Conservative Talk Hosts

[GregoryA]

Savage is a breath of fresh air! He is a true conservative nationalist. He is not stuck in the mode of supporting the president and the Republican Party as a knee jerk reaction. I think he calls 'em like he sees 'em. Also he is amazingly interesting and funny in his commentary regarding politics and in a host of other areas. ;D

[Ian]

I agree, Hannity is too much of a fanboy for my tastes. Plus he always seems like a little kid at the "grown-ups" table.

[GregoryA]

Ian said:

I agree, Hannity is too much of a fanboy for my tastes. Plus he always seems like a little kid at the "grown-ups" table.

You got it Ian. He is sort of like a little, over anxious terrier jumping up and down, trying to be like a German Shepard or Great Dane.

Calm down little fella....

[Ian]

LOL, your comparison is even more fitting! ;D

[midcan5]

Glad to see that even conservatives see some of these people as blowhards. But as a liberal I am always amazed at this phenomenon, for instance if you remove ideology or political party from the discussion what is it these people do? They do not analyze issues. There is no question that America is the greatest nation on earth in terms of freedom and opportunity, how did it get that way, it got that way through liberal ideas of individual freedom and liberal ideas of law. The constitution provided a broad based structure and a separation of powers which has worked superbly.

Which brings me back to the likes of Coulter or Charen or Limbaugh, do they contribute to these fundamental ideas of freedom of the individual under a rule of law? They obviously use that freedom in a National Inquirer sort of way to defame others but what do they add? It is childish name calling and if anyone disagrees, point me to a critical analysis of an important issue from any of them that tackles the issue and does not simply assign blame or fault.

Gather almost any group of people together and the strongest bond is a common enemy. Most people love to criticize others it brings them together and forms groups. Group think is a large part of any totalitarian society. So when I listen to these commentators what I hear is the 'other' is wrong. Not partially wrong or not wrong for a reason but wrong just because they can be labeled. Hate America is one term they use often which has no real meaning. Demagogs have always existed but the sanctimonious fools are growing more and more rampant in America. I do not listen to so called liberal radio so they may too be guilty but I am not sure.

We live in a country in which our manufacturing jobs are nearly gone, our textile is going, our support and knowledge jobs are headed to India or the Philippines, illegals force down wages, and what do these so called commentators decry but liberals. Huh? They must be in someone's pocket.

[everomel]

Michael Savage is a patriot and a true american. He is the real deal. I listen to him every day on my commute home without fail. If he ran for president I would vote twice. Viva La Savage!!!!

[TNRighty]

Medican, this is long, but please read all of it.

You make some good points. At one time it would have been considered a liberalistic point of view to promote individualism. Our founders would have been characterized as liberal in that sense, but the classical definition of liberalism, and with it individualism, has over the years been forgotten by those who call themselves liberal today.

Liberals today love the "do as you want", "be who you are" doctrines of classical liberalism, but they convienently ignore the personal resoponsibility part of individualism and instead chose to blame the rest of society for the consequences of their individual behavior. Being an individualist means accepting personal individual responsibility for your own behavior.

Individualism can be summed up by two phrases: 1) Do what makes you happy, 2) Live with the fruits or the consequences of what makes you happy, and blame no one for your plight. This is the essence of individualism. Its the second clause of the contract with individuality that present-day liberals don't like.

A lot of people who call themselves "individuals" today would probably call me a "conformist" or a "sell out" because I wear khaki britches and a lime green shirt with a pocket protector. Well, I just happen to celebrate my individualism and my freedom of choice in a different way. I chose to work for a living, and any indivualist who respects individualism would respect my own personal choices to live my life the way I want to, and wouldn't expect anything from me. I don't expect anything from you. I've made my choices, you've made yours. I'll live with my choices, you live with yours.

I am dependent on no one but myself. Thats my definition of "individualism".

