Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: ldub23 on September 11, 2017, 06:31:05 PM

Title: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: ldub23 on September 11, 2017, 06:31:05 PM
I have never understood that. If you are going to have a tax "cut" that doesnt actually put  more money  into the economy then why bother? Personally  i think reps are dragging their feet  on tax cuts  because they just  dont want to do anything that will help Trump get the economy  moving faster.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: TboneAgain on September 11, 2017, 07:19:38 PM
Quote from: ldub23 on September 11, 2017, 06:31:05 PM
I have never understood that. If you are going to have a tax "cut" that doesnt actually put  more money  into the economy then why bother? Personally  i think reps are dragging their feet  on tax cuts  because they just  dont want to do anything that will help Trump get the economy  moving faster.
Short answer: it's all bullshit. Obviously, there's no such thing as a revenue-neutral tax cut. It's all smoke and mirrors, brought to you by the same people who think you're so stupid as to believe that a smaller budget increase than they wanted is actually a "budget cut."
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 11, 2017, 09:42:58 PM
The GOP is much more than the stupid party; they are the corrupt and dishonest party.
Consider the core of their policies, since Fremont in 1856.
*Their power derived from the post-Civil War Northern Mercantile class, later morphing into our modern corporatist industrial class. They never had anything to do w/the "little guy".
* During their ascendancy, from Johnston to Hoover, when they controlled all Branches of Government for some 70 years; they promoted and passed more than 50 excise taxes and protectionist tariffs using the scam that they were "shielding our infant industries". They never promoted free trade. Never!
*Also, during this era, Amendments 14,15,16 and 17 were passed and affirmed by SCOTUS, effectively centralizing power in DC; destroying the original intent of our Founders, which was the primacy of "States Rights".
Next time you trip over some republicrat asshole, bring the record of history to his attention.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 11, 2017, 09:42:58 PM
The GOP is much more than the stupid party; they are the corrupt and dishonest party.
Consider the core of their policies, since Fremont in 1856.
*Their power derived from the post-Civil War Northern Mercantile class, later morphing into our modern corporatist industrial class. They never had anything to do w/the "little guy".
* During their ascendancy, from Johnston to Hoover, when they controlled all Branches of Government for some 70 years; they promoted and passed more than 50 excise taxes and protectionist tariffs using the scam that they were "shielding our infant industries". They never promoted free trade. Never!
*Also, during this era, Amendments 14,15,16 and 17 were passed and affirmed by SCOTUS, effectively centralizing power in DC; destroying the original intent of our Founders, which was the primacy of "States Rights".
Next time you trip over some republicrat asshole, bring the record of history to his attention.

Kinda hard on the history, ain't ya?

Your period of "ascendancy," as you define it, was 68 years, not 70. It starts with Andrew Johnson's term (he was a Democrat) and includes two separate terms for the Democrat Grover Cleveland, two contiguous terms for Progressive RINO Teddy Roosevelt, and the two contiguous terms of Woodrow Wilson, which capped the first great Leftist/Progressive upheaval in our modern history.

During your "ascendancy" period, Republicans generally dominated the Senate, though a very notable exception was the period 1913-1919, when Democrat control of both houses of Congress was critical for the Progressives. The House of Representatives was divided, going back and forth between parties; Democrats held the majority for a total of 25 of the 68 years.

Congress concentrated mainly on tariffs and duties and excise taxes during most of your "ascendancy" period, not because it was against free trade, but because that was just about the only way the federal government had to get its hands on any money. There was no permanent legal individual or corporate income tax in those days before 1913 because such taxes were expressly forbidden in the Constitution. (I do not count the temporary, illegal income tax levied during and for a short time after the Civil War.) In fact, the Founders envisioned a federal government so small, with such minor monetary needs, that tariffs and duties on foreign goods, along with excise taxes, would generally be sufficient.

The 14th and 15th Amendments, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, were the spawn of the Civil War; they granted citizenship and the vote to former black slaves. I'm not sure what they might have to do with centralizing power in D.C. The 16th and 17th Amendments were, without question, designed to centralize government power in D.C., but they were the product of the first great Progressive upheaval, which began around the turn of the 20th century, and gathered steam until its apex early in Wilson's administration. Both amendments were adopted in 1913. The 16th provided the government the (essentially unlimited) power to tax individuals and corporations on their property and earnings. The 17th changed the manner in which Senators are elected, removing the matter from the state legislatures and setting up a popular-vote system. Both amendments were initiated and supported by the Democrat Party, along with fringe parties like the Socialist Labor Party and the Populist Party. Along with those two amendments, 1913 saw the enactment of the first federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve, both designed to place the federal government in a position of primacy, and both enacted by a Democrat-dominated Congress and signed into law by a Progressive Democrat president. 1913 was a very good year indeed, not for the GOP, but for Leftists and Progressives and Democrats.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 12, 2017, 10:46:17 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
Kinda hard on the history, ain't ya?

