• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The Big Question Democrats Are Ducking

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Last time I checked, Iraq was over 10,000 miles away. Not really next door is it?
Ah, the straw man comparison.

Last I knew Manson didn't possess the wherewithal or the want to acquire and use nuclear and biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction.
The only strawman here is the question in question when the real question that isn't being asked is "Where's bin Laden?"
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: her209
Regardless of which Democrats/Republican supported the invasion, Bush cannot blame the Democrats for the poor handling of the war in Iraq.
Very true. But you?ve heard the saying, if you aren't part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

It would help if the Democrats spent more time working on trying to find solution to solve the Iraq problem. Instead they would rather just attack Bush for his failures in winning the war.
It is FAR easier to complain about someone else?s failure than to try to come up with a solution of your own. Right now it is about politics more than it is about winning.

So far I haven't seen much in the way of solutions to this problem, besides the bring them home now approach, which no reasonable person seems to support.

Luckily after the election Bush becomes a true lame duck and will no longer have to worry about winning elections and hopefully will be willing to give the country the bad news about Iraq and a new plan to solve the problem. Americans have a great capacity to forgive, look at Clinton and what happened with him and his lies, if Bush goes on TV in November or December and gives some speech that says "we have evaluated the situation in Iraq and have determined that it will take another 40,000 troops in order to secure Baghdad" etc etc etc most Americans will rally around him. He just needs to get out there and state it clearly to the American people. Getting some Democrats on board would be a good idea as well. Have an Iraq summit with leaders from both parties and talk about real solutions and see if any thing can be agreed upon.

Here is a nice quote from one of smilins sources, pretty much sums up the problem.
The course we have adopted in Iraq so far is not working particularly well and it could fail altogether. To date, most of the changes offered by both sides of the political aisle amount to little more than tinkering with the current strategy. But if we're going to succeed in stabilizing Iraq and defeating its insurgency, we are going to have to make a radical shift to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy, even though it could be politically very painful. No matter what one thinks of the invasion, it is clearly in our best interest, to say nothing of the Arab world's, that we succeed in Iraq. To do so, we will have to apply some lessons we learned from bitter history.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So far I haven't seen much in the way of solutions to this problem, besides the bring them home now approach, which no reasonable person seems to support.
How can you have a solution when the only viable solutions you have are:
1. Put in more troops
2. Pull the troops out
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: her209
The only strawman here is the question in question when the real question that isn't being asked is "Where's bin Laden?"
Sorry but that question is no longer valid, nice try though. here :cookie:

1. No one believes that Osama has any real power, he is just a figure head.

2. As the NIE shows Iraq has become a critical part of the war on terror. We can catch Osama tomorrow and the Iraq problem will still be there the next day.

3. Remember all the "where is Saddam" questions? Well we caught him and has it made much difference? Sadly no.

Catching Osama would be nice, but it will have little to no effect on Iraq.

BTW: your statement is a logical fallacy known as Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; "elenchi" is from the Greek ??e????, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.- from Wiki (also called a red herring)
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
2. As the NIE shows Iraq has become a critical part of the war on terror. We can catch Osama tomorrow and the Iraq problem will still be there the next day.
Actually, the NIE confirms what some of us have said for a long time. Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. Just as Bush has said, and had been denied by the liberals for some time. That's also why they're becoming silent as more and more people see the contents of the report and begin to understand it.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Reality check for the right-wingers:

The most recent poll of Iraqis shows that 80% say more violence is caused than prevented by US forces. If the right wants to argue that the US forces are keeping violence from exploding, they should address why the Iraqis disagree so much.

So, are the Iraqis just a bunch of Al Queda supporters? No, the same poll shows they are very opposed to him. They're at least supporters of the regime in Iran, though, with the Shiite majority in Iraq, right? No, 56% disapprove of Iran's elected leader.

About 75% think the US plans permanent military bases in their country, rather than getting out after liberating them from Saddam.

Whatever else the 'solution to Iraq', I'd like to see no military bases there, to at least send that message.

Poll
"The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Sunni's LoL I think that is pretty good for Sunni's considering they are one of 3 major aggressors there the others being AL Queda and Misc. foreign Jihadists.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
What is very true is that GWB should not have invaded Iraq in the first place---anyone with a half a brain in their head realised Saddam posed no threat to the US.
And now I am supposed to support bailing GWB out of the jam he got himself into---I will not rally around GWB---hell has not frozen over yet.

But Bush will never be honest with the American people---or admit failure---he just goes on from one blunder to another---but Iraq is perhaps the greatest blunder in American history.

But the new plan Prof John is talking about is now three years overdue---who can think he will suddenly come up with a plan now----and he had some dems aboard.
Look what happened to Lieberman in the primary---but Biden and Hillary were pro-war also.---but now its time for all---on both sides of the partisan devide to come together and admit they followed an incompetent idiot who knowingly exagerated intelligence.---and given that if your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem exactly applies to GWB---who caused the problem and can't solve it. Or to put it another way---GWB is the problem.

But the greatest cost is in American credability abroad---which is in the toilet now.

But Prof. John is right about one thing -----GWB owes America and the world a big apology---and then should logically follow that up with a resignation. No one believes GWB anymore.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
"...Last I knew Manson didn't possess the wherewithal or the want to acquire and use nuclear and biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction."
Noted. And of course neither did Saddam, according to all the reports, investigations, searches, paperwork, witnesses, interviews, physical evidence, etc.

Iraq is a complete failure with no solution.



 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
The only strawman here is the question in question when the real question that isn't being asked is "Where's bin Laden?"
Sorry but that question is no longer valid, nice try though. here :cookie:
The families who lost loved ones would beg to differ with you.
1. No one believes that Osama has any real power, he is just a figure head.
See above.
2. As the NIE shows Iraq has become a critical part of the war on terror. We can catch Osama tomorrow and the Iraq problem will still be there the next day.
And therefore we should stop looking for him?
3. Remember all the "where is Saddam" questions? Well we caught him and has it made much difference? Sadly no.
Didn't stop the Republicans from claiming a "major" victory in the WoT.
Catching Osama would be nice, but it will have little to no effect on Iraq.
On Iraq itself, no. On the WoT, it would have a large effect on the terrorists that were inspired by his actions.
BTW: your statement is a logical fallacy known as Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; "elenchi" is from the Greek ??e????, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.- from Wiki (also called a red herring)
Your original question of "What solutions have the Democrats provided to the situation in Iraq" is a fallacy of many questions, ie, a loaded question. As I stated above, the question has two viable solutions, require more troops or withdraw the troops. The Republicans equate that withdrawl of troops is admitting defeat while at the same time calling any solution provided nothing different that what is already being done.

You then commit another fallacy in your conclusion on the Democrats.

You stated that Iraq is central to the WoT. You then state that Democrats cannot come up with a resolution to Iraq. You then conclude that Democrats cannot effectively fight the WoT.

Therefore, your original question is a strawman, a red herring. :cookie:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I am not so pessamistic as to believe that Iraq is now a problem with no solution---but its certainly complex---with at least three major groups who have little use for each other---even though the country was pieced together by the British---its now aquired a national identity---and its people proudly defended it in the past.

While Saddam may have supported some terrorists----Iraq was never a terrorist State--and Saddam was a classic police State dictator---who never would tolerate independent minded terrorist in his country---but Iraq is now one hot bed of terrorists---and no question about it---these terrorists are causing mostly Iraqi civilian deaths---that are now running 6000+ per month.---as the terrorists ally themselves with Shite death squads to kill their fellow Sunni's--but the ends justify the means
and that carnage alone may drive Iraq into full blown civil war at any time.---and now I see some evidence that the terrorists are now exporting their love to the Kurds
in an effort to forment mass civilian killing there also.

