Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
a sales tax gives everyone some skin in the game. Eliminating the income tax as in Fla, Tx, NH, Nevada encourages businesses to locate in your state, more business more sales more sales tax, better state services.
those with more money spend more money so they will pay more sales taxes.
Yes, the very poor will be impacted by this but they already pay sales taxes, so the impact will not destroy them. and new industry will create new jobs for many of them.
A very optimistic view. You posit that the savings by the very rich will be invested within the state and new industry's will thusly be created. How do you know this is true? Why wouldn't this money be invested in the emerging economies (India, Brazil, Indonesia) or used for vacations in Europe or Asia? Why do you believe it will trickle down to the poor?
If the very poor are impacted within the state, and the R's in Congress are able to reduce the benefits to the very poor (earned income credit, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, SNAP, housing subsidies ) and state benefits are reduced, even a 4% (which Jindal projects) net reduction in spending money may put many families beyond the tipping point and more women and children on the streets.
your basic premise is wrong, conservatives do not want to reduce benefits for the poor, they want to create jobs for the poor so that the govt no longer has to spend OUR money feeding the poor.
The states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke. you tell me why that is.
A very optimistic view. You posit that the savings by the very rich will be invested within the state and new industry's will thusly be created. How do you know this is true? Why wouldn't this money be invested in the emerging economies (India, Brazil, Indonesia) or used for vacations in Europe or Asia? Why do you believe it will trickle down to the poor?
If the very poor are impacted within the state, and the R's in Congress are able to reduce the benefits to the very poor (earned income credit, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, SNAP, housing subsidies ) and state benefits are reduced, even a 4% (which Jindal projects) net reduction in spending money may put many families beyond the tipping point and more women and children on the streets.
your basic premise is wrong, conservatives do not want to reduce benefits for the poor, they want to create jobs for the poor so that the govt no longer has to spend OUR money feeding the poor.
The states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke. you tell me why that is.
I don't know that, "states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke" is true, or that only one cause creates the effect you seem to attribute to income tax. One might point out that federal income tax rates in the last century were high and we had periods of both boom and bust.
a sales tax gives everyone some skin in the game. Eliminating the income tax as in Fla, Tx, NH, Nevada encourages businesses to locate in your state, more business more sales more sales tax, better state services.
those with more money spend more money so they will pay more sales taxes.
Yes, the very poor will be impacted by this but they already pay sales taxes, so the impact will not destroy them. and new industry will create new jobs for many of them.
A very optimistic view. You posit that the savings by the very rich will be invested within the state and new industry's will thusly be created. How do you know this is true? Why wouldn't this money be invested in the emerging economies (India, Brazil, Indonesia) or used for vacations in Europe or Asia? Why do you believe it will trickle down to the poor?
If the very poor are impacted within the state, and the R's in Congress are able to reduce the benefits to the very poor (earned income credit, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, SNAP, housing subsidies ) and state benefits are reduced, even a 4% (which Jindal projects) net reduction in spending money may put many families beyond the tipping point and more women and children on the streets.
your basic premise is wrong, conservatives do not want to reduce benefits for the poor, they want to create jobs for the poor so that the govt no longer has to spend OUR money feeding the poor.
The states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke. you tell me why that is.
A very optimistic view. You posit that the savings by the very rich will be invested within the state and new industry's will thusly be created. How do you know this is true? Why wouldn't this money be invested in the emerging economies (India, Brazil, Indonesia) or used for vacations in Europe or Asia? Why do you believe it will trickle down to the poor?
If the very poor are impacted within the state, and the R's in Congress are able to reduce the benefits to the very poor (earned income credit, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, SNAP, housing subsidies ) and state benefits are reduced, even a 4% (which Jindal projects) net reduction in spending money may put many families beyond the tipping point and more women and children on the streets.
your basic premise is wrong, conservatives do not want to reduce benefits for the poor, they want to create jobs for the poor so that the govt no longer has to spend OUR money feeding the poor.
The states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke. you tell me why that is.
You just ran face-first into the liberal mindset whereby all is cured by throwing money at it.... never by actually solving the problem why people are poor. Poverty is a symptom of the larger problem which may be poor education, devaluation of education, destruction of the family unit, generational welfare, etc.
your basic premise is wrong, conservatives do not want to reduce benefits for the poor, they want to create jobs for the poor so that the govt no longer has to spend OUR money feeding the poor.
The states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke. you tell me why that is.
I don't know that, "states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke" is true, or that only one cause creates the effect you seem to attribute to income tax. One might point out that federal income tax rates in the last century were high and we had periods of both boom and bust.
