MooseNSquirrel
Platinum Member
- Feb 26, 2009
- 2,587
- 318
- 126
You can thank science quite a bit for that, but regardless, Capitalism is not an economic policy owned by conservatives.
All I see is that GDP tracked population growth, government spending, and dept levels.
Now, when has a higher tax rate on the upper class ever worked? Up untill the 80's we had a 70% upper tax rate and even as high as 90% yet we still ran deficits and had homeless and people living below the poverty line.
Science made it possible to have the food available to stock those shelvesScience didn't put food on the shelves The profit motive did.
And between the two major parties, one is more pro-market than the other.
I think it is funny Liberal never like to touch that question. They think the end-all solution to all our problems is taxing the rich. Clearly we have done that on extreme levels and we still ran deficits and had problems. Hmmmmm
When has socialism ever NOT resulted in either a world war, genocide, or mass starvation?
Science made it possible to have the food available to stock those shelves
But I think you knew that already.
I disagree, but it would make for an interesting seperate thread.
Regardless, Democrats arent en masse advocating the end of the free-market system, and neither are Republicans, so well stick with judging it as a shared philosophy.
Science didn't put food on the shelves. The profit motive did. And between the two major parties, one is more pro-market than the other.
I think its funny if I came up with data that proves your pet theory wrong, that would automatically make me a liberal.
Why dont you challenge yourself to go find real actual data that supports your theory?
Not sure how to approach that? Let me help.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+method
I think it is funny Liberal never like to touch that question. They think the end-all solution to all our problems is taxing the rich. Clearly we have done that on extreme levels and we still ran deficits and had problems. Hmmmmm
Taxing rich people doesn't suddenly make all of society's problems go away, nobody but morons or people trying to deliberately twist the argument would say that. (you are likely both)
.
Nobody wants to touch the question because it's nonsensical and childlike. Taxing rich people doesn't suddenly make all of society's problems go away, nobody but morons or people trying to deliberately twist the argument would say that. (you are likely both)
Fiscal policy is designed to bring about the greatest total amount of welfare possible to the largest number of people possible. Whether or not our country is running a deficit in one year or another or what the marginal tax rate on the rich is an entirely different question. If the US government raised marginal taxes on the rich it would bring in more revenue. This is something no credible economist is willing to argue. Whether or not that would happen in a year with a deficit or not depends on a whole lot of things not based on tax rates for the rich.
Ah ha! You admit the liberal agenda is to use fiscal policy to put as many people on welfare as possible!
Both parties are extremely supportive of the free market. You realize in the rest of the industrialized world the Democrats would be considered the conservative party, right?
Damn, you caught us!
Quote one.
One is more supportive than the other. I can't believe how much resistance I'm getting to this notion.
To your second sentence, if this is true, then I'll happily remain an American.
NK is an autarky. A (neo) Mercantilist/Industrial policy is a 3rd way in between true free trade and an autarky country like NK. It's not a black and white world.
And? They promote less deficits, freer trade, and less state run industries. Things libertarians can cheer for.
Mercantilim isn't guaranteed to work, but it has a much better track record than free trade in getting countries out of poverty.