Its clearly time to get the rest of the world aboard before the mid-east blows sky high---thats the only realistic plan I see now---but to do that---the US must reliquish command and control of Iraq.---a similar plan worked in the former Yugoslavia put together by Bill Clinton--who at least learned something from his brainfart in Smolia.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
2. As the NIE shows Iraq has become a critical part of the war on terror. We can catch Osama tomorrow and the Iraq problem will still be there the next day.
Actually, the NIE confirms what some of us have said for a long time. Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. Just as Bush has said, and had been denied by the liberals for some time. That's also why they're becoming silent as more and more people see the contents of the report and begin to understand it.
People against the war in Iraq have said that Iraq has created more terrorists than killed. Iraq was not central to the WoT until after the invasion and the subsequent mishandling.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
82
91
it seems almost pointless for the democrats to focus their energy on the Iraq problems right now... they're in the minority. they couldn't get a lunch order passed through congress. anything they came up with would just get voted down on partisan lines.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
The reason you hear republicans say so much that the democrats aren't offering a solution - despite as I and others have noted they are not interested in any solution the democrats give - is that they have so utterly run out of any defense of their screwups that the only thing they can do is to try to attack democrats.

Democrats will bring change - and that change includes a return to representing the broader public much more rather than the few ultra wealthy, and the hodge podge coalition of the easily confusable that they manipulate into supporting the party.

Actually, the NIE confirms what some of us have said for a long time. Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. Just as Bush has said, and had been denied by the liberals for some time. That's also why they're becoming silent as more and more people see the contents of the report and begin to understand it.
Iraq had virtually nothing to do with terrorism before Bush's invasion - Bush has made it the hot spot of terrorism by giving them plenty of targets. I'm sure the Iraqis thank him. Oh, that's right, 60% say that the attacks on US forces are justified. Cheney 'welcomed as liberators', has there been a more idiotic VP statement in decades?

And more torture going on than under Saddam - go, Bush. Go right wing. The right wing is too much a cult to break out of their ideology, but at some point the American people will elect democrats again, and the right can start to say 'oops', as most did with the 'roaring 20's' and Nixon.

"The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Sunni's LoL I think that is pretty good for Sunni's considering they are one of 3 major aggressors there the others being AL Queda and Misc. foreign Jihadists.
Why do so many right wingers just get the basic facts wrong? The facts should be accurate so we can discuss the different opinions, we should't have to spend our posts saying "no, Al Gore did NOT say he personally invented the internet" and "yes, Al Gore did wing the official popular vote" type corrections so much.

The poll surveyed 1150 Iraqis from all three major groups, not only the 150 Sunnis you mentioned with your selective quote.

And even then, you fail to note that the Shiites are doing plenty of terrorism, too, as one of the main groups.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
lower rates= more revenue.
John, can you stop with the nonsense?

Let me say this and ask you to tatoo it (metaphorically) somewhere you can remember it from now on:

lower rates = more revenue *down to a certain point*, after which lower rates = *less* revenue.

Let me give you the simplest proof you can ask for:

Let's start the rate at 100%. Every penny you earn goes to the government, so no one bothers, revenue = practically zero. Lowering the rate lets them keep some, and so they generate more revenue.

Now, let's put the rate at zero. Even with almost infinite GDP, zero times GDP = 0 revenue. So increasing the rate above 0 increases revenue.

So, to review, lowering the rate from 100 increases revenue, and increasing the rate from 0 increases the revenew. The question is where between 100 and 0 you generate the best balnce of GDP and revenue.

But wherever that point is, and that's the debate, you know that it's not true as an unqualified rule that lower tax rates = more revenue - you know that's only partiallly true, down to a certain point.

So, let's never see you again make the statement without qualification, and try to mislead. Whenever you want to argue that a lower rate will increase revenues, you need to add more to support your argument.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
We went into Iraq AFTER it was clear that they did not posess weapons of mass destruction...
Actually, we went into Iraq while it was unconfirmed whether they possesed the WMD. The inspectors under Hans Blix had found no evidence by February 2003, and reported that the Iraqis were providing sufficient cooperation that no action was needed against them, and said they'd finish the inspections within three months.

Because the Bush administration could not afford their justification for war to be destroyed in those three months, they announced they had to attack immediately to protect American from the imminent threat of attack from Iraq - if they waited three months, the first warning might be a mushroom cloud, or cropdusters with WMD on our soil.
Q F T !
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Smilin
3. Get rid of the stupid tax cut. What jackass does a tax cut in wartime? Sorry folks you wanted war and war costs money. Stop putting it on the credit card for your kids to pay. Put a warbonds project back in place for those that really support the war (and not just give it lipservice).
Educate yourself a little bit on Tax cuts and revenue growth.
Here is a nice chart to make it easy:
Federal Revenue Rising
Since the May 2003 tax cuts the revenue into the Federal government has gone up up up and for FY 2005 was the highest level in Federal history.
2003 $1.8 Trillion in Revenue
2005 $2.15 Trillion in Revenue

And revenue is still going up.
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
One more great chart for you...
Higher Tax Rates, Lower Revenue
This one shows that in 1996 after the Clinton tax increase the amount of tax revenue as a % of GDP was actually smaller than in 1989, when the tax rates were smaller!!! lower rates= more revenue.
ROFL OMFG dude I can't believe you are defending that tired junk. Look, this is the only response you are going to get on this crap because it's entirely too tiresome to go dragging up the endless proof of what a ridiculous idea this is:

1. Your chart Higher Tax Rates, Lower Revenue taken from conservative thinktank website only shows the top bracket tax rate, not the other remaining brackets. It?s useless and biased.

2. Your other chart Federal Revenue Rising which reads like a Bush campaign poster was taken from the official treasury report which was found to be so badly fudged that it was off by an entire year?s worth of federal spending!!!!!!!!! ...

?The audited financial statement ? prepared by the Treasury Department ? reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA TODAY analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion. The difference is equal to an entire year's worth of federal spending.?

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060803/1a_coverart03.art_dom.htm
and quoted by your buddies at heritage:
http://policy.heritageblogs.org/2006/08/how_about_sox_audits_for_washi.html


Further more, both of your sources provide no proof that Bush?s taxcuts increased tax revenue (re-read that last bold part again 3x and see if a common sense rock drops on your head from space). They simply show an increase in revenue that correlates with a change in tax policy. It just so happened I was scratching my nuts at that exact time but it doesn?t mean my relieved itch made the government any money. Since you have asked me to educate myself on tax cuts and revenue growth I?ll now ask you to educate yourself on Correlation and Causation

This whole concept of a tax cut in time of war is INSULTING. I do NOT want my children and grandchildren paying for this crap because my president and legislators didn?t have the balls to face the voters and tell the truth. You know why we are not still paying for WWII today??? Increased taxes and THIS. Just imagine if the last part of that said ?can?t you at least give me a tax cut?.

I?ll CLOSE this retardedness with the two famous words that Bush?s own Dad used to describe this: "He condemned as ?voodoo economics? Reagan's campaign promise to increase military spending and cut taxes while balancing the budget. This would supposedly be possible because cutting taxes would cause the economy to grow and a growing economy would generate additional revenue."

source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571000/George_H_W_Bush.html



Please, please, please do not bring up this dumbness again. All these links and quotes are tiresome and all anyone has to do to counter the argument is say, "Ok, wiseguy why are we going further in debt every year???"

 

Oblivionaire

Senior member
Jul 29, 2006
253
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Republicans have offered no solutions, why all the hating on the Dems for having no solutions?
They need someone to blame? They take office, with the promise that they have the right strategy and the gonads to do what needs to be done, all the while calling the Dems weak. But then when it looks like failure is emminent they whine, "but you didn't offer us any solutions dems!"
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Smilin...
While your USA Today link is nice and informative, it is also irrelevant because it has nothing to do with tax policy and revenue, all it shows is that the government is using bad accounting methods.
What is important is that the method that is used in any measure of taxes and revenue use consistent methods from year to year. If I followed the "audited" figures my point would still be the same. Since the May 2003 tax cuts revenue has gone UP dramatically.

