The answer to this one was first put forth by Thomas Sowell a couple of years ago. Democrats can't seem to "get it together" because their Marxist worldview only works in places like schools, government institutions and media outlets -- places where there is no real price to pay for failure.
Like the Dem's in Texas?
Generally, a good argument, but this one makes her look rather slow...
No one (with a shred of intelligence) doubts the reality of the laffer curve.
The laffer curve - Tax revenue will be lowest at a rate of 0% and 100%, it will rise from both ends of the curve and meet at a maximum somewhere between them.
That tax cuts "never" increase revenue is as asinine as stating that lowering a consumer price will never increase revenue. To say that tax cuts never increase revenue would require that you also believe that pricing gum at $100 a pack will raise 100 times more revenue than if you price it at $1 per pack. (Time is the biggest difference in the two arguments - buying gum is optional, thus pricing effects will be quick. Paying taxes, in the short-run, is required and will respond more slowly to rate changes.)
Tax rate increases will increse revenue if the rate is above the inflection point, it will lower revenue if the rate is below the inflection point. (Speculation - rates are higher for high income people - thus rate cuts increase revenue. Rates are lower for low income people - thus rate cuts decrease revenue. Tax cuts should ONLY be for the rich!!!)
Insularity doesn't explain the entirety of the left's hardheadedness. There's an intoxication which prevents them from seeing any other possibility, even when confronted with clear-cut evidence they are wrong.
No matter, the hangover's going to be a bitch.
: ''I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.'' - Pauline Kael's reaction to Richard Nixon's 49 state landslide presidential victory over George McGovern in 1972
It is even now common at gatherings of New Yorkers to hear bitter recriminations about the Supreme Court stealing the election for Bush, even though the recount seems to have shown, as conclusively as anything can, that Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court had mandated the exact recount Gore's team wanted. It isn't disingenuous; they do not know this fact. And how do they not know it? Because there are five million or so other people around who constantly tell each other that the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush. And like anything that one hears over and over from sympathetic sources, it becomes true to them, just as most of us love our siblings even though we've never really stopped to consider the matter. Everyone says that people love their siblings; therefore it is so.
Very true. Liberals cite each others lies so often, that they often become "facts" in their minds as well in the minds of the less informed public. Quite often I watch something untrue pop up on a liberal site (buzzflash, bartcop, du, etc.), and before I know it, other liberals are cutting and pasting that lie all over the internet on message boards, websites, and newsgroups. (The Lovenstein IQ hoax is just one of many examples. To this day, people, mostly liberals, are still falling for that lie.).
Limbaugh does the same thing in his own way. He definitely goes out of his way to gin up the hatred of liberals in order to keep them seething and listening.
"How did Nixon beat McGovern? I don't know anybody who voted for him."
They live in their own little circle, regurgitating their own ideas, so it wasn't incredible to old-what's-his-name that, even though Nixon carried 49 States, the NYT lady wouldn't know a single person who voted for him.
There's another reason for liberals to be less likely to comprehend their opponents. When it comes to government subsidies, whether in the form of jobs or lifestyle support or what have you, there is always an asymmetry of perceived harms. Those benefiting from direct subsidies can identify themselves and can clearly identify the benefit from the subsidy; those harmed through lower growth and higher unemployment, however, may be entirely unaware of the impact of these subsidies on themselves. Which unemployed person can say for certain whether he would have a job in an economy with lower taxes, for example?
So, it usally requires more intellectual distance to appreciate the harms of a tax-subsidized economy, and hence it's more likely someone who does appreciate these harms will already be acquainted with the harms pointed to by liberals. To appreciate the harms of having your government check reduced, however, doesn't require much acquaintance with the alternative point of view.
1. Illegal immigration is wrong. If you want to protect America, why not begin here at home with the sealing of our borders. This isn't racist. This is the opportunity to actually show that the government is doing all it can to protect the American people.
2. Expansion of government spending. I'm very disturbed by the expansion of our government. I realize that 911 had an affect on that. Okay? So? Why not tighten the belt a little. Why should we pay for the airlines and other industries. Either people wanna travel on plane or they don't.
3. The majority of this country would be better off if we stopped sending monies overseas all the time. Americans work hard for the money. The government just gives it away as though the money comes from a bottomless pit. It does not.
4.Jobs being shipped overseas really disturbs me. Who is doing anything to stop the flow of the American job markets to countries like India. Our government, state governments, and local governments give tax credits and breaks to corporations. Yet, these people will save their profit and then ship over the jobs to foreign markets. Perhaps, the governments of other countries will demand that US Corporations pay their workers the same as their American counterparts. I doubt this would happen, but it would be poetic justice.
5. President Bush's educational plan is awful. Why? Because it has Ted Kennedy's signature all over it. It is wasteful spending and doesn't address the real issues regarding Education in this country.
There is much work to be done by both parties. The choice between big and bigger government is not a very good choice at all. It's depressing to see no government programs decreased in spending.
We live in the land of wealth and opportunity. We have a lot of "wealth" and if you have a scam to sell the government, they'll give you the opportunity. This is the state of our American government today. It's rather ironic. The more the government does to "protect and help America" the less protected or helped we feel.
Perhaps I am the only one not currently happy with what's going on, but I just needed to vent. Maybe I'll feel better now.
So? If Karl Rove or any other Republican Party members actually read this page, please know that my disappointment is mounting. I have voted Republican all my life, but I feel that these are some issues that need to be addressed. Not by some pansy spokesperson, but someone who can actually answer these questions and do something about it.
Too many big words for this vwrc conservative.