Response: The GOP stopped tax breaks for 98% of Americans and the middle class because they wanted the richest of the rich were more important than the rest of us.
As I stated earlier in the thread, they could make that argument but that would require discussing the deficit and I don't think the Democrats want to do that. Conservatives want to reduce the deficit by eliminating programs (cutting spending), not by increasing the tax rate.
Response: The Democrats stopped the tax breaks for 98% of Americans because they didn't want to give employers a tax cut as well.
If you advocate falsehoods. I think that would backfire on the GOP. Small businesses employ most workers and the Dems favored huge tax breaks for them, that the GOP was against. For even the richest Americans the first 250K still gets the tax breaks, it's only on the amount over that where the tax break would expire. The Democrats put forward an idea on taxes that help the people who need it most with tax relief. The GOP stopped it, because wealthiest 2% didn't get a tax break after the first 250K.
Everyone is getting the same tax cut. Rich people will get the same reduced tax rate on all their income below $250k that people making less than $250k get on their income.
Please provide some source indicating exactly where the Republicans propose to make cuts to offset the $700 billion increase to the deficit from this tax cut for the wealthy. If you could also provide some information about where they propose to make cuts to actually reduce the deficit (not just cover this tax cut), that would super!
I said conservatives not Republicans. Most Republicans are not conservative. As far as your link demands; different Republicans believe in different programs to cut. Many have suggested Social Security, some have suggested the FDA (ending the drug war), some have suggested shrinking the IRS (by greatly simplifying the tax code), privatizing education in America would save tons of money (education should be a state matter to begin with). Sharron Angle; social security Stossel and Oreilly; Ending the FDA Rand Paul; eliminating department of education
That was his idea, not a mainstream Republican/conservative idea. That's not a mainstream idea with anyone but the most radical Libertarians, as far as I know. Even then, I don't think that comes out to $700 billion over the next decade.
All conservatives and libertarians believe in this, or else they would not be conservative/libertarian.
So your definition of conservative is 'everyone who agrees with tallanvor'? By definition, if someone doesn't agree with you on every issue, they aren't conservative?
Conservatives believe in the economic principles of this countries founding. thus, free markets. Regulation of the drug industry would be the opposite of a free market.
I don't think it is right to refer to "conservative/libertarian." Those things are not necessarily the same. Now this is just my opinion as someone who must people would consider libertarian, but not all conservatives are libertarians. From what I see it is the social conservatives that control the republican party and claim the title of conservative. There are also fiscal conservatives. Some fiscally conservative republicans may be libertarians and some libertarians may be fiscally conservative republicans, but it is not a perfect match because many libertarian ideas are diametrically opposed to republican positions (e.g., legalize mar1juana, decrease military). Now the social conservatives talk a good game about being fiscally conservative, but are actually big spenders. I think a large part of the tea party is just social conservatives pretending to be fiscal conservatives. Obviously, Ron Paul and Rand Paul fit more in the fiscal conservative position, but I think Sarah Palin fits in the social conservative area. I hope I am wrong, but I do not a big change in how government works even if the tea party win a lot of seats.
Libertarians and conservatives differ on national defense and social policy, but are pretty much the same on economic policy. At least, that's my perception. I clumped them together since we are talking about economics.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6weDMH-SCOE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6weDMH-SCOE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
If they believed in the economic principles of this country's founding, they would be supporting slavery, women wouldn't be able to own property, and only white male property owners could vote. Oh wait, I take it back. You're absolutely correct. Seriously though, which founding? The one envisioned by Jefferson or the one envisioned by Hamilton? And it's curious you mention this since the Constitution was designed specifically to strengthen the hand of the Federal government at the expense of the states, a position which could arguably go against your interpretation of "free markets." Further, one of the reasons was so the Federal government would be able to collect taxes and have some authority to do so. The Founders were explicit in their desire to do this. See Federalist Paper #12 (Hamilton): Likewise, the Federal government under the Articles did not have a good way to regulate trade and commerce systematically.
