That was the point. But I’ll simplify it for you.
You say you do something.
You say you have a reason for doing it.
You say it’s not the reason people think it is.
But you don’t want to tell us what your reason is.
So what’s left to discuss?
If this was IMHO, we could take a poll on how many people believe you when you tell us you have a secret reason. Or if this was the game forum, we could make guesses about what your reason is and you could tell us if we were warm or cold.
Ah, OK.
The flaw in what you are saying is that I am saying what my reason is for favoring the policies I favor–that reason is that I think the policies I favor make society better overall. That’s the reason. Not my love of corporations.
The exact specifics of what I personally think is “better” and how exactly I think the policies I favor make society better (etc. ad nauseum) are beyond the scope of this thread). The purpose of this thread is just to show that it’s not the case that I have a hardon for corporations.
If I’m following your metaphor, you seem to be saying the only way to prevent a society where Bob gets assaulted is to create a society where Bob is privileged.
Or, to abandon your example, you seem to be saying that it’s either a society where Fox News Librulz have their way, corporations have to hand out a million percent of their income and CEOs get publicly assraped daily on national television ; OR corporations must get zero regulation or oversight and every single break than can be thought of in order to protect them from the Fox News Librulz.
There are kind of a few possible societies in between those two extremes, is all I’m saying.
bwahahahahahahaha.
Much as I enjoyed Rhythmdvl’s post, I think you nailed it in one. Let’s get Sam Stone or some other self identifying libertarian to see if they can reach a broad agreement with Rhythmdvl…
Just so we are clear, fiscal conservatives say they are for balanced budgets, but in fact thing that deficits don’t matter as long as the tax base is shifted away from corporations. Fiscal conservatives are the kind of people who ran up the Reagan and Bush deficits and incurred almost all of the current national debt. Fiscal conservatives say one thing then do another: Like Ayn Rand and her reliance on social security and medicare while denouncing the same.
I didn’t ask you for a citation—I flat out said your statement was bizarre, since John Mace is consistently one of the most unbiased and clear-minded posters on these boards. However, if you wish to impugn someone’s motives by name then it does seem rather bad form to preemptively refuse to back that up.
You can’t lump all conservatives into one group, but I don’t see what is wrong with someone pointing out that many conservatives on the national level do support wealth redistribution upward, and support a move towards plutocracy/oligarchy.
Many conservatives right now are pushing to cut social programs, labor clout and cut pensions while also pushing for supply side tax cuts (public workers in Wisconsin had to pay an extra 6-10% of income for health care and pensions under Walkers plan, I believe. And Walker used those savings to pass supply side tax cuts). That is a form of wealth redistribution, no different than what liberals propose with supply side tax hikes to fund social programs but just on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Paul Ryans budget is full of wealth redistribution upwards. Tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals funded by cuts to programs like medicare and medicaid which benefit the bottom 90%. It is the opposite of the wealth redistribution liberals propose which is supply side tax hikes and spending on social programs, but it is wealth redistribution nonetheless when you consistently cut taxes for and give subsidies to corporations and the wealthy and pay for it by cutting social programs and raising taxes on the bottom 90%. FWIW Scott Walker is also considering raising taxes on the elderly (among others) to pay for his supply side tax cuts.
So there are good reasons to believe many conservatives support upward wealth redistribution.
OP, your response shouldn’t have been to deny you suck corporate dick. That is just a dumb lie. Your response should’ve been of course we do, and so you do, and if you didn’t you’d be as relevant to American power as the Green party or PETA. Cut 'em deep.
Mao thought the Cultural Revolution would make society better overall.
Which shows why it’s usually a good idea to make sure your opinions on bettering society have a solid foundation in objective facts.
I think the problem with the OP is that he says fiscal conservatives want “what’s best for the society as a whole,” which isn’t even what fiscal conservatives pretend to want. You know, because fiscal conservatives are scared of OMG the socialism.
Please stop using the phrase “wealth redistribution upward.”
Having a progressive income tax structure that provides social services is redistribution of wealth and technically implies taking more from the rich (those with wealth) to provide for the poor (those without wealth). See the way the wealth was redistributed?
Lowering taxes on the rich isn’t redistributing upwards, it’s simply less redistribution. I’m sorry that it doesn’t have the same catchy rhetoric.
Well, if we’re going for clarity, perhaps you should have also mentioned that the US federal budget has never been based on corporate income taxes.
It started out making its revenue from tariffs and duties, then shifted towards personal income taxes, which now make up 42%.
Okay.
Can we then agree that “ending tax cuts” is not the same as “raising taxes”?
Agreed, glad we could clear that up.
I agree that it isn’t fair and that I’m not being fair by not hunting for examples of where he gives all the benefit of the doubt to Authority, and then none to the little guy. But it isn’t a thread about him, so there isn’t a post from another thread to pull out that is handy. I used to think he was always calling for calm too, but then I started noticing that he always gave the benefit of the doubt to conservatives and withheld it from liberals, while pretending to be even-handed. That is, not acknowledging what is a consistent pattern of interpreting evidence against liberals and excusing conservatives. I’m okay with that if one is honest about acknowledging that is what one is doing. It’s the same sort of blind spot Obama has: going to negotiate all the time with Boehner and McConnell, and leaving his liberal base out of the loop and not giving us a voice. That isn’t being an honest broker
When Warren Buffet pays less of a percentage in overall taxes than his secretary, that is redistribution. Regressive redistribution.
How about we say wealth is concentrated upwards?
If tax rates for the poor are lowered it’s supposedly redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. So if the tax rates for the rich are lowered, why isn’t it redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich?
The only difference seems to be what you pointed out - the rich can hire advertising companies to come up with catchy rhetoric.
And the fact that you refuse to tell us what they are is grounds for believing they don’t really exist. Or at least that they are stupid and based entirely on right-wing propaganda, hence the idea of unwilling astroturfing.
You haven’t proved anything about not having a hardon for corporations. You’ve just asserted it without any actual backing.
And now we see why the thread was not started in GD.
Obviously I don’t agree with the view espoused of how capital must be used to fight hardship. And obviously this thread is in the Pit, which makes your rejoinder perfectly legal.
But the view wasn’t expressed with any vitriol or rancor. It laid out a proposed policy position. Seems to me it might have furthered discussion to explain why you believe his view is untenable, instead of jumping right to “You’re an idiot.”
And for what it’s worth, I’ll point out here that neither our position nor his is objectively correct.