I still don't get how middle class republicans complain about tax hikes for the rich

TheBigBopper

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,278
Reputation
-2,155
Daps
15,377
I would like to see the percentage of Democrats and Republicans represented among the economists surveyed in that first link you sent me.

Also, Krugman didn't even refute the Laffer Curve in the second link you sent me. He simply said that we're no where near the left half of the curve, which is something I would agree with.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,701
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,583
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
I would like to see the percentage of Democrats and Republicans represented among the economists surveyed in that first link you sent me.

Also, Krugman didn't even refute the Laffer Curve in the second link you sent me. He simply said that we're no where near the left half of the curve, which is something I would agree with.

He did refute the curve... read it thoroughly. He said there is no perfect equilibrium as laffer asserts.

Also, if you look at the individual survey results, nobody outright agreed with the idea that reduced tax rates will certainly increase revenues. Chicago school economists, which are tilted towards the right, still disagreed with that assertion. You can look at the economists individual responses and be clear that they either view this idea with outright skepticism, or academic uncertainty, which is another condemnation.

Also I don't see how political affiliation is an indication of the validity of sicence. If you look at scientists which call themselves "republican", they are probably going to deny man made climate change, where as 99.7% of scientists support this notion. Same for evolution.

More economists, more scientists are deomocrats, more teachers are democrats. Maybe if you're looking for the acclimation of these groups, you should look for democrats, instead of looking for the small segments of these groups which affirm repbulican ideas.
 

zerozero

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
6,866
Reputation
1,250
Daps
13,494
With that said people tend to elevate economic equality above objective cost-benefit measures. There needs to be some balance.

so much equality being preferred for the last 30 years!

Daily Kos: The Lie of "Trickle Down" Economics

2rhpys6.jpg
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
375
Reputation
0
Daps
269
Reppin
L.A
I talked to some white-washed Asian dude (no racial) about something similar once.

Using what I heard him say and reasoning it out, I've come to the conclusion that he believes if his bosses (the owner and president of the company) get tax breaks, then they'll use that money to give the employees raises. The raises will come directly off what they save in tax payments since that will be given to the employees' salaries, or that with the money they save, they can buy new machines which leads to more in-house processing, which leads to more work, which leads to more pay.

Bss Ackwards.

Just upper management kiss-assing.
 

GoPro

EscoBeard Season Has Returned
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
12,457
Reputation
2,195
Daps
32,081
Reppin
#CertLife #ITGang
Its cause they don't know how much the gap between the rich and themselves is growing. Their media sources (fox, rush, ingraham, etc) never mention this. The sources never mention that corporations are currently making record profits by squeezing productivity out of a reduced workforce. The wealthy GOP talking heads share these profits amongst themselves through investments and payola, while pitting the middle class against the poor. "Those freeloaders are keeping taxes high, which means businesses cant afford to higher new workers." I just watched ingraham spew this exact shyt while hosting oreilly. And Dullards such as kingpin and She Agree That Im Looney eat this shyt up and then say the left villifies wealth, yet im pretty damn sure neither of them are wealthy, and likely never will be. They admire the rich, hero worship. Obama and the left need to start releasing some facts to open eyes.

Plus that article by the guardian had it 100% correct. Poor whites are also brainwashed by social pandering, which for some trumps their financial destitution. "I may be poor, but I won't support baby murder".

I think a socially conservative/fiscally liberal party would be successful in this country. The majority would be served in both regards.
 

MostReal

Bandage Hand Steph
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
25,007
Reputation
3,274
Daps
56,465
I think a socially conservative/fiscally liberal party would be successful in this country. The majority would be served in both regards.

This is what Blacks/Latinos want...the dream President :win:
 

Huellz Santana

Shocking
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
3,304
Reputation
240
Daps
7,316
Reppin
Da city where the skinny nikkas die
"In a country where social mobility is assumed – even if it has in fact stalled – and class consciousness is week the poor may vote in the interests of an imagined, but not necessarily imaginary future, rather than solidarity based on shared economic hardships. "

saw this grammatical error and threw the entire article in the bushes.

:scusthov:
 

ThaGlow

All Star
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
4,148
Reputation
120
Daps
6,800
their argument is that it's possible to become that 1% someday. they consider it taxing success. they believe those who receive social welfare trumps those who receive corporate welfare. they believe ebt/section 8 is a bigger waste than our "defense" budget.

On some pyramid scheme shyt, lol.
 

NZA

LOL
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
21,885
Reputation
4,115
Daps
56,138
Reppin
Run Thru U Like Skattebo
it's almost like a ho giving all her money to a pimp, and then letting him decide how much to give her back. koch bros' pimp hand is way strong. too bad for them only less than half the electorate is old white hoes.
 
Top