Tweet
Via David Dayen’s reporting on Deficit Peacocks, Think Progress’ video and Sam Stein reporting at HuffPo, we find Republican Senator Jon Kyl explaining to Fox News what Republicans mean when they talk about reducing the deficits.
"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to — if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."
And it’s not just Kyl, but as Dayen noted earlier, Judd Gregg and Eric Cantor also got the same memo. So what we’re seeing is an organized Republican campaign to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, implicitly relying on the same Keynsian stimulus rationale they’ve violently argued against when it comes to spending to save teachers, rebuild infrastructure and rescue the unemployed.
So Republicans claim they want to eliminate the budget deficits, because deficits are per se a threat to the economy and responsible government, and because they just cause jobless people to be lazy and cause states to hire too many firemen and police and teachers . . . but the deficit hysterics make an exception for that part of deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts, which are, uh, different, because you can never give too many entitlements to the wealthy. That would be this part.
My, my. It seems Republicans everywhere all got the same memo. From Robert Cruikshank at Calitics: Fiorina: Deficits only matter when you’re trying to screw working people.
70 Comments
Yes, Republicans want to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Whether or not you believe it does that, Republicans believe it. They also want to reduce spending to address the deficit.
What they don’t want to do is damage the economy in aid of reducing the deficit. That’s partly because they believe deficit reduction should be accomplished by reduced spending, and because reduced spending shrinks the public sector, which Republicans also think is important to the overall prosperity. It’s also partly because Republicans don’t believe you can address the deficit effectively by increasing taxes, because the harm to the economy also depresses the tax receipts.
This is all not so much a question about Republicans not coming clean about what they want or not having a consistent position. It’s that you disagree with them sharply about things like the impact on the economy (and thus tax receipts) of ballooning the tax burden. Or about the harm to the economy from expanding the public sector at the expense of the private. These are practical disagreements, not messages from Satan.
If Republicans truly wanted to “reduce the deficit” they would help to cut tax breaks to companies that send jobs off shore, they would stop tax breaks for companies that incorporate in places like the Cayman Islands that are only mail drops. They would cut funding for two wars of choice/occupations in the middle east. They would stop subsidies to Big Agriculture and stop subsidizing the most profitable businesses in the US (like the oil companies who post record profits yet still get subsidies.
Since I doubt seriously their willingness to take any of these steps, pardon me if I think their willingness to actually do things that would reduce the deficit is as strong as my abilities to be the starting center for the Boston Celtics next year.
If they agreed with you about the effects of those actions, you might be partially right. You assume that they agree with you about how the economy works, and that therefore if they “really” wanted what you want, they’d do what you want to do. Your assumption is wrong, and it’s why you’re always outraged by how they don’t seem serious about wanting the things you want.
Republicans feel the same about you, you know. You claim to want prosperity, but you pursue policies that Republicans think are ruinous to prosperity. Sometimes they rant about how you must not be serious, you must really want to throw everyone into poverty so we’d all be more equal, and so on.
So Republicans think we still need to provide subsidies to Big Agriculture? Why? Where’s the vaunted “free market?”
And we have to subsidize oil companies that make record profits? In a “free market” shouldn’t they have to use those profits to pay for things themselves rather than use tax payer subsidies?
Why should tax payers subsidize the sending of jobs overseas?
I know Republicans believe these are as magic wands just like tax cuts solve all economic problems, no matter the evidence to the contrary. But must ALL the US bow down to their fantasies?
All I want is for the Republicans to practice some level of logical consistency in their beliefs. Subsidizing big, multi-national corporations is not the free market they prattle on about all the time.
So pardon me if I call Bull Sh*t on how “they think my beliefs are as mis-guided as theirs”
Just posted this comment on your previous post (comment 143)
Sorry I could not link directly, the site would not respond for linking.
All the arguments about stimulus/economics etc are reduced to this:
Republican are willing to fire teachers and impoverish the unemployed so that the rich can pay lower taxes.
