cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
They certainly aren't focused on expansion either.. Maybe military but thats about it
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- Jan 16, 2011
- 14,980
- 36,363
Is socialism worse than fascism?
Socialism is facism. Hitler lead the National Socialist party.
Conservatives want less government, not more. More government is on the road to facism/socialism.
Hitler also fought the bloodiest war of all-time against a communist and a social dem later on in FDR
Ever heard of the Spanish Civil War? If you follow Spanish soccer, part of the Real Madrid / Barca rivalry is rooted in that conflict.
Anyway, Franco was supported by Hitler, and he was a right-winger.
I know of it but that can't really compare in scale to the Eastern front against the Red Army were literally millions of soldiers were slaughtered,you do make my point though
That was more or less directed at
blco02
.
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
I just heard rubio saying he will never use personal attacks again
talk about backfire
talk about backfire
- Mar 16, 2010
- 147,297
- 179,806
My mistake
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
-Deficits only matter to conservatives when a Democrat is president
-Dems and Republicans both love to spend.
The GOP wants to spend it on most tax cuts for the rich, and the military
Dems want to spend it on mostly social programs
-If supply side side fiscal policy had been shown to work, then the GOP's actions would probably be offset. But they are double dipping in the bad policy salsa, word yo George Costanza
-Dems and Republicans both love to spend.
The GOP wants to spend it on most tax cuts for the rich, and the military
Dems want to spend it on mostly social programs
-If supply side side fiscal policy had been shown to work, then the GOP's actions would probably be offset. But they are double dipping in the bad policy salsa, word yo George Costanza
Last edited:
- Mar 16, 2010
- 147,297
- 179,806
Rubio and the rest were bending the knee. Cruz was the only one that was still looking like he's trying to win the race
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
the left doesn't mind spending while the right spends but feels bad afterward. Thats my synopsis
Last edited:
- Feb 22, 2007
- 20,237
- 4,230
it's ok if they feel badThey don't feel bad!
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
If they feel so bad, maybe they should stop recklessly cutting taxes when they want to spend money on ****.
Like fighting a war/on the military
Last edited:
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
thats what a conservative individual thinks about when spending money. They don't feel good about spending while a leftist individual spends without much regard
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
Conservatives feel good about throwing money at the military, conservatives felt happy about pushing us in Iraq, conservatives feel good about their failed supply side policies
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
You see result from military spending tho. Thats actually a good investment.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
Iraq was a good investment?
Matter of fact, what does spending money on military equipment we don't need get us?
Even libertarians are against the wasteful military spending
Last edited:
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,567
- 13,058
Food stamps, unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending have a larger economic benefit than tax cuts.
As does most spending.
- Mar 16, 2010
- 147,297
- 179,806
It gets us an endless "global war on terror" that constantly tries to justify it's own existence...gotta put all those tomahawk missiles and shiny new Jets to good use somehow
Last edited:
MVP
Supporter
- Feb 28, 2008
- 83,040
- 85,631
Military spending is a good investment boy, I tell ya.
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,567
- 13,058
Strom Thurmond switched parties.
1964-2003...
Trent Lott.. Republican 1972-2007
Was House Minority Whip, Senate Majority & Senate Minority Whip & Senate Majority Leader for the Republicans
Your point is lost once you consider that the entire Republican strategy after the Civil Rights Act / Voting Rights Act was to play on Racial Fears of the South.... The Southern Strategy wasn't just some random strategy, it was focused and distinct, and focused on winning angry white voters in the South.. Who were angry about Civil Rights.. Most of which, left the Democratic Party
Last edited:
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
No one said Iraq was a good investment. I'm saying it in the sense of having a strong, well equipped and powerful military presence on standby when needed is not a bad allocation of funds. It brings piece of mind and unmatched protection to our citizens while maintaining a competitive edge regarding power globally.
It gets us an endless "global war on terror" that constantly tries to justify it's own existence...gotta put all those tomahawk missiles and shiny new Jets to good use somehow
I am in firm belief that specific threats need to be dealt with. Isis has an agenda to kill Americans and we all know what's going on in Korea. It goes further but protecting our country and people is a high priority.
But these are foundation-less. When you decrease taxes, revenue increases and more money circulates in the economy properly. Jobs get created. This is much more beneficial then handing out free stuff to people thinking it will help them get to where they need to go.. If people have proper employment opportunity things like food stamps & unemployment become irrelevant for the most part.
MVP
Supporter
- Feb 28, 2008
- 83,040
- 85,631
This is false. The real world doesn't operate this way.
- Nov 20, 2007
- 87,873
- 50,393
So they made up the names?
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,567
- 13,058
You do not understand economic multipliers.
In terms of economic multipliers... Tax cuts are outpaced by many different things including food stamps, unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending, welfare, etc.
Why? Because that money has specific and intended use, that goes straight back into the economy. To people who will spend it on goods & services.
We can agree that a tax cut on lower income indivuals has some economic benefit because for a majority of Americans, they live paycheck to paycheck. That money goes into groceries, a new car, fixes to home, other goods & services.. Which increase revenues for a company they received their goods & services from, which can lead to some job growth.
Tax cuts on larger income has been proven to have very little, if any positive impact on the economy. This idea that tax cuts benefit the economy has been debunked for decades.
Tax cuts have always and will always be one of the least stimulative government action regarding the economy, especially on people who are above a specific monetary threshold.
Last edited:
blco02
Banned
- Apr 21, 2001
- 3,932
- 1,281
Yes it does. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all lowered taxes and tax revenue to the government increased, not decreased.
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
We already covered the "revenue" went up thing with Bush
Reagan raised taxes multiple times too.
Reagan and Bush both ran major deficits
Kennedy I'll give e you but Americans economy today is not like the one Kennedy faced
Reagan raised taxes multiple times too.
Reagan and Bush both ran major deficits
Kennedy I'll give e you but Americans economy today is not like the one Kennedy faced
Last edited:
blco02
Banned
- Apr 21, 2001
- 3,932
- 1,281
I've already gone over the fact that Reagan cut taxes earlier in the thread but liberals don't like facts:
"When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)"
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/#ixzz40HegXTRR
"When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)"
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/#ixzz40HegXTRR
- Nov 26, 2012
- 7,165
- 1,812
I think if rubio wins Florida he goes into cruise control in hopes that when he drops out he can get on the ticket as VP .
Similar threads
