I know there are levelheaded Republicans out there. Don’t get me wrong. But I thought I’d make a list of some of the ridiculous things that the GOP tends to believe these days–things that make it hard to take them seriously right now. Here we go.
1. Scientists may have previously formed a consensus about manmade global warming. Now, however, there’s a huge groundswell of scientific opposition to it which is deliberately ignored by the media.
2. Tax cuts always raise tax revenue, due to the increased economic growth they bring. This has been indisputably proven by Reagan and by Kennedy before him.
3. Scientists can’t be trusted because they get their money through government grants. Scientists who get their money from tobacco or energy companies, however, are to be attended to with the utmost seriousness.
4. There is legitimate reason to doubt president Obama’s citizenship.
5. Since they aren’t making money in other countries due to strict price controls, drug companies must increase prices here to afford their R&D. The global future of medical advances hinges on the fact that Americans overpay for health care.
6. The primary cause of schools with low test scores and graduation rates is lazy, overcompensated, unionized teachers. The idea that it’s more about poverty and the various social ills students bring to school with them each day–problems that teachers have no control over–is not only ludicrous, but insulting to the students.
7. All television news programming is openly and obviously biased toward the left. Except Fox News, which–if it is biased toward the right–is less biased than other television news outlets.
8. Glenn Beck is not only sincere, but he exhibits a great deal of personal courage by discussing important issues that other media personalities don’t have the guts to talk about.
9. Looking back, invading Iraq was not only a good idea, it was critically important.
10. Waging two wars, cutting taxes and expanding Medicare by $600 billion dollars, all totally unpaid for? No problem-o. Getting millions of Americans some health insurance with a plan that actually reduces the deficit? Totally irresponsible.
‘Dja see my new bumper sticker? http://yfrog.com/1ytfukj
Yeah, that’s the short version!
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that you play rather loose with stereotypes. Your posts have a generally angry and combative tones to them as well. Perhaps you are just looking for like thinking politicos to confirm your beliefs. It seems that from the few comments you have, that is what you are getting. If so, then I suppose all is well for you. Perhaps you want to loose some frustration on people with political beliefs opposite of yours. You’ve done that with gusto to be sure.
, If you are looking to start dialogue (it seems to hint that in your post about the climate e-mails as you seemed to expect argument), I suspect you are not going about it in a sound fashion though. Diatribe does not elicit argument, it simply drives wedges and invites brick throwing. Maybe that’s what you like to do, and if so, just tell me to buzz off and take my moderate wimpy talk with me. I’ll just offer that our nation is sharply and dangerously divided now. i suppose each side needs zealots, but that does nothing to solve problems or get at any real truth. Your sharply slanted thoughts on how things are don’t hold any more water than the sharply slanted thoughts that you seem to be mocking. Just my two cents. I’ll return the speakers corner to you again, having said my bit, but I’ll leave you my hope that you’ll consider that having only two sides to political opinion leaves you far from a three dimensional solution.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, JD. I guess you’d have to know that I spend a lot of time with people over at bootsandsabers.com to understand the degree of hostility I expect and the degree to which these “stereotypes” fit the actual people I’m talking about. To others–the more levelheaded people I refer to in the first sentence–I’m always willing to have a more reasonable exchange of ideas.
Yeah, you’re pretty much just like those hack commentors at Boots and Sabers on this post. All you partisans are the same. Us-versus-them is more important to you than actually talking about issues.
Like, for example, you could take a couple of your items, change “always” to “never” and “Republicans” to “Democrats” and you’d get equally absurd, equally false descriptions of the the real world. Like “2. Tax cuts never raise tax revenue, due to the increased economic growth they bring.” The “Democrats” believe this to the same extent that the “Republicans” believe your sentence. And it’s equally absurd. I could go through your whole list like this easily.
Tax cuts never raise tax revenue, due to the increased economic growth they bring.” The “Democrats” believe this to the same extent that the “Republicans” believe your sentence. And it’s equally absurd.
As far as I know tax cuts never have increased tax revenue. Am I about to be schooled on some historical example of this? I understand that it’s theoretically possible–Laffer curve and all that–but I don’t believe it’s ever actually happened in American politics. Has it?
I could go through your whole list like this easily.
