Hippiekinkster
Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007 From: Liechtenstein Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Actually, yes, I see where you are going. And that does make sense. But these are the same people who gave Hillary the lead last time around... and look how wrong they were. I also think its telling that the polls are already concerned about who will win against Obama, rather than focusing on who will best represent the GOP. And that is sort of how I am reading that part I posted. The best candidate for the GOP is Gingrich... but he doesnt stand a snow balls chance in hell of beating Obama. Romney isnt the GOP favorite, but he is still there because they believe more Independents and Democrats will vote him in that Gingrich. I just cant fathom why anyone would assume those facts this far out. Tazzy: I also think its telling that the polls are already concerned about who will win against Obama, rather than focusing on who will best represent the GOP. This is an excellent observation, IMO. And it's not only who will best represent the GOP; it's also who will best represent the country to the world, and represent ALL citizens. To illustrate my point, I'll quote for you someone for whom I have an enormous amount of respect (he's English, works on Wall St., and has given seminars on some high-end investment stuff)(the italicized line is the statement by the person he's responding to): EricF:Arguing that Republicans are resisting the extension of the payroll tax cut because they only like the wealthy does not seem correct to me, "It's not merely argument, it's evidenced. The Republican Party in Congress has by and large signed the Norquist pledge. The major beneficiaries of that pledge are the wealthy. The GOP candidates were asked whether they would accept a tax increase that generated revenue of 1/10th of proposed government cuts - they all declined. The Republican Party has consistently argued that lower taxes generate more revenue (google "Laffer Curve"). The Republican Party has consistently favoured lowering taxes for "wealth creators" (wrongly and malignly identified with high earners and estate inheritors) up to the present day. When a party is so vociferously in favour of lowering taxes for the wealthy on claimed principles and economics and without any acceptance of the possibility of a rising gap between Federal revenues and expenditures, and now vehemently opposes lowering taxes for all bar the wealthy, that doesn't prove that they only like the wealthy, but it's damn good evidence for the proposition. Indeed, the only reasonable counter, it seems to me, is to propose that it's merely a coincidence that the GOP's policies consistently favour the people they're claimed to like, and that they consistently disfavour the people they're claimed not to."
_____________________________
"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin “Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne
|