Your period of "ascendancy," as you define it, was 68 years, not 70. It starts with Andrew Johnson's term (he was a Democrat) and includes two separate terms for the Democrat Grover Cleveland, two contiguous terms for Progressive RINO Teddy Roosevelt, and the two contiguous terms of Woodrow Wilson, which capped the first great Leftist/Progressive upheaval in our modern history.

During your "ascendancy" period, Republicans generally dominated the Senate, though a very notable exception was the period 1913-1919, when Democrat control of both houses of Congress was critical for the Progressives. The House of Representatives was divided, going back and forth between parties; Democrats held the majority for a total of 25 of the 68 years.

Congress concentrated mainly on tariffs and duties and excise taxes during most of your "ascendancy" period, not because it was against free trade, but because that was just about the only way the federal government had to get its hands on any money. There was no permanent legal individual or corporate income tax in those days before 1913 because such taxes were expressly forbidden in the Constitution. (I do not count the temporary, illegal income tax levied during and for a short time after the Civil War.) In fact, the Founders envisioned a federal government so small, with such minor monetary needs, that tariffs and duties on foreign goods, along with excise taxes, would generally be sufficient.

The 14th and 15th Amendments, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, were the spawn of the Civil War; they granted citizenship and the vote to former black slaves. I'm not sure what they might have to do with centralizing power in D.C. The 16th and 17th Amendments were, without question, designed to centralize government power in D.C., but they were the product of the first great Progressive upheaval, which began around the turn of the 20th century, and gathered steam until its apex early in Wilson's administration. Both amendments were adopted in 1913. The 16th provided the government the (essentially unlimited) power to tax individuals and corporations on their property and earnings. The 17th changed the manner in which Senators are elected, removing the matter from the state legislatures and setting up a popular-vote system. Both amendments were initiated and supported by the Democrat Party, along with fringe parties like the Socialist Labor Party and the Populist Party. Along with those two amendments, 1913 saw the enactment of the first federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve, both designed to place the federal government in a position of primacy, and both enacted by a Democrat-dominated Congress and signed into law by a Progressive Democrat president. 1913 was a very good year indeed, not for the GOP, but for Leftists and Progressives and Democrats.

Ascendancy reflects a change from no control to dominance of the executive, legislative and judicial branches; the reality from Johnston to Hoover! Party labels were irrelevant, as the GOP called the all the shots.
They were the errand boys for the crony capitalist class who had everything to gain as we morphed from an agrarian rural to an industrial urban economy.
So the GOP embraced Protectionism because they needed the money? How predictable when you're growing government expansively to satisfy the whims of your paymasters.
An astute observer, Irving Fischer, laureate in economics, labelled the Payne-Aldrich ('09) and
Fordney-McCumber('22) Tariffs, as instrumental in deepening the severity of the Great Depression.
So much for the economic principle of Free Trade and the GOP.
Repeating, despite their relentless sloganeering, the GOP has never been a principled advocate for plain people, free trade or states rights.

Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: taxed on September 12, 2017, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: ldub23 on September 11, 2017, 06:31:05 PM
I have never understood that. If you are going to have a tax "cut" that doesnt actually put  more money into the economy then why bother? Personally  i think reps are dragging their feet  on tax cuts  because they just  dont want to do anything that will help Trump get the economy  moving faster.

Whether federal revenue goes up or down is irrelevant.  Income is the private property of any person, and to seize it at the point of the gun is theft.

Don't let them sidetrack you.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: supsalemgr on September 12, 2017, 12:33:09 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 12, 2017, 12:16:22 PM
Whether federal revenue goes up or down is irrelevant.  Income is the private property of any person, and to seize it at the point of the gun is theft.

Don't let them sidetrack you.

Off subject, but how did you fare with the storm?

All this revenue talk is pure BS Washington speak. There never has been and never will be revenue neutral. Everything is pure speculation. I am not an economist, thank God, but I do know increased economic growth increases tax revenue.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 06:28:54 PM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 12, 2017, 10:46:17 AM
Ascendancy reflects a change from no control to dominance of the executive, legislative and judicial branches; the reality from Johnston to Hoover! Party labels were irrelevant, as the GOP called the all the shots.
They were the errand boys for the crony capitalist class who had everything to gain as we morphed from an agrarian rural to an industrial urban economy.
So the GOP embraced Protectionism because they needed the money? How predictable when you're growing government expansively to satisfy the whims of your paymasters.
An astute observer, Irving Fischer, laureate in economics, labelled the Payne-Aldrich ('09) and
Fordney-McCumber('22) Tariffs, as instrumental in deepening the severity of the Great Depression.
So much for the economic principle of Free Trade and the GOP.
Repeating, despite their relentless sloganeering, the GOP has never been a principled advocate for plain people, free trade or states rights.

