Insulting me doesn’t make your arguments any stronger, but if that’s the game we’re playing here then I can do that too
If you feel insulted by what I said it’s due to the fallacy of your own ideas.
Conservatives are afraid of little kids and their families coming here from Central America
You seriously believe those are the only people crossing our Southern boarder illegally? Or even our Northern boarder?
Again, you appear to be unclear on the underlying concept. Conservatives don’t have a problem with legal immigration after proper vetting. Conservatives have a problem with illegal entry, whereby the U.S. has no realistic control over who is crossing our boarder. Why you apostles of immigration fail to grasp this very simple and fundamental distinction is beyond me.
Now if you are one of those “we should have open boarders” types, advocating for no restrictions and no vetting on who can enter the United States, then tell me exactly how you plan to keep criminals, drug smugglers, flesh smugglers, terrorists, etcetera from invading our country? And beyond that, how exactly would you propose we control a pandemic? I mean, how exactly do you scan for contagious and potentially epidemic infections if the “immigrant” does not first present themselves through official channels? Come on smart guy (your words) tell me what your “thinking” has come up with for that?
You can’t acknowledge that corporations and rich people might have some connections to each other,
What? Can you even follow a train of thought? Your original point, the one that started this exchange, was, “Republican voters make choices that benefit rich corporations.” I pointed out that most “corporations” that benefited from the recent corporate tax reduction are small business that are far from “rich,” employ a countless number of people and are vital to the U.S. economy.
You responded by claiming that reductions in the “inheritance tax” benefit deceased retired CEO’s of large corporations as the reason. I pointed out there are many reasonable arguments upon which to oppose the double-taxation of an inheritance tax but that in any event the corporate entity gets no benefit from the reduction; indeed, the CEO doesn’t even get the benefit, because he or she is dead. The benefit actually inures to the beneficiaries of the now-dead CEO and it is they who are responsible for the tax. My mistake was in calling this a “corporations once removed” theory, when it is actually “twice removed” as well as being applicable to beneficiaries of non-CEOs.
Still, your original premise was that “Republican voters make choices that benefit rich corporations.” Apparently you now recognize that the inheritance tax thing is utter nonsense and are now basing your original thesis on the exceedingly general assertion that “corporations and rich people … have some connections.” Gee, I sure hope so! This is supposed to be the land of opportunity.
Corporations are the most ubiquitous mechanism for establishing a business, not only for the liability shield but also for the ease of accounting purposes (although the Limited Liability Company method is gaining in popularity). However, the vast majority of “corporations” are not “rich” and are not large enough to escape U.S. taxation by transferring operations overseas. Thus, it is a reasonable to believe, as I do, that by reducing the corporate tax you encourage more investment and risk-taking by smaller companies and discourage those with the ability to do so from choosing to transfer operations overseas. I spent 32-years working for a Fortune 100 company and I’m telling you that’s a real thing.
So bottom line, while you may disagree with using the tax-code to stimulate the domestic economy, it is categorically wrong to declare with any certainty that it is wrong-headed or that a Republican that votes for that approach is necessarily voting against their own interests, as you have so declared. Yes, I recognize there is a connection between starting your own business and the opportunity for significant wealth. That’s the core of the American dream. That’s a good thing! But there is also the possibility for the business to utterly fail and for the entrepreneur, large or small, to lose the entirety of their capital investment. And there needs to be a reward for taking that risk.
And while we’re at it, just what do you think a large corporation is anyway? As an entity it is entirely fictional. It does not exist. You can’t speak to Mr. General Electric. If it is publicly traded, a corporation is nothing more than a whole lot of little people, either through pension funds or individual investment, who have given their money to other people and asked them to make a profit and, if nothing else, not to lose the principal. To many the profits generated by these corporations are meaningful with respect to their quality of life and they, for the most part, are not rich.
You can’t tell the difference between saying “I don’t need special knowledge” and “I didn’t really think about this”?
Uhmmm, yes I can and from the content of your responses I’d venture to say you have “no special knowledge” and “didn’t really think about this.” You don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of the underlying subject, which is itself complex, yet you presume to definitively know the answers and, beyond that, what motivates people about whom you know nothing. Your positions are nothing short of juvenile in their depth, yet you speak with such arrogance and disdain regarding those who don’t share your opinions. Problem is, even when your thesis’ shortcomings are laid bare you can’t or won’t take a step back and reassess whether you really have enough “special knowledge” or have really thought about it enough to reach the conclusions you have. Face it. Jumping from Corporate tax to inheritance tax to general connection really doesn’t reflect a genuine explanation for why Republicans vote the way they do, now does it? If you can’t admit that then your whole position is nothing but a clumsy attempt at virtue signaling.
I’m the one who’s a coward for saying that the new trade policy is dangerous?
No, you’re a coward because you would let fear stand in the way of the United States seeking equal and fair treatment in the world’s markets. You would rather allow your country to continue to be mistreated out of fear that other countries won’t be our friends. Of course there’s some risk. Whenever you take a stand for something there is some risk. But it is a far lesser risk that we demanded of young men who were drafted into military service during war. We asked them to risk everything they had or were ever going to have. If our cause is just (and I believe whole heartedly that the U.S. must be treated fairly in world markets) then the farmers, industry and everyone else should be prepared to risk something to get what the United States has a right to expect.
Again, and just to be clear because your writing suggests you do not fully grasp this fact: the U.S. is not seeking “advantage” over other countries. The U.S. is seeking to be treated the same. The U.S. is seeking to have its products judged by their innovation, quality and value alone and not have them artificially corrupted by import taxation or content-based restriction. We prefer not to do these things to other countries but we have a right to expect them not to do them to us. If you have a problem with that concept, especially if it is fear-based, then I’m sorry, but you, sir, are a coward in every sense of the word.