Why Are the Republicans So Opposed to Tax Increases? - Comments Page 4

It's not because they don't think taxes need to be raised.

The Republican cognoscenti know that we have a lower tax burden now than we've had since Truman was president. They know that billions in subsidies to big oil are very unpopular, even within their own party. They know that tax breaks for corporate jets make no sense to the American voter when teachers are being laid off. They know full well that during the recent debt ceiling debate, polls repeatedly showed that a majority of Republicans agreed that any debt deal should include tax increases on the wealthy.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

  • 126 - Jet Gardner

    Aug 07, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    To quote a great visionary... Happy traaaaails to youuuuu, untilllll we meeeet agaaaaaain....

    Diplomacy in action

  • 127 - roger nowosielski

    Aug 07, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    You know I haven't said that, Jet, but your contribution to the topic thus has been limited to what you like or dislike about me.

  • 128 - roger nowosielski

    Aug 07, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Whatever.

  • 129 - zingzing

    Aug 07, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    roger: "Happy now?"

    it saddens me to see you act so cowardly, making me all the sader. i had two requests: that you accurately describe my political beliefs (which never in this world could you hope to do, but i'd like to see you try), and that you consider the consequences of revolution vs evolution in political change.

    you have done neither. i am not shocked. it's a "tactic" of yours to call and end to a conversation whenever you feel fit. that's your right, but it's certainly a telling feature of how you go about a "battle of wits," as you put it.

  • 130 - zingzing

    Aug 07, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    -d inb4

  • 131 - troll

    Aug 08, 2011 at 7:34 am

    zing - wouldn't it be more challenging to accurately describe your own political beliefs rather than asking Rog to construct a strawzing for you to tear apart?


    ...but if we're all invited to play I'll colo(u)r you politically (and in part of course) as a young Machiavellian prince with strong hedonist not to mention nihilist tendencies

  • 132 - roger nowosielski

    Aug 08, 2011 at 8:31 am

    As to zing's attempt at insult by calling me cowardly, I've invited him more than once to visit my series of articles on anarchism and related subjects where I struggle to articulate my political beliefs. In spite of numerous invitations, however, zing had never done so to the best of my knowledge and never posted even a single comment in the context of my own writings. He'd chosen instead the strategy of taking pot shots at my positions without bothering to think through them first as I present them.

    And no, I don't consider my exchanges with Cindy, troll and Anarcissie as "battle of wits," nor have I used that expression to characterize it so. If you'd care to examine the thread, it was Jet's phrase, and I took objection to it. So if you post things about me, at try to be accurate in your descriptions.

    And no, it's not a "tactic" of mine to call an end to a conversation, only to put an end to conversations that lead nowhere. And by virtue of my experience of our exchanges in the past, not to mention the reasons delineated earlier in this comment, yes, I've come to a conclusion that in most cases conversations with you lead nowhere. I think it's about time you recognize this and act accordingly.

  • 133 - zingzing

    Aug 08, 2011 at 11:45 am

    troll: "wouldn't it be more challenging to accurately describe your own political beliefs rather than asking Rog to construct a strawzing for you to tear apart?"

    sure. but roger seems to think he's got it all figured out.

    "I'll colo(u)r you politically (and in part of course) as a young Machiavellian prince with strong hedonist not to mention nihilist tendencies."

    that's about as accurate as my horoscope, in that it could apply to most of us at some point.

  • 134 - zingzing

    Aug 08, 2011 at 11:49 am

    roger: "He'd chosen instead the strategy of taking pot shots at my positions without bothering to think through them first as I present them."

    until you do any different, i wouldn't expect any different. at least i actually use your words rather than just making stuff up.

  • 135 - roger nowosielski

    Aug 08, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    I said all I am going to say in this regard and that's the end of discussion as far as I'm concerned. You can either take it or leave it.

  • 136 - zingzing

    Aug 08, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    don't forget your ball.

  • 137 - Glenn Contrarian

    Aug 08, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Hm. The insult 'cowardly' has been hurled and assailed. But - in the context of a political blog discussion group, what is 'cowardly'?

    I'd say it's:

    1 - the refusal to every admit error not only on minor points or issues but especially on major points or issues. It's not hard to own up to mistakes on minor issues, but it takes real courage to own up to error on major issues.

    2 - the refusal to criticize or even question one's own political party and - conversely - the refusal to point out policies or actions by the opposing party's politicians that deserve kudos.

    3 - the insistence on pooh-poohing statistics that the other side uses by repeating the old saw that "figures don't lie, but liars figure" as if that somehow in and of itself negates the statistics.

    4 - intransigent opposition against this or that policy or solution to a problem while refusing to provide a better policy or a better solution to the problem.

    Perhaps others would like to add more definitions, but I challenge them to do so without adding sarcasm or snide implications.

  • 138 - troll

    Aug 09, 2011 at 7:15 am

    re 133 - all of my comments should be so 'accurate'


    ...and then there's your 'evolution'/'revolution' distinction

    both terms describe processes of social change that cannot be denied and which yield only relative stability...thus what would your evolutionary political stability be without the occasional mercantile industrial or information revolution leading to changes in political forms?

    (there is some speculation out there that the property relations required by capitalism will be unable to survive the last mentioned revolt - which is leading to new productive (and political) relations...maybe good; maybe bad - but the ball keeps bouncing)

  • 139 - Jet Gardner

    Aug 09, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Someone changed the abreviation "BC" to "Bitchfest Continues" while I was gone?

  • 140 - Glenn Contrarian

    Aug 09, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Looks like.

    There's so many comments I'd love to make...but perhaps it would be wiser if I just went and got a bag of popcorn and a diet soda and enjoyed the show.

  • 141 - troll

    Aug 09, 2011 at 9:35 am

    ...not sure how responding to zing's two requests constitutes an 'elbichofest'


    and watch that diet soda Glenn - the shit'll kill ya

  • 142 - Jet Gardner

    Aug 09, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Stick with fava beans and a nice chianti...

  • 143 - Glenn Contrarian

    Aug 09, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    nice -

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 21, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs