- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Reaction score
- 806
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You could've, and some people did.
oh darn i missed that part? :/
You could've, and some people did.
We should have been able to select more than one answer, it would make it much more effective.
How does the term "trickle down economics" fit anything that happened in the 80s?
tax cut = "trickle down economics"? Why would anyone choose a name like that to describe a tax cut? When I hear the phrase "trickle down economics", it doesn't sound anything like a tax cut.Tax cuts are supposed to trickle-down to the economy, the backbone of REagonics..
Reagan was President in the 1980's.
tax cut = "trickle down economics"? Why would anyone choose a name like that to describe a tax cut? When I hear the phrase "trickle down economics", it doesn't sound anything like a tax cut.
Everyone who payed income taxes saw an increase in their paycheck, including low paid workers like I was at the time. Saying that it only went to the top 1% is a laughable rewrite of history. You may as well say that Hitler won WW II.Money refunded to the top 1% is the guise Reagonomics use.
Everyone who payed income taxes saw an increase in their paycheck, including low paid workers like I was at the time. Saying that it only went to the top 1% is a laughable rewrite of history. You may as well say that Hitler won WW II.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/u...eory-default-wouldnt-be-that-bad.html?hp&_r=0
To quote:
Both [Obama and Boehner] were counting on the prospect of a global economic meltdown to help pull restive Republicans into line. On Wall Street, among business leaders and in a vast majority of university economics departments, the threat of significant instability resulting from a debt default is not in question. But a lot of Republicans simply do not believe it.
Seeing as how this is like deja vu all over again, I pose a question: On which issue does the GOP have the loosest grasp of facts and the broad consensus of experts when it comes in opposition to their preferred ideology?
tax cut =/= rebateWho got more??
My rebate was about $12 at one time per month..
How about those getting back $12 million..
With high interest rates, they all made a fortune on their Reagan Rebates just on interest alone..
who will be the first to $100 billion--the first Trillionaire
To respond to this would be to accept the premise of the OP, which is opinion therefore invalid. It is clear this is a vehicle to generate responses from those who agree and disregard the opinion of those who do not.
However government is constituted, it's going to be coercive in some way. It has to be, and I think I can guarantee that no one with very much intelligence thinks it should or could be otherwise. So the question is how to constitute government. The laws we have tend to force people into a competetive model of economic interaction.
Of course, I did not mean my remarks to extend to every area of life. I don't think conservatives see themselves as necessarily in competition with their families, for instance. But ceteris paribus, conservatives will opt for models of government which enforce competition instead of cooperation.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. If you mean that the effect of coercion is to create resentment among those coerced, you may be right. However, I'm not sure this matters. I'm sure that time I got on to my daughter and coerced her to not stick a wire in the electrical socket left her with some resentment for a while. I'm sure there are some convicted murderers who were caught red-handed, but who nevertheless resent the police and the prosecutors who put them where they need to be.
The only relevant question is what people ought to do. The argument that government ought not to coerce cooperation because it will make some people upset is pretty weak. If people should cooperate in some manner, they should do so or be made to do so.
johndylan1 said:I agree that government = force; however I disagree that the US law forces a competitive model. Finite resources and natural law do.
johndylan1 said:In addition, competition for resources does not preclude cooperation. They are not opposing concepts.
johndylan1 said:Cooperation is born out of consent of the governed at times, also charity and morality; which may or may not be constituted as law. Therefore conservatives will opt for models of government that maximize liberty, with a limited but important role reserved for government.
johndylan1 said:Cooperation in the context of governmental force is extremely important to national security, equal protection, infrastructure etc… and in lesser ways maintained the local levels of government. With regard to social charity I do believe that cooperation should be largely voluntary. BTW. Conservatives tend to volunteer more time and money to private charity, so it's not a hollow philosophy.
johndylan1 said:Bad analogy, you are not coerced not to stick a wire in a socket, you are protected, and that appropriate.
johndylan1 said:A good analogy would be to stick a gun to your head (governmental force), demand half of your earnings, give your cash to someone else with a smile (never crediting the actual source of the gift), and then asking for the vote of the recipient. Kinda divisive behavior.
johndylan1 said:The problem with “ought” is, it is subjective.
johndylan1 said:We are a nation of objective laws based on consent.
johndylan1 said:I heard Will Cain say something I might agree with and like better than your competition vs cooperation model. The political spectrum is actually humility vs hubris.
How does the term "trickle down economics" fit anything that happened in the 80s?
Money from Government is supposed to Multiply to about $1.70 per dollar.
Money refunded to the top 1% is the guise Reagonomics use.
The problem with this thread is that it takes a bunch of blanket issues and presumes the left wing argument is automatically correct while the right wing argument is indubitably wrong without actually listing the premise for either sides' arguments. It is, ultimately, the political equivalent to the play ground retort "my daddy is tougher than your daddy" with the obvious difference being the play ground retort actually has a specific measure to discuss.