By your own definition, Republican "ascendancy" had been achieved in 1861 with the installation of Lincoln and the 37th Congress. But as I pointed out in my last post, that "ascendancy" was by no means constant or continuous over the next seven or eight decades. (It strikes me odd that you would mark the beginning of your Republican "ascendancy" with the tenure of the Democrat Andrew Johnson.)

Your assertion that "party labels were irrelevant" is just silly. You seem to want us to believe what you say, as opposed to what we can see with our own lying eyes. But there's little doubt that the period you describe, roughly 1865-1933, contains the entirety of the first great Progressive upheaval of modern times, the period from around 1900-1917. I have already written about the horrendous damage done to the republic during those years by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists who obtained sufficient control of the apparatus of government during that period to affect the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve system. This puts the lie to your assertion of GOP "ascendancy" during the period you define.

I note your affectation for adding unneeded letters to the names of historical figures. Andrew Johnson is "Johnston" in your telling. Irving Fisher is "Fischer" in your post. I note also that you decline to describe Fisher as an unrepentant Leftist, a self-described Progressive, a vegetarian, a fan of Prohibition, and president of the American Eugenics Society. Also, he was such a great economist that he failed to recognize the stock market crash of 1929 and lost his shirt in the aftermath. So much for your "astute observer."

Please check back when you have something sensible to say.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: walkstall on September 12, 2017, 07:09:17 PM
Class dismissed for the day.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: walkstall on September 12, 2017, 07:09:17 PM
Class dismissed for the day.

We'll see!  :tounge: I'm just getting wound up!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: walkstall on September 12, 2017, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 07:18:18 PM
We'll see!  :tounge: I'm just getting wound up!  :laugh:


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F590%2F222%2F76a.gif&hash=8fb97ae331c6dd4b404a3eb0dcce6b5daca6c622)
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: taxed on September 13, 2017, 04:20:41 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 06:28:54 PM
By your own definition, Republican "ascendancy" had been achieved in 1861 with the installation of Lincoln and the 37th Congress. But as I pointed out in my last post, that "ascendancy" was by no means constant or continuous over the next seven or eight decades. (It strikes me odd that you would mark the beginning of your Republican "ascendancy" with the tenure of the Democrat Andrew Johnson.)

Your assertion that "party labels were irrelevant" is just silly. You seem to want us to believe what you say, as opposed to what we can see with our own lying eyes. But there's little doubt that the period you describe, roughly 1865-1933, contains the entirety of the first great Progressive upheaval of modern times, the period from around 1900-1917. I have already written about the horrendous damage done to the republic during those years by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists who obtained sufficient control of the apparatus of government during that period to affect the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve system. This puts the lie to your assertion of GOP "ascendancy" during the period you define.

I note your affectation for adding unneeded letters to the names of historical figures. Andrew Johnson is "Johnston" in your telling. Irving Fisher is "Fischer" in your post. I note also that you decline to describe Fisher as an unrepentant Leftist, a self-described Progressive, a vegetarian, a fan of Prohibition, and president of the American Eugenics Society. Also, he was such a great economist that he failed to recognize the stock market crash of 1929 and lost his shirt in the aftermath. So much for your "astute observer."

Please check back when you have something sensible to say.

You should put that back-hand on ice.... keep the swelling down.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: taxed on September 13, 2017, 04:33:01 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 12, 2017, 12:33:09 PM
Off subject, but how did you fare with the storm?
I've been up north, so I haven't had to deal with any of that.

Quote
All this revenue talk is pure BS Washington speak. There never has been and never will be revenue neutral. Everything is pure speculation. I am not an economist, thank God, but I do know increased economic growth increases tax revenue.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 09:46:30 AM
Because today they are the "Washington Generals" of politics.

Lose every game to the "Globetrotters" (lol, just realized the clever tie-in there), but still, turn this into a 40-year-gig in a comfy role.

I just heard somebody this morning refer to the demise of the Whigs and the birth of the GOP.

We are there once again.  Look no further for a template, strategy, and plan of action.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 09:50:21 AM
lol, here's a photo of Mitch McConnell as he competes against the democrats -

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=washiongton+generals&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg&action=click
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 13, 2017, 12:04:43 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 06:28:54 PM
By your own definition, Republican "ascendancy" had been achieved in 1861 with the installation of Lincoln and the 37th Congress. But as I pointed out in my last post, that "ascendancy" was by no means constant or continuous over the next seven or eight decades. (It strikes me odd that you would mark the beginning of your Republican "ascendancy" with the tenure of the Democrat Andrew Johnson.)

