3
   

Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?

 
 
okie
 
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:30 pm
Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?

Many issues seem to indicate such. I have to wonder if they just took elementary math wherein 2 + 2 = 4, and never advanced to concepts of algebra and calculus where x + y = 4, wherein if x changes, y will also change because it is part of the same formula. Examples of issues following:

If a man makes a hundred grand and pays 20% or 20 grand in taxes, they assume if they raise taxes to 30%, the government will collect 30 grand.

If a company is taxed at a higher rate, they assume the company will continue to make the same profits for shareholders and employ the same number of people at the same wages as before.

If an oil company receives tax breaks for oil production, and if the tax breaks are eliminated, they assume the oil company will continue to be able to have just as many profitable oil wells and will maintain the same production, and no additional shortages or price effects will be felt by the consumer. This principle would of course apply to any company besides oil companies.

If the minimum wage is increased, they assume there will be the same number of jobs and unemployment will not be affected. Also, the number of people satisfied with minimum wage jobs is always the same regardless of what the minimum wage is.

If they decrease the interest rates for college loans, they assume there will be the same number of loans given by banks and that tuition costs charged by colleges and universities will not be affected.

If they lock up more and more public land, they assume this will not affect the production of natural resources and prices of those resources.

If more welfare benefits are given to people that do not work, they assume this will not affect the number of people attempting to get on the welfare rolls.

When natural disasters occur, such as Hurricane Katrina, it is assumed that only one entity had any responsibility in warning people, saving people, and cleaning up the mess, and that is the Federal Government, more specifically the president. The people, the state, and the local governments were totally helpless and are not part of the solution or the same equation.

Expenditures on the military have no relationship to war or national security. The fact that we've had no terrorist attacks here since 911 and no serious conflicts with other nations on our soil has nothing to do with the fact that we spend alot on national defense. We could have spent far less or even nothing since nothing much has happened.

Eliminating the wiretapping of terrorist related organizations will have absolutely no effect on the likelihood of the government catching terrorists. They are two separate issues.

Locking up terrorist suspects at Gitmo has not deterred terrorists at all, but they are only locked up for vague political reasons.

Global warming is entirely caused by man, even though countless other factors have always affected climate, and still are.


There are lots more examples, but I am tired of typing for now. Maybe others can come up with more. I think the list is endless.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 8,467 • Replies: 183
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:32 pm
No; it only looks that way to the those who only see issues in black and white.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:34 pm
Edgar has it right.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:41 pm
It is interesting, okie, how you can analyze the liberal pundid mind without citing a single liberal pundit. I'm impressed.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:49 pm
"'... You can squat on a pit bull, but that don't getcha rhubarb pie."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:50 pm
Re: Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
okie wrote:
Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?


No. You have created a 'liberal' in your mind who embodies every bad argument you can think of to oppose the things you like. But it's a real fallacy to do so.

Quote:
Many issues seem to indicate such. I have to wonder if they just took elementary math wherein 2 + 2 = 4, and never advanced to concepts of algebra and calculus where x + y = 4, wherein if x changes, y will also change because it is part of the same formula. Examples of issues following:


Let me interject here with a question: wasn't it Bush and the Republicans - therefore, not Liberal minds - who were the 'stay the course' crowd, even though Liberals argued that x had changed so y had to change as well?

Your criticisms are good all around. But I digress -

Quote:
If a man makes a hundred grand and pays 20% or 20 grand in taxes, they assume if they raise taxes to 30%, the government will collect 30 grand.


Why is this a bad assumption to make? You need to detail reasons why the taxes wouldn't scale.

Quote:
If a company is taxed at a higher rate, they assume the company will continue to make the same profits for shareholders and employ the same number of people at the same wages as before.


No, Liberals don't assume this. You are projecting a false attitude onto Liberals.

We assume that when companies are taxed at a higher rate, then the profits for shareholders will be lower. That's the consequence of increasing costs for the company. We just don't care, because shareholder profit rates are very unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:
If an oil company receives tax breaks for oil production, and if the tax breaks are eliminated, they assume the oil company will continue to be able to have just as many profitable oil wells and will maintain the same production, and no additional shortages or price effects will be felt by the consumer. This principle would of course apply to any company besides oil companies.


No, we don't assume this. This is an extension of what you wrote above, worded differently.

If oil company tax breaks are rescinded, then their profits will go down. This is easy for anyone to see. It's just that we aren't concerned with the profits going down. I don't have a lot of sympathy for oil companies.

Also, I have a hard time seeing how the prices will go up significantly. A company which profited 30 billion last year can afford to pay 2 billion more in taxes and not break a sweat when it comes to prices. You will have to explain more why you believe this is true.

