http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-05bud.htm

I think there are times when tax cuts are appropriate. I also think there are times when tax increases are appropriate.

In the spirit of debate, I’d like to ask what times each of these are.

For me, there is NO good time to raise taxes, with the sole exception being to re-raise the rate to the Laffer Curve status quo after first dropping it to stimulate the economy out of a slowdown.

Awesome. Let’s fight all our wars on credit! Way to support the troops, idiot.

Awesome. Let s fight all our wars on credit!

Please try to keep up with current events. Since the tax cuts were enabled, tax revenue is UP. Significantly. Proving we haven’t entered the left side of the Laffer Curve yet again.

You wanna complain about profligate spending, hey I’m with you! But to argue the current deficit is due to the lowered tax rates flies in the face of incontrovertable evidence.

I realize that you won t read all of this, but there it is.

I did. Even though you completely missed the point. Zython claimed that “the left espouses no control over the morality of others.”. Your post details in full why the left wants to control the morality of others. Thanks for proving my point!

PS. The “retirement” line item? Social Security. Liberals think they know better than me how to save for my retirement and take a portion of it out of my hands. That’s a moral issue.

How was my comment a non-sequitur? You have the right to say what, from your twisted perceptions, the left believe, but I’m not allowed to do the same (sans the “twisted” part)? All I was doing was pointing out how ridiculous your assertion was by reversing it to the opposite extreme.

Zython: 28; Frank_D: 0, and still undefeated.

Dugger”

Well, to be fair, the motive is taken under consideration in many cases. For example, simple assault will not be judged as severely as aggravated assault, since in the former, no intent to cause grievous harm or death is ascertained..

Also, many hate crimes are typically more brutal than similar crimes not motivated by bigotry. Look at the deaths of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., to name two.

I agree tomy, that is beyond the pale. Cons are stuck in this kind of childhood where they don’t want to make any sacrifices for the common good. Adults know that reasonable taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

“What, dugger, you saying its perfectly ok to kill someone because they re black?”

Please. I really do believe you are smarter than that. Even for intentionally bad polemics that is bad.

I believe no extra punishment should go into any crime because of the thought behind it. It is wrong to murder any human. The murder is the crime, not the thought.

Dugger

Child abuse, pedophilia, and rape are all well outside of the moral bounds that you know we’re talking about here, Frank, and you know it. There is no one that condones those things and throwing them out there and trying to make it look as if progressives support them is pretty low, even for you. And you already spend most of your time in the mud (slinger).

As for proselytizing, I don’t know. Pick any of these “faith based” initiatives that are out there and see how often you get turned away for help if you don’t agree to be converted by the helpers. Assholes.

And finally, here’s a demonstration:

We have a problem with SUV because your right to own an SUV tramples on my right to drive safely to work and my right to live free of the threat of terrorism that is directly linkable to our dependence on oil. Of course you have a right to an SUV. But the great good of society may mean that we have to place some restrictions on so that everyone else can have rights too. (breathing reasonably clean air, for instance).

Own a gun. Sure. But your right to own a gun stops at my right not to be shot because you’re a terrible parent and your kid decided to go on a rampage just like he saw on fox news. This should be state or local decision IMO, but I digress.

Save for their retirement: what are you talking about? Who is stopping that? I think you’re smoking the koolaid again.

Contribute more than $2000 to a politician. This is clumsy expression of your right to contribute stops at my right to be heard. We already have a serious problem in this country with the rich monopolizing the access to politicians by buying them out, and everyone has a right to be heard. That this method isn’t working is beside the point. You show a decided inability to go beyond the effect and look at the causes.

Pass their inheritance off to their kids: Thats because concentrating all the wealth in the hands of the few tramples on the rights and ability of everyone else to make wealth. It takes wealth to make wealth. Just ask Warren Buffet. Besides, save, are you part of the 1% that the estate tax actually effects? No? Didn’t think so. Why you guys spend so much time defending people who work very hard to diminish your rights and chances of success, I will never understand.

Wants to replace somone on maternity leave: Again, there are two sides to that question. That mother has a right to a job, and just because you’d love to keep her in the kitchen popping out babies like a good woman should doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a right to have a career and a family. Its called “pursuit of happiness”.

Hire a new employee regardless of race: Again, you’re missing the root causes of it. All you’re concentrating on is the effect. How would you defeat racism and social inequality? Got some better ideas? Lets hear ‘em. Oh yeah. You don’t believe in that sort of thing, because your white, middle class upbringing has never seen it personally. Yeah, I think this out to be social class based rather than race based, but you want to know the reason its race based? Because theres a scientific/statistical evidence of a socio-economic divide between races, and that is a self-perpetuating condition. Heres the other thing, bucko. If people would adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the law, we coudl be done with it. You want proof it works? The military. Its pretty much the model for what affirmative action should’ve been, but couldn’t be because assholes like you didn’t believe in the causes and therefore did everything you could to screw up the implementation.

I realize that you won’t read all of this, but there it is.

What, dugger, you saying its perfectly ok to kill someone because they’re black?

Or are you saying that you have a right to denigrate others?

University politically correct speech codes?

Hate crimes?

the left espouses no control over the morality of others.

Unless someone wants to put a nativity scene in their front yard.
Or drive an SUV.
Or own a gun.
Or save for their retirement.
Or wants to contribute more than $2,000 to a politician.
Or wants to pass their inheritance onto their kids.
Or wants to replace someone on maternity leave.
Or wants to hire a new employee, irregardless of their race.

*That’s dumbass to you, Zython

White Whale: You’re willing to listen? To what? I really think you should support the ridiculous statement that you made, and I’m willing to listen.
So go ahead.

control over others bodies: Does that include things like the policies of the CDC, the FDA, and the anti – smoking campaign?

morality: Does that mean the government should be immoral, or amoral? Or
should it stand by while people are immoral or amoral, no matter what harm it does to others, i.e., child abuse, pedophilia, rape?

judgment: Does that mean the Courts should be shut down?

divine rights: I confess I have no idea what this means. Are you referring to the “divine right” of kings, or are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers were mistaken, when they endorsed the belief that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”?

Still listening?