It is profoundly immoral, and you have to be in complete moral denial not to see that.
Messages from Satan
Messages from Republicans
Messages from DemoRepubs
all just different colors of red!
“So pardon me if I call Bull Sh*t on how they think my beliefs are as mis-guided as theirs” — oh, no, they don’t think your views are merely misguided. They generally think your views are deliberately and strategically harmful, or else a scam to get free stuff, or sometimes both. You wouldn’t have to review very many rightish sites to confirm this attitude for yourselves.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that most Republicans are in favor of Dept. of Agriculture subsidies. When challenged to eliminate wasteful federal spending, you’ll usually find Republicans want to abolish the DOA altogether, along with the Dept. of Education and often, increasingly, the EPA, which has lost all credibility on the right. You could probably get at least as many Republicans on board to abolish subsidies to oil companies as you could Democrats, if not more.
“I know Republicans believe these are as magic wands just like tax cuts solve all economic problems” — by the same token Republicans can’t understand why you believe limitless debt and/or currency manipulation can solve problems. We generally see it as leading to the destruction of the entire economy. While we believe tax cuts are demonstrably helpful, we don’t think they can solve the problems all by themselves. Spending cuts are essential, a dismantling of the Welfare State and the Nanny State, and slashes in public sector jobs, pay, and benefits. Again, I understand these measures are all anathema to you; no need to explain that again. I’m just trying to point out that Republicans favor lots of ameliorative policies re the deficit, not just the tax cuts that seem to monopolize your attention.
The problem is, departments such as Agriculture, Education, EPA and such CAN be useful and provide benefit, if allowed to be run by competent people rather than staffed by folks who believe the government is worthless and incompetent then go out of their way to make it a self fulfilling prophecy.
Unfortunately, Republican politicians have made careers out of demonizing government such that they DO make it self fulfilling prophecies.
I personally believe that things like Food inspections, meat inspections, nutrition services, and many of the other parts of the Ag department are not only necessary but vital.
Or would you prefer to see us go back to the days of The Jungle?
Same with EPA. Give them competent staff who understand that destroying the environment (like our friends BP are doing) is something bad for all, then I’m for it.
If you’d prefer to breath brown air, drink poisoned water and eat diseased meat, more power to you but I don’t think those are good ideas myself. These are just a few of the things done by AG and EPA.
As far as the Dept of Ed, let’s do away with NCLB then we can talk. Having consistent, nationwide education standards is not a bad thing but the emphasis on testing to the exclusion of social studies, civics, music, art, even the shop and home ec classes, does all of us a disservice.
Yeah! Right!
again…Republican ideas, republican facts, republican cares and desires, republican credo and dogma = messages from the dark side!
By the way, the red state site actually exists somewhere else…
Well, you’re drifting off of the subject and into familiar screeds. What I was trying to get across to you is that Republicans are not merely in favor of tax cuts, nor are they particularly thrilled about subsidies, of which the Dept. of Agriculture was your example.
Would that the EPA would go back to worrying about brown water and air rather than CO2 and oil skimmer wastewater discharge permits. It wasn’t the brown water and air stuff that lost them their credibility, but it’s the air and water cleanliness that will suffer from the collapse of public confidence in the environmentalist movement. Ditto the Dept. of Agriculture; when the public sees it as a crazy scheme for subsidizing mega-corporate crops, it doesn’t help the core mission of preventing food-borne illness.
Thank you, Scarecrow!
Words, words, words, too many words from these republics.
The chart in the post tells the tale.
IF the deficit is a problem, the quickest way to reduce the deficit is to roll back the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts are a deficit generating machine!!!! Look at the growth! All of the other deficit-generators in the chart hit hard but trail off in their effect. The Bush tax cuts hit hard and GROW in their effects.
No more discussion is needed.
