Cutting taxes for the rich does not stimulate the economy.

[ProfJohn]

Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Acanthus
http://www.mediafire.com/?nmxjmy4nzmm

This is a brief paper i wrote on the failure of supply-side economics.

If you would like to dispute any of the data, i can directly link the data that i drew my conclusions from.

My goal is to put to rest the fallacy that cutting taxes always helps the economy. This is not the case and even back in the Regean days was not the ploy they were trying to tell the public. Regeanomics was based on the fact that in the very specific case of the times, under those very specific conditions, economists thought that cutting taxes would increase tax revenue. This has somehow become the bastardized supply-side economics that republicans push today.

For the most part cutting capitcal gains taxes has increased tax revenues.

But lets agree, there is a point where taxes become counterproductive at raising revenue when they get too high. Finding the optimal rate for revenue collection is the hard part.

But why should govt be finding the optimal rate to begin with? Why have capital gains tax at all?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Acanthus
http://www.mediafire.com/?nmxjmy4nzmm

This is a brief paper i wrote on the failure of supply-side economics.

If you would like to dispute any of the data, i can directly link the data that i drew my conclusions from.

My goal is to put to rest the fallacy that cutting taxes always helps the economy. This is not the case and even back in the Regean days was not the ploy they were trying to tell the public. Regeanomics was based on the fact that in the very specific case of the times, under those very specific conditions, economists thought that cutting taxes would increase tax revenue. This has somehow become the bastardized supply-side economics that republicans push today.

For the most part cutting capitcal gains taxes has increased tax revenues.

But lets agree, there is a point where taxes become counterproductive at raising revenue when they get too high. Finding the optimal rate for revenue collection is the hard part.

Some of the countries strongest growth was when taxes on the highest bracket topped 89%. My argument always has been, the rich will invest to get more money, regardless of the tax rate.

Depends if you truely want to gather the tax or if you want to have a pretty number to look at. One interesting thing to note is in the early 1990s a study was done which showed regardless of the top rate the feds took in about 19.5% of GDP in taxes. Which tells me when you have very high tax rates people hide the income.

That said some of the strongest growth we have seen also fell under the 28 and 39% top brackets.

I believe the article you're referring to is called "You can't soak the rich".

The thing about taxing the rich is if we do it too much, they'll just take their money elsewhere to more tax friendly environments. As China gains on us economically, this will be an ever increasing problem. I'm sure you can guess what we'll do anyways.

^--THIS

I think you are going to see the rich start fleeing New York and Cali for safe havens because of this very reason. If it happens on a national level (large tax increases) you could see them flee the country for more friendly tax havens. This is the most overlooked problem with tax the rich. They can just move and then what are you going to do to keep up with the ever expanding bloat of government?

Taxing the hell out of the rich will not work in an international economy. It is to easy to up and move the money.

oh yeah im not rich but hope to be in the next 10 years.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: lupi
Oh please god can someone tell me how this abysmal country got started and managed to last so long when there was no income tax.

Exactly. There were only a few, small temporary income taxes prior to the 16th Amendment in 1913. Before that, income tax was levied in a few wars, War of 1812, the Civil War, and in 1898. And the tax brackets ranged from 1 to 7%.

We need to cap the tax rate at 10% maximum, and then severely slash and scale back our bloated government bureaucracy.

Here's a start. Reduce the House of Representatives from 437 to 217 and the Senate from 100 to 50, allow with a similar reduction in staff and aides. Each state gets the same proportion of representation in Congress and the tax payer saves millions. Win-win.

I disagree, that would make the entrenched bureaucrats even more powerful. The house members should be based on the population instead of capped at 400 whatever. If it wasn't capped, there would be something like 1000 house members. The senators should be appointed by governors instead of elected so that they aren't beholden to the same pressures of reelection that congressmen are, so that they act as a check against the house.

As for taxes and reducing the government, a flat tax or fair tax would be great but I think an even simpler idea would be to outlaw income withholding. If every American worker had to manually write a check to the government every month for 1/3 of his income, the vast majority would immediately demand smaller and more efficient government. The reason why the federal government has allowed to become so bloated in the first place is because the costs are hidden by income withholding and inflation.

Yup, with a smaller Congress, it will be easier to get 2/3 majority and have the power to override filibusters.

Tax protection rights should have been written into the Constitution. We are way past the point of no return though. Natural progression of a democratic society. And a pussified society at that, so we probably won't see a bloody revolution anytime soon.

 

[heyheybooboo]

We should always cut taxes financed by more debt.

We need many more years (such as this) when our individual and corporate tax receipts are less than they were 10 years ago. That will show them libruls.

Signed,

Voodoo Economics

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

PJ has got to name his future economic research firm, "Cherry Pick Inc."

 

[Udgnim]

the general thinking is that the private sector spends more money more wisely & efficiently than the government

private sector spends money solely to gain more money. government kind of has to go through bureaucratic processes and spend money on social programs that result in poor financial returns

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

When will you morons ever wake up to that reality?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

Yes, debt is free, the hundreds of billions we pay annually on the interest on our debt rounds down to zero, if you round to the nearest quadrillion.

If you were either more informed or honest - whichever fits - you would also note that speniding cuts are one way to 'pay' for the tax cuts. You're picking a nit.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

Yes, debt is free, the hundreds of billions we pay annually on the interest on our debt rounds down to zero, if you round to the nearest quadrillion.

If you were either more informed or honest - whichever fits - you would also note that speniding cuts are one way to 'pay' for the tax cuts. You're picking a nit.

It's not a nit. The notion that tax cuts have to be paid for implies that the money is rightfully the property of the government and that they are letting the so-called rich have some back out of their good graces, instead of the other way around.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: lupi
Oh please god can someone tell me how this abysmal country got started and managed to last so long when there was no income tax.

Exactly. There were only a few, small temporary income taxes prior to the 16th Amendment in 1913. Before that, income tax was levied in a few wars, War of 1812, the Civil War, and in 1898. And the tax brackets ranged from 1 to 7%.

We need to cap the tax rate at 10% maximum, and then severely slash and scale back our bloated government bureaucracy.

Here's a start. Reduce the House of Representatives from 437 to 217 and the Senate from 100 to 50, allow with a similar reduction in staff and aides. Each state gets the same proportion of representation in Congress and the tax payer saves millions. Win-win.

I would support the thinning of wasteful government as long as it was done in a responsible way.

"Starving the beast" principles have never worked, in that budget cuts often happen where the money is needed rather than in a responsible, forward-thinking way.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

Bullshit, did you even read the paper?

I was completely indiscriminate in my selection of data. I did not acknowledge the party in power, who was president, or other factors.

I looked only at the tax rates, private and public investment, and its effects on economic growth.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

When will you morons ever wake up to that reality?

Err debt has interest?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

It's not a nit.

Yes, it is.

The notion that tax cuts have to be paid for implies that the money is rightfully the property of the government and that they are letting the so-called rich have some back out of their good graces, instead of the other way around.

No, it doesn't.

It's you and him abusing the language to create a non-issue.

This is responding to the so-called 'tax-cutters' who would like to keep 'cutting taxes' and moving the payment to the debt further and further.

The phrase 'pay for the tax cut' means to put a limit to the borrowing.

Note how you completely failed to respond to my point that cutting spending is one way to 'pay for the tax cut', indeed the primary way.

It's about as substantive an issue - based on your negligent misinterpreting a phrase that stirs your outrage - as the 'Obama called Palin a pig' 'scandal'. It's nonsense.

Just stick to the real issues, the issues of spending, taxing, borrowing, and stop creating nonsense over your inability to interpret the phrase in context.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

Bullshit, did you even read the paper?

I was completely indiscriminate in my selection of data. I did not acknowledge the party in power, who was president, or other factors.

I looked only at the tax rates, private and public investment, and its effects on economic growth.

Is this a college paper? If so is this like a 1st year paper? It doesn't sound one bit professional, and what data analysis do you call that? Drawing trendlines in Excel and coming up with a quick conclusion when your data shows wild swings? This is more like an ATOT post with graphs in it. All your sources are lopsided in that they were designed to show what a joke supply side economics is. LoL. What a paper. I mean seriously, look at the numbers the CBO crunches to show. It's at least more partisan and actually draws logical conclusion and uses proper data analysis.

 

[trooper11]

There is obviously a critical mass of how much you can tax someone before they start chaning their economic habits.

This economy is too big to be influenced solely by one factor, wether that is raising or lowering taxes, but that one factor can tip the scales in one direction or another. Alot of it seems to be momentum or a feeling created in the market by steps the government takes. So maybe its not the act itself, but the idea of the act can spur a rally or a fall in the economy.

When there is a public tax cut, I know most people are willing to spend money, resulting in more positive movement of the economy. When taxes go up, people want to hold onto thier money becuase they have less to work with. Rich or poor, that affect is the same, its just that the rich can absorb more in dollars of taxes. Now a flat tax would seem more fair then some sliding scale where we leave it up to the definition of rich by whoever is in office.

To kind of turn this around, I wonder if anyone has done a study to find out if the government cutting spending would benefit the economy more then raising taxes. Of course, government never cuts back, they create programs that lock us all into funding them to where we have no choice but to keep spending. It would be nice to see someone step in with smart ideas for cutting back.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

When will you morons ever wake up to that reality?

Err debt has interest?

Err tax-cuts aren't an outlay?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

Yes, debt is free, the hundreds of billions we pay annually on the interest on our debt rounds down to zero, if you round to the nearest quadrillion.

If you were either more informed or honest - whichever fits - you would also note that speniding cuts are one way to 'pay' for the tax cuts. You're picking a nit.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said...moron. Nowhere did I even suggest debt was free. But you idiots can't even see that SPENDING causes debt. If you don't have the money - don't spend it (outlays). Allowing people to keep more of THEIR money isn't an outlay not matter how you try to spin it.

 

[scruffypup]

So someone does a "paper" with an underlying intent and bias to show taxing the rich is a good thing,... and then has the arrogance to post the biases work on here and proclaim "end of story, it is what I say it is"

Sorry but I give it little credit (the paper and the proclamation) - try to do unbiased work, further analysis than this very short "paper" (which looks about high school level work - but the way our education system is, this is probably average for college level anymore), and you might have a start

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

It's not a nit.

Yes, it is.

The notion that tax cuts have to be paid for implies that the money is rightfully the property of the government and that they are letting the so-called rich have some back out of their good graces, instead of the other way around.

No, it doesn't.

It's you and him abusing the language to create a non-issue.

This is responding to the so-called 'tax-cutters' who would like to keep 'cutting taxes' and moving the payment to the debt further and further.

The phrase 'pay for the tax cut' means to put a limit to the borrowing.

Note how you completely failed to respond to my point that cutting spending is one way to 'pay for the tax cut', indeed the primary way.

It's about as substantive an issue - based on your negligent misinterpreting a phrase that stirs your outrage - as the 'Obama called Palin a pig' 'scandal'. It's nonsense.

Just stick to the real issues, the issues of spending, taxing, borrowing, and stop creating nonsense over your inability to interpret the phrase in context.

I think it is silly that we are arguing since we basically agree on the matter, that it is important for the government to reduce spending. But I still disagree that tax cuts need to be "paid for". Lowering tax rates increases government revenue (to a point, but we are no where near that point).

And the language IS important. Words mean things. Legislators tell their constituents that they can't cut taxes because "paying" for them would require cutting vital services, and thus convince voters that tax cuts are not worth it. This happens all the time, Democrats scare old people into voting for them over Republicans by claiming that tax cuts would endanger their social security payments, for example.

Again, with Obama calling Palin a pig; it's not a big deal in the big scheme of things, but it does show that he is crass in insulting his political rivals. Compare to Bush's "New Tone" crap.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

You should forward your analysis to the Congressional Research Service and other such esteemed groups, because these places staffed with large numbers of extremely intelligent and highly educated economists seem to think that these tax cuts produce very small levels of GDP growth, and that tax cuts financed by debt actually cause long term economic harm.

Maybe they should staff people who are part of the real world - one where tax-cuts aren't "costs". This liberal notion that tax cuts have to be "financed" is utter bullshit. Always has been and always will be. SPENDING is what necessitates financing, debt, etc. Tax-cuts don't "cost" a dime.

When will you morons ever wake up to that reality?

Aren't you the same moron who doesn't like to use financial definitions in finance discussions? Let me guess, they're liberal definitions? :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Evan

So you think tax-cuts are outlays?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy took off.

Reagan cut taxes and the economy took off.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes and we saw a huge increase in capitals being taken and more revenue.

Bush cut taxes and the economy came out of a recession.


I think you can make the argument that lower tax rates do not lead to higher tax revenue. Hard to prove that higher economic activity leads to enough tax increases to offset the lower rates etc etc.

But it certainly seems that every time we lower tax rates we get a period of strong economic growth afterwards. Kennedy and Reagan are the best proof of this.

No, they're not, since you don't understand the data. Even Art Laffer himself wouldn't make the claim that tax cuts created those economic booms. Then again, you claimed the economy wasn't in recession just 3 weeks before the collapse last year. :laugh:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Evan

So you think tax-cuts are outlays?

Do you even understand what you're actually saying? Financing free cash flows a firm pays to or receives from investors (be it lenders or shareholders) in everyday business, is the same concept WRT having to finance tax cuts. This isn't liberal, it's Finance 101. You cut taxes, fine, but you then cut cash flows from gov't projects. I know you hate gov't spending, but the financial definitions behind the argument aren't conservative or liberal, it's either you're right or wrong.