(03-12-2019, 10:36 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(03-12-2019, 10:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: The idea that you can build a political philosophy around reducing taxes is no older than Ronald Reagan. 
To the critical mind, it begs an obvious question: what if taxes are already too low? How would you know? If you built your political career around telling people that you were going to lower their taxes, when do you stop?
Anyhow, even Grover Norquist would permit that a conservative may raise some taxes while lowering others in an equal or greater amount.
And that's actually what I would propose. More fuel tax, less income tax (bigger standard deduction).

I wasn't talking about lowering taxes, so you changed the subject.

Conservatism in the US is about reducing government spending. Wasting trillions on a chimera is not conservative. Increasing fuel taxes to pay for it is not conservative.

That's not to mention that a fuel tax hits the poor the hardest. Funny how you progressives want to prop up your elitist goals at the expense of the poor.

You said it doesn't involve raising taxes.  
I guessed you meant that it involves lowering them.  
You say I guessed wrong.  I apologize.
Now you say it's about reducing spending.  And you say that I would increase fuel tax to "waste trillions on a chimera".  But I never said I wanted any new federal spending for climate change.  You assume that I do, but I don't.  While there will need to be new investments in seawalls and carbon sequestration and stuff like that in the coming decades, those are mostly going to be made by local governments and private utilities. 
I apologized for misunderstanding you.  Maybe you should do the same.

---