• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If this is why taxes were cut, is it also why they should be raissed?

If this is why taxes were cut, is it also why they should be raised?

  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • OTHER, please explain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ruth Marcus: The shifting line on tax cuts - The Washington Post

"Ruth Marcus: The shifting line on tax cuts"

"Memories are short, which is lucky for politicians. Consider the current debate over letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and the largely forgotten rationale for cutting taxes in the first place.
Hint: It wasn’t because rates were too high. It was because the surplus was too big.

Yes, too big.
President George W. Bush laid out this reasoning in his first address to Congress, in February 2001. “Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree,” he said, vowing to eliminate $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.
Likewise, he said, the nation, like “any prudent family,” should have a “contingency fund” for emergencies. And so, Bush assured the nation, he would set aside another sum, nearly $1 trillion over 10 years."

Does this strike a chord?
Does this refute the "one size fits all" attitude on taxes?
As "Recessions cause deficits, deficits don't cause recesssion," does this pinpoint the start of our recession?
 
I can only conclude that any reference to GWBush and his policies is considered irrelevant. I mean, this heroic president was not even mentioned during our recent election and he did more than just these tax cuts that are matter of current debate. Doesn't the exact history of their origins concern us all? These tax cuts were allegedly instigated to control a surplus generated by that womanizing Billy Clintoon and the cure definitely worked. I mean, the money is gone. Surplus, what surplus. Does this mean the Republican mantra voiced by the illustrious Dick Cheney "deficits don't matter" really works and the Dems are just ignorant?
 
So, he made a statement in February 2001. Less than seven months later, the US was attacked. Could it be that what he talked about in Feb became overshadowed by that event in Sept and that his plans had to change?

Yes, what he said in Feb was indeed made irrelevant in Sept. Imagine that.

What surplus? There was one, yes. But frankly, with the poor state of affairs our military was in following Clinton and after Sept. 11, the need for that military to be up to snuff, what existed in Feb had to go away after Sept.

You want to hold him accountable for changing things after the attacks because he didn't do what he said in Feb, before the attacks? Gee, imagine that, a President inaugurated during relative peace changed what his focus was after his country was attacked.
 
So, he made a statement in February 2001. Less than seven months later, the US was attacked. Could it be that what he talked about in Feb became overshadowed by that event in Sept and that his plans had to change?

Yes, what he said in Feb was indeed made irrelevant in Sept. Imagine that.

What surplus? There was one, yes. But frankly, with the poor state of affairs our military was in following Clinton and after Sept. 11, the need for that military to be up to snuff, what existed in Feb had to go away after Sept.

You want to hold him accountable for changing things after the attacks because he didn't do what he said in Feb, before the attacks? Gee, imagine that, a President inaugurated during relative peace changed what his focus was after his country was attacked.

I'll overlook the one trillion spent on Afghanistan, even though I believe it to have been a huge mistake. That's just three trillion of mispent monies. His administration did inherit the strongest military in the World from Slick Willy Clintoon, and a huge projected surplus.
 
Back
Top Bottom