preemptively rob them first?
Was thinking guillotine myself.
A party run by rich people isn’t going to be too much into taking from the rich. To the extent they do, they make sure to exempt themselves from the higher taxes.
Here it is August 2013 and your post is proving to be spot-on.
Not surprising though to those who’ve been monitoring the actions of republican insiders encounced in DC over the last couple of decades.
Which method(s) would you suggest? Would the Republicans approve any of them?
Anyway, I think they will** try** to rob the middle, but mostly succeed with the poor. Counter-examples exist of course, but don’t the rich often get rich on the backs of the poor?
Only if they are using tax money to enrich themselves.
I would point out that all those deductions make easier for the rich to finance astroturf movements or candidates that in other circumstances would never be elected, those extreme candidates then “by coincidence” also oppose inconveniencing the ones in power that are making a situation worse by making them pay the real cost of what they are avoiding. And so the Republicans that would be more reasonable are kicked out.
Never mind.
Surely you jest, but the point is that mostly and thanks to those tax breaks is that many rich people have an easier time to give us the worst specimens of governance one could only had imagined in the past, maybe that was what Gödel saw as a flaw in our democratic system.
I was jesting and actually tried to go for maximum wingnuttiness by making it all caps, only to be thwarted by vBulletin (thus the footnote).
Tax breaks is not taking taxpayer money, it’s keeping your own. What I was referring to are all these ex-politicians whose only talent is to lobby for earmarks for companies that hire them, or government contracts.
Terry McCauliffe in particular is a guy whose made a Romney-like fortune by heading nonviable companies and lobbying for our money.
It is when deficits got worse. Sure it is your own money, but there is a social contract to keep.
Anyone that is criticized by Ken (I will prosecute the Galileos of today) Cuccinelli is not a bad person in my book.
Mccauliffe isn’t a bad person, he’s a great guy. But he’s not a very capable guy. He didn’t run the Democratic Party very well, his tenure was highly criticized from within the party, and he’s only been successful in the business world by using his connections.
In fact, that’s his only quality. He can raise money better than almost anyone. Best used car salesman in the country.
And of course that makes it worse than Cuccinelli … not.
Really, this is the time to stop encouraging the blind, they have no place in government. Specially when even Republicans Inglis are telling the party to stop following crackpot ideas that will affect all Americans.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/29/new-politcal-ad-cuccinellis-witch-hunt/
BTW the previous cite with Inglis shows that you are indeed clueless when you claim that industry is doing enough in this issue, as Inglis would tell you there is still a lot and government can help a lot.
Government can always help, a carbon tax is a good idea, if we also reduce payroll taxes to compensate.
But it’s also true that the private sector has reduced emissions far more than government was ever able to, just as the private sector has reduced world poverty far more than the worlds’ governments ever did.
Which is why you treating climate denialism as a disqualifying offense is ridiculous. Being wrong on a scientific matter is only disqualifying if the issue will affect their ability to govern because they will act on that poor understanding of science. Since the government’s efforts to combat climate change have been ineffective, this is not the case. Electing a denier just means that the government will waste less money being ineffective at fighting climate change.
And that shows that you did not read what Inglis had to say, the implication of the piece is that indeed you are wrong on the levels the private sector has reduced emissions, lots more are needed.
Nope, since you are wrong on the levels of change that are needed your reply here is only a demonstration of ignorance.
And this is just the icing on the cake, you really have no credible points here. Indeed when the solution to the problem is to deny it, it follows that then they guys like Cuccinelli are also clueless on what the economic experts are telling us about what it should be the best way forward to deal with this issue. And once again you are also denying what government did well regarding past commons tragedies like bad water, phosphate contamination of rivers and lakes, acid rain and ozone layer depletion gases.
Government cannot achieve the reductions necessary, it’s not politically possible. They know that, which is why they are subsidizing various alternatives, none of which have borne fruit. Meanwhile, the one thing they didn’t subsidize turned out to help a lot.
That’s the problem with picking winners and losers. It’s like trying to pick the best sports teams based on political considerations.
Wrong too as Tesla, General motors and the banks can tell you.
Easy to say when depending on ignorance.
Once again, acting like if that waste of taxpayers money when Cuccinelli prosecuted a climate scientist for stupid reasons is not important is silly, it shows how he will govern and it points to the kind of waste that is very damaging in the long run.
You know, just because you ignore the arguments against you doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The arguments made questioned the motive, not the result. As if good intentions mattered more.