• 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!

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Boo Radley said:
No. That's Kay's personal opinion. I try to focus on fact over opinion:

Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs - CNN

He said at the time that he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US expert slams WMD 'delusions'

Here's his lede:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Iraq, Iran and how the Neocons failed (Part I) | Capital J | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

Kay's expertise is not in political judgments. And it wasn't Kay who use the intel inappropriately. That was the Bush administration.

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq - washingtonpost.com

The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.

Pentagon report condemns misleading Iraq intelligence | World news | guardian.co.uk

These allegations are supported by an annex to the first part of Senate Intelligence Committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP, if connected to an "Iraqi intelligence cell" also headed by Douglas Feith which is described in the annex, sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. In one instance, in response to a cautious CIA report, "Iraq and al-Qa'eda: A Murky Relationship", the annex relates that "one of the individuals working for the [intelligence cell led by Feith] stated that the June [2002] report, '...should be read for content only - and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored.'"[5]

Office of Special Plans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I know this is really hard for you to understand, but there were people on both sides that supported the war and it was Democrats that allowed the vote to proceed then supported the resolution. I can post quote after quote and you can counter with other negative quotes but none serve any purpose today.

You can continue to play this out over and over again but here we are almost 8 years after that resolution passed and you are still reliving the reasons to go to war. that does nothing but divert from what we have in the WH right now and the direction this country is headed. Obama record speaks for itself and it is that record that is on display. The choice is clear, continue on the course of massive spending, massive expansion of the govt. and unsustainable debt or we can reverse course and repeal some of that spending. We can cut taxes to spur economic growth and create jobs or we can continue to whine about the past 8 years and make things worse. It is obvious to me what your choice is.
 
Our tax rates are lower now than the last 50 or 60 years, and the economy sucks. How will making them lower change that?
The current mess needs JOBS, not tax cuts....
 
UtahBill said:
Our tax rates are lower now than the last 50 or 60 years, and the economy sucks. How will making them lower change that?
The current mess needs JOBS, not tax cuts....
Click to expand...

Making them lower gives the American people more spending money to offset the cost of the Obama agenda. I have no problem with anyone including you keeping more of what you earn. My question to you is why are "progressives" so passionate about NOT allowing the taxpayer to keep more of their own money? That is the question that no one wants to answer.
 
Conservative said:
Making them lower gives the American people more spending money to offset the cost of the Obama agenda. I have no problem with anyone including you keeping more of what you earn. My question to you is why are "progressives" so passionate about NOT allowing the taxpayer to keep more of their own money? That is the question that no one wants to answer.
Click to expand...


So we should just go to 0 taxes, LOL
 
Conservative said:
I know this is really hard for you to understand, but there were people on both sides that supported the war and it was Democrats that allowed the vote to proceed then supported the resolution. I can post quote after quote and you can counter with other negative quotes but none serve any purpose today.

You can continue to play this out over and over again but here we are almost 8 years after that resolution passed and you are still reliving the reasons to go to war. that does nothing but divert from what we have in the WH right now and the direction this country is headed. Obama record speaks for itself and it is that record that is on display. The choice is clear, continue on the course of massive spending, massive expansion of the govt. and unsustainable debt or we can reverse course and repeal some of that spending. We can cut taxes to spur economic growth and create jobs or we can continue to whine about the past 8 years and make things worse. It is obvious to me what your choice is.
Click to expand...

The resolution was for Bush to make the decision and not a declaration of war. Passng the buck is not really a courageous act IMHO. That said, when you quote, provide the context (as snoopes does), and note that Kerry, for example, stated clearly in hsi vote that if the president went ahead without the UN, as Saddam did not reach that level of threat, he would oppose the president.
 
Conservative said:
Making them lower gives the American people more spending money to offset the cost of the Obama agenda. I have no problem with anyone including you keeping more of what you earn. My question to you is why are "progressives" so passionate about NOT allowing the taxpayer to keep more of their own money? That is the question that no one wants to answer.
Click to expand...

