Politics
Out of context: Reply #13417
- Started
- Last post
- 33,769 Responses
- luckyorphan0
^^ And I just had to follow up with an outstanding comment to the article above from Len Charlap of Princeton, N.J.:
"Conservatism is supposed to be nonideological and context-driven."
This is exactly the point, but Brooks gets it exactly backwards. I am a mathematician. I like facts, data and logical arguments derived from them. I consider myself a realist. The trouble with Conservatives is that they ignore the facts. Here are just two of many such:
1. All other industrialized countries have some form of universal government run health care. They get better care as measured by all the bottom line public health statistics, and they do it at half the cost per person. If our system were as efficient, we would save about $1.3 TRILLION each year. Problem solved.
2. In 1946 the debt was 120% of the GDP, It went straight down to about 32% in 1973. During this period 1946 - 1973 taxes were much higher. Marginal rates were at least 70%; they were 93% under Eisenhower. The economy was better than what we now have. For example, median wages went up 3 times as fast as since 1973. CEO's earned 50 times what their workers earned; it is 500 times today. Staring in 1973, the percent of wealth and income taken by the richest 10%, 1%, and 0.1% has gone up at an ever increasing rate. We need, we must have much higher taxes on the Rich.
Please tell me a period when raising taxes on the Rich was bad for the economy. Perhaps when Clinton did so?"
- #2 is especially effective at destroying all conservative taxation arguments.luckyorphan