You talk about the "group mentality", but look no further than social security to see what faction of American politics is playing group politics. Conservatives are the ones seeking to give individuals more control over their own money while liberals who play up to the "groups": AARP, minorities, the poor, etc. It is liberals who want successful individuals to take on a disproportionate cost of societal welfare.

I'll leave you with a few quotes from some of our most prominent liberals who, according to Medican, are the protectors of the individual. Enjoy.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]


"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin]

[midcan5]

TNRighty,

I almost forgot this post. You say you are dependent on no one but yourself? You write that doing what you want is a sign of individualism? Can someone with a wife/husband or children only think of themselves? These are complicated issues. An American myth is the settler setting out and creating a new life, it begins at our very beginnings as a nation. But how true is that today, maybe a farmer living as the Amish do could still live that way but even the farmer has to know he is safe and no one will take his farm. And you should see the Amish get together for barn raisings. We exist in a social situation, we are social animals, there is not way around it.

But individual freedom in liberal philosophy is not only about work, it is about being left alone, about being free within your household from your government. It about being free to worship as you choose and not to have religion or religious guidelines in anyway imposed on you.
Not sure what you mean by blame? People often blame one thing or another for all sorts of things. The idea that this is a general feeling among liberals makes no sense to this liberal.

And Fascism is on the right not left, key concepts involve nationalism, corporate worship, misuse of language etc. This is good link:
www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

The new Deal and the great society often come under fire from the right but they are things that made this country great, that allowed us to be one of the strongest nations on earth. Imagine the families we help who have suffered tragedy or disability, the widows whose spouses have died too young or whose companies handled the business climate poorly. Sorry these are really good things for our society, to remove them is to go back to the days of the great depression and to a society that does not care. As far as success it is its own reward and it only functions in a society that contains at its core liberal individual freedom.

www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/4c.html

"Perhaps driven by his own humble beginnings, Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" as central to building the Great Society. In 1960, despite the prosperity of the times, almost one-quarter of all American families were living below the poverty line, and entire regions of the country, like central Appalachia, were bypassed by the economic growth of the postwar years. Moreover, technological advances in industry were also changing job requirements for American workers. The good-paying, unskilled jobs of the past were disappearing, and those without education and skills were being left behind. "

[TNRighty]

I'll try to respond to one paragraph at a time.

First of all, as for the people who's spouses have died too early, that's what life insurance is for. You can get a policy in the neighboorhood of $200,000 for less than $40 a month. Social security costs 12% of your paycheck and you're lucky if you get a $5000 death payment. A little common sense answers that question.

As for the dependence thing, yes I am dependent on my wife and she depends on me as well. Perhaps I should have been more articulate about the family thing. However, I chose to get married. I chose to transform my life into one that is co-dependent on another person. That's what marriage is all about. I chose to subjugate my life to my wife and she did the same, but neither of us chose to become dependent on society as a whole. How can you or your family call yourself a free and sovereign houselhold if you depend on someone else to foot the bill for you?

You said, "But individual freedom in liberal philosophy is not only about work, it is about being left alone, about being free within your household from your government. It about being free to worship as you choose and not to have religion or religious guidelines in anyway imposed on you."

I agree 100%. I want to be left alone. I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot do in my own household. I also do not want government telling me how I should invest in my retirement. Our government does not force you to go to church or be a Christian. We don't live in a religious theocracy and I never want to see that happen, but they do force you to give 12% of your paycheck to social security.

As for your last paragraph about poverty, the war on poverty begins with the individual. You cannot claim to champion the rights of individuals if you believe that individuals alone cannot lift themselves from poverty through education and hard work. And by the way, Americans who are classified as "living in poverty" have a higher standard of living than the AVERAGE European.

And Johnson is damn right, "The good-paying, unskilled jobs of the past were disappearing, and those without education and skills were being left behind." What else would you expect? If you have no education or job skills, you're going to be left behind. You dan't force the market to provide jobs you can perform, your responsibility is to develop skills that appeal to the market and are suitable for what the market demands of the American worker.