Keep beating that dead horse, you'll never get to ride it.
The question might be why do conservatives think that paying less taxes is always the only correct answer. There are plenty of people and corporations today with lots of cash on hand, and they aren't spending it. IMO, govt needs to spend less of our taxes, but at the same time incentivize those who have money to spend it.....
 
UtahBill said:
Keep beating that dead horse, you'll never get to ride it.
The question might be why do conservatives think that paying less taxes is always the only correct answer. There are plenty of people and corporations today with lots of cash on hand, and they aren't spending it. IMO, govt needs to spend less of our taxes, but at the same time incentivize those who have money to spend it.....
Click to expand...

Because paying less taxes plays into the role of a a small Central govt. As long as Obama is in power those with money aren't going to spent it. How about answering the question, why do progressives have such passion for higher taxes?
 
Conservative said:
Are you ever going to answer the question? Why are "progressives" so passionate about higher taxes?
Click to expand...

higher than when? letting the Bush cuts expire for the rich isn't going to damage the economy, and if we can get more people back to work, tax revenue should go up....


The economy seems to be doing better than it was, if traffic around the malls in Phoenix is any indication. This Christmas season should tell us something.
 
Boo Radley said:
The resolution was for Bush to make the decision and not a declaration of war. Passng the buck is not really a courageous act IMHO. That said, when you quote, provide the context (as snoopes does), and note that Kerry, for example, stated clearly in hsi vote that if the president went ahead without the UN, as Saddam did not reach that level of threat, he would oppose the president.
Click to expand...

The War in Iraq happened, what does any of that have to do with what is going on right now?
 
UtahBill said:
higher than when? letting the Bush cuts expire for the rich isn't going to damage the economy, and if we can get more people back to work, tax revenue should go up....


The economy seems to be doing better than it was, if traffic around the malls in Phoenix is any indication. This Christmas season should tell us something.
Click to expand...

What exactly is allowing the tax cuts on the wealthy going to do? All raising taxes on the rich is going to do is force the rich to change their behavior. Some will pay it, some will move to more friendly tax states and take their business with them just like Caterpillar did with a divison that just moved to TX from Illinois. What affect does that have on state tax revenue?

Progressives promoting raising taxes on anyone speaks volumes and that is the question, why? Is there any evidence that you can show that tax increases positively impact deficit reduction and put people back to work?
 
Conservative said:
What exactly is allowing the tax cuts on the wealthy going to do? All raising taxes on the rich is going to do is force the rich to change their behavior. Some will pay it, some will move to more friendly tax states and take their business with them just like Caterpillar did with a divison that just moved to TX from Illinois. What affect does that have on state tax revenue?
Click to expand...


I dunna know since Texas is about 25 billion in the hole right now.
 
winston53660 said:
I dunna know since Texas is about 25 billion in the hole right now.
Click to expand...

And how do you know that? Stop buying what you are told and wait for the facts. We have a part time legislature here and won't know about the deficit if there is one until next year.
 
Conservative said:
The War in Iraq happened, what does any of that have to do with what is going on right now?
Click to expand...

Thank you! Why can't liberals get over the war? We ended our combat mission there several months ago. It has noting to do with our economy and politics now, get over it. And regardless, Iraq is much better off than it was before we went in there. And don't give me that typical lib rhetoric about how it used our "tax dollars". Nope, try again. We borrowed the money so you can't use that one either.
 
McCain2012 said:
Thank you! Why can't liberals get over the war? We ended our combat mission there several months ago. It has noting to do with our economy and politics now, get over it. And regardless, Iraq is much better off than it was before we went in there. And don't give me that typical lib rhetoric about how it used our "tax dollars". Nope, try again. We borrowed the money so you can't use that one either.
Click to expand...

Do I note a little sarcasm here? There there is McCain 2012 with an alias November 2010?
 
