days. People are basicly poor because they haven’t been taught honor, respect and responsibility. The answer to this economis crises starts at home. Instead of standing up for what’s right we make excuses for what’s wrong. We don’t need more government to take care of this mess. A few honest politicians and a bunch of good moms and dads would do the trick.

By: Alan Scott

Alan Scott — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:19:08 +0000

geecie30 ,

“Do you remember the czars of Russia they were destroyed and so will the people here who believe they have a right to have protection at the expense of the poor.”

You and Mister Guy should get together and throw a 92nd year anniversary party this October for the Russian Revolution. I bet you could get the President and the leaders of both Houses of Congress to show up.

By: geecie30

geecie30 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:16:09 +0000

Conservatism works when the population is small. It is not small anymore. The founding fathers were aristocrats and land owners. Do you remember the czars of Russia they were destroyed and so will the people here who believe they have a right to have protection at the expense of the poor.

The word “conservative” comes from: the supposed importance of conserving established institutions and permanent aristocracy by the wealthy. The opposite of conservatism is democracy. The conservative system is on its last leg.

By: Gannon Nickell

Gannon Nickell — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:58:40 +0000

That was excellent… I love reading your material!!! Keep up the good work!!!

Thanks,

Gannon Nickell
Chairman, S.S.U. College Republicans
nickellgannon@gmail.com (personal)
gnickell@crnc.org (work

By: Dbuya

Dbuya — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:41:38 +0000

Unfortunately, this has NOTHING to do with the actions or behaviors of those that call themselves conservatives in 2009.

By: DJ

DJ — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:31:57 +0000

I found this online about a year ago (I forget the link it was in) and thought it was applicable to this thread. It is from an 1828 version of Websters American Dictionary, and very clearly delinates individuals and States:

WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good going]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; (applied to persons.)
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; (applied to states)

I believe the “GENERAL WELFARE” clause as written in the Constitution is refering to States, not individuals, Article 4 section 4 is quite clear on what the Federal Government guarantees to each of the several states and that seems to support a “state” perspective with regard to “general welfare”.

By: Reaganite

Reaganite — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:58:39 +0000

The one characteristic of the ideology that we call “Conservatism” today is that there are no guarantees, other than the freedom to achieve or not to achieve. No guarantees to win or earn or learn. The Government guarantees the rights given us by the Creator. The government has no other purpose and the government has no right to intrude into my life. I came to this country because my brother convinced me that given these freedoms, I could achieve anything I wanted. He lived the American Dream and having come to this country 30 years ago with a few thousand dollars to his name, he died a millionaire. But during his struggle no one guaranteed him his success.

Reaganite
http://www.hangright.org

By: Jack Swift

Jack Swift — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:56:32 +0000

NYD said “I think the key must be that the expenditure benefits all who pay for it. To wit, the federal government should not subsidize projects that benefit only the citizens of a particular state.”

I agree. That goes with that “promote the GENERAL welfare” bit. Problem is that most earmarks benefit specific constituents – usually lobbies who are in position to effect a re-election.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating an everyday occurrence. Simply that the capacity be there if and when the opportunity arises and is otherwise appropriate.

By: sower of seeds

sower of seeds — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:46:09 +0000

“The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.” – Mark Twain

By: NotYourDaddy

NotYourDaddy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:57:11 +0000

What should be rare government intervention has been made an everyday event – wasting taxpayer money and perverting the system.

You can say that again…

I’ll concede that there may be rare circumstances in which the government is justified in making large capital investments in fundamental infrastructure that will benefit all the taxpayers whose money is used to fund it. The justification might include a case where national security is at stake or, in the past, making it possible to transport goods across vast undeveloped spaces for the benefit of the nation’s economy.

However, I think the key must be that the expenditure benefits all who pay for it. To wit, the federal government should not subsidize projects that benefit only the citizens of a particular state. That would be an earmark. A state government may undertake that, if a majority of the citizens agree to a levy or bond issue to cover the capital expenditure.