Posted on 11/28/2017 10:31:00 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash on Tuesday moderated a townhall on taxes. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (TX) and Tim Scott (SC) debated Maria Cantwell (WA) and Bernie Sanders (VT).
Sen. Cruz was asked, "What do you say to employees if wages don't increase but investors and executives benefit?"
His response was beyond epic.
Democrats have one talking point on taxes: 'It's a tax cut on the rich.' And they say it over and over and over and over again in response to everything. The most important thing for you to know when you're at home is when they say rich, they mean taxpayer. Every time they say 'rich' they mean taxpayers. Why is it?
When Bernie ran for president, he rolled out a tax plan. His tax plan was a massive tax increase. If you took every single person in America making over a million dollars, and you taxed them 100 percent of their income, you took every penny they earned — you came in in jackboots and confiscate it — it would pay eight percent of the cost of Bernie's tax plan. You know where they get their money? They get it from you. They get it from the middle class.
But the best part? Cruz explained exactly how the tax increases will go down.
If we can explain to people, yeah, you're going to be paying more in taxes. He said it was going to be a progressive tax, the wealthy are going to pay their fair share — not the middle class — not the working class, but everybody will pay some more. So you're a small business owner, he says you're going to pay some more.
And the reason is there are not millionaires and billionaires to pay for all the socialism Bernie and the Democrats want.
Bernie really is feelin' the burn on that one.
Cruz - still fighting against Trump. When will he learn?
When somebody tells him Cubanadians are not eligible to be President.
Cruz showed his character by turning on Judge Moore.
One very simple question to ask or consider is:
“In a political system with individual freedom, why do you think some people wind up with more, and some with less?”
Those who accept reality will acknowledge that there is a difference in the amount of effort people put into their lives, and that this has a very significant effect on their socioeconomic achievement within a free society. Unfortunately, this doesn't make a very good soundbite for Democrats attempting to sway voters.
Every time someone says “he gets burned in this” or “wow, did he end up eating crow”, it’s a disappointment. This was no different. Another let down.
Trump said he was eligible. Are you insulting Trump?
Trump was against Moorefrom day 1. During events for Stramge, he said Moore could never beat a Democrat in the general.
Several judges ruled he was eligible too- I guess they get insulted too
“Every time someone says “he gets burned in this” or “wow, did he end up eating crow”, it’s a disappointment.”
Yep.
Based on just that clip, that was hardly a takedown. Sanders came back accusing Ted of cherry picking what he said, which was pretty effective, if one is impartial. If anything it was more a takedown of Cruz.
I do not recognize Ted Cruz as my conservative spokesperson. He is an embarrassment and a nevertrumper fool!
“Those who accept reality will acknowledge that there is a difference in the amount of effort people put into their lives, and that this has a very significant effect on their socioeconomic achievement within a free society.”
That’s too simplistic a view of reality. Those that accept reality will also acknowledge that each individual is different, some are smarter, stronger, bigger, prettier, etc. And those innate (unearned) attributes have huge impact on someone’s achievement. So it’s much more than effort that goes into success, and even effort itself can be an innate trait to some extent. Two people in the same circumstance will approach an opportunity with different motivations and thus effort, simply because of their innate differences in what motivates them.
So in a society with individual freedom, you will have huge inequalities of results among individuals, as a result of differences in their innate abilities. And the envious left thinks that that is utterly “unfair” and that’s why it’s become such an effective battlecry for them.
So, what do you think? Is it unfair that some people are born with more brains, talent and abilities, something which they have not “earned”?
And what’s your solution to this “unfair” state of affairs?
The GOPe is trying to make the tax structure in this country more like Canada’s and claiming they are so great and we should love them for it.
How funny that Ted was born in Canada.
There’s always the Handicapper General.
Ted and Bernie in a tree.
A R G U I N G.
If these questions were directed to me, and not just rhetorical, you might have misunderstood my point - or I didn't make it clear. I was just pointing out that differential effort is one reason that differential socioeconomic outcomes occur - not that effort explains all differences. More generally, I was also addressing the left’s meme that all inequality is due to externalities, not factors internal to the individual.
Your comments suggest that you believe that inequality is due to ‘natural’ factors (intelligence, motivation as a consequence of genetics, natural talents, etc.), whereas the position of the left is often that inequality is ‘unnatural’.
I personally think that inequality of outcomes is a ‘natural’ occurrence in life, and that there are many reasons for this - some inherent to the individual and some external, with a significant contribution by factors unrelated to inherent ‘talents’, ‘intellect’, or inherent ‘fitness’. Even if you look at studies of monozygotic twins separated at birth, there are significant contributions of external (nurture) factors that effect achievement. There are a ton of studies out there, most with mixes of dizygotic and monozygotic twins, and they clearly show very significant contributions of genetic factors - but also essentially all demonstrate that a quarter to a third of academic achievement is attributable to external factors (i.e. ‘nurture’). For characteristics like happiness, and personality, the mix of genetics, as evaluated in twin studies, is generally about 50/50.
We also have to consider that some ‘achievement’ is based upon undesirable personal attributes, including lack of ethical constraints or remorse, the ability to be deceitfully manipulative, etc. One need look no further than politics to validate that assessment.
Anyway, this is a long discussion, as it is a complex subject. I think that differential outcomes are inevitable in life, and can actually motivate each of us to try to be better - but this is only true in a system like ours in which individual achievement is rewarded. The left wants to suppress this, and essentially dictate equal outcomes (for everyone but themselves, I might add). All we can do as a nation is to provide as best as possible a level playing field on which individuals compete, and to enforce laws that suppress ‘achievement’ based upon nefarious and deceitful actions.
“There’s always the Handicapper General.”
Ah yes! “Harrison Bergeron”, one of my most favorite short story of all times... And 2081 isn’t that far away. Asian and white students are already being saddled with penalties in many schools in the name of equality.
He wants Moore to win and has said so, unlike the GOPe which doesn't care about losing the seat to the Democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.