McCain2012 said:
Thank you! Why can't liberals get over the war? We ended our combat mission there several months ago. It has noting to do with our economy and politics now, get over it. And regardless, Iraq is much better off than it was before we went in there. And don't give me that typical lib rhetoric about how it used our "tax dollars". Nope, try again. We borrowed the money so you can't use that one either.
Click to expand...


You do realize borrowed money has to be paid back with interest.
 
Conservative said:
Unless of course it is Obama spending, 3 trillion added to the debt was of course necessary spending, right?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what liberals don't understand. The difference between necessary spending and fiscal irresponsibility. The Iraq war was necessary to free the Iraqi people who were under the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Dems, instead spend money on Medicaid and housing services for poor Americans who should be self reliant instead of relying on my tax dollars to improve their lives.

And BTW, sarcasm? I mean everything I say. After reading through post on this forum it looks like sarcasm is a liberal tactic when they are confronted with opposing facts. I joined recently because I'm trying to get a feel for how the elections are going to turn out.
 
McCain2012 said:
Yep, that's what liberals don't understand. The difference between necessary spending and fiscal irresponsibility. The Iraq war was necessary to free the Iraqi people who were under the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Dems, instead spend money on Medicaid and housing services for poor Americans who should be self reliant instead of relying on my tax dollars to improve their lives.

And BTW, sarcasm? I mean everything I say. After reading through post on this forum it looks like sarcasm is a liberal tactic when they are confronted with opposing facts. I joined recently because I'm trying to get a feel for how the elections are going to turn out.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but a war of choice, not of need, doesn't add up to neccessary spending. And just so you know, you post would work real well as sarcasm. ;)
 
McCain2012 said:
Yep, that's what liberals don't understand. The difference between necessary spending and fiscal irresponsibility. The Iraq war was necessary to free the Iraqi people who were under the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Dems, instead spend money on Medicaid and housing services for poor Americans who should be self reliant instead of relying on my tax dollars to improve their lives.

And BTW, sarcasm? I mean everything I say. After reading through post on this forum it looks like sarcasm is a liberal tactic when they are confronted with opposing facts. I joined recently because I'm trying to get a feel for how the elections are going to turn out.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of basic problems with your post, there were many reasons for going into Iraq including the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and then 22 reasons listed in the Iraq Resolution of October 2002 that was passed 76-23 by a Democrat controlled Senate.

As for Medicaid that is a state funded program, not a Federally funded program, that would me Medicare and that is funded by deductions in your paycheck. It isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to provide housing in local communities, that is a state, local, and personal responsibility. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from using your money to help those truly in need if only allowed to keep more of it and instead of forced spending of which most go to the Administrative costs of the Federal Govt.

What liberals/progressives have a problem with is the "will of the people" to keep more of their own money and the passion they have for picking the winners and losers. All that so called compassionate rhetoric that has done nothing but create dependence and that is what continues to drive progressives today, the desire for power.
 
Boo Radley said:
Excuse me, but a war of choice, not of need, doesn't add up to neccessary spending. And just so you know, you post would work real well as sarcasm. ;)
Click to expand...

Huge? By whose standards? The Iraq war cost according to the Treasury around 700 billion dollars in almost 8 years. On a yearly basis that would be about 100 billion a year. The last two years we had over trillion dollar deficits so 100 billion is 10% of the trillion dollar deficits and 700 billion of a 13.5 trillion debt isn't what you think it is. 9/11 cost more than the cost of the 8 year Iraq War
 
Conservative said:
Huge? By whose standards? The Iraq war cost according to the Treasury around 700 billion dollars in almost 8 years. On a yearly basis that would be about 100 billion a year. The last two years we had over trillion dollar deficits so 100 billion is 10% of the trillion dollar deficits and 700 billion of a 13.5 trillion debt isn't what you think it is. 9/11 cost more than the cost of the 8 year Iraq War
Click to expand...

Well, then we can throw money away for nothing at will then.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom