What "Conservative Values" aren't based on bigotry?

Pantastic:

You don’t seem interested in responding to what an actual conservative has to say about your list.

Do you just prefer to argue against your strawman?

As usual the big picture shows that Trump once again does a nice job on breaking things.

From one of your articles: “High earners did far better under the law. The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock.”

As I said, “Conservative tax cuts consistently result in lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest at worst, and huge cuts (by percentage, not raw numbers) on the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest at best.” When the top 20% get 60% of the tax cut benefits, I’m going to class that as huge cuts for the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest.

I have responded. I am not going to continue to reiterate the same points I’ve already made to someone who claims that used actual facts is “bigotry”. If you want to call it a strawman for me to not repeat what I’ve already said, or to not keep going line by line with someone who thinks that using real world facts is ‘dickery’, I can’t stop you from redefining words.

I will add that with the deficit growing and guys like Rush Limbaugh telling the Republicans that the deficits do not matter, the big picture shows something that should be anathema to what a conservative should be. Fiscal responsibility is as dead as a dodo among the Republicans in power.

The top quintile pays 69% of taxes;

If they got 60% of the tax savings, than that is less than they would have gotten if it were applied evenly.

Trump’s tax cut favored the bottom four quintiles percentage wise over the top quintile. It was a progressive tax cut.
Are you being obstinate, or are you genuinely having trouble understanding?

And, as demonstrated, you would be wrong.

As mentioned already, when one takes into account the tariff taxes, that “progressive tax cut” is a very silly point to make.

You get that the bottom 80% of tax payers pay 31% of taxes. The top 20% pay 69%.

If you cut everybody’s taxes by 1%, 69% of the saving go to that top 20% as a mathematical necessity.

And as a necessity, the result are deficits that even some Republicans are finally noticing that it was a dumb thing to do even though it may had been politically ok then.

This is unfortunately 100% correct as you’ve written it.


Personally, I strongly believe that tariffs are the wrong way to attempt to solve the trade problem and believe Trump is making a mistake.

It remains vaguely possible that in fact what appears to be incredibly bad policy is actually a genius negotiating move that will result in far better trade conditions long term, and these tariffs will have been proven to be a smart short term sacrifice that was fleeting in its duration but laying in the benefits that they brought.

It’s possible.
Despite what anybody might argue you are correct though in saying that the tariffs are a tax on us, not the Chinese.

Yeah, deficits are basically stealing from our kids (with a few technical exceptions that are kind of abstract.). Not a super fan.

They are hardly unique to Republicans, but we certainly deserve the greater bitch slapping over this as we advertise as the party of fiscal responsibility.

So I agree. Please note that I didn’t disagree with you, and made no comment whether the tax cuts were awesome or terrible in the bigger picture of things. I was just pointing out that Pantastics premise that the tax cuts are somehow penalizing the poor is wrong.
Better arguments along these lines would relate to sales taxes which are intrinsically regressive and actually penalize the poor.

Yeah, I have to notice your agreement there because it is really super rare in discussions like this.

You may get :cool: again as I remember you, so we will see.

Facts should be both of our friends. They have no political affiliation.

In a similar vein, I hope I don’t have to argue the concept that the tax cuts almost certainly helped the economy.

We can accept that that is a reasonable statement.

That is different than saying that they were wise or needed or a good trade off, or the best way to stimulate the economy, or the best choice among the list of all possible choices that could have been done instead, all of which are subject to debate.

nm

The top twenty percent owns 69.7% of the wealth in the country. So 69% of the taxes seems fair.

It’s fascinating, the hairs you choose to split and the hairs you choose not to split. Predictable, but fascinating.

Earlier in this thread, you called Ilhan Omar anti-American.

Right, see, that’s the thing.

I’ve never seen these Republicans. I see Republicans who utter the most crassly offensive, bigoted drivel. And I see other Republicans do absolutely nothing about it. Ever. Yeah, they stripped Steve King of his committees. After the election, and how many years of him saying shit like that? And it sure as shit didn’t stop the Republicans in his district from voting him again.

Earlier I posted more than thirty cites to times when the Republican party amended state (STATE) constitutions to explicitly discriminate against people like me. But apparently, I’m mentally inflexible for thinking maybe the Republican party has some kind of fucking problem with gay people.

And there’s our deep and careful conservative thinker, demonstrating that he tends not to tolerate people who express bigoted tendencies.

Did you have my views pegged? Which post? I’d be happy to respond if I missed it.

As for bipartisan, we may have had a different definition earlier, but in my more recent posts I’ve been using your definition - the bill the Democratic congress passed, with no Republican action, was previously unanimous and fully bipartisan in the Senate, which was what I said in the first place that you challenged.

Of course you don’t owe me anything, but don’t you owe it to yourself to consider the facts when it comes to your own positions, and rethink things if it turns out your understanding of the facts were wrong?

As for “misrepresenting” your post, I was just responding to what I read. If I misunderstood, then I was wrong. You said some inaccurate things about me, like that I believed conservative positions were all based on bigotry, which I’ve never said. I assumed that was driven by anger. If I was wrong, I’m sorry.

We’ve had interesting discussions before. Why not give it a try again?

My guess is most women who aren’t really whores would just explain why they weren’t whores. It’s not that hard to explain.

Ridiculous

Why they are different? Limited government is different from big government spending

Limiting government is seen as keeping government less intrusive. The armed forces aren’t intrusive. (At least to us)

I mean, there are lots of things that Republicans do and advocate for that can’t be seen as limiting government but this isn’t one of them.