Please do so! The other thing that would be interesting is to write a silly Democrat beliefs list. Could it be as absurd as the one above? My gut says no, but I’m open to the possibility.
Silly Democrat belief list:
1. We are different than Republicans in some meaningful way.
“As far as I know tax cuts never have increased tax revenue.”
Reagan’s did. He was an retard about spending, but his tax cuts devinately increased revenue. The first year of the Reagan tax cuts was 1980. Tax revenue was higher in like 8 of the next 10 years.
Geez, I just re-read my last comment and I’m spelling a bit like a retard myself. Sorry, typing fast. You get my drift.
Such interpretations often fail to take into account inflation (really), population growth and regular business cycles. I would like to see some trustworthy sources indicating that, after these are taken into effect, Reagan’s tax cuts increased tax receipts. Overall. Not just for one group or another.
No, I’m too lazy to look for it now, but I read some study a while ago and it was all in 1999 dollars. It accounted for all that. 8 out of the next 10 years. I feel like that’s pretty well documents.
But whatever. Why should a partisan like you or Fred Dooley consider any evidence that runs counter to what he sees out his blinders. (See Silly Democrat Rule #1 (which also applies to Republicans))
Fred Dooley? Now you’re just being nasty.
No, I’m serious. I’m prepared to admit if I’m wrong. If it can be shown that–independent of inflation, more people in the workforce and natural business cycles–that a tax cut directly and solely resulted in increased tax revenue, I’ll admit it right here.
Why not? If it’s so, it’s so. Even then it won’t disprove my basic point: that Republicans say it all day and night as if it’s an ironclad truism that only a fool doesn’t know. Even John McCain said it with regard to the Bush tax cuts–and that one’s certainly not true and he knows it. I have people say it to me on conservative blogs–again, as if it’s a magic formula for increasing tax revenue. All of which is nonsense whether or not it increased revenue by a percent or two at some particular point in history when a tax rate when from 90 to 25 or whatever it was.
There’s a difference between presenting it as a basic fact of economics which has worked every time it’s been done, and something that might have worked once but failed every other time.
And look carefully. Earlier this evening I saw data from 1980 on for the next several years and I can tell you that the first four or five weren’t revenue increasing years, even if the next couple were. It could not have been “8 out of 10″ according to that data.
So you cherry pick and self characterize the “GOP” and when called on it blame bootsandsabers.
Hide the decline.
Cherry pick my ass. Your last president said it. Your last presidential candidate said it. Hannity says it on TV. It’s a common thing to hear Republican say, that’s a fact not cherry picking. And it’s bullshit–even if (and that’s IF, mind you) it can be shown that at some point in the 80s revenue increased 1 or 2 percent independent of business cycles, inflation and an increased workforce. IF.
On the taxes thing, I believe that in certain circumstances a lower rate can result in an increase in revenue that would otherwise not have occurred. But the opposite holds true as well. An increase can also bring in more revenue. Laffer’s theory is a curve – which means that there is a point of equilibrium to reach somewhere in there. Since neither the GOP nor the Democrats ever bother to find a real answer to the question of how & where that equilibrium is located at a given point in time, they simply resort to pushing for one direction or the other (GOP: lower, Dem’s: higher). It would hopefully all balance out in the end. But I’d like to see some actual analysis on it that factors in the other economic variables involved. Part of what an in-depth analysis should do is examine the tax effect overall, as well as what types of taxation has the most dramatic effect on economy at local, state, and national levels (capital gains, income, “fees”, property, sales, etc).
As to the rest of your list: I agree with someone earlier who wrote that for many of them you could just change a couple of words around and throw Democrat in there and you’d accurately describe some of the loopy things Dem’s tend to believe.
Here are a couple of examples:
Things that the Democrats tend to believe these days…
6. The primary cause of schools with low test scores and graduation rates is underpaid teachers with lousy benefits and schools & facilities that haven’t been updated since the late 1990’s. The idea that it’s more about poverty and the various social ills students bring to school with them each day – problems that teachers have no control over – is not only ludicrous, but insulting to the students.
9. Israel should just pack up and move out of whatever land the Palestinians ask for. The bombings and rockets attacks into civilian neighborhoods will stop and peace will instantly spread across the land.
in certain circumstances a lower rate can result in an increase in revenue
Theoretically. Like when you lower someone’s marginal tax rate from 90% to 25% or something. But in the context of modern American tax rates? Please.
