View Poll Results: If this is why taxes were cut, is it also why they should be raised?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    5 71.43%
  • NO

    1 14.29%
  • OTHER, please explain

    1 14.29%
Results 1 to 4 of 4

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

  1. #1
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,305

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

    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?

  2. #2
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,305

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

    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?

  3. #3
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

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

    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.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #4
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,305

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •