Was America a hellhole under Eisenhower? I thought that was the Republican Golden Age.
No, no, you’re confused. Eisenhower was a God-damn hippie socialist. 90% tax rate? Damn communist if you ask me.
An important question might be WHY were taxes so high during Eisenhower’s presidency, what effect it had (there were several recessions) both during his presidency and after, and what unique conditions prevailed in the world at that time that allowed the US to have such high tax rates AND relative prosperity…
Or, you guys could just repeat the ‘Was America a hellhole under Eisenhower?’ meme as a context and content free yodel I guess. Personally, I don’t really think it makes a good case for those who hunger for the good old days of 90% tax rates on the upper brackets, but I suppose MMV.
-XT
See? If it had passed then the Republicans, who tend to be originalists, would have to support bum sex.
Support it? Hell, Justice Hugo Black would have ensured that pictures of it were put up in courthouses across the nation!
As I thought, your idea of someone’s “fair share” is paying 90% of their income. Sorry, that would be UNfair share.
I would have thought an adult would have figured this out by now, by tax brackets are marginal rates. People in the top bracket don’t get taxed at a90% rate - they get taxed 90% on whatever they make above the next bracket down.
That said, I agree that a 90% marginal rate is too high, although given that people in the top tax bracket tend to shelter most of their income in their holdings anyway it probably wouldn’t make that much of a difference.
You seem to be a relatively intelligent person, so I can’t believe you’re actually this retarded. You must be being deliberately obtuse.
I “moved the goalposts” in the same sense that inflating a balloon makes it no longer a balloon: i.e., not at all. I’m talking about what Republicans are actually doing now, and then inflating that into a worst-case scenario, then doing the same for Democrats (and asking you to give your version).
Seriously, why is that so hard for you to understand? I know your party of choice comes off looking like a bunch of totalitarian assholes here, but that’s, well, 'cause they pretty much are. Sorry.*
*Not really sorry. That’s sarcasm. You seem to be having problems with anything that isn’t perfectly literal at the moment, so I thought I’d help out.
Okay, so now you *agree *that my Democrat economic worst-case is accurate? Really high taxes and government-run everything? And yes, some of it will benefit you. If you like, you could rephrase the Republican version to “some of it will benefit you,” too, assuming you’re (a) Christian, (b) a fag-hater, or (c) a baby that would have been aborted but ended up having an okay life anyway.
I don’t agree with it or disagree with it. It’s accurate for some value of “worst-case.”
My point has been that the “worst-case” for the Democrats seems to be leavened with a lot of saving features… worst reasonable case, worst actually practical case, worst case from an elected Democrat’s actual proposals.
And the worst-case value you used for the Republicans was an actual, no-holds-barred, worst-thing-I-can-think-of case.
You keep asking for examples. I float an example up, and you tell me why it doesn’t apply. I’m trying to get some agreement over the yardstick, because my complaint is you used a different one to craft each side.
But the more I read, the more I think you may not being gaming the question. I think you seriously believe that the two cases are just as plausible, just as fair.
In both instances, I took actual, espoused policies and inflated them to ridiculous levels. Because this was the point of the debate, I only looked at Republican social policies and only looked at Democratic economic ones.
Sometimes, Bricker, your suggestions are shitty just 'cause they’re shitty, and not because of any bias on the part of the person doing the measuring. Actual actions, policies, and opinions of modern American Republicans were the basis for the Republican horror story. Bring me actual actions, policies, and opinions of modern American Democrats with your alternative horror story, and I’ll happily concede that it’s better than mine.
Otherwise, you may feel free to come to a sad realization about the disgusting nature of the social policies of a certain faction of the Republican party. But I doubt that’s gonna happen. Hope you’ve taken a deep breath, because it seems like your head is going to remain firmly jammed down in that sand for quite some time.
ETA: Anybody wanna place bets on whether the poster I was originally replying to (Evil One?) will ever grow a pair and respond?
While we’re playing this game, remember when Newt Gingrich proposed life sentences for anyone possessing two or more marijuana plants?
Santorum, as Dio has pointed out, goes well beyond simply saying there isn’t a right to sexual activity in the Constitution, he has come out in support of criminalization of homosexual conduct. He’s clearly made an prima facie case that Santorum, by supporting not just the Constitutionality of sodomy laws (as you have), but also the rationale for sodomy laws, supports the punishment for those laws (which included jailtime).
Now, Santorum could easily say, much as you did, that he thinks sodomy laws are stupid, useless, and should not be enacted by the legislature (as you have). But he hasn’t. He hasn’t come out and advocated that the legislature reject sodomy laws on their own, he hasn’t come out and said the laws are wrong. Instead he has stated that he supports those laws as written. And, in doing so, he support jailtime as punishment.
Dio clearly established his prima facie case. You now bear the burden of establishing that Santorum doesn’t support the punishment of the law he has said he supports.
I’m still trying.
How about a non-controversial one: Democrats will outlaw all privately-owned guns? That would seem to qualify as an “actual, espoused [policy]” “inflated to ridiculous levels.” Yes?
Yes, he has.
But it’s not possible to argue in a meaningful way with Dio, because he’s impervious to any admission of error or concession of any kind. He is right here, however, insofar as making a prima facie case.
However, you, though you clearly despise me, are a reasonably fair-minded rhetor. So if you’ll take on this argument, I’ll continue it.
He’s not an interlocutor, just a rhetor? Neither he nor anybody else can actually engage you, just talk at you, is that it?
Not that we didn’t already know, of course, but the implicit admission is remarkable nonetheless.
How about the Oregon tax initiatives that passed yesterday?
Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg
I’m certain there are some who would find such measures terrifying beyond all organic hope.
That is pretty much what happens on a message board. We’re really all just talking at each other, rather than with each other.
I do not despise you. I do not hate, dislike, or have any animus to you. I do have some unfattering opinions of your style of “debate”, your penchant for dressing up the latest right wing talking points into pretty clothes, and the way you carry yourself around here. But I certainly don’t despise you. If it helps, think of it as the sayings about homosexuality. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.
I have no interest in defending Dio’s statements, because you and I agree more than we disagree about his abilities at and how he conducts himself during “debates”. And it is an argument that is based in hyperbole and is of little import to the actual issues.
Santorum may or may not support jailing homosexuals for consensual sexual activity. I would imagine that it would all, as it does for almost all criminal punishments, depend on the situation. I have no problem believing he would support a jail sentence for an unrepentant serial sodomizer with multiple past convictions. I also have no problem believing that the would not support a five year prison sentence for a first time offender. And that leaves us with an unresolved issue. Feel free, however, to change my mind as to what Rick Santorum thinks, because I find myself not wanting to spend any time whatsoever on him.
I’ll take that.
And I agree with this analysis completely.
Then why?
Why the obfuscation? Why assert that Santorum was only talking in the Constitutional sense and didn’t actually advocate the punishment for the crime that he was advocating? Why the hiding the ball, the splitting of hairs? Why not come out and state that you disagree with Santorum and that you think homosexual sodomy should not be made criminal?
Why?