Oh, and if the Bush tax cuts were a help to the economy then we must have just avoided the mother of all f*&^ing depressions we would have had without them????
And if the Bush tax cuts were stimulative as is argued, then where is the lending???? Why has lending not been stimulated? Why has job growth been stymied insted of stimulated?
Trickle down is a lie.
Sorry for all the words. I started out praising the ‘good’ of making it short and sweet.
But you said get rid of the departments completely. And why is it a bad thing to worry about poisons in the air (which CO2 is if in high enough quantities)? It is a natural substance but too much kills you.
And oil is a toxic substance so why shouldn’t the EPA worry about disposal of the waste by-product? Do you want it seeping into your ground water from improper disposal?
The Dept of Agriculture is far more than just BigAg subsidies but I’d wager everything I own that no Republican office holder at any level today would vote to stop those BigAg subsidies
No, republicans have no record to show that they are thinking about anything except how to line their own pockets at the expense of anyone and everyone. Show me one republican economic policy with any other plausible outcome in the real world.
They are profundly immoral, and they kick puppies.
Kind of a “Camel through the eye of needle”, impossible for them to come up with something that isn’t Voo-Doo economics.
Why not get rid of all the tax loopholes that corporations seem to like to drive their Mack Trucks through? No more tax write-offs for these boys.
Can someone just walk him into the mountains and leave him?? This guy is SUCH an idiot I amazed he even speaks anymore…. WHAT AN A**…!!!
He looks like he eats a lot….is he one of the rich? He looks like he takes food from others.
It is proven economics that government surplus leads to shrinking in the private sector. I’d cite links, but the comment box isn’t big enough for all the sources. If the government has all the money, the private sector doesn’t, and vice versa.
I understand you’re not arguing a side here. I admire the way you’re phrasing comments and speaking to the fact that Rs often feel about us the way we feel about them. There are two completely different schools of thought here.
Reality check, though: Government defecit is the way to go. Private wealth is proportionate to Government deficit when there are a finite number of dollars to go around. Therefore, Republicans are fucking wrong! :)
Rich people basically don’t pay taxes. What little they pay is at a lower rate than everyone else pays. All of their tax breaks failed to stimulate the economy. They are greedy and they feel entitled to be greedy. They are nothing but shameless parasites and this world would be a far better place without them.
Holy shit! I just saw this
My beloved Governator just cut pay for thousands of state employees…to below minimum wage. Is that a deficit solution? When you cut pay you reduce tax revenue, so it’s really only a half-measure. And really, dismantling the welfare state? Come on!
I have neighbors that live on welfare, don’t even look for work, and it irritates the shit out of me. But the reality is that these people have children, and those children deserve homes and food. They don’t deserve to starve under an overpass because their parents are screwed up, do they? Sheesh.
Gave yourself away when you left out the Pentagon-the largest and most expensive centrally-planned institution in the history of the world.
Oh, and commentary on the “Nanny State” from the party and slice of the political spectrum that brought you the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention. Rich.
dakine at 13: the problem with CO2, as proposed by the EPA, has nothing to do with the concentration levels that would make the atmosphere unbreathable, and therefore is totally unrelated to any “toxic” quality. It has to do with the same quality that water vapor has, which is the greenhouse effect. But water vapor is enormously more powerful as a greenhouse gas. Where is the move to declare H2O a toxin? It’s nonsense like this that has lost the voters. They won’t easily be brought back when the EPA needs to talk about a real toxin.
AZ Matt @17: People use “loophole” to mean almost anything, but if you mean subsidies to promote otherwise non-economic endeavors, I’m with you.
Isn’t it more sensible however to err on the side of caution? Or do you want to wait until the greenhouse gases are totally out of control and the planet temps are rising a degree each year to say “oops”
Carbon Dioxide is not water so you are making a false analogy here methinks.
KrisAinCA at 20: I understand that’s what you believe. You haven’t tried to explain why I should agree. My point was not to convince you but to point out that others believe different things, and that those different beliefs explain how they come to different conclusions.