Your assertion that "party labels were irrelevant" is just silly. You seem to want us to believe what you say, as opposed to what we can see with our own lying eyes. But there's little doubt that the period you describe, roughly 1865-1933, contains the entirety of the first great Progressive upheaval of modern times, the period from around 1900-1917. I have already written about the horrendous damage done to the republic during those years by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists who obtained sufficient control of the apparatus of government during that period to affect the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve system. This puts the lie to your assertion of GOP "ascendancy" during the period you define.

I note your affectation for adding unneeded letters to the names of historical figures. Andrew Johnson is "Johnston" in your telling. Irving Fisher is "Fischer" in your post. I note also that you decline to describe Fisher as an unrepentant Leftist, a self-described Progressive, a vegetarian, a fan of Prohibition, and president of the American Eugenics Society. Also, he was such a great economist that he failed to recognize the stock market crash of 1929 and lost his shirt in the aftermath. So much for your "astute observer."

Please check back when you have something sensible to say.

Hmm........... now I understand.
So you're the self appointed site nag in charge of punctuation, spelling and tenses.
Hey, we all gotta do sumping in life.
As I'm uninterested in engaging in a dopey urinary contest;  let me get to the point.
My assertion was direct and simple; viz. the GOP has never been a party of Conservative Principle since Fremont in 1856 nor does it have any affinity w/the attitudes, behaviors, impulses and traits of the common man. Sloganeering to the contrary is the pablum of easily persuaded republicrat weenies addicted to bullshit.
Your retort to this assertion was???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Further, I asserted that the GOP was historically protectionist, having promoted dozens of Excise Duties and Tariffs throughout its political ASCENDANCY and was never an advocate of Free Trade. Why so? Because as the wise Adam Smith observed, Free Trade creates wealth for all in the nation while protectionism benefits the crony corporatist class allowing them to restrict supply thereby raising prices. And the GOP has been in the deep pocket of the corporatist class since day one.
Your retort to this assertion was; Hey the government needed the money. Hmm.....for what?
Perhaps it was all those 19th century foreign threats from Czarist Russia, Imperial Germany and Japan that required us to massively expand our military??? Er.......no.
It was money to grow the government, in particular, the centralizing and regulatory environment we now fondly refer to as the 'Swamp.'
Lastly, I asserted that the GOP was the major impetus behind the centralization of power in DC and viscerally hostile to States Rights; aided by a compliant SCOTUS appointed by the GOP. As such it promoted and passed:
Amendment 14, which replaced the States as the definer/guarantor of the rights of and obligations to its citizens, thereby opening the door, decades later, to abortion on demand and same sex marriage.
Amendment 15, which supplanted the authority of the State to control and regulate the franchise within its borders.
Amendment 16, which ushered in the Income Tax granting the central government uncapped taxing authority.
Amendment 17 which supplanted the State Government as the the Electors of its Senators.
Your retort? Something about Irving Fisher being a teetotaler and a vegetarian??? Hmm......
For the record Fisher, who saw protectionism as a fraud and hustle of the general public, was as a mathematical genius who created the Equations explaining/proving his Theories on Utility, on Interest and Capital and on the Quantity of Money. For those, he was awarded the Nobel in Economics; his strongest advocates being Schumpeter and Friedman; neither one a lefty.
Let's end here w/a request. Whenever you see one of my post ignore it, move along and I'll reciprocate, as I have no further interest in your pretensions.
Hey, here's a suggestion. Next time you're correcting  poster prose, check the capitalization. After all, a missed capital letter can completely alter the meaning of an argument!!!!

 
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Solar on September 13, 2017, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 09:50:21 AM
lol, here's a photo of Mitch McConnell as he competes against the democrats -

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=washiongton+generals&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg&action=click
Was this what you were going for?

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg&hash=21bd7772c24842a7dbc9c593b178e8cab31f76b9)
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Possum on September 13, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 13, 2017, 12:04:43 PM

Further, I asserted that the GOP was historically protectionist, having promoted dozens of Excise Duties and Tariffs throughout its political ASCENDANCY and was never an advocate of Free Trade. Why so? Because as the wise Adam Smith observed, Free Trade creates wealth for all in the nation while protectionism benefits the crony corporatist class allowing them to restrict supply thereby raising prices. And the GOP has been in the deep pocket of the corporatist class since day one.


And this is one of the main reasons the south withdrew. The Excise Duties and Tariffs passed in congress went strictly down party lines. It was one of the few areas where congress would not compromise. The north wanted to protect their new industries and needed the south's$. Even on slavery, congress was able to compromise in order to get laws passed. However, looking at todays congress, I do believe they all have their hands down the corporate pants.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: TboneAgain on September 13, 2017, 01:06:38 PM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 13, 2017, 12:04:43 PM
Hmm........... now I understand.
So you're the self appointed site nag in charge of punctuation, spelling and tenses.
Hey, we all gotta do sumping in life.
As I'm uninterested in engaging in a dopey urinary contest;  let me get to the point.
My assertion was direct and simple; viz. the GOP has never been a party of Conservative Principle since Fremont in 1856 nor does it have any affinity w/the attitudes, behaviors, impulses and traits of the common man. Sloganeering to the contrary is the pablum of easily persuaded republicrat weenies addicted to bullshit.
Your retort to this assertion was???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Further, I asserted that the GOP was historically protectionist, having promoted dozens of Excise Duties and Tariffs throughout its political ASCENDANCY and was never an advocate of Free Trade. Why so? Because as the wise Adam Smith observed, Free Trade creates wealth for all in the nation while protectionism benefits the crony corporatist class allowing them to restrict supply thereby raising prices. And the GOP has been in the deep pocket of the corporatist class since day one.
Your retort to this assertion was; Hey the government needed the money. Hmm.....for what?
Perhaps it was all those 19th century foreign threats from Czarist Russia, Imperial Germany and Japan that required us to massively expand our military??? Er.......no.
It was money to grow the government, in particular, the centralizing and regulatory environment we now fondly refer to as the 'Swamp.'
Lastly, I asserted that the GOP was the major impetus behind the centralization of power in DC and viscerally hostile to States Rights; aided by a compliant SCOTUS appointed by the GOP. As such it promoted and passed:
Amendment 14, which replaced the States as the definer/guarantor of the rights of and obligations to its citizens, thereby opening the door, decades later, to abortion on demand and same sex marriage.
Amendment 15, which supplanted the authority of the State to control and regulate the franchise within its borders.
Amendment 16, which ushered in the Income Tax granting the central government uncapped taxing authority.
Amendment 17 which supplanted the State Government as the the Electors of its Senators.
Your retort? Something about Irving Fisher being a teetotaler and a vegetarian??? Hmm......
For the record Fisher, who saw protectionism as a fraud and hustle of the general public, was as a mathematical genius who created the Equations explaining/proving his Theories on Utility, on Interest and Capital and on the Quantity of Money. For those, he was awarded the Nobel in Economics; his strongest advocates being Schumpeter and Friedman; neither one a lefty.
Let's end here w/a request. Whenever you see one of my post ignore it, move along and I'll reciprocate, as I have no further interest in your pretensions.
Hey, here's a suggestion. Next time you're correcting  poster prose, check the capitalization. After all, a missed capital letter can completely alter the meaning of an argument!!!!

My, my! One of us does not take well to correction! Spelling people's names correctly, especially the names of the people you claim to know a great deal about, doesn't seem too burdensome a request. Also, it helps your case by not giving the immediate impression that you don't know what you're talking about. When you can't manage to spell their names correctly, people wonder right away whether you're even serious, and how these people's actions or words can help support your position. You can consider this constructive criticism, designed to assist you in making your points in the future. You're welcome.

In your original post, you didn't make much of any point that I could detect, other than virulent dissatisfaction with the GOP. (I'll bet you didn't know that the Democrat Party was generally called the GOP until near the end of the nineteenth century. But that's another topic....) But then you went on to describe your weird concept of "ascendancy," under which the Republican Party owned every branch of the government for nearly 70 years, from Johnston (sic) to Hoover. And you went on to blame the Republicans for everything that happened during that period, including especially the passage of the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th amendments.

Those assertions, sir, are bullshit. Your claims, sir, are bullshit.

It is true that the 14th and 15th Amendments have been used in recent years to "permit" things their authors could not conceivably have anticipated. Which Republican that you can name foresaw in 1868 that the 14th would be used to justify gay marriage almost 150 years later? Even the most generous literal reading of that amendment today cannot be construed to legalize gay marriage, but those are the times we live in -- NOW, not then. I explained in clear terms what the 14th and 15th Amendments were intended to do. You can't seem to get over what LEFTISTS have bastardized them to do TODAY.

I tried to explain to you that the federal government had no way of raising revenues besides tariffs and excise taxes prior to 1913. You seem to think that just doesn't matter at all, even though you keep pointing to the 16th Amendment -- a creature of the Progressives of the day -- as a product of the GOP. It clearly hasn't occurred to you that the 16th Amendment is just so many words without legislation enabling an income tax -- something the Democrats in firm control of the Congress and the White House were giddily happy to provide in 1913.

Also, I shouldn't have to point this out, but.... The Supreme Court of the United States has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the adoption of a constitutional amendment. (You have brought this up twice.) The amendment process is covered in Article V of the Constitution, which does not contain the words "court" or "supreme."  The purpose of the Supreme Court is to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are legal under the Constitution. A ratified amendment is part and parcel of the Constitution. How can the Supreme Court decide whether a part of the Constitution is constitutional?

Finally, Irving Fisher, a nice fellow I'm sure, did NOT, as you claim, win a Nobel prize in economics or any other category. Fisher died in 1947. The first Nobel Prize in economics was awarded in 1969. Like you, Fisher didn't quite make the cut.