Quote:
If the minimum wage is increased, they assume there will be the same number of jobs and unemployment will not be affected. Also, the number of people satisfied with minimum wage jobs is always the same regardless of what the minimum wage is.


This is a statement about Liberals mixed with some odd information at the end. Not to mention that there exists zero data that I have seen showing that unemployment goes up at all when minimum wages are raised. This directly contradicts the recent Florida experiences with raising the minimum wage, actaully, so I would say that the facts are on the side of the Liberals.

Quote:
If they decrease the interest rates for college loans, they assume there will be the same number of loans given by banks and that tuition costs charged by colleges and universities will not be affected.


What? College loan interest rates have nothing to do with the price of tuition. They have nothing to do with how many loans are given out, either; there are no shortage of banks willing to loan money which is federally guaranteed to be paid back to them.

I guarantee that at 6% the bank will give out loans to as many people as they did at 8%. I think you would be hard pressed, once again, to provide any actual data that this is not true.

Quote:
If they lock up more and more public land, they assume this will not affect the production of natural resources and prices of those resources.


Wrong again, we assume that it will make the price of those resources rise. We are indifferent to this, because low prices are not the only calculation that matters in life; the environment is also very important and worth paying higher prices for.

Also, we can be said to be looking to the future; the pollution created by industry will have to be cleaned up, period. The only question is whether it is cleaned now or later, at a greater expense. Which one do you think is more intelligent?

Quote:
If more welfare benefits are given to people that do not work, they assume this will not affect the number of people attempting to get on the welfare rolls.


I haven't seen any liberals arguing for greater welfare lately, have you?

Quote:
When natural disasters occur, such as Hurricane Katrina, it is assumed that only one entity had any responsibility in warning people, saving people, and cleaning up the mess, and that is the Federal Government, more specifically the president. The people, the state, and the local governments were totally helpless and are not part of the solution or the same equation.


This is bullsh*t on your part. I'm a liberal, and I never said those things. Criticism of the federal government doesn't mean that no responsibility lies elsewhere.

Quote:
Expenditures on the military have no relationship to war or national security. The fact that we've had no terrorist attacks here since 911 and no serious conflicts with other nations on our soil has nothing to do with the fact that we spend alot on national defense. We could have spent far less or even nothing since nothing much has happened.


First of all, you forget about the Anthrax attacks. To say that we have had no terrorism in America since 9/11 is a lie. You should quit making that false statement.

Second, you can't show me what we've done here at home to make ourselves safer from determined terrorists. We haven't closed the borders or secured our ports, many of our nuclear facilities are still vulnerable to attack, our rail and train systems as well. As well our food production.

You know as well as I that the 'cell' nature of terrorism means that AQ is not hampered from their ability to attack America by what's going on in Iraq. Why would they be? Give me a convincing argument and I'll agree with you that our offensive actions are providing defense. Otherwise, I disagree, because I can't for the life of me figure out why a decentralized, highly independent terror organization would be bogged down like a traditional army.

Quote:
Eliminating the wiretapping of terrorist related organizations will have absolutely no effect on the likelihood of the government catching terrorists. They are two separate issues.


We never wanted to eliminate wiretapping of everything. We just want a judge to look it over, as is the American tradition since the founding of our country. You appear to be hyperventilating a little by this point.

Quote:
Locking up terrorist suspects at Gitmo has not deterred terrorists at all, but they are only locked up for vague political reasons.


Incidences of worldwide terrorism have risen every year since we started locking up terrorists in Gitmo; you show me the data that it has deterred terrorists at all.

Additionally, you think the several hundred people who have been released weren't locked up for vague reasons? That we just let a bunch of terrorists go? Definately hyperventilating, calm down and breath deeply.

Quote:
There are lots more examples, but I am tired of typing for now. Maybe others can come up with more. I think the list is endless.


That's because you are irrationally biased against Liberals. You ascribe the antithesis of every opinion you hold to the other side without bothering to check for silly things like facts or actual historical arguments.

I've cautioned you about this before.... silliness...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:55 pm
Thomas wrote:
It is interesting, okie, how you can analyze the liberal pundid mind without citing a single liberal pundit. I'm impressed.


Concentrating on one pundit would be too one dimensional, Thomas. Laughing The assessment is based on an aggregate of observations of the liberal political mindset over a period of years, sort of an average of the typical.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 05:05 pm
Quite an analysis, okie. Now, demonstrate the vastness of your omnipotent conservative intellect and provide a similar, lengthy analysis of the conservative mind.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 05:15 pm
The good news is that more and more voters seem to be one dimensional. The 2008 elections are looking like they are going to be fun!!!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 05:29 pm
Thank you for proving the incredible reasoning powers of the conservative mind.

