Yes, because Conservatism and Liberalism are the only ideologies in the world. It's impossible for anyone to be Libertarian, Volunterist, Keynesian, Austrian, Monetarist, Marxist, Anarchist or any of those other ideologies.
You can believe in any of those ideologies or all of them, but as far as political parties we only have 2 dominant ones, and the ideology/policies of the party in power is what is going to be pushed unless the people support a different ideology, then either through elections or convincing arguments the people's (majority) ideology will win out.
I don't defend all Conservative policies. So far, all you know about me is that I don't like taxes and I'm not a big fan of Government. So congrats, you've narrowed down my ideology to about 6 different ideologies it could be besides conservatism, but you're certain that I am a conservative because that's who you are trained to hate so much.
It looks like you're doing some presupposing on your own. I don't hate conservatives, some of my best friend are Republican/conservatives. What I hate is most of their ideology, and you seem to be supporting those particular ideologies that I dislike.
The world is much more interesting without MSNBC, I promise...
Spoken like a true Republican/conservative. I know you say you are not, but you continue to spout off the same talking points. MSNBC is definitely a lefty media source, but it doesn't pretend to be anything else, unlike Faux News, which claims it is fair and balanced and is neither.
If you understand basic economics then you understand that all spending is a percentage of GDP. As long as a country has economic activity, someone is consuming somewhere. And as long as someone is consuming, the country will have a GDP figure. Keep in mind that GDP in itself is misleading metric, so spending relative to GDP can be just as misleading. Spending can increase, but GDP can increase at a much faster rate. This will decrease spending as a percentage of GDP, although there is no de-funding going on at all...
Also, if you go to table 9.9, you can clearly see. Everything outlined there for you. Not that I have to outline it for you. Your own source does a good job of that perfectly...
If you understood basic economics you would recognize that there is spending in current dollars, and spending as a percent of GDP. And duh, of course there will always be a GDP figure, but since GDP is an indicator of how well a country is doing, when our level of growth rate of GDP increases, the quality of education, the average standard of living and the health of the population increases, too. Economic growth is important if you want enhanced living conditions, but its impact and how far it reaches depends greatly on what we do with increased incomes.
So as long as you understand that even if we were spending more in Education based on current dollars, when based on percentage of GDP, we may actually not be spending more but less.
And you are still hedging, instead of just copying/pasting the statement that you claim says we are actually increasing funding, you provide a link to a massive table and are expecting me to go looking for it. Generally when you make a statement, you back it up with facts, like a link and the actual comment that can also be checked out with the link. So, unless you are able to provide the actual statement (it's not that hard to copy/paste), I will assume you are just blowing smoke.
USGovernmentSpending.com is not a government source. It's just a blog website run by someone who records Government data.. I guess you can't even do research without sounding completely clueless. And according to your own website (which is a blog, not a government source), Education spending is projected (government estimated) to increase by $100 billion in 2014/2015 to $0.9 Trillion. By 2016, it will increase to a full $1 Trillion dollars.
Where is this de-funding you are talking about?
You really can't be that naive. You do realize that the states themselves provide the majority of funding for public schools, so even if what you say were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter because states have made steep cuts to education funding. You can continue to claim the opposite but the facts don't support your stance and you end up looking rather foolish.
States have made steep cuts to education funding since the start of the recession and, in many states, those cuts deepened over the last year. Elementary and high schools are
receiving less state funding in the 2012-13 school year than they did last year in 26 states, and in 35 states school funding now stands below 2008 levels often far below.
New School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding for Schools ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Education Funding Drops In More Than Half Of States
So because spending declined after a recession, that means Republicans are trying to de-fund education? A decrease in spending after the bursting of a massive asset bubble? Can't imagine why that would happened. Is it so hard to debate someone with a modicum of economic understanding?
So now, finally, you are admitting that spending for education declined? So now, you admit that it didn't increase (like you previously professed), but it actually declined. Geez, you've made a lot of progress in a matter of one day!
As for Republicans trying to defund education, you must have a very short memory. It has been an on-going effort on the part of the GOP to do away with public education and provide vouchers since the era of Reagan. You really need to keep up with what the party that you claim you're not part of but strongly defend. Honestly, there is enough information out there and the fact that you are not aware of it is indicative that you are either in denial or are yourself what you accuse me of, partisan hack.
Who is to blame for putting Utahs schoolchildren in this position? It lies squarely on the shoulders of state government leaders governors and the Republican majority of the Legislature for the past 15 years who have failed to make public education a priority in more than just rhetoric.
Richard Davis: Republicans keep starving Utah public education | Deseret News
Republicans have shortchanged education funding every session they have controlled the Texas Legislature. After cutting billions from public education in 2003, the 2006 Republican school funding plan froze per pupil funding, leaving local districts faced with increasing costs for fuel, utilities, insurance and personnel with little new state money. To make matters worse, that same plan placed stringent limits on local ability to make up for the states failures.
In 2009, Republicans hypocritically supplanted state support for our schools with the very federal stimulus aid they publicly condemned after state revenues plunged because of the Republican-caused recession and the structural state budget deficit they created. They reduced state funding for our schools by over $3 billion. Because our student population continues to grow, the combined reduction in state revenue per student was nearly 13%.
Education | Texas Democratic Party
1% of people on disability have returned to the labour force in 2011 after being on it since 2008. You're pretty good at using Google. You can research this.
And what is that supposed to prove for you? That some people recover from their disabilities and are able to come back to work and some don't?
I understand what it means, as my entire career is based around finance. I just never thought it would be this difficult to explain economic references to someone who hasn't taken a single course of economics.
Maybe you just have trouble expressing yourself, or perhaps you don't really know as much as you think you know, but you haven't explained anything, you have just rambled off comments unrelated to the gist of my original comments.
Are you essentially saying that Democrats are not the party of the rich?
Yes, even though Democrats may now be the party with more rich people, the Democratic party is not the party of the rich in that its policies do not favor the rich.
So you are saying that there are zero elites/wealthy who align with Democrats?
Read my response to the previous question. That's not what I am saying. There are now more rich Democrats than Republicans, yet the GOP's policies favor the rich.
Who exactly do you think Quantitative Easing has benefited, you?
Quit drifting off into unrelated topics.
More police wouldn't have prevented the bombing and the Chicago police force takes up
40% of the Chicago city budget. The police has plenty of funding. It just has better things to do with it's time. I am in well possession of the facts. All you've done was just link to me some puff pieces from articles. I'm not interested in their opinions, nor yours.
Nobody said that more police wouldn't have prevented the bombing. Geez, your reading comprehension problem is really serious. The fact remains that people in Boston were asked to stay inside their homes because Boston didn't have enough police to monitor the capture of the bomber and attend to other crimes at the same time, and all due to reduced from the Federal Government. So please, quit showing just how thoroughly clueless you really are by arguing against the facts.
Federal Public Safety Funding at Historically Low Levels
Over the past two years, federal support for the criminal justice assistance grant programs through the Department of Justice
has been decreased by 43 percent.
http://www.navaa.org/budget/13/docs/NCJA-sequestration.pdf
'Almost everything' means what it means. As in, the Government does almost everything for individuals which they can do for themselves. I don't see how difficult that is to comprehend. But if you really can't get it, throw out an example, I'll dumb it down for you.
You made a statement, I asked you for an example, and you throw out a meaningless statement "almost everything". That doesn't explain anything, it just shows that you don't have a clue and can't back your bullshit with facts.
Only people with weak arguments create strawmen. All I said was that it's good that the wealthy are paying lower taxes because of tax shelters and loopholes. The poor/middle class have the same tax shelters and loopholes (i.e. laws which allow individuals to pay less taxes legally), as evident with the large amount of individuals in the bottom who currently pay zero taxes. I guess it's only problem when the wealthy tries to avoid taxes.
You sound like Mitt Romney. The only difference is that Mitt Romney was rich, had no association with middle-class or poor people while your lack of comprehension is not for the same reason, but just merely attributed to ignorance.
Yes, poor people can have their capital gains taxed the same as the rich, only difference is poor people don't have capital gains. Poor people can have their art work valued at 10 times what it is worth, donate it to a charity and claim it as a loss just like rich people, only difference is poor people don't have art work they can have valued at an inflated cost so they can donate it and claim it as a loss at the inflated value. You are terribly clueless.
