Why are cons ALWAYS on the wrong side of history?

Cons try to paint the Founding Fathers as some kind of arch-libertarian saints, but revolution is a radical act. It's as conservative as a May Day parade...

 

You really don't seem to understand the times, or the politics. The liberals of today aren't representative of republicans of the past. Liberals of today don't even respect human rights. See human trafficking over the southern border.. The KKK was and ostensibly is the military wing of the democratic party. That hasn't changed. White supremacy is still the voice of Eugenics, and is still the motivation of the Democratic party. You ignoring that is still the same story. Trying to transfer your own bias onto others just isn't successful.

Democrats aren't liberal any more. Or did that escape you? Democrats are the new authoritarians. And this is you doing anything to distract from that.

 

And the people doing thise studies work for the government of course and that, of course, is a conflict of interest. Not to mention which plenty of conservative think tanks have studies showing the opposite.
One should also note that the current tax code isn't written to maximum revenue but rather to micro manage behavior.

 

It's hard to believe anyone- from genius to moron- could believe that load of crap you've posted here. How could anyone be so oblivious to the future of the very country they live in? Obviously, some can.

 

Agreed, but the right needs to say that instead of lying and saying tax cuts bring in more revenues. Of course theres been soooo many studies and real world experiences about it that of course it's false tax cuts grow revenues and almost no proof it will grow the economy either

If the purpose was simply "starve the beast" that's one thing, the problem, IMO is that ALL the benefits the past 40 has been seen by only the top 1%

 

Got it, you'll stick to BS

 

LOL, Conflict of interest?

But no, not all are Gov't studies, and yes right wing think tanks lie all the time. AND?


Yes current tax codes under GOP certainly don't maximize revenues

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

So you can't refute ANYTHING posted huh?

Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela, Most Other Things


When has the American right ever—ever—been on the right side of history?

The answer is almost never.


...Do you support the American Revolution? I should hope so. You would not have, however, had you been a conservative in 1785. American Loyalists, perhaps 20 percent of the white population of the day, were devoted to king and crown for mostly the usual reasons: They were older, better established, had more money, were scared of change.


How about the abolition of slavery? I reckon you’re on board with that. Well, Lord knows you wouldn’t have been if you’d been among the 1860 conservatives who started a war over it (and whose apologists today insist the Civil War was not about slavery).

In terms of domestic politics, few polemical tasks are easier than demonstrating how wrong conservatism has been about pretty much everything in all of American history. Eradication of child labor? Why, an imposition on business owners to run their factories as they saw fit, you socialist! Giving women the right to vote? Women?! They simply don’t possess the logical faculties to be entrusted with such a responsibility, and anyway where will it end—I suppose you’ll be suggesting that black people get the franchise next? Segregation. Miscegenation laws. Immigration. Civil rights. The environmental movement. Conservatism’s record: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/conse...-side-of-history-on-mandela-most-other-things

 

I thought these were your ideas? Turns out, they aren't. They are what you have been told, here's the evidence. And of course, who cares what the dailybeast says? I mean, besides you. I could make the same assertion that the dailybeast has been on the wrong side of every modern issue of our day.

 

You should probably try it then? You know to refute my posits?

 

So, now that we know they aren't your posts, and you rely on others to write your opinions for you, who cares about refuting your posts? I don't give DailyBeast the time of day. What is there to refute?

 

You can't refute nonsense. When people come up with a list of excuses to believe what they want- in today's world they can document that with unlimited distortions, and nothing you can say will cause them to apply reason- because they don't want to. The same people endorse the kind of political nonsense we have on our hands right now, and pretend its rational. IF they were capable of being rational, they wouldn't have embraced nonsense in the first place. You chose to be where you are; rationality has nothing to do with it except it being used as a false claim to validity.

 

You should ask a conservative. I am not the one waving a partisan flag. Do you believe prosperity was the result of high taxes or was it the other way around? I live in Dem controlled CA and high taxes have not created prosperity. For me, the solution is less government regardless of the party.

 

It would seem that anyone who wants to argue taxes- any rational person- would be looking at who actually pays what. Assuming they actually want to be fair.

If you examine the chart- you see that the top1% pay 40% of all income tax revenue. The top 10% pay 70% of it.

The top 10 are the only ones whose share of taxes exceeds their share of income.




Another way to understand this- The Tax System – Explained With Beer


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that’s what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’


They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (FREE BEER!).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.


“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”


“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”


“That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”


“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

>> This is the perception of the wealth haters, what they view as fair. It's convenient to believe that you are poor because someone else is rich..
And it's a lot more comfortable than believing that you are poor because you failed to excel. Yet the bulk of those that think that aren't really poor at all, they are just envious of those who outperformed them, despite the fact they benefit greatly from those people's contributions to society.

 

Yes, the problem is spending not revenue.

 

My thoughts exactly. #1-7 a complete ideological rant, but cons are

 

More than STRANGE, It's NONSENSE.
Hey, there's a thread somewhere around here that explains exactly what that means.

 

I don't understand. Was this supposed to be an argument against my post, or just some random economic graphs? They don't have anything to do with anything I posted. You know, if you don't know how to respond, you don't actually have to.

 

They certainly were on the right side of women's rights and gay rights. The social order is crumbling because of these innovations. DEI is a disaster undermining social cohesion because of diversity, and the destruction of excellence due to equity.

 

The righteous mind can do no wrong. Like Reps, Dems believe the damage they cause is for ones own good. From your perspective, you are the good guys and they are the bad guys. In reality, there are no bad guys, only good intentions being exploited by politicians.

I respect your willingness to see 20% of the damage caused by your party. Devout partisans only see faults in others. Since I don't care for either party, I will not join the partisan pissing match. I live in your parties petri dish and there is no way you can make a case that society is better off under dem control.

 

Who says that?

 

The side of history we are on now is about 70% of Americans thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction under Democratic control.

 

I guess we can infer then that the Dems are currently on the wrong side of history.

 

Agree here also. The worst possible way to do anything in terms of economics is to give it to government. It's not just carelessness in spending, but the perception that taxation is a bottomless pit of money and the desire to spend it overrides the need of the people's right to keep it, and the obligation of government to be a good and conservative steward of their tax dollars.

 

Do you think some Dems are so committed to Totalitarianism because they miss having slaves and have an inner need to boss others around?

How is it that the Progressive Puritans destroy every enterprise they infect?

NO. NEXT QUESTION? Is AP a news organization any more? “The Associated Press is hardly some random blogger without the resources to check their facts independently, and yet their social media team tweets out a story from 4 days ago as if it were current.”



Infected. Wrong side of history.



The story isn't even currently true. Two days ago from future President Ron DeSantis: 'Construction on the Pine Island bridge has been completed today – just three days after construction began. Happy to have the state step in and help get our Pine Island residents back on their feet.'

Why are Progressive Puritans always on the wrong side of the facts?