I got in argument with someone on a forum who basically said that anyone who espouses any sort of a conservative view is a moron and not worth debating. Which I guess means the only people you should debate are the ones you agree with, but that makes for a pretty boring debate. Anyway, here's where our major difference is.

I think that lowering taxes will help everyone in society, rich or poor. The rich by giving them more incentive to make to expand their businesses because they can keep more of the money they earn. It's natural that someone will work harder for profits if they get 80% than if they only get 50%. And good for the poor because all that expansion the rich are doing requires labor, and that means more jobs for poor people to work in and, with smart money management, perhaps they will no longer be poor. A leftist, on the other hand, thinks that lower taxes means you are directly taking money from poor people to give it to the rich, and that anyone who wants lower taxes is a selfish greedy bastard and couldn't possibly have any good intentions. I'm open for debate. Show me proof that supply-side economics is wrong, and I will be willing to change my mind if I'm convinced. The average leftist, online at any rate, refuses to hear anything that might shatter their beliefs. I saw a discussion about the dueling Wal-Mart documentaries, and one guy said he only wanted to see the anti-WalMart one, that the balanced one had to be full of lies because there is nothing but evil at Wal-Mart. That is the sort of attitude that pervades the far left, and the far left drives the Democratic Party, seeing as Howard Dean is about as far left as it gets most of the time, with all his conspiracy theories and telling the world that we don't have a chance to succeed in Iraq.