[TNRighty]

I want to elaborate on a few points of my last post.

You said you do not want the government controlling your freedom to worship. Neither do I. I also do not want the government controlling my retirement. Whether its religion or retirement, government control is government control. You can't speak out against government control of religion and then turn a 180 and support government control of retirement or health care. For you to do that is an inconsistent and hypocritical argument.

You say that social security is one of the things that has made America strong. Fine, I will accept that as your opinion.

I think Chrisitan philosophy has also helped make America strong, but I don't think it should be forced upon people who choose not to participate in it.

In social security, however, I am forced to participate in a system with which I do not agree. Imagine somebody forcing you to go to church and subscribe to Christian ideals against your will, and you will understand how I feel about social security. I don't want it, I don't need it, regardless of how good you think it is for society. You would tell me the same thing about government enforced religion and I would support you.

It all gets back to the freedom and rights of the individual. If, as you say, you respect the rights of the individual, then you should also respect their rights not to want to participate in any institution with which they don't agree, be it religion, retirement, etc.

Basically, you've been on both sides of the issue of government control over private life, opposing religion (even though there is no such thing as government sponsored religion), and supporting government control of individual wealth through social security and universal health care.

Baically, I think you're viewing the broader issue of individuality through the goggles of politics, not principles. You can't pick and choose which side of individual liberty you fall on with each issue based on what is politically convenient.

Please respond.

[midcan5]

good discussion

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom


Life insurance can help but it is part of the picture. Consider though if I can afford 40 dollars a month and I buy insurance. My husband dies at age 25 and we have two children, a mortgage, a car payment, and the rest. 200K divided by 10 years is only 20k a year, not bad if my expenses are not too high but hardly enough to raise the children through HS. Even wise investment only adds a little. Of course I can work but can I? Maybe - but consider then day care costs and medical for the children as they grow. You can easily imagine a 100 similar scenarios each affecting a great many people, each affecting the heath and well being of our nation. Instead consider you live in a nation that helps you out. I choose the later.

You are as dependent on society as you are on your wife and she on you. You drive on roads, you are provided work for your efforts, a company or clients supports your work, money is managed for you through business or bank, your property is protected, safe guards operate to provide a safe environment, some one made your car / bus / bike, someone grows your food, any need to go on? The relationship is co dependency not dependency. Just the same as I, a working citizen provide a service for you you do for me in the same way.

Six percent not twelve. While we can debate this item, business is in business to make money and it is doubtful they will give you a ? percent raise. Investing your money offers no guarantee you would make more than you would in SS. If you are in a field that changes you may need to find other work, to relocate, to save less because business is down. If you are hit with an emergency expense you are going to have touch saving. We have done that. My point is life is not simple or easy, sometimes even with hard work you may find yourself nearing retirement with little to show for it. Is that your fault? Maybe. Also consider those who work at tough manual labor jobs or jobs that require intense physical concentration they cannot do that forever and may only be able to save so much. They may want that part time counter job at Home Depot and the SS makes it easy.

While I believe strongly in individual rights I recognize that family and class matter greatly. My own family was too large and poor for college so work and the service were the ways out. Again

While I doubt that someone living in poverty here has a higher standard of living than a European person I feel this is the wrong discussion. Comparing how bad you have it is not the point, the point is the wide separation between the haves and have nots. And consider If you have medical care you are far ahead of any American at the same level unless the American is lucky and has no health problems in their family.

Re your second post

The government is not controlling your retirement you are. What the government is doing with SS is recognizing the problems any capitalist society has: the complexity of resources and the distribution of wealth. SS was born out of a situation in our capitalistic society in which wealth collapsed and the result was less than perfect. Ultimately it has worked fine I think and i know many on it. I have relatives whose husbands have died who live together and through SS are able to live, not great but they are ok. How can I say it doesn't work when there are too many examples of it working?

I think one can argue that SS has helped make this country great. We only have to look at what we have compared to the times before SS, every one's boat sometimes rises with a good tide. And I agree there are many fine elements of Christianity that do too. The Golden rule should be everywhere. I know you guys hate to hear it but Jesus was pretty liberal by anyone's definition.

A old quote I like but cannot find goes something like this: trying to see the world is like trying to see the mirror through which we see the world. Yes, individualism can be paradoxical and complex, that may be the problem and the reason we can agree and disagree on the same issue. Individualism is a good thing but individual freedom is another thing, one is an attitude, one is being free within certain confines. Surely you would agree even individual freedom has limits? It is a great idealism that we live free as individuals but there must be some responsibility. That government is the only place capable of handling so immense a task as SS is debatable but I still trust check and balances even with their imperfections.


"The U.S. itself also has the largest gap and inequality between rich and poor compared to all the other industrialized nations. For example, the top 1% receive more money than the bottom 40% and the gap is the widest in 70 years. Furthermore, in the last 20 years while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased, it has decreased for the poorest 40%."

www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp

Check out these stats they amaze.

www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

[midcan5]

didn't finish this thought

...service were the ways out. Again it is often who you know that matters, connections still have great impact. Picking parents who are upper middle class is important too.

[TNRighty]

It is in fact 12%, not 6%, that you pay into social security. The amount your employer has to pay into SS on your behalf is figured into your total compensation package. Business owners don't just snag that 6% out of thin air and give it to the government. An employer has a dollar amount set aside for the value of your services, and his SS obligation for you is factored into it. That money doesn't come out of his pocket, it comes out of YOURS in the form of a reduced salary or wage.

For simplicity, lets assume your employer has decided you are worth $10 per week. The first thing that comes out of that $10 is the mandated 6% your employer is responsible for on your behalf. You've done $10 worth of work for your employer, but you're only taking home $9.40. But wait, you haven't paid "your" 6% yet, so that $9.40 goes down to $8.80. Throw in some federal witholding and you're going home with $7.75.

You believe exactly what the politicians want you to believe...that it is in fact only 6% you are paying into SS. WRONG! You are paying 12%. Politicians prey on the economic ignorance of people like you.

You said, "You are as dependent on society as you are on your wife and she on you. You drive on roads, you are provided work for your efforts, a company or clients supports your work, money is managed for you through business or bank, your property is protected, safe guards operate to provide a safe environment, some one made your car / bus / bike, someone grows your food, any need to go on? The relationship is co dependency not dependency. Just the same as I, a working citizen provide a service for you you do for me in the same way."

What you just mentioned is the essence of how the market works. The private market is as dependent on my skills as I am on the skills of others in the market. People manage my money, but I make money and I pay people to manage it. If people didn't make money, there wouldn't be any need for people to manage money. They are as dependent on me as I am on them. My property is protected, but I own property and I pay people to protect it. I have food in my fridge, and I pay for the food I buy. I'm an engineer, and the same grocery sotres from which I buy food have been designed and constructed by engineers.

That's how the market works, and yes, there is a co-dependency between different factions of private enterprise. That's why it works. People need things, and if they provide a service or skill that the market depends on, they will be paid for their skills and will be able to pay for the skills and services others provide.

That's why capitolism is the greatest economic institution ever formed. If you have the ability to provide goods and services others demand, you will be paid for your skills and be able to purchase goods and services you demand.

If you can depnd on yourself, then there's a good chance you are being paid for services the market and other people depend on as well. That's how it works. If you don't have any skills that are attractive to the market then there is a good chance that you aren't making much money and are thus dependent on government sponsored social programs.

[midcan5]

While still off topic an employer does pay that figure but my skepticism is more with what they would do given the opportunity. Self employed people would pay the full amount but self employed business people usually have ways to get around that such as claiming less income. One argument that actually makes sense to me is raising SS above the max could impact business owners who make over the top figure. A graduated rate may be fairer?

I'm not sure politicians want us to believe anything but still you approach SS from a rather limited viewpoint. I see you are around the age of our sons and see the world through your engineering eyes. You know what they say, to a hammer everything is a nail. My mother would tell us about the depression and I think that experience and later education affected my views, that and the reality of life. I'm still not sure if you think we should discard it?

If the market worked flawlessly we would have less poverty and more equality. People do not want to nor select to be poor. They do what they can with the resources available to them. One very large assumption of right wing thinking forgets there is no level playing field, it assumes people have the same opportunity to gain resources and often gives as an example one bright person who has made it as proof. Just ain't so.

Another aspect of the market that is often forgotten is the structure that supports it, farm subsidies for instance, established regulation of certain areas, telecommunications for instance, tariffs, labor cost, cost of living, life concerns. It is not a question of not having skills and relying on government for support, it is more about opportunity. Notice how the overall attitude during the Clinton years compares to today. Having lived through Reagan/Bush I can tell you they were similar to Bush Jr.. Large deficits do not make for a good economy. It used to be the tax and spend liberals now it is the spend and spend conservatives. Balance is required in all things.

[TNRighty]

I'm right there with you on the spending habits of Republicans. They can spend money as well as any Democrat ever could, and that does not set well with me at all. Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend. Bottom line, both parties spend too much money.

Money problems are the result of undisciplined spending habits, not lack of income. That principle is as true at the government level as it is at the private houselhold level. Raising taxes or borrowing money is not the answer to our government's deficit problems. The answer is for our government to change its spending habits, just as private people have to do when they hit a financial crunch.

On a personal level, when you have more money available to you, you will spend more money. Most Americans, whether they make $15,000 or $150,000 live paycheck to paycheck. Same for government. You will be surprised at the things you find you "need" when you have the money to afford them. Same thing for government.

For five years I lived off $14,000 a year. I had health insurance, car insurance, a roof over my head, and food in the cabinet. I lived off what the value of my labor would provide me, and I took pride in the fact I could support myself on a shoestring budget without the help of anyone else.

However, as I made more money, I found I "needed" a nicer car and a bigger apartment. Similarly, as our nation becomes more wealthy all of a sudden we need an Endowment for the Arts, and Environmental Protection Agency, Medicare, Social Security, and countless other programs that are not essential to the daily operation and constitutional bounds of our government. Just as private citizens expand their budget to meet the funds available, government does the same. The only difference is that I don't have the power to raise my salary when I'm having trouble making the mortgage payment.

When you open Pandora's box its tough to close it. Once you've become accustomed to driving nice cars or living in nice houses its nearly impossible to go back to living in a rathole and driving a bondo buggy. Similarly, once you open American wealth to the plunder of the masses through social programs its really tough to take it away.

Private citizens don't have the luxury of raising their paycheck every time we hit a financial knot.

However, we let our government do that every day. When the government tells us, "Hey we're in debt, we need to raise your taxes," thats no different and is equally as rediculous as you telling your boss, "Hey, I'm having trouble making my car payment, you need to give me a raise." Well, its not our fault our government can't handle its finances, and its not our boss's fault we can't handle our own personal finances.

Our government never asks itself that question. If they did, they'd answer: "Well, perhaps we can do without the National Endowment for the Arts, maybe we can stop paying for Viagra for convicted sex offenders, Perhaps we should stop paying for things that people should pay for themselves."

Our government has no fiscal responsibilty whatsoever. The easiest money to spend is someone else's money, and our government has never earned a dollar it has spent. Our government spends your money and my money, not their money.

And yes, no one conciously chooses to live in poverty, but I'll guarandamntee you that 90% of people living in poverty can trace their plight directly to the circumstances of the decisions they've made in their lives.