1 - 10 Next
I was going to comment, but you said it better than I would have, especially that last paragraph.
Mr. Carroll is right that the Republicans need to take this thing head on, but he got the content of the counterattack largely wrong. The two points above are the strongest counterarguments.
This income inequality thing is simple math. Assume a 3% growth rate and take two starting figures 100 and 1000. Those numbers begin 900 apart, After 10 years the 1000 has grown to 1343 and the 100 has grown to 134, now roughly 1200 apart. This idea that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is just wrong. The poor are NOT getting poorer. . Furthermore, this "income inequality" meme is a bit like climate change in that even if it is happening no one has been able to DEMONSTRATE a truly negative consequence. The only way the rich can get richer is to provide goods and services that the rest of us are willing to pay for. As long as they do that, why would any of us complain? And, if they stop doing that they will quit getting richer.
In response to:

Defense Against Demagogues

RichardsKY Wrote: Jan 28, 2015 8:27 AM
Paraphrasing something that Milton Friedman once said when reviewing a canal construction side in India: He noticed that they did not use a lot of heavy machinery, but instead utilized a large number of men with shovels. The Indian official's response to Friedman's question was: "You don't understand. This is a jobs project." To which, Dr. Friedman said: "Well, in that case, you should take away the shovels and use spoons". . This idea of refusing to use machinery that makes us more productive in the name of saving jobs, if taken to its logical conclusion, would send us back to the stone ages. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on earth precisely because we are more productive.
In response to:

Defense Against Demagogues

RichardsKY Wrote: Jan 28, 2015 8:20 AM
We should not just lower the tax rate on corporate income, we should COMPLETELY ELIMINATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX. I'll list the advantages next, but as everyone knows, when you tax something, you increase its effective price and therefore you get less of it. Taxing businesses means less business. Less business means fewer jobs. Advantages: + Instead of counting out their net income like this: 3 for me, 2 for you; 3 for me, 2 for you, businesses will keep all of the money they earned. That would be the equivalent of a permanent 60% jump net income or sales. + With that much more net income, businesses would have more money to either invest to grow their business or to return to their shareholders + U.S. multinationals currently holding profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes would immediately begin bringing that money to the U.S. for further investment. + Foreign companies, seeing the promise of paying ZERO income taxes would come rushing to invest in the U.S. (note, to get this full effect, the income tax must be eliminated; lowering the rates leaves open the possibility that they will be raised again in the future). + With the corporate income tax eliminated completely from the books, we can eliminate the corporate compliance division of the IRS. + All of the laws that distinguish different tax treatment of not-for-profit organizations will be erased. + Corporations can take all of the money they spend on tax compliance and spend it on productive things. + Corporations, free from income tax distortions, can make investment decisions based on the actual value of the investment instead of worrying about tax implications. + With the corporate income tax completely eliminated, that means the value of all tax loopholes immediately becomes ZERO. + With the value of tax loopholes at ZERO, the ROI on lobbying and political contributions is drastically reduced, meaning reduced crony-related political action by corporations. + With the value of tax loopholes at ZERO, the value of what the politicians have to offer their cronies is drastically reduced, meaning less political power for DC.
Have a real good friend who fought in Viet Nam and was awarded the Silver Star. He views Hanoi Jane as a despicable traitor and therefore so do I. Whenever they show her face on TV, I turn the channel immediately.
In response to:

Hands Up, Don’t Lie

RichardsKY Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 12:44 PM
The problem here is that even though the facts of the Ferguson case turned out to not be racism, the race baiters and their liberal sycophants believe there is plenty of white cop racism everywhere, so all of the uproar was completely justified.
Lord Obama would take money from the productive in order to shower it on the mediocre.
Lord Obama wants to take money out of the pockets of rich folks such as your employer to pay for two years of tuition for every C+ community college student in the nation. To receive his personal largess, you don't need to be an exceptional student at all. In fact, mediocre will do just fine. Take four classes; you just need to come out with 2 B's and 2 C's and he will personally cover your costs. Side note: Can anyone see the grade inflation train heading this direction? Mind you, he is not willing to pay for your education at a 4-year college. No, he is only willing to cover you at one of these lesser institutions. So, he really isn't interested in seeing that you receive a QUALITY education; it seems he just wants you to be able to say you have some college education. And, hey, its free.
"THE problem With Obama's Community College Plan"? There is more than one problem.
1 - 10 Next