You have debunked trickle-down theory thoroughly and effectively, and I don’t dispute that.
You continue to hold the confused belief that cutting corporate taxes always equal trickle-down economics. This is a a silly reductionist misapplication of the concept.
Your logic is like saying hardware stores are tetanus spreaders because they sell nails, which always spread tetanus. It’s sort of true in some narrow literal sense, but it’s a dumb way to make that decision.
No, as my cites show, cutting corporate taxes are a major part of trickle-down economics. That being said, the idea to increase taxes on the Rich is a excellent one, one that the Dems have in their platform, iirc.
Your cites don’t show that, but go ahead and keep on thinking it.
As a left wing anarchist, I believe it is still important to vote. It makes a difference if the poor are kicked with Teva sandals or jackboots. Some anarchists hold that no anarchist should ever vote
My cites certainly did, post 60.
My wife and I are both liberals, but I’m more of a centrist. She grew up in a household and a town where unions could do no wrong. Her father was a union official and organizer, and she still staunchly defends union action regardless of what it is. I have some problems with that, even though I generally do support them. Nothing is black or white in this world.
Look, your cites are a bunch of cherry-picked crap that you gish-galloped out there without demonstrating what inferences can be drawn from it. The term “corporate tax rate” appears exactly once and you want to pretend it’s a MAJOR PART of the whole scheme. And I need to emphasize that “trickle-down” isn’t even a real theory proposed by anyone; it’s just a jokey term of derision that’s become a knee-jerk automatic response to dismiss the idea that sometimes a particular tax may be higher than optimal.
If you don’t like the policy of raising a tax so we can offset a different tax to juice productivity, fine, but don’t paint it as being a debunked theory that was never even a theory in the first place.
And to tie this hijack into the OP, this is how I differ from my fellow liberals. I understand that tax policy can be tweaked and sometimes it’s appropriate to lower a specific type of tax, without having my brain melt down and think it’s the second coming of Ronald Reagan. This kind of absolutism is one reason nobody takes the left serious on economic issues.
Has the OP been back? Would love to ask if when they set up the thread title/question: “What issue most divides you from others who share your general political ideology?” they were intending on having people set out to prove to one another why they are wrong about their answers.
I’m guessing not. I’m impressed only one argument broke out.
This is so true. Goes for me, too (that and the scars I have from fighting for the right to vote at all)
I am a moderate-liberal-pragmatic-atheist. I don’t personally know anyone or associate with any group that is “hardcore” moderate-liberal-pragmatic-atheist, therefore I don’t have any issue on which to split from my vague fuzzy ideological camp. For me, the Dope comes closest to being that camp.
I find it worth noting that no one so far seems to have taken the position of being a “hardcore” uncompromising devotee of any particular ideological group. Being able to accept some wiggle room is good.
I’m a Clinton/Waren Liberal I have a few differences with my tribe, but I’m not sure which one is most divisive.
As other posters I’m pro nuke (grew up in Los Alamos) and pro GMO.
I favor a slow step towards progressiveness. We have to accept the fact that a large proportion of the US, just doesn’t want the things we do even if in the end it would be better for them. There simply aren’t enough progressive liberals to get the job done. We also need to find a middle ground. We can’t be as partisan as stubborn and as vindictive as the Republicans. Or else our country will fall into chaos. Someone needs to be the adult in the room and it sure as heck isn’t going to be them.
Although I accept that climate change is real and is a huge problem, I don’t think that pining all our hopes on emission cuts is going to work. Even if all of the countries can get their ducks in a row and drastically cut emissions for a few years/decades, priorities will change, there is no way we can keep it up for the centuries required to save the planet. Priorities will change and different people will be put in charge, and the lure of easy energy via fossil fuels is going to just start it up again. Its human nature that we are unlikely to give up short term gain in exchange for mitigation of a larger theoretical long term loss. Particularly if the gain is individual and the loss is shared. A mixture of the problems of dieting and the tragedy of the commons. I hope I’m wrong,and I’m not against doing what we can to stop it, but I think we need to start accepting global climate change as a near inevitability and work out ways to mitigate its effects.
Slightly left of center (USA), registered non-partisan since 1984 but have been tending towards the Democrats since 2000 or so. I honestly do not give a shit about “Democrat” vs “Democratic” Party. Seriously? With all the shit going on in this country, that’s what gets you triggered into fits of rage? Ever heard of parallelism? “Republican” works as both noun and adjective, so people get lazy and do the same for “Democrat”. Talk about looking to be offended.
I have been a Democrat since Carter, and really, I agree about “Democrat Party”. I mean, sure if they write it “demon-rat” Ok, then that pisses me off.
Gun control: This is the issue I’m most right wing about. Though I’m not opposed to reasonable regulations (I bet we’ll dicker about what’s reasonable though), I generally oppose most gun control measures simply because I think they will lead to more and more restrictive measures. I don’t believe most of the legislators who voted for the 1994 assault weapon ban actually believed it would do anything to lower crime. It was just foot-in-the-door legislation for them to continue opening the door.
(Illegal) Immigration: I would actually like an immigration policy that is both humane and recognizes the realities of our economic needs. I also want to pave the way for Dreamers to remain in the only country they’ve ever really known and I want those who are oppressed and endangered in their own country to be able to seek asylum here. But I don’t think we should welcome everyone into the country and I believe the H-1B system is heavily abused and depresses the wages for programmers.
Far left and one thing that always tends to divide me from other leftists is my support of the military. While I agree that our military has been used for nothing but imperialism and subjugating other nations, as a veteran who was part of that imperialism, I try to point out that the military is just a tool of the state and not to blame the troops or the existence of military equipment for the death and destruction.
Like I got chewed out on a leftbook group for defending the use of drones. I wasn’t defending drone strikes, I was saying that the technology shouldn’t be blamed for the improper use of that technology. Basically, blame the higher-ups that signed off on the strike in the first place.
Although a wholly typical fairly-leftish Democrat in almost all respects, I don’t really give a rat’s ass about legalization of marijuana or any other recreational drugs. If I’m told by trusted advocates for civil liberties that legalization will make our criminal justice system less shitty then I’m for it, but otherwise IDGAF.
I don’t really have any huge disagreements with liberals. I suppose one possible disagreement that comes to mind is the state-by-state legalization of marijuana and other drugs; I’d rather see federal regulation across the board that encourages the development of medicinal and safe-to-use recreational products, similar to alcohol, that in moderate amounts produce a slight buzz and would only become seriously problematic if taken in significant amounts. Obviously that wouldn’t work with all controlled substances but I think it would for Mary Jane and possibly a few others.
I’m on the right and I’m not a fan of the power and necessity of the evangelical right. Other points that I have issue with is I think pure free market capitalism is destructive and I think our justice system and prisons need to be completely remodeled from the medieval style dungeons we have to a more rehabilitative system. Unnecessary state sanctioned brutality has no place in a civilized nation.
Your post seems that you’re more like a “centreist” than “on the right”.