Posted on 04/02/2007 12:01:50 AM PDT by FairOpinion
If it is not resentment, it surely is jealousy.
I love Rudy too.
Well, duh. Just what we need. More liberals in the "conservative" party.
Question 1, will they pick up more liberals than the conservatives they drive out with their support for abortion rights, gay rights, illegal alien rights, gun control, etc?
Question 2, when was the last time you actually supported conservative candidates or causes? Do you even know what conservative causes are?
No, you’re not “calling my bluff” - I’m calling yours. Ask an economist.
2. No, you’re not “calling my bluff” - I’m calling yours.
You never miss a chance to lie.
Because I'm right, and you're wrong, and I'm not afraid to put my analysis to rigorous test by any conservative economic expert.
Do it.
Thank you. Donation on the way.
You’re afraid to.
Well, I would say that defeating Hillary is a prime conservative cause — along with lower taxes, smaller government, national security, protection of the Constitution.
Politics is the art of possible — if the personal view of the President about abortion were so important, why do we still have Roe v Wade, despite of multiple pro-life presidents? IMO, we need to focus on what the president CAN actually impact.
An example of how a less than conservative person really helped conservative ideas is Arnold, who is being bashed as not conservative enough and has some peculiar notions about global warming, BUT he vetoed the homosexual marriage bill, that the Dem Legislature passed and is about to veto it again, he vetoed the homosexual indoctrination in schools bill, he vetoed at least twice the drivers licenses for illegal aliens, passed by the Dem Legislature, he did not raise taxes, he also vetoed the government run socialized healthcare bill passed by the Dem Legislature.
Democrat Angelides is on record that he would have signed all those bills and couldn’t wait to raise taxes.
The choice was Arnold or Angelides and Arnold IS coming through for conservatives.
The same way, ANY electable Republican is orders of magnitude better than Hillary.
Just as an aside, FT and RG have the same opinions about homosexual unions, they both say they believe marriage to be between a man and a woman, but have no problems with domestic unions.
HANNITY: Yes. Let me ask you about gay marriage. What do you think about the definition of marriage? Should it be between a man and a woman?
GIULIANI: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Here’s exactly the position I’ve always had. And it’s the same — and I feel the same way about it today that I did eight, 10 years ago when I signed the domestic partnership legislation: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. It should remain that way.
We should be tolerant, fair, open, and we should understand the rights that all people have in our society. And I thought the best answer was domestic partnership as a way of dealing with that, so that you’re recognizing the rights of people who are gay and lesbian and protect them. But marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody.
And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You’re against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there’s real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That’s why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that’s contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that’s what’s happened in a lot of these areas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html
B/S. Support and elect liberals you get liberalism. I’d much rather stand and fight for conservatism. Try it. You might learn that conservatives can win.
Nothing is stopping you, except your own dishonesty.
Good point. Rudy only shacked up with his gay roommates, he didn't marry 'em.
Dear unnamed conservative economist,Isn't spending tax money like a drunk sailor actually conservative?
Yours truly,
M. Thatcher
I shouldn’t be surprised you don’t know any economists to whom you can show your ignorant little thesis ( “a chart of city spending, by itself - without any chart on incoming city revenues - has meaning”); you clearly haven’t had much of an economic education, nor does your circle of acquaintances include anyone with economics expertise.
I've already called your bluff. You folded, and now you're flailing.
Lemme know when you make good on your bluff.
How much are you willing to put up? Nothing.
Prove your assertion right.
FURTHER QUOTATIONS FROM BARTLETT: Yesterday, we hailed Matt Yglesias; Matt had slammed the press corps’ refusal to challenge Saint Rudy’s claim about lower tax rates (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/5/07). And just like that, up jumped Bruce Bartlett, with an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times! Bartlett, a ranking conservative economist, writes “[a]s one who was present at the creation of ‘supply-side economics’ back in the 1970s.” Lickety-split, Bartlett echoed some of the points that Yglesias made:BARTLETT (4/6/07): The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues...Higher revenues from lower taxes? As Yglesias noted, Giuliani himself made this sort of “implausible” claim in accepting Forbes’ endorsement last week—and the mainstream “press corps” said nothing about it. As he continues, Bartlett explains what the original “supply-siders” actually thought about their first famous tax cuts. No, they didn’t think their cuts would produce extra revenue. Repeat slowly: They didn’t think that:
But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, ''You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.'' Senator John McCain told National Review magazine last month that ''tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.'' Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for the White House, saying, ''He's seen the results of supply-side economics firsthand—higher revenues from lower taxes.”BARTLETT: As the staff economist for Representative Jack Kemp, a Republican of New York, I helped devise the tax plan he co-sponsored with Senator William Roth, a Delaware Republican. Kemp-Roth was intended to bring down the top statutory federal income tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent and the bottom rate to 10 percent from 14 percent...Duh. “Furthermore,” Bartlett writes, “our belief that we might get back a third of the revenue loss was always a long-run proposition. Even the most rabid supply-sider knew we would lose $1 of revenue for $1 of tax cut in the short term, because it took time for incentives to work and for people to change their behavior.”
We believed that our tax plan would stimulate the economy to such a degree that the federal government would not lose $1 of revenue for every $1 of tax cut. Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results. Thus, contrary to common belief, neither Jack Kemp nor William Roth nor Ronald Reagan ever said that there would be no revenue loss associated with an across-the-board cut in tax rates. We just thought it wouldn't lose as much revenue as predicted by the standard revenue forecasting models, which were based on Keynesian principles.So there you have it, again, from Bartlett, whose clarity we’ve praised in the past (for example, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/5/02). Duh! As a general matter, tax cuts do not increase federal revenues; that sort of thing could only happen “under very special circumstances.” Bartlett has explained these points many times, but the Giulianis feel free to keep spouting nonsensical nostrums—knowing that our “mainstream” “press corps” will politely stare into air when they do. And of course, Sean Hannity will keep repeating the “implausible” claims which Bartlett derides in this morning’s column. His listeners will have little way to know that they’re being misled—played for fools.
Have you paid up yet?
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.