It's the Day's Day of Days! Because you're gonna carry that weight.
Muir warns of the dangers of allowing government to go against the wishes of right wingers, sapping the vital fluids of our nation! Oh, if only they were still in power! Then--another war! That'd put us on the road to recovery!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You appear to forget that most of the founding fathers were against a large and powerful central government and instead wanted to put the power in the hands of the individual states.
ReplyDeleteThat is why the Constitution has the enumerated powers clause which states that unless specifically given to the federal government, the power and authority is delegated to the states.
And when you look at history, tax cuts have always brought a period of increased revenue to the government, because there was more money in circulation, and that was what drove the economy.
If you want, I'll post the numbers to prove it.
Okay, step by step...
ReplyDelete1) The "Founding Fathers" had a wide variety of political philosophies, all of which played a part in writing the Constitution, so that it can be used to back Centrist (or as they used to call it 'Federalist') or States' Rights arguments depending on which clauses you cite, and where you put the emphasis. Also, I'll accept your claims of loyalty "literal intent" when, for example, you talk about breaking up the CIA. Until then, I'm going to stick with my suspicion that your "convictions" are an ill-thought out rationalization you spew out when took to task.
2) No, supply-side economics do NOT work. Claims that they do are number games that involve ignoring things like inflation and increases in payroll taxes made to cover the gap. It's a simple fact--when you cut taxes, revenues fall.
I've no doubt you have more talking points to yammer at me in the future. Please do not imagine you are wowing me with your awesome powers of debate.
1)This country has always used spies to determine the scope of threats to the country. The CIA is part of the federal government's responsibility to provide for the common defense as noted in the preamble. Has the CIA sometimes overstepped their bounds? Yes, but so have all agencies that are part of the federal government.
ReplyDelete2) Please give me your fact and figures to prove your opinion. I am willing to listen to facts that prove your side, but I have not yet heard anything but insults and disparagement of the Conservative mindset and political belief.
Until I see something that resembles a logical argement, I will deem your "powers of debate" to be much like the contents of a hot air baloon, mostly empty and highly inflated.
1) In other words, you can support any expansion of government if it involves men with guns, because when you say "literal reading" there's an invisible "to a certain value of 'literal' to be determined by me as I go along," attached.
ReplyDeleteWhich was exactly what I expected, and was suggesting.
2) First, why your argument on tax cuts is wrong using that logic that you say I'm avoiding. First of all, it presupposes that money in private hands is "in circulation" and in government hands is "out of circulation". So, a faulty premise right out the gate.
Moving past that, you state that it can increase revenue because there's extra money around and that's what drives the economy. But the extra money is money that the government GAVE UP as revenue. Said money is going to have to fuel an economic expansion in proportion to the cut just to break even. That's usually a pretty tall order. When you do a tax cut the government is taking a loss--theoretically for the good of the nation. My opposition to supply-side style cuts is that they are most definitely NOT for the good of the nation--they're for the short term benefit of the wealthy. And even they wind up losing in the long run.
But of course, you want facts and figures. Such as this examination of the Bush Tax Cuts. And now that I have spent more time talking about tax cuts that I strongly suspect neither you nor I have gotten than I ever really wanted to, allow me to state two things. First I no more care for your opinion of me then you care for my opinion of you. Second, you are not a conservative. You're a right-wing reactionary. There's a distinct difference.