OK, texas, florida, and Nevada have no state income tax, california, Illinois, and michigan have high state income tax rates. the first three have balanced budgets, the second three are all broke. Maybe state income tax is not the sole reason------liberal thought is probably the real reason.
I don't know that, "states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke" is true, or that only one cause creates the effect you seem to attribute to income tax. One might point out that federal income tax rates in the last century were high and we had periods of both boom and bust.
OK, texas, florida, and Nevada have no state income tax, california, Illinois, and michigan have high state income tax rates. the first three have balanced budgets, the second three are all broke. Maybe state income tax is not the sole reason------liberal thought is probably the real reason.
So, income tax isn't the one and only factor in a State's economic success or failure. The problem is "liberal thought". Is that correct?
BTW, CA is now on the road to economic recovery, and the Democrats have a super majority in both legislative chambers and hold the Governors seat. That aside, let me ask what is "liberal thought"; obviously you must know since you proffered such is the real reason for a States' economic failure.
I so look forward to a cogent and concise answer.
red fish hates blue fishes
your basic premise is wrong, conservatives do not want to reduce benefits for the poor, they want to create jobs for the poor so that the govt no longer has to spend OUR money feeding the poor.
The states with no state income tax seem to be doing quite well, while the states with the highest state income tax are going broke. you tell me why that is.
You just ran face-first into the liberal mindset whereby all is cured by throwing money at it.... never by actually solving the problem why people are poor. Poverty is a symptom of the larger problem which may be poor education, devaluation of education, destruction of the family unit, generational welfare, etc.
true, its also part of the dem/lib/obama strategy to get more people on the govt dole and thereby buy their votes. liberals don't want to be slaves to the master, but they line up to become slaves to the government. quite pathetic
red fish hates blue fishes
wrong, I have many friends who are liberals. I don't hate them. What I hate is the lying for political gain that is practiced by both parties but is the number one tenet of the dem/lib party.
the Croft 60 minutes fiasco with obama and clinton is a perfect example of the bullshit pumped out by the left wing media and the dems. It was enough to make me vomit.
I am a conservative cajun from Louisiana. Looking forward to some lively discussions on how to return our economy and culture to sanity
red fish hates blue fishes
wrong, I have many friends who are liberals. I don't hate them. What I hate is the lying for political gain that is practiced by both parties but is the number one tenet of the dem/lib party.
the Croft 60 minutes fiasco with obama and clinton is a perfect example of the bullshit pumped out by the left wing media and the dems. It was enough to make me vomit.
You are showing ignorance and lack of tolerance for those you don't agree with politically.
Like you said-BOTH sides lie but if you look at the Romney campaing as an example, the Reps very much like to lie. Try not to be so blind.
OK, texas, florida, and Nevada have no state income tax, california, Illinois, and michigan have high state income tax rates. the first three have balanced budgets, the second three are all broke. Maybe state income tax is not the sole reason------liberal thought is probably the real reason.
So, income tax isn't the one and only factor in a State's economic success or failure. The problem is "liberal thought". Is that correct?
BTW, CA is now on the road to economic recovery, and the Democrats have a super majority in both legislative chambers and hold the Governors seat. That aside, let me ask what is "liberal thought"; obviously you must know since you proffered such is the real reason for a States' economic failure.
I so look forward to a cogent and concise answer.
cogent and concise, something I have never seen from any liberal, but let me try. In connection to government, liberal thought generally holds that the govt should be large and very controlling. govt should be involved in "social justice" and equalizing results. liberal thought does not allow dissenting views and seeks to punish those who do not follow that party line. liberal thought is based on feelings and empathy rather than logic and common sense.
So, income tax isn't the one and only factor in a State's economic success or failure. The problem is "liberal thought". Is that correct?
BTW, CA is now on the road to economic recovery, and the Democrats have a super majority in both legislative chambers and hold the Governors seat. That aside, let me ask what is "liberal thought"; obviously you must know since you proffered such is the real reason for a States' economic failure.
I so look forward to a cogent and concise answer.
cogent and concise, something I have never seen from any liberal, but let me try. In connection to government, liberal thought generally holds that the govt should be large and very controlling. govt should be involved in "social justice" and equalizing results. liberal thought does not allow dissenting views and seeks to punish those who do not follow that party line. liberal thought is based on feelings and empathy rather than logic and common sense.
Concise you were, cognet (be polite Wry) .... not so much. (l)iberal thought is not easily defined and anyone who claims all liberals/progressives/Democrats think in lockstep is wrong. The set of liberalism is, in a nut shell, the set of those with an understanding of the past and the hope for a better future. Subsets within the 'liberal' community are many and as varied as are their faces; some pragmatic, some idealistic, some utopian.
Contrasted with the 'conservative' focus one immediately sees the difference; single issue conservatives see civil rights with a narrow focus, they want their right to bear arms but are willing to suppress the rights of gays and lesbians to walk arm in arm together in matromony. The 'libeal' sees rights as did Jefferson, the 'conservative' sees rights as does Wayne LaPierre; the former sees rights as universal, the latter as only a Radian could, i.e. thir own right.
Througout history 'conservatives' have defended the status quo and 'liberals' have challenged it. Therein maybe the greatest difference between the two. However, today's
'conservatives' seem to have lost a vision that a better future is possible, they are seek a return to the past, when things they want to believe were perfect.
cogent and concise, something I have never seen from any liberal, but let me try. In connection to government, liberal thought generally holds that the govt should be large and very controlling. govt should be involved in "social justice" and equalizing results. liberal thought does not allow dissenting views and seeks to punish those who do not follow that party line. liberal thought is based on feelings and empathy rather than logic and common sense.
Concise you were, cognet (be polite Wry) .... not so much. (l)iberal thought is not easily defined and anyone who claims all liberals/progressives/Democrats think in lockstep is wrong. The set of liberalism is, in a nut shell, the set of those with an understanding of the past and the hope for a better future. Subsets within the 'liberal' community are many and as varied as are their faces; some pragmatic, some idealistic, some utopian.
Contrasted with the 'conservative' focus one immediately sees the difference; single issue conservatives see civil rights with a narrow focus, they want their right to bear arms but are willing to suppress the rights of gays and lesbians to walk arm in arm together in matromony. The 'libeal' sees rights as did Jefferson, the 'conservative' sees rights as does Wayne LaPierre; the former sees rights as universal, the latter as only a Radian could, i.e. thir own right.
Througout history 'conservatives' have defended the status quo and 'liberals' have challenged it. Therein maybe the greatest difference between the two. However, today's
'conservatives' seem to have lost a vision that a better future is possible, they are seek a return to the past, when things they want to believe were perfect.
the following were liberals according to your definition: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Napolean, Caesar.
the following civilizations embraced liberalism before their downfall: Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks.
Liberals want to be able to vote free stuff for themselves and to take from those who have earned it.
Liberalism is destroying the USA like it destroyed europe, and its not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty, the current guilty party just happens to be the democrats under chairman maobama.
Concise you were, cognet (be polite Wry) .... not so much. (l)iberal thought is not easily defined and anyone who claims all liberals/progressives/Democrats think in lockstep is wrong. The set of liberalism is, in a nut shell, the set of those with an understanding of the past and the hope for a better future. Subsets within the 'liberal' community are many and as varied as are their faces; some pragmatic, some idealistic, some utopian.
Contrasted with the 'conservative' focus one immediately sees the difference; single issue conservatives see civil rights with a narrow focus, they want their right to bear arms but are willing to suppress the rights of gays and lesbians to walk arm in arm together in matromony. The 'libeal' sees rights as did Jefferson, the 'conservative' sees rights as does Wayne LaPierre; the former sees rights as universal, the latter as only a Radian could, i.e. thir own right.
Througout history 'conservatives' have defended the status quo and 'liberals' have challenged it. Therein maybe the greatest difference between the two. However, today's
'conservatives' seem to have lost a vision that a better future is possible, they are seek a return to the past, when things they want to believe were perfect.
the following were liberals according to your definition: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Napolean, Caesar.
the following civilizations embraced liberalism before their downfall: Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks.
Liberals want to be able to vote free stuff for themselves and to take from those who have earned it.
Liberalism is destroying the USA like it destroyed europe, and its not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty, the current guilty party just happens to be the democrats under chairman maobama.
Thanks for sharing. Now that you've posted the ubiquitous libertarian silliness, do you have a vision for the future? This time cogent, concise and realistic would be nice.
cogent and concise, something I have never seen from any liberal, but let me try. In connection to government, liberal thought generally holds that the govt should be large and very controlling. govt should be involved in "social justice" and equalizing results. liberal thought does not allow dissenting views and seeks to punish those who do not follow that party line. liberal thought is based on feelings and empathy rather than logic and common sense.
Concise you were, cognet (be polite Wry) .... not so much. (l)iberal thought is not easily defined and anyone who claims all liberals/progressives/Democrats think in lockstep is wrong. The set of liberalism is, in a nut shell, the set of those with an understanding of the past and the hope for a better future. Subsets within the 'liberal' community are many and as varied as are their faces; some pragmatic, some idealistic, some utopian.
