Conservatism and intelligence

[Scotty]

My views on certain things have been altered, only need to check out the global warming debate to see proof of that. Your above post just reminds me of the saying about glass houses. You and cutter especially straight out refuse to consider a point of view that does align with your ideology.

Back when you started this thread you must have known you were going to stir the pot somewhat, and yet you appeared surprised at my response, picked on it and then straight out ignored my legitimate question.

Is the report/research at all about conservative voters or just about social conservatives? There are differences - one can be a conservative voter without being socially conservative.

I vote conservative for mainly economic reasons, but I support gay marriage, am not religious, support charities and equal opportunity. I hate it with a passion when left voters believe they sit on some sort of higher moral plain.

 

[Scotty]

The more fundamentalist you are the less likely you are to have perspective.

Scarf,

Do you agree with the above statement?

 

[Schadenfreude]

I vote conservative for mainly economic reasons, but I support gay marriage, am not religious, support charities and equal opportunity. I hate it with a passion when left voters believe they sit on some sort of higher moral plain.

So you vote conservative out of self interest, and get angry at those who believe in working for the collective good?

 

[Scotty]

So you vote conservative out of self interest, and get angry at those who believe in working for the collective good?

Explain how you get that I said I vote conservative out of self interest out of 'economic reasons'?

And why am I angry at those that work for the collective good.

Be nice if you could put some effort into explaining such a derogatory statement.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Explain how you get that I said I vote conservative out of self interest out of 'economic reasons'?

And why am I angry at those that work for the collective good.

Be nice if you could put some effort into explaining such a derogatory statement.

OK. You said:

I vote conservative for mainly economic reasons.

Which I read as you deciding you benefit financially from voting LNP so they bought your vote.

I hate it with a passion when left voters believe they sit on some sort of higher moral plain.

You are angry at people on the left (your words) who make a moral choice to distribute wealth and think they're right.

I'm just paraphrasing what you're saying, if you think that is derogatory, perhaps you should keep quiet?

 

[Joe Mac]

Scotty - you're not on ignore. But I've made my position clear about your politics enough times. Believe it or not, I regularly engage with people from across the political spectrum. And it might also surprise you that my political beliefs lie a long way from liberal-left-wing-academic orthodoxy. But when someone like Joe Mac forgets everything me and Cutter said to him 2 pages back I'm likely to think it's not worth arguing with him.

This politics board, for me, swings between being worth contributing to, and not. It's unfortunate for me that you are the most frequent poster to the site, because it makes every issue a battle to convince you of something that you will never be convinced of. For example, The Boss makes a wildly unlikely claim, I call him on it, and you have to chip in multiple posts that contribute zero.

Anyway, the definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result, so I might take a break for a bit.

If you are going to criticise someone on a personal level at least back up your comments with more than an accusation.

If you are talking about the overspending of governements, the US isn't a great example for you to use in proving your point. The US is also currently drowning in debt because of the Democrat Obama and is heading the same way as socialist Europe...

By the numbers. Under Bush, public debt increased from roughly $8Trillion to $10Trillion (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png) or 20% over 8 years. Bush has never been considered a great economic manageer but his numbers look incredible compared to current Democratic government. Obama has been in power for less than half of the time of Bush and the debt burden in that time has increased from $10Trillion to nearly $16Trillion (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) or 60% in less than 4 years.

So Scarfman, please demonstrate where I am incorrect about the overspending of the lefty governments with some evidence. If you have none, then yes, it probably is best that you take a break from this forum...

 

[Joe Mac]

OK. You said:

Which I read as you deciding you benefit financially from voting LNP so they bought your vote.


You are angry at people on the left (your words) who make a moral choice to distribute wealth and think they're right.

I'm just paraphrasing what you're saying, if you think that is derogatory, perhaps you should keep quiet?

Moral choice has nothing to do with it. We all want the best for all Australian's. The vote between the two parties is on the best way to acheive that goal. Labor/Democratic parties believe in giving the money directly to the needy and distributing wealth. Liberal/conservative parties believe in taking steps to grow the economy and attract investment so that there are more jobs for everyone (especcially lower income earners) instead of handing out money.

The outcome of the first strategy is a short term boost to lower earners but also a simultaneous and unintended effect of losing a significant tax revenues to fund these projects from high earners and businesses relocating to more efficient economies. The increase in spending and the decrease in revenues pushes the government into more debt and in the medium to long-term, hurting lower income earners more than it helps them.

That's why my moral choice is to vote for the Liberals.

 

[Cutter]

If you are going to criticise someone on a personal level at least back up your comments with more than an accusation.

If you are talking about the overspending of governements, the US isn't a great example for you to use in proving your point. The US is also currently drowning in debt because of the Democrat Obama and is heading the same way as socialist Europe.

By the numbers. Under Bush, public debt increased from roughly $8Trillion to $10Trillion (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png) or 20% over 8 years. Bush has never been considered a great economic manageer but his numbers look incredible compared to current Democratic government. Obama has been in power for less than half of the time of Bush and the debt burden in that time has increased from $10Trillion to nearly $16Trillion (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) or 60% in less than 4 years.

Using a generalisation such as you have (ie all liberal governments are bad economic managers and all conservative governments are amazing economic managers) will leave you open to criticism unless you can point to analysis showing this to be the case. Your examples are obviously open to criticism and debate because they have been criticised and we are debating them.

I'm sure you agree that that the information above is a disingenuous analysis. i) You ignore that Bush was in power during a period of economic growth whereas Obama has been in power during the greatest global economic downturn since the great depression; ii) You ignore the GFC and the amount of money spent on bank bailouts etc; and iii) You ignore the decrease in public debt during the Clinton years.

The first two suggest your theory may not be as clear cut as you suggest and the third blows it out of the water.

 

[Cutter]

Moral choice has nothing to do with it. We all want the best for all Australian's. The vote between the two parties is on the best way to acheive that goal. Labor/Democratic parties believe in giving the money directly to the needy and distributing wealth. Liberal/conservative parties believe in taking steps to grow the economy and attract investment so that there are more jobs for everyone (especcially lower income earners) instead of handing out money.

The outcome of the first strategy is a short term boost to lower earners but also a simultaneous and unintended effect of losing a significant tax revenues to fund these projects from high earners and businesses relocating to more efficient economies. The increase in spending and the decrease in revenues pushes the government into more debt and in the medium to long-term, hurting lower income earners more than it helps them.

That's why my moral choice is to vote for the Liberals.

You're over simplifying complex issues. You're also getting it wrong.

It's difficult to know where to start, but I can't let it be suggested that both parties don't seek to grow the economy, attract investment and create jobs.

 

[Scarfman]

Cutter, I'm not supposed to be here, but do you think Joe is old enough to have heard of Paul Keating? I'd ask him that if I were you.

 

[Joe Mac]

Cutter, I'm not supposed to be here, but do you think Joe is old enough to have heard of Paul Keating? I'd ask him that if I were you.

Another valuable piece of input Scarfman, keep up the good work. Your credibility is certainly growing every time you attack me instead of discussing the issue.

 

[Joe Mac]

You're over simplifying complex issues. You're also getting it wrong.

It's difficult to know where to start, but I can't let it be suggested that both parties don't seek to grow the economy, attract investment and create jobs.

Where am I getting it wrong?

What have the current Labor party done to attract investment and grow the economy?

What have they done to deter investment, push high earners to move overseas, and worsen our economic position? There is probably many more but off the top of my head:

• Repeal Workchoices
• Carbon Tax
• Re-neg on the decrease in company tax
• Increase the tax of middle and upper income earners
• Increase the Private Health insurance premiums for middle income earners
• Increase the debt ceiling from 200B to 250B and again to 300B
• Burn through all of the money put away during the Howard era

 

[Scotty]

OK. You said:

Which I read as you deciding you benefit financially from voting LNP so they bought your vote.


You are angry at people on the left (your words) who make a moral choice to distribute wealth and think they're right.

I'm just paraphrasing what you're saying, if you think that is derogatory, perhaps you should keep quiet?

You are pretty good at intentionally misinterpreting someone's statements and then using it in an insulting way, aren't you.

I said 'I vote conservative mainly for economic reasons' which you think means 'I vote conservative because they give me more money'. Is that really the only interpretation you could come up with? You don't think I could possibly mean for the economic performance of the nation as a whole? You just assume I am being selfish.

And you wonder why I then dislike some of the left's 'moral superiority'. I am angry at those in the left that believe they are morally superior to those on the right. They believe in equality of outcomes, I believe in equality of opportunity, because engineering the same outcomes is actually reverse equality. There are plenty of people on both sides of politics and socially that give a lot to others, and help others a lot, but I only see one side claiming moral superiority in doing so.

You are not paraphrasing what I am saying at all, you are warping and misconstruing it. If fact you are doing it so badly that I assume it is on purpose.

 

[Scotty]

PS I have previously voted Labor for mostly economic reasons (state election). I am not old enough to have voted for Hawke or Keating, but I suspect I would have done the same for them.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Where am I getting it wrong?

What have the current Labor party done to attract investment and grow the economy?

What have they done to deter investment, push high earners to move overseas, and worsen our economic position? There is probably many more but off the top of my head:

• Repeal Workchoices
• Carbon Tax
• Re-neg on the decrease in company tax
• Increase the tax of middle and upper income earners
• Increase the Private Health insurance premiums for middle income earners
• Increase the debt ceiling from 200B to 250B and again to 300B
• Burn through all of the money put away during the Howard era

But do you really think that's an objective review of the economy throughout Labor's term? Are you suggesting that foriegn investment would be much higher if none of those actions would be taken? Where is the evidence for this?

Most of what you've listed would barely have a measurable effect on investment and economic growth.

 

[Schadenfreude]

It really is hypocritical to claim superiority over "the left" because "they think they're superior".

That's so obviously flawed you must be doing it on purpose.

Well played.

 

[Cutter]

Where am I getting it wrong?

What have the current Labor party done to attract investment and grow the economy?

What have they done to deter investment, push high earners to move overseas, and worsen our economic position? There is probably many more but off the top of my head:

• Repeal Workchoices
• Carbon Tax
• Re-neg on the decrease in company tax
• Increase the tax of middle and upper income earners
• Increase the Private Health insurance premiums for middle income earners
• Increase the debt ceiling from 200B to 250B and again to 300B
• Burn through all of the money put away during the Howard era

But you didn't restrict your theory to this labor government. You said the left and right. One off examples do not support your theory but can destroy it. That is the problem with generalisations. There are enough "one off" examples which counter your theory to suggest it's not such a good theory after all.

 

[Scotty]

It really is hypocritical to claim superiority over "the left" because "they think they're superior".

That's so obviously flawed you must be doing it on purpose.

Well played.

I said 'some of the left'. Try using your eyes when you read.

 

[Cutter]

I vote conservative for mainly economic reasons, but I support gay marriage, am not religious, support charities and equal opportunity. I hate it with a passion when left voters believe they sit on some sort of higher moral plain.

I chortle quietly to myself when "right" voters acclaim their humanist tendencies by saying they support gay marriage, aren't religious, support charities and equal opportunity. You and Joe Mac have both done something similar in this thread. We're virtually brothers Scotty.

 

[Lindommer]

Another valuable piece of input Scarfman, keep up the good work. Your credibility is certainly growing every time you attack me instead of discussing the issue.

Cheap shot, JM, cut out the personal crap. I realise he's a difficult bastard to argue with but there's no other alternative.


PS. Old buggers like Scarfy and I remember Keating well, some with affection, some not. I reckon history will judge him as a very good Treasurer. Don't forget the silly prick sent his son to SIC.

PPS. Don't belong to any political party. Nor am I an urger for any of 'em.