- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 54,181
- Reaction score
- 10,959
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
There is much more to the world than liberal checklists.
LOL The Europeans got their "social policies" from FDR and that is not what is causing the terrorist attacks. Islamic radicals are thriving in the Muslim ghettos that are keeping them isolated from society. We do have much to learn from Europe. Things like banning private schools so that the wealthy force the Govt. to provide top class education to ALL are fine ideas. We have been left behind in many ways by Europe, who have spent the last few decades rebuilding their public transportation and infrastructure instead of stirring up hornets nests in the Mideast. We can still catch up but the time is running out.
Kansas's problems are the result of far right policies, which are different than "moderate right" policies.
There is much more to the world than liberal checklists.
Kansas's problems are the result of far right policies, which are different than "moderate right" policies.
Can you, with details and facts, explain the difference. Also you might as well try and prove how these "moderate right" policies would've resulted in something positive instead of you know, ****
Did you forget that we owe 20 trillion dollars and add more to it every year?
If tax rates are too high and you cut them it WILL result in more tax revenues. If tax rates are about right or too low, cutting taxes will result in less tax revenues collected. Both the far left and the far right do not understand this. The far left doesn't understand that if tax rates are indeed too high, this will increase tax revenues and the far right does not understand that if tax rates are not too high then even less tax revenues will be collected. Liberals believe that lowering tax rates will ALWAYS result in less taxes collected and the far right believes that lowering tax rates ALWAYS results in more taxes being collected. BOTH sides are wrong and that is what happened in KANSAS. The far righties cut tax rates that were NOT too high and paid the price for their mistake and those far righties are now being challenged in the primaries by moderates. The Laffer curve clearly shows and explains how this works and Arthur Laffer is a conservative economist. He understood how it works but neither the far left nor the far right understands how it works.
I have not looked at Canada and Australia very carefully and am more acquainted with European social democracies and social democratic monarchies, where I have checked and rechecked the comparisons with the US. In the areas of my profession and in areas of the profession of close friends of whom I could ask for details beyond readily available statistics I have found that the European models, which are each quite different are floundering on their last legs. In some cases you have to look more closely to see, what state of the situation is. In others you have to understand, what it means, when governments make the proposals they do. But the systems are not sustainable and have usually not been able to fulfill the promises, while wasting huge amounts of money. In most cases they have led populations into situations that are incredibly opposed to the professed wills of the parties that marketed the ideology after the 1960s to get their members elected into well paying jobs. BTW, Germany and to a lesser extent France are two of the systems I have studies and you are very wrong to believe the sirens' song their parties are still trying to hide the doom.
That does not mean that the US is perfect. Of course the Europeans are not alone. Here we have tried to solve many social problems with social programs in huge scale and are finding that they have not worked. Now the people and politicians that have been living of these programs are worried, because these are the only game they understand. They do not want to realize that the world is more complicated than they had told their voters.
It is a long way from that. But the things that can be done are by far and away different from the dreamy social schemes brigade's fantasies.
If tax rates are too high and you cut them it WILL result in more tax revenues. If tax rates are about right or too low, cutting taxes will result in less tax revenues collected. Both the far left and the far right do not understand this. The far left doesn't understand that if tax rates are indeed too high, this will increase tax revenues and the far right does not understand that if tax rates are not too high then even less tax revenues will be collected. Liberals believe that lowering tax rates will ALWAYS result in less taxes collected and the far right believes that lowering tax rates ALWAYS results in more taxes being collected. BOTH sides are wrong and that is what happened in KANSAS. The far righties cut tax rates that were NOT too high and paid the price for their mistake and those far righties are now being challenged in the primaries by moderates. The Laffer curve clearly shows and explains how this works and Arthur Laffer is a conservative economist. He understood how it works but neither the far left nor the far right understands how it works.
Whereas in the simple world of the doctrinaire conservative, all government is all bad all the time. How silly.
At least you acknowledge the idiocy of the far right. But your posts always end up sounding like they're written from the far right. A moderate, "slightly conservative" person should be able to recognize the essential role government plays, and the evil that unregulated free market capitalism does. You never admit either.