Laffer’s theory is a curve – which means that there is a point of equilibrium to reach somewhere in there.
The point at which a tax hike will lower revenue and the point at which a tax cut will increase it is a point very far from where we are now. We’d be looking at tax rates of well over 50% or even 70%, I bet. Not that I’m advocating getting to that theoretical point. I have no interest in maximizing federal coffers. I’m just saying. The idea that modern Republicans are throwing around the idea that their tax cuts are going to increase revenue given our current tax rates is absurd.
The primary cause of schools with low test scores and graduation rates is underpaid teachers with lousy benefits and schools & facilities that haven’t been updated since the late 1990’s.
I’ve never said either of those things. But you know what? I’ll just give it to you on principle. Democrats often take the side of teachers when they negotiate their compensation, so we’ll just go with it.
Israel should just pack up and move out of whatever land the Palestinians ask for.
That’s a caricature at best. It’s certainly true that I think we’re not critical enough of Israel, but I am under no delusions about the Palestinians. If even my own moderate views are widely shared by the left half of America, I’m unaware of it. Let alone the craziness you’re talking about.
“If it can be shown that–independent of inflation, more people in the workforce and natural business cycles–that a tax cut directly and solely resulted in increased tax revenue, I’ll admit it right here.”
C’mon… Independent of inflation? Independent of more people in the workforce? You just don’t get it…
No, I guess I don’t! Someone cuts taxes and points to a revenue increase, but that revenue increase was due to inflation and/or a larger number of working age people. That doesn’t, you know, count as evidence that tax cuts increase tax revenue.
Well, tax rates can affect both of those things. But you know that. You can’t show how increasing taxes increases tax revenue absent all other factors either. You’re asking an unfair question. Reagan fucked up, but it was with spending, not taxing. I think this is a pretty well explained and fair assessment of Reagan: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1
Well, tax rates can affect both of those things. But you know that. You can’t show how increasing taxes increases tax revenue absent all other factors either.
Well sober outfits like the CBO seem to think they have it pretty well figured out. http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Scott wrote:
I have no interest in maximizing federal coffers.
Will have to make sure Google caches that one as evidence. Until I see you push for the government (at any level) to cease tax increases and non-military spending increases, I find your statement there very difficult to believe.
What you think I secretly want to set tax rates in the US to the exact point where a dollar increase would result in lower receipts and a dollar decrease would result in higher receipts? Putting aside the fact that such a point would probably require more than doubling our existing taxes, what on earth makes you think this?
I have previously stated that I have no interest in seeing overall taxes raised at all–with the one exception that I’d welcome tax-funded single-payer health insurance. Of course, I’d like to see more progressivity, but not an overall increase. I don’t see why one should be necessary.
I agree is JIJAWM, and your fact check link doesn’t really refute that. You are correct that the current level of marginal income taxation is probably too low to generate revenue through cuts. You are also correct that Bush’s tax cuts (which, by the way, were not actually tax cuts) did not increase revenue. At all.
You wrote this as a sort of throwaway:
“Theoretically. Like when you lower someone’s marginal tax rate from 90% to 25% or something. But in the context of modern American tax rates? Please.”
Reagan basically did this for the top marginal tax rate which he cut from 70% to 28%.
Your point is correct though. If conservatives want to talk about the Laffer curve they should probably learn what it is first.
I like this article (which partially contradicts my last point, but it’s still good):
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/10/29/071029on_onlineonly_surowiecki?currentPage=1
There is some empirical support for the portion of Reagan’s tax cuts that I mentioned. I’ll see if I can track it down.
Reagan basically did this for the top marginal tax rate which he cut from 70% to 28%.
I was cognizant of that fact when I wrote the comment. It’s my way of saying: maybe–maybe after you control for all other factors, and look at just the right time period, and just the right tax bracket, maybe–Reagan’s tax cut increased revenue by a tiny fraction. And yet maybe not. But at those rates, it might just have been a close thing.
i’m not an economist, obviously. But it seems to me that the point on Laffer’s curve where a tax cut would actually increase revenue would be at rates far above what anyone or anything pays in America today. Therefore, invoking the “tax cuts pay for themselves” canard is pretty bullshit and deserves to be called out. Which I do regularly.