I won't bother to correct your spelling or grammar in the future. I don't really have that kind of time on my hands. But if you continue to misrepresent history and tell outright lies on this board, I'll be on you like stink on shit. Here we prefer to back our positions with verifiable facts, not wild-eyed conjecture and utter fabrication.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 13, 2017, 12:33:47 PM
Was this what you were going for?

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg&hash=21bd7772c24842a7dbc9c593b178e8cab31f76b9)
Perhaps.......... perhaps not.........
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Solar on September 13, 2017, 02:36:20 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 02:30:49 PM
Perhaps.......... perhaps not.........
That's what came up when I clicked your link.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: taxed on September 13, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 02:30:49 PM
Perhaps.......... perhaps not.........

Oh here we go.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 13, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Oh here we go.
lol, yes, I clearly entered the Python "room for an argument".

I just got one flippant remark, gave one back.  Sort of like a little humor.

Not exactly WW3.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: taxed on September 13, 2017, 04:09:31 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
lol, yes, I clearly entered the Python "room for an argument".

I just got one flippant remark, gave one back.  Sort of like a little humor.

Not exactly WW3.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

He spent time to help correct the image you posted to help you make your point/joke.  Then you gave a flippant remark.

We like humor, but only when it has some humor in it.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Solar on September 13, 2017, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
lol, yes, I clearly entered the Python "room for an argument".

I just got one flippant remark, gave one back.  Sort of like a little humor.

Not exactly WW3.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Jeez Andy, there was no animus on my part, I was simply trying to help you out since you posted a bad link.
I simply clicked the link you provided and posted the pic that came up.

Relax, you have no enemies here.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:17:56 PM
I guess I interpreted "Is this what you were going for ?'" differently than you did.  We have a history, lol.

I wasn't actually going for anything, I just posted a link.  But Que Sera,  Sera, according to the great philosopher Doris Day.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:19:42 PM
And back to real life, can you give me a simple 'how to' on how to copy and paste an image in a post ?  Never did figure that out.  This can be a positive, teachable moment lol.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: taxed on September 13, 2017, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:19:42 PM
And back to real life, can you give me a simple 'how to' on how to copy and paste an image in a post ?  Never did figure that out.  This can be a positive, teachable moment lol.

Post the link, highlight it, then click the image icon...
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:28:39 PM
Thanks !
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Solar on September 13, 2017, 04:31:32 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:19:42 PM
And back to real life, can you give me a simple 'how to' on how to copy and paste an image in a post ?  Never did figure that out.  This can be a positive, teachable moment lol.
I think the problem was a link to a slideshow of pics and the one that came up was the one I posted.
Right click on the pic you want, a menu opens, select "Copy Image Adress", then click this icon , (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/img.gif) in the menu above lower left corner, it will appear in the body of your post. 
between the two brackets, img]Click here[/img paste your address, then click preview and see if that's what you wanted.

Hey, it's history, let it go.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 13, 2017, 08:32:12 PM
Quote from: s3779m on September 13, 2017, 12:37:54 PM
And this is one of the main reasons the south withdrew. The Excise Duties and Tariffs passed in congress went strictly down party lines. It was one of the few areas where congress would not compromise. The north wanted to protect their new industries and needed the south's$. Even on slavery, congress was able to compromise in order to get laws passed. However, looking at todays congress, I do believe they all have their hands down the corporate pants.

#3779, you're on the mark and in the process created a new dynamic: "The Road not Taken." 

In 1857, Rowan Helper, a Carolinian schooled in economics, penned his "Impending Crisis" forcefully asserting
that "slavery was a disaster for the South", his argument having nothing to do w/morality and everything to do w/economic inefficiency. He observed, from the 1850 census, that the gap between North and South was accelerating as the northern Merchant Class began Industrialization.
While the demand for raw cotton had a natural market among the great mills of Britain; its profit margin was low as it was Land and Water intensive. As well, slaves were predictably inefficient labor.
Effectively, cotton growing crowded out any alternative efforts to industrialize.
At that time, the rising economic power in the world was Imperial Germany (though not yet unified) not Great Britain. Their engineers/technicians had developed elementary machinery that could replicate manual labor in performing
redundant tasks such as cotton processing. Yet the Plantation Aristocracy, embedded in their comfort zone remained deaf, dumb and blind to economic reality and the rest is history.
Consider a moment; The South offers the North this deal.
We will abandon slavery in return for the complete lifting of all Duties/Tariffs on cotton related machinery from Germany.  If accepted, was the Civil War inevitable???????????????????????
Also consider a moment.
Our only Principled Conservative Party was the Southern Agrarian Rural Democrats of Jefferson, Madison, Lee, Rutledge, Braxton, Harrison; among others; unfortunately fatally tarred by slavery.
W/the abandonment of slavery and w/o a Civil War, is it more or less likely that they would have emerged as the dominant party of the past 150 years rather than the house manure we call the GOP.
Sigh! One can only dream.