<snork>
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 07:02 pm
Quite a post indeed. I think Cycloptichorn set you straight, and you failed to address any of his points in your subsequent post and chose to focus on the pundit post. Taking the easy way out of your nonsense just like Bush is taking the easy way out of Iraq (by letting the next prez do the job).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 07:08 pm
Dys has it right!


I think.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 11:23 pm
Re: Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?


No. You have created a 'liberal' in your mind who embodies every bad argument you can think of to oppose the things you like. But it's a real fallacy to do so.

Ho hum, here we go. I did not create the term and characteristics of the liberal agenda, cyclops. I did not create liberal in my mind. In case you don't know it, it exists in culture and in politics in a very big way. I am simply commenting on it here.

Quote:
Quote:
Many issues seem to indicate such. I have to wonder if they just took elementary math wherein 2 + 2 = 4, and never advanced to concepts of algebra and calculus where x + y = 4, wherein if x changes, y will also change because it is part of the same formula. Examples of issues following:


Let me interject here with a question: wasn't it Bush and the Republicans - therefore, not Liberal minds - who were the 'stay the course' crowd, even though Liberals argued that x had changed so y had to change as well?

Valid point, but Bush has in fact recently changed y while maintaining the sum of x and y remains the same or equivalent to staying the course for the desired result. By the way, cyclops, I have voiced more than once that Bush is not a true conservative in all points, and most recently I have voiced an opinion of perhaps opposing addditional troops in Iraq.

Quote:
Your criticisms are good all around. But I digress -

Quote:
If a man makes a hundred grand and pays 20% or 20 grand in taxes, they assume if they raise taxes to 30%, the government will collect 30 grand.


Why is this a bad assumption to make? You need to detail reasons why the taxes wouldn't scale.

Surely you can understand this equation? If the man pays 30% in taxes, it will likely affect profits and motivation to work as hard, since he reaps less of the final benefit, so the result may be 30% of perhaps $85,000.

Quote:
Quote:
If a company is taxed at a higher rate, they assume the company will continue to make the same profits for shareholders and employ the same number of people at the same wages as before.


No, Liberals don't assume this. You are projecting a false attitude onto Liberals.

We assume that when companies are taxed at a higher rate, then the profits for shareholders will be lower. That's the consequence of increasing costs for the company. We just don't care, because shareholder profit rates are very unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree. Liberals apparently do assume this, because the political pundits harp constantly on tax breaks for the rich, and that such breaks do not benefit the common man. Such tax breaks obviously do affect the common man.

Quote:
Quote:
If an oil company receives tax breaks for oil production, and if the tax breaks are eliminated, they assume the oil company will continue to be able to have just as many profitable oil wells and will maintain the same production, and no additional shortages or price effects will be felt by the consumer. This principle would of course apply to any company besides oil companies.


No, we don't assume this. This is an extension of what you wrote above, worded differently.

If oil company tax breaks are rescinded, then their profits will go down. This is easy for anyone to see. It's just that we aren't concerned with the profits going down. I don't have a lot of sympathy for oil companies.

Also, I have a hard time seeing how the prices will go up significantly. A company which profited 30 billion last year can afford to pay 2 billion more in taxes and not break a sweat when it comes to prices. You will have to explain more why you believe this is true.

True, you have no sympathy for oil companies, and apparently see no impact on their shareholders and on their oil production, some of which may be marginal. As I asserted at the beginning of this thread, such an attitude is blind to the realities of economics. Liberals see oil companies as an entity unto themselves with no impact or connection to the common man, which is ignorance personafied.

Quote:
Quote:
If the minimum wage is increased, they assume there will be the same number of jobs and unemployment will not be affected. Also, the number of people satisfied with minimum wage jobs is always the same regardless of what the minimum wage is.


This is a statement about Liberals mixed with some odd information at the end. Not to mention that there exists zero data that I have seen showing that unemployment goes up at all when minimum wages are raised. This directly contradicts the recent Florida experiences with raising the minimum wage, actaully, so I would say that the facts are on the side of the Liberals.
Here again, the relationship of minimum wage to unemployment and the economy is self evident. The only reason it appears to not make a large impact is because the federally set minimum wage level is likely not much above or not at all above what it would be otherwise through the existing economic forces. It is a sliding scale. If the minimum wage was $30.00 per hour, you would surely agree it would make a large impact? Common sense would tell us that the impact is roughly directly proportional to the divergence of the minimum wage above what market forces already dictates, and if there is little divergence, then not much impact, but then, why bother with a mandated minimum wage?