To disregard the premise of this poll and the quoted article as mere opinion is itself delusional. The GOP has a repeated and well-documented habit of disregarding verified data, the broad consensus of experts, accumulated evidence, and mere common sense in all of the given examples.
ksu_aviator said:The problem with this thread is that it takes a bunch of blanket issues and presumes the left wing argument is automatically correct while the right wing argument is indubitably wrong without actually listing the premise for either sides' arguments. It is, ultimately, the political equivalent to the play ground retort "my daddy is tougher than your daddy" with the obvious difference being the play ground retort actually has a specific measure to discuss.
And therein, you proved my point. To suggest your premise is approved by a 'broad consensus' is inaccurate. Liberals access the opinions of those who agree with them. THAT is a proven well-documented habit of their own. And 'common sense' does not mean that the majority opinion is always correct, it merely means that more people have the wrong grasp of reality.
Horrible misunderstanding of conservatives. Conservatives believe in cooperation. We believe in voluntary cooperation and not coerced cooperation. The effect of coercion is usually destructive, creating division. However, voluntary cooperation leads to appreciation and mutual respect.
Surely there were rich folks who would've liked that, but no one would ever say something like that out loud. No politician would ever admit to supporting something like that. Proposing legislation like that would be the surest form of political suicide. No one proposed any legislation remotely close to that. Our economic policies didn't resemble that at all. You're trying to rewrite the history of the 1980s. You may as well say that the Soviets won The Cold War and that you and I are typing this in Russian.Feed the elephant well, the mice may find some undigested tidbits by waiting and then sifting through whatever crap might trickle down the elephants leg.
To dismiss outright the broad consensus of anything is nihilism.
but again i know tons of GOP members that totally support equal rights for gays and are pro-choice with limits like most people
What do you mean? To what natural law do you refer?
It seems to me that they are, though they can each exist in the context of a single relationship at different times. So, if that's what you mean, then sure, I agree. The relevant question is just how to "cash out" in a clear manner when and to what extent each is appropriate.
Everything after the "therefore" doesn't seem to follow from what goes before it.
Two points:
1) Cooperation is not necessarily a function of the consent of the governed. In certain things, government rightly coerces people whether they consent or not. Again, crime is an example. Ask any thief whether they consent to laws against theft, and my intuition tells me that they probably do not so consent. But nevertheless, they are forced to do so.
We can think of even more general instances. Civil rights in the south is a pretty good example: government forced cooperation despite the consent of the governed, and it was right to do so. As a general rule, I would argue that we can infer some accurate propositions about the social contract, and where those are in process of being violated, government should force compliance, regardless of who consents and who does not.
2) Who consents to what, and who subscribes to which morals, it not something that is set in stone. It's often a matter of education and belief. Especially where beliefs are simply false, and those false beliefs lead to a lack of consent where consent ought to be voluntary, again, government should force cooperation.
1) One thing I infer from the fact that human beings come together to cooperate for survival is that there is a social contract. A contract implies mutual action, and fulfillment of any end of the bargain is not properly categorized as charity. The simple fact is that we cooperate to ensure mutual survival. One critical aspect of this is that those who do comparatively better help those who do comparatively worse, even if the difference is due to some congenital difference in ability. The reason for this is that when there is a society and a social economy such as ours, no one earns anything by dint of their own labor.
It's quite easy to demonstrate this. We could imagine taking someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and transporting them, as young men, to, say, Mesopotamia in the year 2900 B.C. Do either of them build exactly what they have built in our contemporary society? Of course not. They obviously can't. They exist in a time when the correct resources are not available...but that's the whole point. Their fortunes have required inputs which are only generated by a society such as ours. Ergo, their fortunes are not fully their own.
2) The thought you just expressed was fairly common in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The simple fact is that it didn't work. It resulted in a huge harvest of human misery that really wasn't necessary. Had it continued, it would have resulted in civil wars...and there is at least a plausible analysis which suggests that WWI was partially a result of this line of thinking. Ditto the Great Depression.
Well, I am not, but that's only because I have all the relevant facts, the correct understanding, and the proper motivations about wires and electrical sockets. Your stated point was that coercion creates resentment. I agree, but pointed out why this is irrelevant, at least just as such.
Now, if you want to argue that certain instances of coercion rightly create resentment, because the people being coerced have the relevant facts, correct understanding, and proper motivation, all of which militate against the impetus of the coercion, I'm all ears. But so far, I haven't seen that.
It shouldn't be, unless you are genuinely living outside the bounds of any benefits which society bestows upon you. The fact that you're using the internet would make me suspicious of any such claims.
I used to buy this line, but I don't any longer. It seems to me that there probably is an objectivity to morality, even if moral principles lack the same ontological status as rocks and clouds.
Well, I think cooperation vs. competition is more about economics than politics, though the two obviously go hand in hand. I would be interested to hear a little more about humility and hubris.