• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay? (1 Viewer)

The reality is that tax cuts do not need to be paid for. They do generate revenue.

Total BS. Every income tax cut in my lifetime has generated increased revenue. You are confusing spending with revenue.
It’s mathematically impossible to increase something by collecting a lower percentage of it. Revenues go up year over year, every year due to population growth and inflation, barring a recession. Every single tax cut in the last 40 years has resulted in less revenue than should have been collected, while not increasing economic output to offset the reduction.
 
I guess the question is : How much better could it be?
That really depends. Economics is often thought of as a social system for dealing with wants that exceed available resources. The problem I have with trying to figure out what an understanding of econ can do, is that it lacks a foundation of morality. That is, we need agreement on moral and ethic questions before a real answer about how good things can be.

But for myself and how good I think things should be. Well, no one in a nation that has a collective $220 trillion dollars in wealth should find themselves without basic healthcare, education, sustenance, child care and shelter. In that respect I think it could get a lot better for a lot of people. But again, that really depends on how one defines "good" as an Objectivist or a follower of Missus or Rothbard might perceive my idea of "good" as just the opposite. But those are the conversations we should be having.
 
I know both parties are corrupt and working for the rich and powerful not the people. Well the rich and powerful people. Trump has his work cut out trying to drain a swamp of this magnitude. I think they will kill him eventually. At the very least stop him with the government and media they own. 1 man against a sea of corruption. This should be interesting to watch.
Are you seriously pretending that Trump is some kind of force for the people against corruption?
Gawd damn!
 
A destiction without a difference. Is Trump not a conservative, seems like a majority of right wingers on this site would disagree?

Is Rush Limbaugh not a conservative?


Who are the true conservatives, you and 5 of your friends?

Seems like fiscal conservatism is a giant scam to me, it goes out the window as soon as a Republican is in the White House.

MLK was right this about how the system works:

No. While Rush Limbaugh was a commentator—mostly on partisan politics—who often discussed some conservative policies and objectives, he very rarely discussed the philosophical foundations of these principals and I know no one who would call him one of the intellectual writers in conservatism.

As for President Trump? Of course not. He is a populist who supports many conservative principles but he is more of a pragmatic figure who sees those principles as a vehicle for political success.

Of course there are conservatives. But there are far more Republicans who are much like Rush and President Trump. The ideas—the bumper stickers—sounds like something they like, but too few have taken the time to read Hayek, Sowell, Locke, Smith, Friedman among others.

This is not unique to those j the Republican Party. Most Democrats know nothing if the writings of Dewey, Keynes, or Rawls, much less of Alinsky, Horkheimer, Adorno, or Marcuse. They too are the bumper stickers. These are those who hear things they feel comfortable with but just as the bumper-sticker Republicans, if you scratch very far you realize they have no understanding of the core principles what they speak. So, thst leaves them with essentially with the argument of: “Your guys are wrong and our guys are right.” This is no more of a debate or learned conversation than two drunk guys in a bar arguing about whose NFL team, both with 5-8 records, are better.

Yours is that type of question which I care not to engage in. I don’t care about the bumper stickers.
 
So if China attacks Taiwan and attempts to capture TSMC, the world largest and most advanced Semi Conductor manufacture, should the US get involved? Should we, in the event China succeeded in taking Taiwan, let China threaten the US by withholding advanced Semi Conductors? Do you think China should be able to dominate the South China Sea where 25% of all trade and 40% of the worlds oil travel.

Are you aware of the benefits that the US receives by having significant military commitments in Japan and South Korea? I suspect you are unaware of the significant advantages the US realizes though it's partnerships with other nation in conjunction with the US military. I suspect you are unaware of the potential for increases costs at home when forces from less democratic nations are allowed to step into the vacuum created when the US military abandons it's commitments abroad.

It's really funny to me how today's Conservatives are slowing morphing into democrats of the 1980's. Next we'll have Conservatives protesting nuclear power and the circle will be compleate. lol


I was thinking more of NATO, actually. CHINA is of course the major threat today and in the near term future.


That being said, teh most stupid thing in the world for US to do is to "feed the dragon".


ANd Trump is getting massive push back from his desire to reduce the amount we are feeing them. ...


So... yeah.
 
Did Trump address this in his first term?

No new wars, so that's something.

So public debt is fine if it helps private insurance companies?

Not what I said. When you want to be serious, let me know.
Either Trump and Vance are right on this issue or they are wrong, why are you afraid to a take a side on this issue?

I'm not afraid. I don't know what the final outcome will be. Part of the idea of invading Iraq was to set up a democracy as an alternative to islamic fascism.

It is too early to tell, if that will have the intended impact on the region.


IF, Iraq feel tomorrown, I would have no problem stating that it was a failed policy adn that TRump and Vance are right.

If, tomorrow, Iraq...started inspiring say, SYRIA to become a democracy, I would say that it has worked out and that Trump and Vance were wrong.

Neither one of those scenarios, is a problem for me.... Politically speaking.


You give a canned response you use constantly on these threads, not something you put actual effort into.

It's my position on the issue. Nothing is changing or even really challenging it. So... that's my answer till something changes.

Not sure what more you want from me.
 
Okay, I am getting a little sick of asking this, but I suppose this is the first time I asked you this:

If that is true, why didn't Republicans reduce the debt from 2002 to 2006 or from 2016 to 2018? Did the Bush or the Trump tax cuts pay for themselves?
Reducing the debt and increasing revenue are two different topics.

As far as WHY the Republicans did not reduce the debt during those years...they kept spending like drunken democrats! They had no political will to make the spending changes needed. Even a little bit. To their (the republican congresses at the time) forever shame.

Now, with respect to revenue increase or decrease. The numbers show moderate revenue increases despite the "tax cuts for the rich".

