Q. What does a Conservative call 30 years of Conservative economic destruction?

A. Liberalism.

Great idea! rated

The figures are very telling... Thanks for posting this again. Interestingly, I used the same data to create similar graphs in a few recent posts.

Is that Leonardo Dicaprio standing at the front of that ship?

How was the theatre, Mrs. Lincoln?

Clever and creative. And that's a conservative assessment.

Yeah, AKA - I was thinking along the same lines (get 'em all on board ... and then sink that sucker).

The fact is that conservatives are really liberals who con the American people with their campaign rhetoric to get elected. Reagan was the biggest spender and taxer up to that time. He also was protectionist at least in helping Harley Davidson. Contrary to popular belief you liberals should revere him not despise him as he stands for everything you endorse.

Kenn,
If you're referring to "liberals" in the actual meaning of the word, I'll accept that I am a liberal. The idea that "liberals" in that sense support throwing money away is simply unsupportable drivel and as intelligent as shouting neener-neener.

I could just as easily tag libertarianism with the downside attributes of conservatism, but those sympathetic beliefs are merely a matter of convenience. Considering that conservatism in the majority sentimental meaning is a wad of garbled whining by increasingly idiotic ideologues, I'll use the word in a more accurate sense.
Conservatism, in its support of a ruling elite, has decided its true philosophy -- liberalism -- allows for political egalitarianism. So they have adopted libertarianism because it is blind, deaf and dumb to the hard truth reality of wealth equaling power. That's why they embrace right-libertarian economics, because it passively enables oligarchy.

As to the popular perceptions of both labels, libertarianism, with its pseudo-philosophical simplicity, allows for stupid people to claim a philosophy. After all, when a "philosophy" is composed as a priori claim as epistemology as conclusion, it's not hard to follow and not only doesn't require reason, it replaces it with a rule.

As far as protectionism, those with a concern for America --i.e. liberals -- reject the religious, globalist, non-American interested concept of libertarianism. The libertarian/Rand/Greenspan concept of laissez faire simply extends wealth control to non-American actors, has wrecked our economic infrastructure and surrendered our control of economic outcomes.

Protectionism is the same thing as self-defense, but to libertarians, with their cultish belief in a global kumbya brotherhood of oligarchical rule, are perfectly content to sell America and enslave Americans in the name of the most deceptively named ideology-parading-as-philosophy ever invented by reality-ignorant theorists.

The nice thing about liberalism as opposed to libertarianism is it's a far more expansive philosophy that encourages the application of reason. Libertarianism considers its simplistic, one-size-fits-all concept of complete self ownership as representing reason. A single idea, applied to every situation in every case. No need to think or consider the variables, which is why libertarianism doesn't work. Fortunately for libertarians, it's not designed to work.

You might want to consider that Reagan claimed libertarianism as the core of conservatism, so his borrow and spend tax cuts, destruction of unions, stagnation of American wages and destructive deregulation smell far more like libertarianism than liberalism.

Ronnie made libertarianism famous, and now most "conservatives" think it's all the same thing. I'm not sure which external influence did more to stupefy conservatism -- religious evangelicalism or religious libertarianism.

I like your solution to their solutions. I found your joke about 30 years of conservative destruction.

Then, along comes Kenn, who merely proves that it isn't a joke at all, but simple reality.

RATED

Brilliant solution, and it's a two-fer-one deal; the conservatives would be gone and it would scuttle China's economic rise.

After reading Kenn's remark on protectionism, I'm guessing he thinks we shouldn't have moved to help the U.S. auto industry a couple years ago. If we hadn't, we would no longer have an auto industry here and millions more jobs would have been lost, but in Libertarian circles that would be viewed as the invisible hand of the market working its ineffable magic and would thus be the preferred outcome. Who needs an American manufacturing sector anyway?

We truly do need to give these deep thinkers (whether they call themselves conservatives or Libertarians) to the Chinese.

nanate,
That would be a WMD. Weapon of Moronic Delusionals.
To hell with the Geneva Conventions, let's DO it!

You might have used a picture of the Titanic, seeing as how the Repugnants seem intent on resurrecting disasters. The boys could be kept occupied on their slow boat to China by rearranging the deck chairs.

there was a very, interesting blog by some conservative philosophers some years ago that was very popular for awhile. I could trace it, but the point they made was startling. They admitted that "conservatism" as currently constituted is not based in rationalism but hierarchy and authority. It belongs to another paradigm than liberalism, and guys like loomis and jacobein exhibit it well. reality is not what matters, but their identity does.

This coming season of political advertizing will surely convince us all that everything will be O.K. if we just hold the course, and continue on to our merry march to Armageddon. Welcome to the controlled election environment.

Paul....

The Chinese find themselves in the unenviable position of actually NEEDING us to keep their engine running. At least for now.

Coupled with the few trillions we owe them, the need to both continue to buy our bonds *and* sell to us. To stop doing one, the other, or both would be an unmitigated disaster for them, as well to us.

This had me rolling on the floor because that is exactly how upside down their thinking is. Can I pitch in for the ocean liner?

Pretty damn funny. I wanted to laugh...but then I wanted to cry.

We are in the financial problem we have today because of cut-tax and spend Republicans and their laissez faire financial de-regulation (2000 Commodoties Futures Modernization Act and Graham-Leach-Bliley).