It’s true that some of what I describe as “Republican” beliefs are also my beliefs. Others are not. I think the treatment of CO2 as a toxin is an ignorant lunacy, for instance, but I wouldn’t totally abolish either the EPA or the Dept. of Agriculture, though I might push much of the DOA’s functions back onto the states. The Dept. of Education I would definitely jettison straight into the sun. Anyway, the point isn’t my precise set of beliefs, it’s that you misunderstand where Republicans are coming from generally, which leads most of you guys to entertaining and satisfying but ultimately misguided theories about their evil motives. You’re completely correct, for instance, that Republicans in general are much more willing than you guys to tolerate a certain amount of suffering in the world in a sink-or-swim system that you would find abominably cold-hearted. You’re completely mistaken, however, in believing that Republicans want to observe suffering for suffering’s sake. Mostly we just think that the total level of suffering will decrease if failure isn’t encouraging and subsidized and success penalized. Also, Republicans are pretty comfortable with levels of discrepancies between the richest and the poorest that would drive you guys mostly crazy. They think it’s less important than the average level of prosperity, whereas liberals tend to focus more on the corrosive effects of the inequality, regardless of the average level of prosperity.
The legal regulation of GHG does not depend on any finding that CO2 is per se toxic in the sense we think of for some other pollutants. It requires that the regulation be necessary for public health and safety, given the long-run effects of GHG, and there are more than enough bases for that finding.
Mason @ 21, if you knew any actual rich people you’d realize that the idea they don’t pay taxes is laughable. Let’s suppose for a moment you were right. If you were, it wouldn’t matter what their tax rate was, would it? The fact is, they most most of the taxes. What’s more, you could confiscate 100% of their earnings and still barely make a dent in the problem, which is overspending, not undertaxing.
The average level of prosperity, as you call it, I’m taking to mean the average income of our workforce. Which I suppose would be arrived at by taking the national income figures and dividing them by the working population. This gives a completely inaccurate picture of the state of affairs in this country.
I’d ask if you feel we’re in a better position now, globally, economically, nationally, locally, etc., than we were in the 1950s and 60s? Is the Reagan-era policy, Bush II policy, and Obama failure policy really making this country the place you want your children’s children to live in?
See the legal and scientific basis for EPA’s “endangerment finding” relating to GHC here.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
KrisAinCA at 22: public sector jobs are not real jobs in the sense of the the kind of jobs that buoy an economy. The less public sector employees make, the better for everyone. As for whether it’s fair for people to suffer for what their parents did: I only know that they’ve got to deal with it, and that any expectation that “society at large” can take the place of their own efforts to deal with it can’t work in the long run. It can only work to ameliorate short-term emergencies. “Fairness” to me means looking at facts as they are, and not bending them because someone is my buddy or my family’s buddy. It doesn’t mean that everyone’s circumstances should be like everyone else’s. Everybody’s got to figure out what he has to offer and what he can trade for it, unless he’s disabled and has no choice but to live on charity. Not everyone has the same amount to offer, especially when you take into account people’s differences in willingness to bust their butts and do what other people value instead of what they find the most congenial.
sapphire at 23: I certainly wish we could dispense with the expense of the military. If I thought we could survive without it, I’d be all for ditching that expense. If you could convince me that welfare was equally essential to our survival as a country, I’d insist on finding a way to pay for it, too.
sapphire at 24: “Nanny State” is shorthand for doing for people what they ought to do for themselves. It has very little to do with the tension between security and intrusiveness in law enforcement.
And all those highly paid civilian employees of the DoD right?
How about we just bring the ones home from overseas?
You are in fine form today.
dakine at 27: Both CO2 and water vapor are widely recognized greenhouse gases, the main difference between them being that water vapor’s greenhouse effect is orders of magnitude greater.