Quote:
Quote:
If they decrease the interest rates for college loans, they assume there will be the same number of loans given by banks and that tuition costs charged by colleges and universities will not be affected.


What? College loan interest rates have nothing to do with the price of tuition. They have nothing to do with how many loans are given out, either; there are no shortage of banks willing to loan money which is federally guaranteed to be paid back to them.

I guarantee that at 6% the bank will give out loans to as many people as they did at 8%. I think you would be hard pressed, once again, to provide any actual data that this is not true.

Here again, you don't look deep enough into the scenario. Ease of obtaining loans will increase the ability of students to pay more for tuition, which probably will place upward pressure on the ability of colleges and universities to charge higher rates. We will have to see how this plays out, but that is my prediction. As to the number of loans, I am not familiar with that end of it, but I heard that possibility being mentioned on the radio news, apparently from some authority, I did not catch know it was.

Quote:
Quote:
If they lock up more and more public land, they assume this will not affect the production of natural resources and prices of those resources.


Wrong again, we assume that it will make the price of those resources rise. We are indifferent to this, because low prices are not the only calculation that matters in life; the environment is also very important and worth paying higher prices for.

Also, we can be said to be looking to the future; the pollution created by industry will have to be cleaned up, period. The only question is whether it is cleaned now or later, at a greater expense. Which one do you think is more intelligent?

Liberal politicians never have mentioned ever to my recollection that locking up public lands has caused higher energy prices. I've never heard even one admit it in years, cyclops. If you have a quote, I'd like to hear it.

Quote:
Quote:
If more welfare benefits are given to people that do not work, they assume this will not affect the number of people attempting to get on the welfare rolls.


I haven't seen any liberals arguing for greater welfare lately, have you?
Not lately, but Clinton was drug kicking and screaming to sign welfare reform in the 90's, and I remember predictions of suffering and doom at that time. LBJ's Great Society never predicted the result of giving more benefits to unwed mothers, which is more unwed mothers with more children. It was supposed to wipe out poverty by increasing x, but never considered the fact that y would increase exponentially as a result.

Quote:
Quote:
When natural disasters occur, such as Hurricane Katrina, it is assumed that only one entity had any responsibility in warning people, saving people, and cleaning up the mess, and that is the Federal Government, more specifically the president. The people, the state, and the local governments were totally helpless and are not part of the solution or the same equation.


This is bullsh*t on your part. I'm a liberal, and I never said those things. Criticism of the federal government doesn't mean that no responsibility lies elsewhere.
You haven't that I recall, but I've not heard any liberals lay much blame at the feet of the people, the governor, and the mayor. Its all Bush's fault, and the Democrats in Congress are still to this day trying to investigate it. I haven't heard anything about investigating the local governments. In fact, wasn't the mayor re-elected?

Quote:
Quote:
Expenditures on the military have no relationship to war or national security. The fact that we've had no terrorist attacks here since 911 and no serious conflicts with other nations on our soil has nothing to do with the fact that we spend alot on national defense. We could have spent far less or even nothing since nothing much has happened.


First of all, you forget about the Anthrax attacks. To say that we have had no terrorism in America since 9/11 is a lie. You should quit making that false statement.

Second, you can't show me what we've done here at home to make ourselves safer from determined terrorists. We haven't closed the borders or secured our ports, many of our nuclear facilities are still vulnerable to attack, our rail and train systems as well. As well our food production.

You know as well as I that the 'cell' nature of terrorism means that AQ is not hampered from their ability to attack America by what's going on in Iraq. Why would they be? Give me a convincing argument and I'll agree with you that our offensive actions are providing defense. Otherwise, I disagree, because I can't for the life of me figure out why a decentralized, highly independent terror organization would be bogged down like a traditional army.
I will agree that we need to be doing more. I don't know exactly how the Iraq war and our operations in Afghanistan are affecting things, but I think at least some because the organizations are having to watch their backsides there, and they also believe that front is worth much of their efforts at present, rather than being able to sit back and leisurely and patiently plan the next attack here.

Quote:
Quote:
Eliminating the wiretapping of terrorist related organizations will have absolutely no effect on the likelihood of the government catching terrorists. They are two separate issues.


We never wanted to eliminate wiretapping of everything. We just want a judge to look it over, as is the American tradition since the founding of our country. You appear to be hyperventilating a little by this point.
Having a judge look over every incident renders the type of surveillance impractical and unworkable on the scale necessary to intercept all suspicious overseas communciations, in my opinion.

