Well, you have me scratching my head trying to figure out what you are talking about. I assume you are not American. In any case, “we Americans,” as you put it, are very caring people and we do very much care for and about each other.

I think (and I can only guess because you certainly didn’t elaborate) that you feel we conservatives are against taking care of each other since we side against much government spending on non-defense, non infrastructure, non-essential programs. Conservatism is based in the US Constitution which specifically subordinates Government to the natural rights of the individual including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government must be limited to its Constitutional description in our view.

So when President Obama, the Left Wing, or anybody else seek to impose Government control over private property by taxing (penalizing) success in favor of “entitlement,” we feel that is negative for all Americans and the country as a whole. Government “ownership” is in large part unconstitutional.

Further, there is no history showing that increasing taxes and government intervention into a system based on free market capitalism has ever worked. Are you aware that all of FDR’s massive spending in the 30’s never got the unemployment rate below 13%? Are you aware that LBJ’s massive spending in the mid 60’s was followed by multiple recessions that didn’t end until the early 80’s? When JFK significantly cut taxes in 1961-62, we had a strong economy that benefited all Americans. When Ronald Reagan cut taxes and increased incentives for individual achievement in the early ‘80’s, the largest and longest period of economic expansion, technological innovation and individual prosperity ensued lasting almost 2 decades. Even when George W Bush cut taxes, our economy did quite well despite the Internet bubble, 9-11 and two wars. But Bush increased spending significantly increasing the national debt and our yearly deficits.

However, the individual, the individual American, leads the world in charitable donations and individual acts that serve to help the disadvantaged in our society as well as those needing help around the world. What other country can say that they have done more? It is the individual and not the government that has the strongest track record when it comes to helping those who need our help. Government must not be the deciders as to how and for what purpose the private property of the individual must be used.

Janis, thanks for commenting.

Arthur

Thanks for your post. Its a perfectly valid question.

Whether it is Bush or Obama, policies that extend the reach of government into lives of individuals have no history of success. If you look at the best economic periods of the last 100 years, namely the 60;s and the 80's-90's, both periods were ignited by real reductions, major reductions in the taxes paid by all Americans. Lower taxes and lower government spending limit government, as prescribed by the Constitution in the first place, but also frees the individual to save, invest and grow.

The problem with Bush is that he abandoned conservative principals by not vetoing wasteful government spending UNTIL the democrats took over control of Congress in 2006. Only after the democrats took over, did he veto spending legislation. So, my point, is that Bush didn't stick to conservative principals and simply was politically-based in how he dealt with government spending.

However, Obama is no different … actually much worse. He is spending on a level that we have never seen which will have serious, I feel disastrous, consequences. He is clearly moving towards state control of the economy and minimization of the individual to control his life.

Duran, please keep in mind that the Bush administration was severely criticized for the spending that resulted in further deficits and our national debt. This criticism, correct as it was, came from the same Democrats, including Obama, who have responded to the excess spending with spending that has never been seen before. This is solid proof that Democrats seek only political power, rather than any sincere commitment to limit government and spending. Why do we not hear "Pay as you go" anymore. This is what they said they were all about during the Bush years and during the election.

This is an attack on private property and individual rights towards the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It is anti-constitutional in the extreme.

I give Bush no pass on all this. This is not Republican vs. Democrat. Its about true conservatism whereby the government is limited and the individual has rights and responsibilities as is clearly stated in the US Constitution.

Thank you again for your comment.

Arthur Cooper