That’s the source of their problems. I don’t really buy the conservative arguments that Republicans lose because they are not conservative enough, but cutting taxes without cutting spending, and even massive expansions of government to try to achieve conservative social engineering, was never going to turn out well. That’s an example of not being conservative enough, and it hurting the GOP brand tremendously. Things would have been a lot different if they’d approached things the way Eisenhower and Coolidge did. YOu cut some spending, you cut some taxes. Nothing too radical, do it slowly. Then you build up a constituency for spending cuts(the taxpayers) that drown out the concentrated beneficiaries of whatever programs are being eliminated. Thanks to Republican tax policy since Reagan, taxpayers get tax cuts for nothing, and so have no stake in seeing spending cut. Tax cuts have to be conditional on spending cuts.
No, that was them being conservative. They were the true Scotsman. That’s how conservatives do things
What is the likelihood of that ever passing the House, no matter who controls it? Liberals like to spend money on what we see as worthwhile federal programs, and we aren’t afraid to raise taxes to pay for it. That’s what grown-ups do, they pay their bills. Conservatives like spending on what they see as worthwhile federal programs (usually foreign military adventurism), but they make it off-budget, and refuse to raise taxes to pay for it, or raise the debt ceiling to even borrow money to pay for it; they just dine and dash, like juvenile delinquents, leaving the check on the table for their children and grandchildren…
I see **adaher **just tap-dancing around the posts that show how ignorant he is.
Just a heads up adaher, not dealing with the information just leads other to realize you are going into willful ignorant territory, and hence a rightful contender for the top “getting it wrong” poster in this place.
I’m not going to make the excuse that it’s not conservative. However, it is a theory conservatives latched onto which was long proven to not work and should have been abandoned in favor of the conservative fiscal policies that actually worked.
Your mistake is in thinking you have to beat me, rather than just make your arguments. Your arguments have merit or do not have merit regardless of whether I respond to them or not.
The thing is, thus far you’ve never shown that any of your arguments have any merit whatsoever.
The arguments come from Nordhous himself, I defer to him, this is very basic reasoning, otherwise you are only using your truthiness.
In other words, you are only using your feelings, that experience and history has shown us many times that it is not a recommendable thing to do.
Science vs the feelies, Science writer Peter Hadfield explains why.
And indeed they have merit, so you need to learn from them.
But, what you describe in the first paragraph cannot happen except for reasons based on politics; anything government does is for political reasons by definition. N.B.: Not all reasons based on politics are bad ones, and some such are also based on science.
And apparently, according to addle-headed ahaher, you cannot create Justice except by creating an equal amount of Injustice. :rolleyes: Goddamn, that’s a whole lot of stupid in one package.
You are now officially arguing with yourself. Well done! Hooray!
Am I the only one who leaps with delight to threads started by ralph124c? He asks such funny questions!
if you understood what I posted, you’d realize that trying to create justice often just creates new injustices.
Good thing the North ignored that silly advice during the civil war.
Also the northerners ignored that silliness when most of them voted for the Civil Rights act.
It is silly for not taking conditionals into account.
Not really: a fifth of startups close their doors after a year, a third after four years, two-thirds after ten. A few businessmen are good at it, more are plain lucky, most seem to be not so good. Business and economics lie somewhere between science and a crapshoot, probably not biased toward the former. Often, I think, a skilled businessman is good at working the banks and tweaking the books rather than focusing on the actual business model. And such are the sort that you look to for leadership. Try more fiber.
Make sure you don’t let the justice and injustice come in contact with each other. The resulting explosion would cause massive damage and loss of life.
Holy shit! You are Karl Pilkington!
[Quote!]
(https://mobile.twitter.com/rickygervais/status/294103660835786752)
I have suspected it for a long time. He’s so on-message that it raises my suspicions.
Yeah, I want to know the answer to this one as well.
Omigod.
adaher, what is your response to this?
As we can see, the Conservative view on vaccines is that they’re bad, and measels are good, so presumably the liberal view is “don’t murder children, you evil fucking monster”.
Or do these people not count as Conservatives?