And you are incorrect in saying "website only shows the top bracket tax rate" the chart shows the tax rate charge to the top bracket, but the revenue figures are for TOTAL revenue collected by the treasury.

And nice of you to ignore the fact that right now revenue is at an ALL time high, and this is after tax cuts. Bush cut taxes and the amount of money coming in is higher than it has ever been.

Obviously we are not going to agree on this topic.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
John, why no response to my post to you asking you to once and for all accept that the 'lower rates = higher revenue' is NOT true for all rates, and has to be qualified that it's true only to some point, below which it is false?

As for your high revenues now claim - it's meaningless when we're borrowing, because we're spending even more than that 'increased revenue'. What gooed does it do for the country to see an extra $100 billion revenue, if it borrows an extra $250 to stimulate the $100 billion?

The fact is that the prosperity is a fantasy - the debt is the fact, just like someone who borrows on their credit card to buy nice things. Voters are too foolish to distinguish in their voting between leaders who generate real prosperity and those who borrow for fantasy prosperity; as long as there's money in their pocket, they elect the guy.

So the republicans borrow a fortune, put part in their donors' pockets and part to feed the public, and get re-elected that way, while destroying the nation's fiscal health.

Scumbags and fools.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
For smilin:
Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore, "A tax cut: The perfect wartime boost," Wall Street Journal p. A10 (April 8, 2003).
"The U.S. Senate recently halved President George W. Bush's tax cut, supposedly to offset the cost of the war in Iraq. Though this dollar-for-dollar accounting mentality has a crude appeal, it's wrong nonetheless. The U.S. needs this bill passed for its short-term and its long-term effects, and it can afford it. [...] Because of the rapid growth of the Clinton '90s and the reduction in spending and budget surpluses during President Clinton's tenure in office, the U.S. has a degree of fiscal flexibility as never before. Assuming 5% nominal GDP growth per year, the U.S. would have to run deficits of $500 billion per year for the next 10 years just to reach the level of debt relative to GDP that we had in 1993. While we're not suggesting that that would be the "right thing to do," what we are suggesting is that the idea of excessive federal debt is not the appropriate consideration to keep the president and Congress from doing what's right."
and yet more "lower taxes = more revenue" facts
January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBO?s Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now let?s move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO?s Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now let?s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You?ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let?s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.
Finally
Using the same kind of analysis, we can see that attempts to raise tax revenues by raising tax rates simply doesn?t work. Consider the massive increase in personal income-tax rates imposed by President Clinton and a Democratic Congress in 1993. Compare actual total tax revenues for the four years from 1993 to 1996 to what had been estimated by CBO in 1992 before the tax hikes took effect. Despite increasing the top tax rate on incomes by 16 percent to 28 percent, actual revenues only beat the 1992 estimate by less than 1 percent.

So what led to the gusher of tax revenues in the late 1990s that helped to put the federal budget into surplus? Simple: It was the capital-gains tax cut engineered by a Republican Congress in 1997. Compare actual total tax revenues for the three years from 1997 to 1999 to what had been previously estimated by CBO in January 1997. Despite cutting the capital-gains tax rate by 28 percent, actual total revenues beat the 1997 estimate by more than 11 percent.
Get it yet?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
John, why no response to my post to you asking you to once and for all accept that the 'lower rates = higher revenue' is NOT true for all rates, and has to be qualified that it's true only to some point, below which it is false?

As for your high revenues now claim - it's meaningless when we're borrowing, because we're spending even more than that 'increased revenue'. What gooed does it do for the country to see an extra $100 billion revenue, if it borrows an extra $250 to stimulate the $100 billion?

The fact is that the prosperity is a fantasy - the debt is the fact, just like someone who borrows on their credit card to buy nice things. Voters are too foolish to distinguish in their voting between leaders who generate real prosperity and those who borrow for fantasy prosperity; as long as there's money in their pocket, they elect the guy.

So the republicans borrow a fortune, put part in their donors' pockets and part to feed the public, and get re-elected that way, while destroying the nation's fiscal health.

Scumbags and fools.
Craig you are right that there is a point where further tax cutes will no longer equal more revenue, but we have no clue where that point is, and by all evidence I have seen we have yet to reach that point.

And as bad as our deficit is it is not bad when compared to GDP. We are well below the 1980s peaks and WAY WAY below the 30% of GDP deficits we ran during World War 2.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
And nice of you to ignore the fact that right now revenue is at an ALL time high, and this is after tax cuts. Bush cut taxes and the amount of money coming in is higher than it has ever been.

Obviously we are not going to agree on this topic.
More misdirection, I'm afraid. The FACT is that federal tax revenues increase virtually every year, and have consistently done so for at least the last 50 years. Even ignoring inflation, tax revenue is at an "ALL time high" almost every year, after tax cuts, after tax increases, after taxes are left unchanged. Why? Because the American economy keeps growing. The inevitable, obvious result is that tax revenues rise by default, interrupted only by major economic downturns (or extraordinarily incompetent tax policies).

The only meaningful question is how much did tax revenues increase compared to the increase we would have seen under different rates or policies? Unfortunately, that falls out of the realm of solid science and into the realm of partisan speculation. Just bear in mind, when someone spouts Pollyanna claims about how good tax cuts are for increasing federal revenue, he's speaking as a true believer, not as an objective observer.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
And as bad as our deficit is it is not bad when compared to GDP. We are well below the 1980s peaks and WAY WAY below the 30% of GDP deficits we ran during World War 2
John,why don't you try answering the point I made - your response that it's not the all-time peak deficit has nothing to do with the argument that the deficit spending of both Bush 43 and Reagan/Bush 41 are wrong.

That's like responding to an argument that the laws are too lax on pollution because a million people died from it last year with a post that in the 80's, 1.1 million died, so it's ok.

I'll repeat the argument so you can try again - and the argument applies both to the second worst deficit spending in our history, if your GDP-based argument is accepted, under Bush 43 and to the Reagan/Bush 41 deficit spending:

As for your high revenues now claim - it's meaningless when we're borrowing, because we're spending even more than that 'increased revenue'. What gooed does it do for the country to see an extra $100 billion revenue, if it borrows an extra $250 to stimulate the $100 billion?

The fact is that the prosperity is a fantasy - the debt is the fact, just like someone who borrows on their credit card to buy nice things. Voters are too foolish to distinguish in their voting between leaders who generate real prosperity and those who borrow for fantasy prosperity; as long as there's money in their pocket, they elect the guy.

So the republicans borrow a fortune, put part in their donors' pockets and part to feed the public, and get re-elected that way, while destroying the nation's fiscal health.
And do you really want to try to argue that the situation on debt during WWII is comparable to today, when only a third of the Bush debt that has put the nation on the road to fiscal ruin has anything to do with war or 'homeland security'?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
First of all---we must realise that the Iraq occupation is just the brainfart of a very small group of
Bush Administration insiders.---The list is fairly short---people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz,
Rice, Libby, and W himself.-----and these people still don't understand what their vision of democracy means for the Iraqi man on the street.---or for US troops sent to enforce their vision.

So they really need to be sent to Iraq---and engage in real fact finding missions.---instead of the phony missions they engage in.---and can be divided into two groups.

One group can go out in unarmored humvees to hunt for IED's---when they find some it will save US troops from blundering across the same.

We can drop the other group off after dark in various Bagdad neighborhoods so they can experience the deathsquads.


Then we may be left with a Washington leadership that understands---and we can start making some progress in Iraq.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY