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.
The premise is off. First off all, note that this was a cut in tax rates, not revenue. So the premise that the cuts impaired our ability to pay for the wars is wrong. Revenue was roughly flat during Bush's 2 terms, not down. Secondly, the wars were a relatively small percentage of overall federal spending. About 3% in the case of the Iraq war, and even less for Afghanistan, which in any case was strongly supported by Democrats.
JFK did the same thing. He cut tax rates and started a war. OP do you excoriate JFK same as GWB?
I am trying to figure out the reasoning of my conservative brethren. By 2003, Bush had launched two wars and two tax cuts, all of which continued for the following 5+ years of his presidency. This is so insane on its face that I wonder how people ever felt it was going to be paid for. It is as if he did not care a wit about the true fiscal costs of the wars. He never asked us for sacrifice. No war bonds. Nothing.
So, a blunt question. How do you rationalize massive tax cuts and massive wars and claim to be fiscally responsible?
and yet by 2006 we had an unemployment rate below 6%, and the budget deficit of $160 billion. go figure.
I am trying to figure out the reasoning of my conservative brethren. By 2003, Bush had launched two wars and two tax cuts, all of which continued for the following 5+ years of his presidency. This is so insane on its face that I wonder how people ever felt it was going to be paid for. It is as if he did not care a wit about the true fiscal costs of the wars. He never asked us for sacrifice. No war bonds. Nothing.
So, a blunt question. How do you rationalize massive tax cuts and massive wars and claim to be fiscally responsible?
How did Reagan every think his drunken sailor spending would ever be paid for? Conservatives have been the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to this country. They have put us in wars and put us in debt.
and yet by 2006 we had an unemployment rate below 6%, and the budget deficit of $160 billion. go figure.
Could this be due to the bogus bubble that tanked the world economy? Bernie Madoff was doing good business for a while too. This is like saying the Coyote can fly as long as he never looks down...
I am trying to figure out the reasoning of my conservative brethren. By 2003, Bush had launched two wars and two tax cuts, all of which continued for the following 5+ years of his presidency. This is so insane on its face that I wonder how people ever felt it was going to be paid for. It is as if he did not care a wit about the true fiscal costs of the wars. He never asked us for sacrifice. No war bonds. Nothing.
So, a blunt question. How do you rationalize massive tax cuts and massive wars and claim to be fiscally responsible?
how about keeping the tax cuts and start by cutting alot of the social programs in the country, plus stop the loans to other countries as well.
I am trying to figure out the reasoning of my conservative brethren. By 2003, Bush had launched two wars and two tax cuts, all of which continued for the following 5+ years of his presidency. This is so insane on its face that I wonder how people ever felt it was going to be paid for. It is as if he did not care a wit about the true fiscal costs of the wars. He never asked us for sacrifice. No war bonds. Nothing.
So, a blunt question. How do you rationalize massive tax cuts and massive wars and claim to be fiscally responsible?
The simple answer is that the tax policies of the Clinton era were punishing taxpayers, and actually dragging down the economy and lowering revenue.
In 2004, former president WJ Clinton told democratic party campaign contributors at a Houston fund-raising dinner, about his 1993 tax increase: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
OK, well, at least you are consistent. Most are not; they'll bash Bush for starting wars while cutting taxes, but not JFK. They'll bash bush for running deficits, but not Obama for running them 3x.
The real answer is that the devil's in the details. Reagan increased military spending, creating deficits, but thereby won the cold war. Would people have preferred to see the millions who were freed from enslavement behind the iron curtain? Bush ran deficits not because of the wars or tax cuts. The problem was the GOP spending binge of 2000-2006, when they nearly doubled fed. ed. spending, funded bridges to nowhere, a boondoggle light rail project in my neck of the woods, etc.
I am trying to figure out the reasoning of my conservative brethren. By 2003, Bush had launched two wars and two tax cuts, all of which continued for the following 5+ years of his presidency. This is so insane on its face that I wonder how people ever felt it was going to be paid for. It is as if he did not care a wit about the true fiscal costs of the wars. He never asked us for sacrifice. No war bonds. Nothing.
So, a blunt question. How do you rationalize massive tax cuts and massive wars and claim to be fiscally responsible?
Add to that the dramatic and excessive federal support for education and health care (No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug Benefit). GWB, and the r leadership of both the house and senate in the early 90s, were a Democrats in drag. Granted, Dems took this irresponsible spending to entirely new and unforseen levels, but the Rs don't have a lot of credability for fiscal responsibility.
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.