The economic "pie" is dynamic. Growth is paramount as I am sure you would agree. We may disagree on how to spur that growth, but certainly tax policy alone is not gonna significantly lower yearly deficits much less pay down the debt.
 
Wow. And that link reinforced my normal policy of not looking at links. There was nothing there to support your claim.
Uh, other than pointing out millions of Americans travel to other countries for medical care lol.
 
Part of the idea of invading Iraq was to set up a democracy as an alternative to islamic fascism.
I appreciate much of what you wrote, but this is a misconception. The reason for the invasion of Iraq was based upon 3 factors
1. Iraq had continuously been firing upon US and allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Each of these engagements constituted a violation by Iraq of the ceasefire agreement at the end of Desert Storm.
2. Iraq was continuing to abide to inspection protocols of its suspected chemical weapons sites. It is important to understand that prior or OIF 1, nearly every western nation’s intelligence were concluding that Iraq still retained chemical weapons and held the ability to resume production of chemical weapons. Ironically, if the intelligence that I read prior to our invasion, the French’s assessment was among the most decisive. Moreover, WMD promotions did not only refer to chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons but to middle systems which could deliver these munitions—missile systems that were confirmed to be in Iraq at the time of the invasion.
3. In the fallout of 9/11, we began to see members of AlQaeda begin to transit to Syria and Iraq. What was troubling in Iraq was there were two organizations Ansar Al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunnah. These were Qutbist organizations which shared the same ideology as AlQaeda. And while at the time they had not declared themselves to be part of Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam had been receiving funding from Al Qaeda. These organizations would become the foundation of QJBR which would later evolve into ISIS. That these organizations had sanctuaries in NE Iraq actually fell into the congressionally approved 2001 AUMF

The establishment of a democratic government was actually not an objective, rather it was one of the methods to eliminate these sanctuaries; eliminate Iraqi threat to our aircraft, it’s Shia population, and neighboring countries; and prevent the proliferation of WMD.
 
That's a classic category error.

Government is not a business.

Do you also want plumbers to perform surgery? Or dentists to fix your toilet?

Are you seriously pretending that Trump is some kind of force for the people against corruption?
Gawd damn!
That is what he has been saying since he first ran for office. I haven't heard this from any member of the democratic party. We have seen the president pardon his son protecting him from the justice system and most likely himself. Everyone has seen the debacle at the border and the mess it has caused. Everyone has felt the inflation. Everyone has heard all the chaos from the wars erupting all over the world. Clearly something needs to be done.

I will wait and see what Trump tries to accomplish and what he is able to accomplish. I personally think he will do what he can to resolve a lot of the problems. With cooperation he might actually get something done. I am not expecting the democratic party to do anything to help resolve the problems Trump was elected to fix. I can only hope there are enough independent and republicans that will do their job and work for the people of this country not the party and their rich and powerful owners.
 
I will wait and see what Trump tries to accomplish and what he is able to accomplish.
I can make a guess right now:

Cratering the economy with his weird, arbitrary policies and tariffs.
 
I can make a guess right now:

Cratering the economy with his weird, arbitrary policies and tariffs.
The way the leaders are lining up to meet with him even before entering office it is clear they want to resolve the problems that exist. This is how things get done. Not spreading lies and rumors.
 
The way the leaders are lining up to meet with him even before entering office it is clear they want to resolve the problems that exist. This is how things get done. Not spreading lies and rumors.
Trudeau did.

Because he's not the man his father was.

Sheinbaum hasn't gone to see him.
 
Trudeau did.

Because he's not the man his father was.

Sheinbaum hasn't gone to see him.
I don't care who the people of other countries pick as their leader only that they are willing to work with my leader in getting things fixed.
 
I don't care who the people of other countries pick as their leader only that they are willing to work with my leader in getting things fixed.
The window for that has come and gone, even before Trump is in office.
 
The window for that has come and gone, even before Trump is in office.
Sorry but that window has been unlocked and is going to be opened thanks to the election. I think we say the people have spoken. Yea that is it.
 
Sorry but that window has been unlocked and is going to be opened thanks to the election.
Nope. He's already told world leaders what they can expect from him.

At best he will face indifference. Why bargain with someone who STARTS with tariffs, because that's all he knows how to do?
I think we say the people have spoken. Yea that is it.
You didn't speak for other nations.
 
And here is the problem. You are taking this issue as if it is a football game where there is your team (which is good) and the other team (which is bad).

The real question is why aren’t both parties cutting spending? I’ve been consistent in stating that both parties are culpable. But we shouldn’t lose focus on the core problem with red herrings of “raise taxes to make the rich pay their fair share.” What if Democrats and Republicans come together to tell all of the legislators that it’s time to suspend the escalating rising trends in spending. Let’s start with a commitment to keep spending ti current levels plus changes in inflation and population. Then we can look at curbing wasteful spending. Then look at those functions that the federal government spends money in that are not supported by Article 1, Section 8.

Even if the Dems and GOP can agree in just 2/3 of these will put us on better ground. This crap of “Dens did this!” and “the GOP did that” is just that—crap. We need to come together in calling out the stupidity in funding levels of the federal government.
There is no motivation for elected officials holding the purse strings to be judicious with a budget. Especially if they are up for reelection in 2 years or less.
 
There is no motivation for elected officials holding the purse strings to be judicious with a budget. Especially if they are up for reelection in 2 years or less.
There is if there is public support for doing so.
 
Ah, I was told that the involved nations crawled to Mar A Lago to beg.
Actually, no you weren’t. You responded to poster who wrote “leaders are lining up to meet” with President Trump to “resolve problems that exist.” Whether these meetings are in person or telephone are inconsequential.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom