I really don’t wish to get into a debate about the economics of various tax policies here. All I wished to point out is that just because you don’t see evidence of regard for the implication of the Bush tax cuts on future events, you are almost certainly wrong that such things were not considered. Your particular concerns may have been dismissed in favor of the concerns of Bush (and his advisors and campaign contributors), but they were almost certainly discussed and considered.
I won’t argue with that. Except to say that the Democrats had a chance when they controlled both the executive and the legislative branches to just such a thing. Their plan, however, was really to do nothing. Except say, “Hey! We’re gonna have a budget surplus soon. Social Security is safe for 40 years.” They, too, failed to undertake any actions which would continue to adequately fund Social Security in the event of an economic downturn. Whether Social Security is worthy of such efforts and funding is a whole other argument - one which I also won’t undertake here. Suffice it to say though, that perhaps the Bush advisors had a different priority (and/or plan) for the SS fund than you or the Democrats. Again, this would not mean funding Social Security was “disregarded.”
Unless I’ve missed something, there seems to be something missing from this thread: Mr. Jung hisself. But then, his user name does come at the end of a rather long title, and perhaps his attention span has been too short for him to see his name on the marquis.
Apologetically,
yr hmbl & obed srvt
JBMouse
Deficit spending is not the same thing as a tax cut. It was the administration’s position that a tax cut would, in fact, increase revenue - the last free-roaming Laffers in the world are in the White House. It was, of course, bullshit. Revenue is still below Clinton’s last budget.
A tax cut that, by far, the vast majority of the help of which goes to those at the top is not held by many this side of 1990 to be a cure for a stagnant economy.
Of course. This is a different thread. To bring it back to within the realm of the OP, let me restate a point from the end of my rant above. I propose that, if personal responsibility is a component of being a conservative, supporters of this administration cannot be considered conservative. This is particularly true of those for whom the apologist label applies; those who are reflexive defenders of nearly all of Bush’s actions. I have no problem setting Scylla squarely within that camp. Personal accountability would seem to go hand in hand with accountability, and it is lickspittles like Scylla who have helped to keep this administration free from accountability (including the “accountability moment” in 2004). If the Republican party had anything remotely to do with personal responsibility, there would never have been a “Delay Rule,” the investigation of the use of pre-war intelligence would not still be pending, and any of a number of examples of corruption would be investigated and denounced.
Scylla may cite an instance here or there where he himself ultimately came to be even marginally critical of the Bush adminstration, but I am quite sure that such came only after much argument, defending, deflecting and waiting and seeing. One should not need to have their arm twisted to elicit personal accountability or responsibility.
Actually, if you (and bup) do want to take part in a reasonable discussion of tax policy and its effects on the economy, there’s a current thread in GD, right here. I dunno if you guys are already participating in it, but it directly addresses some of the points your arguments here make.
I’ve never heard that, and I stated more than once that I would have voted for Leiberman over Bush, so, as usual, you’re wrong.
It’s a lot easier to create strawmen and knock those down than to deal with the actual people and arguments you’re facing, isn’t it? Sadly, the latter doesn’t appear to be an option to you.
BTW, you drive one of those new Mustang v6s, don’t you?
I complained to you that Elvis suggested I was a troll, which is specifically against board rules. Are you going to do something about it, or are you moving from incompetence to willful negligence in the dereliction of your duties?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I propose that, if personal responsibility is a component of being a conservative, supporters of this administration cannot be considered conservative.[/quoting]
Ok. Let’s see where you’re going with this.
Altering reality to fit your preconceptions by mischaracterizing others to suit your needs worked for Hitler, Jim Jones, Pat Robertson, Jack Chick and many other others, so I guess it can work for you.
[quote]
Personal accountability would seem to go hand in hand with accountability, and it is lickspittles like Scylla who have helped to keep this administration free from accountability (including the “accountability moment” in 2004). If the Republican party had anything remotely to do with personal responsibility, there would never have been a “Delay Rule,” the investigation of the use of pre-war intelligence would not still be pending, and any of a number of examples of corruption would be investigated and denounced.
[/quote[
Ok, so here is the actual argument. “Accountability” means you’re supposed to have voted Democrat. Voting Republican in '04 means you’re against accountability. This is not a supporting argument. This is simply restating your thesis in the form of assuming your conclusion.
I find it to be “sophmoric.”
Of course you’re “sure.” “Sure” is easy when your mischaracterizations are based on preference and wishes.
Someone call a waahmbulance! You stupid whiny ass puss, your problem should be with UncleBeer, not with Elvis, who was just trying to make clear what UncleBeer had said. Whaaaa! Someone help me - I’m being picked on! Unfortunately, you are very much a typical conservative.
Wow, you would have voted for Lieberman. Whew! You would have showed integrity, if only others had given you the opportunity. Boy, I guess I sure am wrong. You are, or would have been, a real stand up guy.
Yeah, thanks for asking.
Again, wow. Your insight is frighteningly illuminating. Calling you out as an apologist and suggesting that this is incompatible with being responsible and accountable is exactly what Hitler would have done.
Right. And my thought was, “What’s the difference between ‘chumming’ and ‘trolling’?” Which is exactly what Elvis was getting at. So why should Scylla whine “Mommy!” about Elvis, when you were the one who explicitly accused Scylla of “chumming”?
What is the difference between “chumming” and “trolling”?
My comments have to be taken in context. Conservatives are known for being aginst making changes willy-nilly (they are conservative about change). They are supposed to be againt a bigger and more intrusive government. They are supposed to be a little more “isolationist” rahter than using the Team America approach. They supposedly are for respoinsibility (including their own), with a kind of “the buck stops here” attitude. At least, that is how they represent themselves (or used to). While pro-business, they are supposed to be against meddling in it - bailouts, perks, tax benefits for the un-needy. So yes, what we have now is not conservative.
On the other hand, liberals are supposed to be for the Little Guy. They are the ones who tend to like the “give them a hand up but not a hand out” idea. They tend to be more in favor of change, but within sensible limits.
