LSUAthletics, you come across like you have this belief that you are just as much of a Fan of Republican Nation as you are of Tiger Nation. In other words, you come across like the GOP is your religion, your God, your Faith, and that you are their blind devotee. With LSU athletics, that attitude is awesome (because that is just a game, just school pride), but when it comes to those citizens of the USA who are not serving in a political office, being either Team GOP or Team DNC is sad to me. I've gotten to the point where I honestly think one would have to be retarded to be Team GOP or Team DNC like we are all Team LSU (excluding the rival fans here that are enamored by LSU). In the world of sports, LSU is the best. Period. But in the world of politics and law, if any of you actually spent the time to deeply study the issues, you'd find that you'd agree a lot with "liberal" sides, a lot with "conservative" sides, a lot with "Team GOP," a lot with "Team DNC," a lot with "Democrat" sides and a lot with "Republican" sides. Anyone who comes out like they are all on Team GOP or Team DNC, to me, is pretty weak in the way of knowledge. P.S. -- Houtiger is my probably my favorite poster on Free Speech Alley. I'm surprised that I've never seen him get any credit on here for what a great contributor he is here (which is why I added this shout out).
I think responsible spending is the fundamental part of the equation. I'm for a reduced federal government, so I'm for less federal taxes too, but spending is the number one issue right now. Until we are capable of spending less, the money has to come from somewhere. Tax cuts will not sustain our government. Because the government is ultimately of the people, the people have to foot the bill. Our national debt is disgustingly enormous.
You keep repeating this like a mantra, but your arguments are not convincing. I thought so. In fact, you do this with such fervor that you ignore all the other factors driving an economy. You never have proven a cause-and-effect relationship. "I never would have seen it if I hadn't believed it!" -- James Armstrong
No, not at all. Either you haven't read all my post or I haven't done a very good job in explaining my positions. Here's one example of me criticizing the GOP in this thread: "I'm certainly am not going to defend the republicans on spending. Even after excluding war expenditures the republican controlled congress has gone on an out of control spending spree." Does that sound like the GOP is my religion? I'm actually very disappointed in the republican party as of late. Bush and the republican controlled congress failed to cut pork and to cut overall spending. I don't always hold faith in the republican party but I do have faith that the conservative philosophy, in most areas, is best for the country. I also believe the republican party is more likely, but not always, to have a conservative agenda. People have their core beliefs and values and the party or philosophy that most represents those beliefs and values is the party they root for. It's not "retarded". It means they want what they think is best for their country and I think your country is more important than your favorite sports team. So I guess in your mind only moderates are strong in the way of knowledge?
I supplied you with links to articles with data that show you the increase in revenue after every major tax cuts in history. Lets see you dispute that data. Nor have you. You haven't proven that these other "factors" are driving the increased revenue rather than the tax cuts.
Uhhh, . . . I already have, chief. In posts 107, 109, 113, 115, 118, 122 and 134. But you just ignore it and keep repeating your chant. I'm saying all of these factors drive the economy, which should be obvious.
We are going around in circles. My stance is tax cuts can be a major instrument, along with other factors, in spurring the economy and increasing revenue. I have supplied data that backs my argument up. You have supplied opinion and speculation but no data to back up your argument. I've indicated that JFK along with President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994 agrees that tax cuts stimulate the economy. Early on in this debate you seemed to completely refute the notion that tax cuts can stimulate the economy. Correct me if I'm wrong but now it seems you think they can stimulate the economy in conjunction with other economic factors?
One of us is. And it was challenged. You apprently don't even read my posts, amigo. Been there. Done that. Got something new? If not, then move along.
It really seems like you are arguing that tax cuts are fundamental to a vibrant economy and responsible gubment spending is secondary. I really don't think you can cut taxes responsibly without first cutting spending. I know you've said that we need to cut spending, but it seems you're putting the cart before the horse. It seems like we are running to this country into the ground at this point in time and we really need to reverse directions. Tax cuts will not fix the problem.
You believe tax cuts have no economic stimulus under any circumstance. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Oh I've read them all. Didn't see any data that would challenge the notion that the Kennedy tax cuts and other major tax cuts (besides the Reagan tax cuts) stimulated the economy. Your argument regarding the Reagan tax cuts speculated that other factors were involved which may be true but it didn't refute that the tax cuts were part of the overall formula of turning the economy around. I see that you have resorted to trying to be cute in your responses. Thanks for the debate. I've enjoyed it.