Quote:
Quote:
Locking up terrorist suspects at Gitmo has not deterred terrorists at all, but they are only locked up for vague political reasons.


Incidences of worldwide terrorism have risen every year since we started locking up terrorists in Gitmo; you show me the data that it has deterred terrorists at all.

Additionally, you think the several hundred people who have been released weren't locked up for vague reasons? That we just let a bunch of terrorists go? Definately hyperventilating, calm down and breath deeply.
Nobody's hyperventilating, just pointing out the one dimensional thinking of the Left.

Quote:
Quote:
There are lots more examples, but I am tired of typing for now. Maybe others can come up with more. I think the list is endless.


That's because you are irrationally biased against Liberals. You ascribe the antithesis of every opinion you hold to the other side without bothering to check for silly things like facts or actual historical arguments.

I've cautioned you about this before.... silliness...

Cycloptichorn

Well, I think the bias is very rational. By the way, its the belief system, not the people. I think you for example are probably a nice guy. You just need to see the error of your political philosophy. By the way, I've got more examples if you are interested?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 11:37 pm
does anyone besides me picture Brandon as having fastidiously manicured nails?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 09:25 am
Re: Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
okie wrote:
Surely you can understand this equation? If the man pays 30% in taxes, it will likely affect profits and motivation to work as hard, since he reaps less of the final benefit, so the result may be 30% of perhaps $85,000.

Do you have any empirical evidence that people work less when the marginal tax rates are increased?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 09:49 am
Maybe not "one dimensional" however, they do believe in censorship especially to ideas that may be contrary to "their" ideas.

"Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act."

"The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard," Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.

The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey's bill, which also sets tighter limits on media ownership. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed a companion bill in the Senate.

"This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard."
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5167_0_6_0_C/
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 09:49 am
Re: Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
Surely you can understand this equation? If the man pays 30% in taxes, it will likely affect profits and motivation to work as hard, since he reaps less of the final benefit, so the result may be 30% of perhaps $85,000.

Do you have any empirical evidence that people work less when the marginal tax rates are increased?


Of course not.....he doesn't worry about little things like facts, evidence, proof.

I would think that people would work harder if this were the case. I can't imagine someone thinking: "They raised my taxes from 30% to 60% now I'm only going to make 40,000 in actual cash, well I'm just not going to work as hard and end up making 34,000 instead (85k * 40%)" I'm pretty damn sure that if I were in that situation I'd focus on making even more money to maintain my lifestyle.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:02 am
Re: Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
Surely you can understand this equation? If the man pays 30% in taxes, it will likely affect profits and motivation to work as hard, since he reaps less of the final benefit, so the result may be 30% of perhaps $85,000.

Do you have any empirical evidence that people work less when the marginal tax rates are increased?


Well for starters, what about the economic expansion in the 80's after top marginal tax rates were lowered. I am not an economist so I will leave the official empirical studies up to those that are. Beyond that, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence going back to childhood. Pay a man per bale of hay and you get alot more hay in the barn than if you pay by the hour. Whether it is the employer or the government preventing rewards for harder work make little difference. Over the past few years, I recall many conversations with people that said, the promotion and pay raise did me no good because the tax deductions more than offset the raise. In an instance or two, I recall the person turned down the promotion and raise, in part because of that reason. I have also known of people very successful at a business that decided to quit or do something else, thus selling, because of higher marginal tax rates. The answer to this debate basically relies on simple common sense. Why do capitalistic economies thrive better than state owned economies?

Using your noggin a little, Joe, what would happen to economic output if the tax rate was 100%? I think the answer should be obvious. It would plummet. Okay, what would happen to it if it was 90%? More speculation enters, but probably plummet not as completely, but very severely. Consider the scenarios for 80%, 60%, and so forth. You end up with a curve, where the effects may be more subtle at the lower numbers, but to pretend there would be no effect is just economic ignorance. It does not take an economist to figure this out. To argue the curve would be flat from 0 to 100% marginal tax rate would be an utterly preposterous position to take.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:08 am
Maybe not "one dimensional" but often hypocritical.

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:10 am
woiyo wrote:
Maybe not "one dimensional" however, they do believe in censorship especially to ideas that may be contrary to "their" ideas.

"Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

...


woiyo, I think your post is in fact another example of their one dimensional thinking. They do not understand simple supply and demand in regard to much of anything, including freedom of expression. They think only conservative talk radio is out of proportion and therefore only it needs to be brought into proper balance, and that this will not affect anything else, such as balance in the news. News is static, and always correct, because it is "news" controlled by liberals of course.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 06:13:44