POLL: If It Came Down To Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson, Who Would You Vote For? (9/11, votes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it happened in the 40's, 50's, 70's, and 90's too, and it will continue to happen into the future unless the economy collapses. If you can somehow prove that the tax cuts made revenues grow faster after they were made then you'll have an argument.
Well, except that tax cuts in 1981 would effect 1982s balance sheet, no?? So it looks like revenues actually DEcreased after the initial tax cut. In fact, it looks like it took 5 years before tax revenues surpassed 1981's total which could easily be attributed to the MASSIVE economic growth of the 1980s.
Either way, that isn't my point at ALL. That's why I said I DON'T CARE. Yes, we need to lower spending as well, but getting a Dem controlled congress to axe unnecessary social programs is a difficult task.
IOW, I don't give a frog's fat arse how we increase tax revenue, but we need to in a MAJOR way without adding another dime in spending (and cutting stuff if it were possible) with all proceeds being thrown at the national debt, as well as a temporary (Dems always have a problem with this one which is why my proposal scares me) $.50 per gallong gas tax that goes DIRECTLY to paying down the debt.
I agree. I think the whole deal with Fred Thompson (a MODERATE in most ways)
Based on what? What has he stated so far?
Quote:
is that his core values are styrong conservative and he has the voting record to prove it. He is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-life, anti-tax hikes, anti-pork barrel spending, etc.
Being against abortion and being pro-life are two different things, which might be why you mentioned it twice (though I doubt it). That said, I see very little of a pro-life stance in the GOP. In fact, most of their policies are working against pro-life. If he were a real Republican he wouldn't care what 2 Americans choose to do in their bedroom. Radicals who now control the GOP like the Taliban do. The GOP Congress of the 90's through this decade were heavy on the pork as well.
Quote:
He is also anti-illegal immigration, which is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!
Wow, that makes him have the same basic position as every other candidate, Congressman, and virtually every citizen.
I suppose he is anti-credit theft too?
Quote:
Thompson is a MODERATE on the War on Terror, on Iraq, on healthcare, etc. He is not strong on these issues as much as Romney or Rudy, but Thompson has a better rep with the base of the GOP (and most American independent moderates) than Rudy or Romeny.
Thompsons is supposedly (and I would believe it) gaining support from the fringe extreme base that doesn't care about real issues, but only in creating a wacky theological nation-state.
Quote:
or the hardcore liberal pretending to be a Republican (McCain).
Do you even know the party that you claim to be in?
Nobody knows what the hell Fred Thompson stands for and people are lining up to vote for him already. Republicans are desperate!
Dude is finding out fast it is a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and chat with Jay Leno then actually have to address the tough issues. He is already flip-flopping on the fair tax bill and gay marriage amendment. I give him about a month before he implodes.
Last edited by bily4; 09-10-2007 at 01:27 PM..
Reason: typo
Well, except that tax cuts in 1981 would effect 1982s balance sheet, no?? So it looks like revenues actually DEcreased after the initial tax cut. In fact, it looks like it took 5 years before tax revenues surpassed 1981's total which could easily be attributed to the MASSIVE economic growth of the 1980s.
Either way, that isn't my point at ALL. That's why I said I DON'T CARE. Yes, we need to lower spending as well, but getting a Dem controlled congress to axe unnecessary social programs is a difficult task.
IOW, I don't give a frog's fat arse how we increase tax revenue, but we need to in a MAJOR way without adding another dime in spending (and cutting stuff if it were possible) with all proceeds being thrown at the national debt, as well as a temporary (Dems always have a problem with this one which is why my proposal scares me) $.50 per gallong gas tax that goes DIRECTLY to paying down the debt.
The first tax cuts were phased in from 1981 to 1983 and as can be seen on the chart, by 1984 revenues were up. Then, after the 1986 tax cut, revenues went up year by year for 1987, 1988 and 1989.
The first tax cuts were phased in from 1981 to 1983 and as can be seen on the chart, by 1984 revenues were up. Then, after the 1986 tax cut, revenues went up year by year for 1987, 1988 and 1989.
Okay..... whatever...... Stop side-tracking my point...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