The person who seems to have forgotten it is Donald Trump. He is proposing $500 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure, but has no plans for paying for it. Instead, he proposes massive tax cuts for him and his rich buddies, and eliminating estate taxes so free-loader kids who have never spent a day of their lives not rich can continue living on the gravy train.
In contrast, Clinton proposes a $275 billion stimulus, paid for with higher taxes on the very rich.
So which candidate is the more fiscally responsible?
The problem with the Laffer curve is that we don't know where we are on the curve. Here's a good discussion of the efficacy of tax cuts by a moderate conservative, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/o...rumps-misguided-embrace-of-tax-cuts.html?_r=0
Whats too HIGH and whats too LOW? Some arbitrary numbers someone makes up?
No. What would you say created all that debt?
>>you are claiming that liberals have succeeded in greatly reducing poverty
Yes.
>>while at the very same time arguing that conservative's SSE policies have destroyed the country
No, not "destroyed," but rather weakened and deprived us of opportunities for social progress, including higher incomes for the lower quintiles.
>>and that it has been conservatives policies that have been overriding liberal policies for decades?
I wouldn't say "overriding" them, more like pulling in the other direction.
I very much appreciate yer polite tone, and I sincerely apologise for the obnoxious way I've treated you in the past. I hope I don't return to that, but you know how I am.
Some immigrant populations have not been effectively integrated into European society. Is that the fault of liberalism? Should they simply have been excluded?
I figure he was hoping to establish an effective governing coalition of moderates. Didn't seem to work out, but we may yet see some benefits in the long run.
The description is in the chart's title — "welfare and social services." At a little more than 1.2% of GDP, that's about $220 billion. I'd say it includes EITC, child care, and other tax credits ($82 billion), SNAP ($71 billion), housing assistance ($48 billion), TANF ($16 billion), WIC ($6 billion), and LIHEAP ($3 billion).
>>cash disbursements to the lowest quintile alone is ca 20 percent.
Can you flesh that out a bit? If you include the $446 billion for Medicaid (that goes to vendors) and $55 billion for SSI (you need to be not only poor but elderly or disabled to qualify), you still get to only four percent of GDP.
The problem with the Laffer curve is that we don't know where we are on the curve. Here's a good discussion of the efficacy of tax cuts by a moderate conservative, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/o...rumps-misguided-embrace-of-tax-cuts.html?_r=0
Again, that is a flat out lie. Conservatives believe in BIGGER state government and a smaller, limited federal government, not no government. You have been brainwashed by your own blind and partisan biased propaganda.
Perhaps you can put some of your flounders on the table, and we can examine just how much life is left in them. Canada has had medicare since 1962, the UK has had socialized medicine since the late '40s, and Germany trumps them all with pensions going back to the 19th century. How long a trial period do you want? The only threat to such programs is the current trend to redistribution of wealth. Redistribution upwards, to the top one percent. When greed trumps community, then yes, there can be problems.
IMO, most of Europe's problems come from half measures. They went halfway to an economic union, and it doesn't work well with disparate economies and cultures. And they went half way in spending in order to get them out of there slump.
I'll agree with what you say about Trump but that does not mean that Hillary is fiscally responsible. It just means that she is more than Trump. It also ignores the fact that she is a lying dishonest crook. 67% of her own party thinks so. I'm voting for Johnson, who IS fiscally responsible and is not a crook.
It also ignores the fact that she is a lying dishonest crook. 67% of her own party thinks so.
Both sides are the party of no and it is either their way or the highway.
Is everyone who disagrees with you a "liar?" Perhaps you should discuss increasing your meds with your full time shrink.
Show me some evidence of conservatives wanting to expand state government. All I ever see is conservatives slashing spending like crazy. Like Kansas, like Louisiana. And they are basketcases as a result.
Again, that is a flat out lie. Conservatives believe in BIGGER state government and a smaller, limited federal government, not no government. You have been brainwashed by your own blind and partisan biased propaganda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?