 
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: ldub23 on September 14, 2017, 05:15:13 AM
Quote from: taxed on September 12, 2017, 12:16:22 PM
Whether federal revenue goes up or down is irrelevant.  Income is the private property of any person, and to seize it at the point of the gun is theft.

Don't let them sidetrack you.

I agree.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Mountainshield on September 15, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
Interesting read, and kudos to tbone for the clarfication og democrat insidiousness. Walter Josh, I do think you Are drawing generalization by excluding data tbone provided and I want also to just push Taft, Coolidge and Reagan into your consideration. Granted you Are right in that the majority of Republican based on todays RINOS and the elder Northern protectionist class Are probably not good at conserving the policies and values that have made your country great. But dont draw a false conclusion when we have had our share of great  republican statesmen.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: TboneAgain on September 15, 2017, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on September 15, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
Interesting read, and kudos to tbone for the clarfication og democrat insidiousness. Walter Josh, I do think you Are drawing generalization by excluding data tbone provided and I want also to just push Taft, Coolidge and Reagan into your consideration. Granted you Are right in that the majority of Republican based on todays RINOS and the elder Northern protectionist class Are probably not good at conserving the policies and values that have made your country great. But dont draw a false conclusion when we have had our share of great  republican statesmen.

Silent Cal was my kind of president! Conservative, heavy on morals and principles, and -- best of all -- quiet!

Presidents like that are likely forever a thing of the past because we're now a media society. That was not the case ninety years ago. Also don't forget that non-presidents make a difference. Jack Kemp instantly springs to mind as a conservative crusader, but there are many others who made a difference.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on September 15, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
Interesting read, and kudos to tbone for the clarfication og democrat insidiousness. Walter Josh, I do think you Are drawing generalization by excluding data tbone provided and I want also to just push Taft, Coolidge and Reagan into your consideration. Granted you Are right in that the majority of Republican based on todays RINOS and the elder Northern protectionist class Are probably not good at conserving the policies and values that have made your country great. But dont draw a false conclusion when we have had our share of great  republican statesmen.

As this is an opinion forum; I regularly express mine derivative of perceptions formed over several decades.
Some, compulsively defend Republicans, perceiving them as 'the good guys'. They are fairly entitled to this opinion which I emphatically do not share.
The essence of my previous assertion remains plain and simple. Politicians of the Modern Era (19th century forward) have absolutely a zero relationship to Principled Conservatism ( as you're aware,  a catalyst of the Tea Party) which is the legacy of the Greeks, the Scholastics, the English Whigs commencing w/Hume; among others.
Regarding republican 'statesmen' none remind me of Pericles, Talleyrand or Von Bismarck; among others.
As for Taft, in my judgement an utter failure as POTUS; he advanced a progressive left agenda while Chief Justice at the SC.
More insidious was Hoover.  Few are aware that he aggressively advanced what became the framework for the Agriculture Program of the New Deal; which included Farm Cartels to artificially restrict supply, a Federal Farm Board to subsidize crop prices and the economic illiteracy of paying farmers not to grow specific crops.
Sadly this terrible legacy remains alive and well going on 100 years.
Summarizing, I doubt any democrats, progressives or lefties are necessary to seriously damage free markets, as the republican record shows that they can do the job all by themselves.                                 

   
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: walkstall on September 15, 2017, 03:38:53 PM
QuoteAs this is an opinion forum;

When did CPF become an opinion forum?  You may have an opinion but it is a facts and data board.  Post something and if someone ask for proof of a statement it is the poster responsibility to back it up.  Otherwise it just an opinion.   
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Solar on September 15, 2017, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM
As this is an opinion forum;
No, we are not, as Walks pointed out, facts come first and foremost, followed by opinion.

QuoteI regularly express mine derivative of perceptions formed over several decades.
Some, compulsively defend Republicans, perceiving them as 'the good guys'. They are fairly entitled to this opinion which I emphatically do not share.
I think you'll be hardpressed to find one individual that thinks the gop'E as the "the good guys", the party is anything but.

QuoteThe essence of my previous assertion remains plain and simple. Politicians of the Modern Era (19th century forward) have absolutely a zero relationship to Principled Conservatism ( as you're aware,  a catalyst of the Tea Party) which is the legacy of the Greeks, the Scholastics, the English Whigs commencing w/Hume; among others.
Every historical event is now legacy of some point in the past, TEA, on the other hand, is representative of our Founders ideals.