If we could drastically reduce CO2 without wrecking the world’s economy, I’d say, hey, go for it, what harm can it do even if you’re totally wrong? But we can’t, and I think the evidence in favor of CO2′s role in warming is weak. Every time I find that someone has been jiggering the evidence, I’m more skeptical.
It’s interesting to me how clear it is to you that, if there’s a demonstrable looming danger, you shouldn’t wait until it gets critical before you face it and act. That’s how I feel about the federal deficit and debt. I think there’s evidence for its harmfulness, you think there’s evidence for CO2′s harmfulness. That’s where we disagree.
Scarecrow at 29: I know that; I was responded to someone who seemed to think it was an issue of toxicity.
Kris at 31: Do I think we’re headed in the right direction? No, I think we’re heading down the path of collectivism, which will not work out well for any of us. Do I think that Reagan’s or Bush’s policies made this worse? No. I think they did what they could to stem the tide. It usually has a lot more to do with Congress than the White House, except when it comes to the veto power.
dakine at 36: As I said, if I thought we could survive without the military, I’d happily dispense with them. As it is, they don’t work for free.
So the economy is more important than the overall future of the ability for humans to survive on the Earth. Got it.
We can survive an economic meltdown as humans, if I’m wrong.
We can’t survive as a species on Earth if you’re wrong. That’s the difference.
We’ve been cutting taxes since Reagan – how did that work out? Not well.
Seems like we did better when top tax rates were quite high – 70 to 90%. Maybe we should just do that again.
But now I notice some are preaching we need to do the big double down – drop taxes to zero. And if you’re getting ZIRP from the Fed and paying zlitch in taxes – ya gotta love that!
They don’t work for free, you’re correct.
How about all the outsourcing contracts to folks like KBR/Halliburton? All the jobs that used to be done by active duty military that are now done by contractors with their sloppy work that electrocutes folks? You OK with that?
Unless you are prepared to research for a week…
This truckload of RedState talking points and their dispenser will just go on and on. Without any proof, without references, without end.
Do.Not.Feed.
dakine at 42: No, if the evidence about CO2 were clear, it would be important to destroy the world’s economy in order to address it. Otherwise, it seems a drastic and risky strategy. What I reject is the idea that, if there’s even a little chance that some highly disputed theory is right, we should dismantle the economy of the world, just in case, even if that means untold misery and starvation for billions and a far nastier impact than the most alarmist climate projections would cause.
GlenJo at 43: I often read here the theory that we were more prosperous when tax rates were high, but I have no idea where the idea comes from or what evidence any of you think there is for believing it.
I don’t advocate a zero tax rate. The tax rate needs to be enough to cover the optimum level of government, which I happen to think is lower than you do. I’d cut spending to match a tax rate that doesn’t eviscerate the economy.
dakine at 44: I’m probably much more comfortable with privatizing military functions than you would ever be. I’d take it on a case-by-case basis, seeing if each privatized contractor was doing at least as good a job as the public sector could. That’s pretty much my attitude toward all public-sector jobs.
newtonusr at 45: I’m not even trying to prove all these points. I started by trying to make you guys see that Republicans have beliefs that explain their policy positions, though they differ from yours. You haven’t exactly been proving your positions on all these points, either, and I don’t expect you to.
Admitting that you have brought nothing to the discussion but a huge stack of talking points doesn’t give you credibility – it’s an attempt to excuse your gross lack of proof of anything you contend, by dismissing calls for you to back up anything you say; then suggesting that others can’t back up their dismissals of your pathetic argument.
You bring nothing but the sad and sorry built-in defense of knowing nothing, and so you have no reason to back it up.
That is truly brilliant.
As a former GI, I’m a hell of a lot more comfortable eating food prepared by my peers on active duty and dealing with things they built than I am paying companies that cut corners and rip off the taxpayers in order to make a profit.
