Now did I say federal government? That’s three.
If Elizabeth Warren ran for president, I would personally validate currently-mythical Republican fears by crossing the border and voting for her illegally.
Well, not really, but I still like her.
Your core claim, that the government keeps asking for yet another 2-3% on tax rates, is contradicted by the data and was pulled out of your posterior.
Name a single year in which prominent democrats didn’t call for new taxes.
- Duh.
Clinton delivered a middle class tax cut and a budget surplus. It’s true that prominent Democrats will often call Republicans on their innumeracy: balanced budgets don’t go well with pointless wars, unfunded expansion of Medicare (under GWBush) and tax cuts unmatched by spending decreases and backed only by crackpot theories.
Clinton and the Republican Congress did deliver a tax cut and a budget surplus. Clinton and the Democratic Congress delivered a huge tax increase.
I agree with you on what happened to the GOP on taxes, but that doesn’t excuse Democrats never being satisfied. There has never been a time when Democrats haven’t eyed a chunk of GDP and didn’t say, “I want it”.
No, what you see occasionally is Democratic calls for tax increases effectively to pay for pointless Republican warmongering and past tax cuts for fat cats.
- Learn some history. President Kennedy called for tax cuts in his State of the Union address: “the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress.”
And guess what? Conservative Republicans, led by Barry Goldwater, attacked him for it.
Because back then, Republicans didn’t support unpaid for tax cuts. Kennedy proposed increases in spending and tax cuts, despite an unemployment rate of only 6%. A very inflationary policy.
So what happened to the Republicans? They used to be so promising.
Back in 1960, the Republicans had a lock on the professional class. During the 1970s Reagan harnessed the “New Right” and rode his way to power. “The New Right” are known today as social conservatives: then their biggest organization was Moral Majority which of course was neither. Goldwater could have made a difference, except he was demolished in the polls. Reagan was a key inflection point, bringing the craziness of the fringers into the New York Times news section.
Little Nemo: You can see how inflationary Kennedy’s policies were from, you know, the data.
1960, before Kennedy took office: 1.7%
1962: 1.0%
1964: 1.3%
1965: 1.6%
Then we get fiscal stimulus during prosperity by Johnson: guns and butter.
1966: 2.9%
It’s hard to tie that 1966 development to a 1961 tax cut. But you kinda figured the assertion would be bunk, right?
With the passing of William F. Buckley, the right lost their intellectual firepower and the last master of the art of the facial tic.
He’s remembered fondly, but at the time he was considered a far-right intellectual, more conservative than most of the Republican Party. By the 2000s though, he had been leapfrogged by supply side crackpots and neo-conservative warmongers.
We live in some crazy times.
Well, now that Hillary Clinton - literally seconds after criticizing the Bushies for a foreign policy that “violat[ed] our moral rules and values,” has declared that “Henry Kissinger is a friend of mine,” kicking her own feet out from under herself by chumming up to a war criminal who was, if anything, worse than the Bush/Cheney gang, I’m ready to support Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or any reasonably trustworthy progressive in the 2016 primaries.
Yes, I’ll support her against any Republican, but I’d prefer a Democrat who didn’t count Kissinger as a friend - a Democrat who thought that the toppling of Allende was beyond the pale, ditto his four-year extension of the Vietnam war, with hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese killed, just to get the same peace deal they could have gotten years earlier, and so forth.
Quotes at the 7:25 and 7:48 marks in the interview on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning.
She’s just putting a bit of polish on her hawk cred, to reassure those of us impaired with testosterone poisoning that she’s “tough enough”. She’s a skirt, you know.
Toppling Allende was the right thing to do. I would LOVE for a Democrat to start a debate on something like that in a Presidential campaign. Clinton knows the positions she has to take to win. The question with her is whether she can actually campaign successfully. She plays it so safe she practically assures defeat.
So, other countries don’t have the right of self-determination?
At least with Saddam, you guys had the defensible argument that he was a dictator, and Iraqis didn’t have the option of getting rid of him.
Chile was exercising self-determination when the legislature judged Allende to be in full breach of his constitutional duties. The Judicial branch also ruled as such, unanimously.
In the US, impeachment would have been the end of Allende’s rule. In Latin America, however, the military is regarded as the ultimate enforcer. The Chamber’s resolution was read by Pinochet as license to move forward with toppling Allende.
Something similar happened in Honduras just recently, although fortunately it was more orderly. Yet liberals stood behind the Honduran President, even though he was deposed in an entirely proper, democratic fashion.