Contrasted with the 'conservative' focus one immediately sees the difference; single issue conservatives see civil rights with a narrow focus, they want their right to bear arms but are willing to suppress the rights of gays and lesbians to walk arm in arm together in matromony. The 'libeal' sees rights as did Jefferson, the 'conservative' sees rights as does Wayne LaPierre; the former sees rights as universal, the latter as only a Radian could, i.e. thir own right.
Througout history 'conservatives' have defended the status quo and 'liberals' have challenged it. Therein maybe the greatest difference between the two. However, today's
'conservatives' seem to have lost a vision that a better future is possible, they are seek a return to the past, when things they want to believe were perfect.
the following were liberals according to your definition: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Napolean, Caesar.
the following civilizations embraced liberalism before their downfall: Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks.
Liberals want to be able to vote free stuff for themselves and to take from those who have earned it.
Liberalism is destroying the USA like it destroyed europe, and its not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty, the current guilty party just happens to be the democrats under chairman maobama.
the following were liberals according to your definition: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Napolean, Caesar.
the following civilizations embraced liberalism before their downfall: Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks.
Liberals want to be able to vote free stuff for themselves and to take from those who have earned it.
Liberalism is destroying the USA like it destroyed europe, and its not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty, the current guilty party just happens to be the democrats under chairman maobama.
Thanks for sharing. Now that you've posted the ubiquitous libertarian silliness, do you have a vision for the future? This time cogent, concise and realistic would be nice.
why don't you start a thead in the politics section? I don't think this is the right place for such a discussion. I will be glad to respond to you there.
Concise you were, cognet (be polite Wry) .... not so much. (l)iberal thought is not easily defined and anyone who claims all liberals/progressives/Democrats think in lockstep is wrong. The set of liberalism is, in a nut shell, the set of those with an understanding of the past and the hope for a better future. Subsets within the 'liberal' community are many and as varied as are their faces; some pragmatic, some idealistic, some utopian.
Contrasted with the 'conservative' focus one immediately sees the difference; single issue conservatives see civil rights with a narrow focus, they want their right to bear arms but are willing to suppress the rights of gays and lesbians to walk arm in arm together in matromony. The 'libeal' sees rights as did Jefferson, the 'conservative' sees rights as does Wayne LaPierre; the former sees rights as universal, the latter as only a Radian could, i.e. thir own right.
Througout history 'conservatives' have defended the status quo and 'liberals' have challenged it. Therein maybe the greatest difference between the two. However, today's
'conservatives' seem to have lost a vision that a better future is possible, they are seek a return to the past, when things they want to believe were perfect.
the following were liberals according to your definition: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Napolean, Caesar.
the following civilizations embraced liberalism before their downfall: Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks.
Liberals want to be able to vote free stuff for themselves and to take from those who have earned it.
Liberalism is destroying the USA like it destroyed europe, and its not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty, the current guilty party just happens to be the democrats under chairman maobama.
Thanks for sharing. Now that you've posted the ubiquitous libertarian silliness, do you have a vision for the future? This time cogent, concise and realistic would be nice.
why don't you start a thead in the politics section? I don't think this is the right place for such a discussion. I will be glad to respond to you there.
Why don't you start a thread in the Politics Forum? Start with your definition of "liberal thought" and make an historical argument that Hitler, Mao, etc. were all 'liberals'. I'll debate you point by point on these matters, if and only if you demonstrate you're more than a troll. Sadly, I don't think you have the metal to be anything else.
Don't despair, you're in good company. Many 'conservative' trolls reside here, and the competition weak.
the following were liberals according to your definition: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Napolean, Caesar.
the following civilizations embraced liberalism before their downfall: Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks.
Liberals want to be able to vote free stuff for themselves and to take from those who have earned it.
Liberalism is destroying the USA like it destroyed europe, and its not a partisan issue, both parties are guilty, the current guilty party just happens to be the democrats under chairman maobama.
why don't you start a thead in the politics section? I don't think this is the right place for such a discussion. I will be glad to respond to you there.
Why don't you start a thread in the Politics Forum? Start with your definition of "liberal thought" and make an historical argument that Hitler, Mao, etc. were all 'liberals'. I'll debate you point by point on these matters, if and only if you demonstrate you're more than a troll. Sadly, I don't think you have the metal to be anything else.
Don't despair, you're in good company. Many 'conservative' trolls reside here, and the competition weak.
OK, the thread will be titled "what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?"
as to who has "metal" we will see, my little left wing friend, we will see.
