A War Bush Wouldn't Pay For (1 Viewer)

[aps]

I love E.J. Dionne. He is a great writer, and I loved today's editorial in the Washington Post. He is discussing that while Bush was willing to start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he wasn't willing to pay for them and, instead, allowed the richest Americans to pay less taxes. I thought that during war, all Americans are supposed to make sacrifices? Huh? No, no--just those who aren't in the top 10% of household incomes.

Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration's highest priority. Saving its tax cuts was more important. That was once spoken of as a moral problem. Now it's a practical barrier to a successful outcome.

Until recently President Bush's refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was discussed as the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation's security? On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains. . . .

So here we are: Policymakers and politicians will demand more and more from the volunteers who serve our country, but they can't find the gumption to ask shareholders to pay a bit more tax on their dividends or high earners to pay slightly larger levies on their incomes. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, since 2001 we've offered $2 in tax cuts for every $1 we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And conservatives wonder why we have deficits. At least the libertarians, who are against both high taxes and an interventionist foreign policy, have their philosophical story (and their numbers) straight. . . .

E.J. Dionne Jr. - A War Bush Wouldn't Pay For - washingtonpost.com

It really is stunning how any rational person can think that it's appropriate to cut taxes while engaging in war and asserting that our national security is at risk. Tsk tsk Shame on you, George Bush. How you look at yourself in the mirror every day is beyond me.

 

[stildizzy]

Intresting theory. Just how many poor were killed on 9/11?

 

[aps]

Intresting theory. Just how many poor were killed on 9/11?

What is the point of your question?

 

[stildizzy]

What is the point of your question?

It appears the point of your thread was, once again, to dog GWB, and the top tax payers. 9/11. and the war on terror, has had a bigger impact on the wealthy, than the poor. Try again!

 

[aps]

It appears the point of your thread was, once again, to dog GWB, and the top tax payers. 9/11. and the war on terror, has had a bigger impact on the wealthy, than the poor. Try again!

Oh brother. The point of my thread was to post an article I found interesting and accurate. It is absolutely appalling that our Congress would pass tax cuts when we are in war. Do you agree or disagree with that? And if you disagree with that, tell me why because it doesn't make any sense to me.

Oh, and by the way, I am one of the top tax payers, thank you.

 

[tecoyah]

While it would make sense, to attempt to support the financial burdens created by wartime spending, I am not privy to the politics underlying the decisions on High. From my little podium of obstructed view, it would seem a good Idea to at least try to offset the impeding bill before it comes due, but perhaps there is a hidden bank account we are not seeing.
If this is not the case, we as a country will be in a bit of a quandry quite soon, as our spending becomes more that the economy/world banks, can bear. Likely any increase in taxes will simply have to wait for the next administration, and the fiscal responsibility taken on by whoever steps into this mess, will be seen as a negative on the next administration. Whoever takes the reigns next term is in for a very rough ride, and I do not envy the position. It will be extremely important to elect a Golden Child in 2008.....if indeed, there is one.

 

[stildizzy]

Oh brother. The point of my thread was to post an article I found interesting and accurate. It is absolutely appalling that our Congress would pass tax cuts when we are in war. Do you agree or disagree with that? And if you disagree with that, tell me why because it doesn't make any sense to me.

Oh, and by the way, I am one of the top tax payers, thank you.

You want to stimulate a economy, that was hit hard by 9/11, and how do you do it? Tax cuts for the poor? POOR DON'T PAY TAXES! Tax cuts for the wealthy? THE WEALTHY WILL SPEND, OR INVEST IT.

Ronny gave us tax cuts during the Cold War. The result? THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC BOOM IN HISTORY.

It is fun to throw rocks, but foolish to throw them at history.

 

[tecoyah]

You want to stimulate a economy, that was hit hard by 9/11, and how do you do it? Tax cuts for the poor? POOR DON'T PAY TAXES! Tax cuts for the wealthy? THE WEALTHY WILL SPEND, OR INVEST IT.

I am poor by some standards, though I own a home and was once middle class (no such thing anymore), yet I pay quite a bit in taxes. If by chance, I had more money on hand I would be spending it on my Kids, and helping the economy by doing so....please extrapolate this to the other several million people in my position.
Yet, I do not complain, and in fact would be willing to give a bit more if it meant lessening the impending increases my kids will bare the brunt of. You can try to imply that Bushs' financial Philosophy is beneficial to the U.S economy all you want....but in the reality for Millions of Americans....it is not.

Ronny gave us tax cuts during the Cold War. The result? THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC BOOM IN HISTORY.

Ronald Reagans Tax Policy bore small resemblance to the current Administration.

It is fun to throw rocks, but foolish to throw them at history.

Seems you are throwing yours....dangerously close to the Glass house you are living in.

 

[americanwoman]

You want to stimulate a economy, that was hit hard by 9/11, and how do you do it? Tax cuts for the poor? POOR DON'T PAY TAXES! Tax cuts for the wealthy? THE WEALTHY WILL SPEND, OR INVEST IT.

Oh I guess the weathly are the only ones smart enough to know what to dowith the extra tax money, right? Middle class people like myself would probably just blow it on booze and needless items. :roll:

 

[aps]

You want to stimulate a economy, that was hit hard by 9/11, and how do you do it? Tax cuts for the poor? POOR DON'T PAY TAXES! Tax cuts for the wealthy? THE WEALTHY WILL SPEND, OR INVEST IT.

Ronny gave us tax cuts during the Cold War. The result? THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC BOOM IN HISTORY.

It is fun to throw rocks, but foolish to throw them at history.

Others have responded appropriately to this post. You sound quite immature. Have a nice day.

 

[WI Crippler]

Well its never a case of Americans being taxed to little. Its that the government spends too much.
Cutting taxes, increases revenues to the government. Raising taxes, especially for the rich, means that they are going to put their money in tax deffered shelters until such a time that it is better to pull the money out.
Maybe if we trimmed all the fat off of useless programs the government has money allocated to, we wouldn't need to raise taxes.
The outgoing republican congress was not very well representative of conservative economics. They spent like drunk sailors at a massage parlor with happy endings. Thats not what they are supposed to do.

 

[stildizzy]

Others have responded appropriately to this post. You sound quite immature. Have a nice day.

Hi aps,

It is obvious you are too weak to defend a position, so at that point you result to childish insults. Gee page 1 again of the Liberal Handbook. Who would have thought:bs

 

[aps]

Hi aps,

It is obvious you are too weak to defend a position, so at that point you result to childish insults. Gee page 1 again of the Liberal Handbook. Who would have thought:bs

*yawn* :yawn:

 

[stildizzy]

*yawn* :yawn:

Got to admire a well thought our retort.:2wave: :2wave:

 

[Skip]

Got to admire a well thought our retort.:2wave: :2wave:

I'm guessing that's what this was?

It is obvious you are too weak to defend a position, so at that point you result to childish insults. Gee page 1 again of the Liberal Handbook. Who would have thought

Try again!

 

[WI Crippler]

is this thread ever going to amount to anything other than a bunch of "try agains" and different smiley faces?? How about some discussion people, you are cluttering up my email box with this childish banter. Oh and for the sake of having a smiley

:boom

 

[aps]

is this thread ever going to amount to anything other than a bunch of "try agains" and different smiley faces?? How about some discussion people, you are cluttering up my email box with this childish banter. Oh and for the sake of having a smiley

:boom

LOL I totally agree!

I would like to read what people whink of Dionne's editorial. Do you agree with it? Do you disagree with it? What do you think of cutting taxes when we are spending billions and billions in Iraq?

 

[WI Crippler]

Well its never a case of Americans being taxed to little. Its that the government spends too much.
Cutting taxes, increases revenues to the government. Raising taxes, especially for the rich, means that they are going to put their money in tax deffered shelters until such a time that it is better to pull the money out.
Maybe if we trimmed all the fat off of useless programs the government has money allocated to, we wouldn't need to raise taxes.
The outgoing republican congress was not very well representative of conservative economics. They spent like drunk sailors at a massage parlor with happy endings. Thats not what they are supposed to do.

Here's my reply, again. So I don't agree with her.

Also in addition, I have never heard of her, but she gives praise to libertarians, whom I partly agree with, but if her assertion is that the US needs to remain isolated from world affairs and not get involved, then she is being short sighted IMO.

 

[Skip]

Cutting taxes, increases revenues to the government. Raising taxes, especially for the rich, means that they are going to put their money in tax deffered shelters until such a time that it is better to pull the money out.

Cutting taxes lowers government revenue. Talk about tax shelters as much as you'd like, that is just basic economics there.

And I think that those tax deferred shelters and wasteful government spending should be eliminated too. A moderate rate of taxation would allow the government to fully fund all important social programs and necessary government wings such as the FAA or interstates.

 

[stildizzy]

I'm guessing that's what this was?



Try again!

Can ANY of you Liberals carry a thought? Christ this is like listening to a five year old.:notlook:

 

[WI Crippler]

Cutting taxes lowers government revenue. Talk about tax shelters as much as you'd like, that is just basic economics there.

And I think that those tax deferred shelters and wasteful government spending should be eliminated too. A moderate rate of taxation would allow the government to fully fund all important social programs and necessary government wings such as the FAA or interstates.

The problem with moderate taxation, is that you are going to have to keep raising taxes, because you will need more money to fund more people who are participating in more socialized programs. You raise taxes, you kill the economy. People won't invest, which means less businesses starting, which means less jobs, and more welfare. Socialism will be the death of America if it ever happens. People need to spend/invest the money they make, not give it to the government to spend. I am not the best at balancing my checkbook, but I do quite a bit better than the government does.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I think that the stated purpose of Reaganomics, and the PNAC's economic suggestions, was a very long-term program of involving the U.S. in military adventurism while lowering revenue and increasing spending. This has the effect of transferring wealth upwards and bankrupting the U.S. The hope is that we will get to a point where we must choose between military spending and social programs. If we're currently waging wars, the thinking continues, we will be forced to cut social programs which conservatives consider ultimately immoral. So the Neocon economic agenda is not stupid--quite the contrary, it' s suprisingly well-thought-out and quite cunning. That is, so long as you don't mind being a monster.

Read George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics" for the research.

 

[WI Crippler]

The hope is that we will get to a point where we must choose between military spending and social programs. If we're currently waging wars, the thinking continues, we will be forced to cut social programs which conservatives consider ultimately immoral.

Social programs create a dependent society, rather than an independent society. Thats about as good as I can sum it up. It has nothing to do with being a monster, or morally better than anyone.

 

[stildizzy]

I think that the stated purpose of Reaganomics, and the PNAC's economic suggestions, was a very long-term program of involving the U.S. in military adventurism while lowering revenue and increasing spending.

Reagan ENDED the cold war. If your theory was correct he would have wanted to CONTINUE, not end military spending.

 

[Skip]

Can ANY of you Liberals carry a thought? Christ this is like listening to a five year old.:notlook:

Lol, I was doing the exact same thing that you had been doing. I guess that makes you, by your judgment, a liberal.

But I'm guessing they don't want you.