And that’s the area where we differ most – the private sector is ALWAYS going to cost more if the work is done to the same standard or it will be shoddy and corners cut if they’re claiming it can be done more cheaply.
Fast, Good, Cheap – Choose any 2 of 3
You and your fellow GIs were pansies, getting all bent out of shape about drinking sewage, courtesy of Haliburton, in Iraq.
And that mound of Hexavalent chromium was child’s play!
Man up!
Lol.
Nice takedown.
: )
If you knew actual rich people (as opposed to upper middle class), you’d know a majority of their income is capital gains, which is at a 15% rate if they realize the gains, and completely untaxed if they leave the gains unrealized (however since it is a bookable increase to their net worth, they can still borrow against the gains, also tax-free).
When they are ready to shuffle off this mortal coil, they can their property passes tax-free if they have the good fortune (he) of dying this year (no estate tax in 2010) Otherwise, they can transfer property to a charitable remainder trust so their kids can inherit tax-free via insurance payout.
Ah, the bliss of ignorance butts up against a search engine. There are obviously loads of article on this stuff:
http://www.challengemagazine.com/Challenge%20interview%20pdfs/Slemrod.pdf
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/down-the-memory-hole/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811
But, hey, if thirty years of cutting taxes and the resulting economic implosion doesn’t seem to convince you, what chance do I have?
It is refreshing to see someone call ‘poof’ talking points exactly what it is…
lots of hot air!
Thank you newtonusr…well done!
I’m afraid that dday’s post upstairs from this one explains the density and stubborn ignorance, refusal to be convinced by facts demonstrated by folks like texan99, indie, tinmanxxxx, etc.
I fear the United States’s 200+ yr run is at its end.
watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: Sometimes a Banana is Actually a Disguised Tactical Nuke
You guys: a comment thread is not the place where I’m going to convince you of a mass of economic and tax policies issues together with a whole philosophy of public vs. private section, approaches to private vs. collective action, and global warming. Nor you me. What I’m trying to do is show you that your quarrel with conservatives is not a question of your being virtuous and your opponents being corrupt. Don’t you get it? They think that about you, too. The two sides disagree about what works. When conservatives are particularly tired and discouraged and worried about the collapse of our economy, we let our tempers snap and talk as if you guys were doing all this on purpose. Don’t you know there are many, many people in this country who think that Obama and his running group (in which we generally include you, though I can see from reading you here that that’s not how you look at it at all) are deliberately tearing down the country so they can more easily replace with some kind of bizarre new collectivist affirmative action nightmare? And I’m sure you have equivalent fantasies about what the conservatives and the IMF and the Trilateral Commission and the International Conspiracy of Jewish Bankers are up to; I read about them here enough.
All of you should get in contact more often with people outside your group. Your enemies are people, not operatives. They’re your fellow citizens. They’re not against you because they’re mean or in the pay of some shadowy conspiracy. They’re against because they believe you’re wrong. They’re very much like yourselves.
‘Let me suck all the oxygen out of a conversation’ is no substitute for, you know, knowing something, proving something. Have some self-respect – if you are going to assert a thing, anything, back it up.
Stephen Colbert is right – ‘Truthiness’ is real.
Here’s what I am asserting, and I have been backing it up: you do not know your adversaries. You have made caricatures of them. It’s easy for me to understand that you disagree, but discouraging to know that you can’t even let yourselves suspect that your opponents have their own points of view. Don’t you have any family or friends with conservative views? Have you cut off all ties?
Look at all this rhetoric: “Republican want to cut taxes for the rich”; “Republicans want to screw working people.” You’re imputing motives to them that make sense only for people with your worldview, which they don’t share. Republicans don’t divide the world into “the rich” and “the working people.” When they’re doing broad divides of that kind, they’re much more likely to think in terms of taxpayers vs. tax consumers, i.e., the productive economy vs. the welfare state or the parasitic public sector. They don’t care about “screwing” working people; they just want to people who aren’t their own family to leave them alone most of the time. They don’t care about catering to the rich; they just think people are entitled to keep what they earn, even if they earn a lot. Republicans think socialist countries are at best stagnant and at worst hellholes like Cuba or Venezuela, and they recoil at progressive policies that seem designed to push us in that direction. They’re afraid of you when you push that kind of thing, because they think it’s disastrous.
What I read here a lot is resentment of the attitude of “I’ve got mine, the heck with you.” In a way that’s accurate, not because anyone wishes you ill, but because, believe it or not, a very large percentage of your countrymen think it’s for you and no one else to get out there and get yours. If you succeed, we’re happy for you. It means you’re unlikely to be a public problem and we can quit worrying about you. We don’t want you to fail. We just don’t want your life dropped in our laps if you do fail.
Such unbridled compassion and humanity…it’s almost overwhelming! Bless you on your path to Republican sainthood!
I forgot.
“I resent you being intolerant of my intolerance” is the new Republican mantra.
These people should watch some C-Span sometime, to see their precious party at work. It is hair-raising cruelty & stupidity on parade.
Did you happen to look at the Chart of the Day up above in the OP there. Tell me with a straight face that republican policies are in any way sane. I couldn’t care less what republicans ‘think’.
Republicans, wrong on the economy. Wrong for America.
I guess we have to give them points for no longer trying to conceal their true agenda. The question is, are the Sams Club Republicans paying attention to this?
I repeat: show me one republican policy that isn’t designed to help the rich at the expense of everyone else.
All this hangs on the degree of rampant stupidity and ignorance that prevails in this country.
Then change all the corporate bankruptcy laws. Especially those that allow big corps to walk away from their environmental liabilities when they file.
It is also irresponsible to call it failure. I’ll be sure to remember “that” is the GOP perspective when I meet the next person who worked extremely hard all their life and lost their job due to a bad economy which caused their company to close their doors. I will look at them and say, “Don’t you realize, you lost your job because you failed and the Republicans don’t want your life dropped in their laps because you failed. The bad economy is your personal failure, not the Republicans who spent our nation’s surplus in eight years.”
Sure hope you are not a Christian Republican because you have a long way to go in learning your “one another” Biblical praxis.
klynn: I don’t disagree with you at all about corporate bankruptcy law. “Too big to fail” is and always has been an awful idea. There already are much stricter laws about the discharge of environmental debt, and I’d be all for making them stronger. Everyone from the bondholders to the shareholders to the vendors should lose their investment if all the remaining assets are needed to clean up an environmental mess.
And I know the word “failure” is highly emotional for you guys, one that almost certainly will pick a fight, so I probably should have tried to try a way to express myself that wouldn’t punch your buttons that way. I think I don’t find failure as shameful as you do. Failure happens to everyone, sometimes large and sometimes small. The difference between us is how I expect people to react to failure. There are times when there’s no choice but to throw yourselves on your neighbors’ mercy, and your neighbors have no choice but to respond. But don’t you know no one will want to be your neighbor for long if you do it constantly? It’s supposed to be an occasional thing, for emergencies. Unless you’re a paraplegic or something, you’re normally supposed to find a way to deal with it through savings, or family, or temporary charity.
Massaccio: Examples would be opposition to abortion, support of a strong national defense, skepticism about the “settled science” of AGW, and school vouchers. I know you’re going to come back and explain to me how I’m actually motivated by the desire to help the rich and hurt the poor in all these areas, as if you knew what motivated me, but you asked for some examples and I gave them to you.
I’ll be on the road all day today. Thanks for listening to me. This thread may be gone before I get back, but please don’t think I didn’t want to respond to you if you wanted to ask me further questions. I’m sure the same questions will keep coming up on other threads, and if you’re not yet sick of talking to me we can talk there.
To stimulate the economy you must cut taxes. The reason the rich get the tax cuts is because everyone else is already paying zero taxes. Hard to get below zero.