Yes, please.
Absent a cite where the Republican leadership actually said what the title claims they did, I will assume you or the author of the article falsified the quote.
Hard to have a debate about fiction.
Regards,
Shodan
Because the businesses are the engines of the American economy. Those businesses benefitting mean that the economy in the long run benefits. At the same time I’m not against raising income taxes and also massive federal “sin taxes” on alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and so on to compensate for it.
Have you seen the graph for real income levels over the last couple of decades showing the bottom 3 quintiles losing ground?
What is your definition of “long run”. What does “economy benefits” mean? If it means the economy grows but the vast majority of wealth generated goes to a very few, where is the flotation effect of a “rising” economy?
What good would that do? Businesses won’t create jobs until demand increases. Why expand capacity when you just layed off half your employees because nobody is buying your products? Tax cuts now are just a gift to stockholders and executives. Fuck that.
It’s called “rhetoric”. You and Shodan might look into the subject some day.
Yes, of course, it’s a summary of the message being given by the GOP’s leadership.
Then maybe you should start. It would save you a lot of pointless cite requests.
It’s a claim that the GOP message is, among other things, that we are doing a poor job of educating our children, and unfortunately can’t do much better, times being what they are and cutting the deficit and all. And I do think you do understand that.
Or maybe you don’t. They’re not quotes. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
It’s called “rhetoric”. You and Shodan might look into the subject some day.
[/QUOTE]
I will take that as a ‘no’ then. Shall we move on?
Um…no. It’s your assertion. You’ve chosen not to back it up. So…nothing to see here. Thanks for playing…have some nice parting gifts. Ceramic dog. SDM board game edition. Dead thread…
-XT
But you can’t go by what he did in office, because he wouldn’t have been in office if he was running today. It’s typical for presidents to move to the center when they govern, and you could say very similar things about Obama if he had to run on his current record. A sitting president is the de facto nominee, and generally doesn’t have to run in the primaries.
And note that his name is still invoked by Republicans as the goal of what politics should be about. If you can cite some credible Republican candidates who like to distant themselves from Reagan, I’d be very interested in seeing it.
No, I don’t understand that. Some cites would help, especially the part about “can’t do much better”.
Let’s eliminate the tax-free status of churches to off set the loss of income by eliminating taxes on businesses. In fact, let’s just eliminate the tax-free status of churches in order to raise our government’s income.
Please cite any logical principle or empirical observations that would show this to be the case. I can simply state, as before, that 30 years of reducing business taxes has resulted in a degraded economy, and reducing taxes removes the incentive for businesses to invest and compete. How do you think reducing their taxes improves the economy other than the benefits to businesses magically benefitting anyone else.
So your defense in that the Tea Party wouldn’t accept Reagan today is that he wouldn’t have done all the stuff they hate yet?
Even his record as governor was terrible by Tea Party standards. Is this simply a knee-jerk defense of them? I know they get a lot of shit, but saying that they would shout down Reagan today isn’t a lie, it’s a fact. The Tea Party fetishizes Reagan because they are uninformed.
“Long run” means the next few decades and “economy benefits” means greater economic growth. Also the problem isn’t that the richer are getting richer and the poor poorer but the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer.
Which limits religious freedom by forcing poor churches to close down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Numerous European and East Asian nations have lower limits on corporate and income taxes than we do and they are often held up as models for us.
If we’re so massively in debt, wouldn’t it make sense to make some cuts across the board AND increase taxes?
I would be more worried about the country going down the drain now, than worrying about if the Republicans can run up debt again.
Besides, if people were more aware and concerned with the course of the country, maybe they would take part more in the political process so these politicians can’t make the same mistakes again. But too many people here have very short memories.
Hypotheticals aren’t facts.
There is an emotional element to the whole business of voting and Reagan has a special place in the hearts of Republicans. And don’t discount cognitive dissonance when tied to strong emotions. How many threads have we had on this MB about the enigma of the Tea Partiers and how they are a simmering brew of contradictions?
It’s rhetoric in the same sense that the title above is rhetoric.
Regards,
Shodan
Which allows wealthy churches to continue as is except for paying taxes. As to poor churches closing down, wouldn’t god provide?
It would not bother me if ALL churches closed down and organized religion became a thing of the past.
Most all the doom and gloom from conservatives comes from the idea that we are killing each other with kindness. Once we learn to turn a hard eye to our fellowman’s suffering and lighten the national sled so it can travel faster, goes the thinking, there will be plenty of prosperity for the deserving among us. And fuck the rest.
That does not explain in any way how lower taxes for businesses benefits anyone but the businesses.
Bizarrely, some folks in this thread, including the OP seem to claim that pessimism - viewing the world as one of constrained resources and less than ideal circumstances - is bad per se. Rather than making arguments about the accuracy or inaccuracy of beliefs, they act like “pessimism” is some form of intellectual cooties.
If things are good, it is right to believe that they are good. If things are bad, it is right to believe that they are bad. What is already is, owning up to the truth does not make it worse.
Which is to say that the way to defeat your political-tribal enemies is to prove that they are wrong, not that they make statements that elicit uncomfortable emotional reactions.