Since you are so interested in who I am, I will tell you that I'm not uber wealthy. I do work in wealth management on the other hand and I do give my clients exposure in to foreign markets with sounder fundamentals than the United States. We are consistently giving clients leverage in Emerging Markets, Asian Markets, Commonwealth countries and a few European markets. This investment strategy is center around inflation, reckless government policies, weak market fundamentals and higher taxes.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was interested in who you were, but you seem to be extremely interested in telling me who you are. You can be anybody you want, after all, this is the internet and nobody has any way of checking to see whether or not you are telling the truth.
All the wealthy want to do is avoid higher taxes. Regardless of where they align, or which party they support. Warren Buffet, Oprah, Jack Lew, Bill Gates, etc. Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, they ALL do it. I just make money by helping other people keep more of their wealth.
That's a bunch of BS. There are many wealthy people who don't mind paying a higher rate and have even asked Congress to raise their taxes.
Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes - Nov. 16, 2011
I'm willing to bet that you've worked for someone else all your life (or most of your life rather). Your wages, as long as you work and are able to work, are guaranteed. Capital Gains, are not guaranteed. If all investments were guaranteed, then it really wouldn't matter which rate they were taxed at, but they're not. Some investments do not yield a return of 85%. Some investments don't even yield a return of even 50% (especially since not a single hedge fund has done better than flipping a coin in the last 30 years). Some investments even yield what we call, "LOSSES."
You can bet all you want, the fact is you know nothing of my finances, my wealth or lack thereof, which has nothing to do with my question. Capital gains is revenue and should be taxed the same, or at least at a higher rate.
Every great idea needs capital to get off the ground, and many would have never done it without the necessary funds to do it. This is why investments need to be encouraged and to only why to do this is to lower taxes on capital gains. As all investments are calculated and considered after their after-tax return.
There is evidence to suggest that raising the rates on capital gains would not discourage investors from investing and would profit the nation.
What does Roe v Wade and Unions have to do with the Trade Deficit, the value of the US Dollar, the Current Account Deficit, and the Balance of Payments? You shouldn't be referencing these topics if you can't understand them. Especially if all you are going to do is deflect on topics which weren't even mentioned before... It's better this way.
Talking to you is like talking to a rock. The only reason those things were brought up was to show you what side the GOP is on. It's obvious that you are not able to follow the gist of the conversation and I'm really getting tired of having to re-explain things to you.
Also, who is currently advocating (or advocating in the past) that we should get rid of Education? Is it possible to cite an example without the information coming from a talking head?
That was already explained up above, toward the beginning of this post.
I've just explain examples of how both parties have destroyed your credit worthiness, your trade surplus, the value of your currency and your education. Somehow, you've fooled yourself into believe it was only Republicans which caused these things. Maybe I was incorrect the first time. It's only the Democrats feeding off your ignorance, but that's common for most partisan hacks. If I were debating a Republican, I'd have to explain the bigger Government under Reagan and the Protectionism under Bush.
And you would be wrong, but there is no getting you to see the truth because it is obvious you are thoroughly brainwashed and continue to drink the KoolAid.
Wrong is wrong, and bad is bad. Regardless of which political official people decide to elect. This is called Objectivism, which is another philosophic/ideology aligned with the author Ayn Rand. It disagrees with your batch of rhetoric, and any point of view which does this is automatically Conservatism, for sure.
Ayn Rand? You mean Paul Ryan's hero which he tried to disassociate himself from when his "new" political views were completely opposite of hers? Ayn Rand whose ideology turned the US into the greedy nation that Republicans relate to and idolize?
Ayn Rand Made US a Selfish, Greedy Nation
I'm going to disregard the rest of your blather because you are rambling from one topic to another not making much sense, and truthfully I'm tired having to debunk your statements which so far you have not bothered to back with facts.
Don't bother to respond, because I'm truly exhausted of trying to have a meaningful debate but all you keep doing is denying what I say even after I present you with facts and links and instead you keep bringing up crap that has nothing to do with our original debate.
I don't waste my time with disingenuous people, and you have proven over and over that you cannot carry an honest conversation.
Adios!
Public education has become a union racket beyond the wildest dreams of people like Jimmy Hoffa.