QuoteRegarding republican 'statesmen' none remind me of Pericles, Talleyrand or Von Bismarck; among others.
As for Taft, in my judgement an utter failure as POTUS; he advanced a progressive left agenda while Chief Justice at the SC.
More insidious was Hoover.  Few are aware that he aggressively advanced what became the framework for the Agriculture Program of the New Deal; which included Farm Cartels to artificially restrict supply, a Federal Farm Board to subsidize crop prices and the economic illiteracy of paying farmers not to grow specific crops.
Sadly this terrible legacy remains alive and well going on 100 years.
Summarizing, I doubt any democrats, progressives or lefties are necessary to seriously damage free markets, as the republican record shows that they can do the job all by themselves.                                 
Hence the reason you'll find anyone here supporting the Marxists within the GOP. No, we support Conservatives only, and until they either take over the party, or split to form a new, we're all stuck with the GOP.

Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 15, 2017, 07:23:11 PM
Quote from: walkstall on September 15, 2017, 03:38:53 PM
When did CPF become an opinion forum?  You may have an opinion but it is a facts and data board.  Post something and if someone ask for proof of a statement it is the poster responsibility to back it up.  Otherwise it just an opinion.

Then please permit me to rephrase.
It's an opinion Board requiring the support of sound data and facts.

Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 15, 2017, 07:29:53 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 15, 2017, 03:57:01 PM
No, we are not, as Walks pointed out, facts come first and foremost, followed by opinion.
I think you'll be hardpressed to find one individual that thinks the gop'E as the "the good guys", the party is anything but.
Every historical event is now legacy of some point in the past, TEA, on the other hand, is representative of our Founders ideals.
Hence the reason you'll find anyone here supporting the Marxists within the GOP. No, we support Conservatives only, and until they either take over the party, or split to form a new, we're all stuck with the GOP.

Solar and Walkstall;
Fair enough, as I have no substantive disagreement w/the argument both of you make.
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: walkstall on September 15, 2017, 10:21:59 PM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 15, 2017, 07:23:11 PM
Then please permit me to rephrase.
It's an opinion Board requiring the support of sound data and facts.

It is a facts and data Conservative Political TEA Forum board.  And it's an opinion board when you can not back up your post.  Or you wish to post what you think. 
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Solar on September 16, 2017, 05:48:19 AM
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 15, 2017, 07:29:53 PM
Solar and Walkstall;
Fair enough, as I have no substantive disagreement w/the argument both of you make.
It's one of the main things that sets us apart from other forums, facts and a willingness to back it all up.
Sure, much is taken for granted, like Dims, murder babies without conscience, enslave the black community, cheat on every election, push a Marxist agenda at every turn, lie constantly, brainwash every new generation. None of which are mere generalities, rather provable fact.
And yes, the GOP'E enables them like a deranged doctor manipulates his patients into doing his evil deeds.

Ya know what's sad? The entire Nation is aware of this problem, and yet, there are still 30 million still voting Dim, while the rest of us are trying desperately to purge the GOP of a few remaining entrenched Marxists controlling the RNC.
And not one person would challenge me on that comment, because it's all verifiable fact, these are not the ramblings of a conspiracy freak, the gop'E has no problem reminding the base they're willing to help the Dim party use the IRS as a weapon against all of us, us "Wacko Birds", as McStain referred to us.

But you get the point. :laugh:
Title: Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
Post by: Walter Josh on September 16, 2017, 03:49:53 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on September 15, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
Interesting read, and kudos to tbone for the clarfication og democrat insidiousness. Walter Josh, I do think you Are drawing generalization by excluding data tbone provided and I want also to just push Taft, Coolidge and Reagan into your consideration. Granted you Are right in that the majority of Republican based on todays RINOS and the elder Northern protectionist class Are probably not good at conserving the policies and values that have made your country great. But dont draw a false conclusion when we have had our share of great  republican statesmen.

Mountain,
Your post, referencing 'republican statesmen', triggered a self-reflection which provoked me to reassess and conclude that I've been unfair to statesmen (not politicians).
My catalyst was Charles Francis Adams, son of Quincy and Lincoln's Ambassador to Great Britain, who likely prevented the partitioning or worse of the USA.
Recall that by mid-19th century, the Royal Navy went wherever and whenever it pleased w/a 1000 warship fleet manned by state of the era gunnery. Conversely our Navy was virtually non-existent.
Additionally, Britain, who had never forgotten, either Yorktown or 1812, had 50,000 regulars in Canada.
Our South had a virtual captive market for its raw cotton among the great mills in Birmingham and Manchester; as the Plantations of East Bengal were more than a decade away and the Suez Canal had not been opened.
Perhaps most importantly, Viscount Palmerston, Liberal PM and Leader in Commons was a strong advocate/supporter of the British Merchant Class.
Yet Adams was able to persuade the British Government not to intercede on behalf of its natural economic ally by blockading the Northern Union ports nor launch an invasion of New York, forcing the Union to fight on two fronts.
Consider the consequences if Adams had failed!