Something to Ponder

It's a nice statement, but that socialist is just as big a statist as anyone. Bigger. The answer is liberty, not more government. He's right about the two wars, but the biggest problem is that CONGRESS SPENDS TOO MUCH!

It's a nice statement, but that socialist is just as big a statist as anyone. Bigger. The answer is liberty, not more government. He's right about the two wars, but the biggest problem is that CONGRESS SPENDS TOO MUCH! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're partially correct. Congress spent too much, particularly where they allocated funding to spend 8+ years searching for WMD's that no longer existed.

Yeah, those wars were to enrich the oil and defense industry, not to promote liberty. Huge waste of lives and money. Every politician who supported them should be on trial for war crimes.

Big Louie, Sanders sometimes gets it right. At least mostly. Check this out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-be...b_1072099.html

THE FAILED STIMULUS COST MORE THAN THE IRAQ WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts

By Andrew Foy and Brenton Stransky


The majority of the taxpayers in our country believe it a foregone conclusion that taxes will rise substantially in the near future and that the Bush tax cuts will soon be no more than a footnote of political history. You don't need to be a genius to see that the government will have to raise more revenue to pay for seemingly infinite spending, but before we resign ourselves to higher taxes, we should consider defending the Bush tax cuts against the left.

Two of the most oft-cited objections to the Bush tax cuts by the left are that it helped only the rich and it was largely responsible for the federal deficit at the end of the Bush presidency. Instead, it is true that if the current administration allows any or all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, economic growth will be slowed and tax revenue could actually decrease, perpetuating our deficit dilemma.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 broadly lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Fanning the lie that only the rich benefited, liberal economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse-government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." This criticism stuck so well that it is difficult to find a liberal today who doesn't believe that these tax relief measures were anything more than "tax cuts for the rich."

But the data does not support this conclusion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2 and weights %3. This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2 and weights %3.

This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.

The second major misconception spread by the left about the Bush tax cuts is that the lower tax rates caused the federal deficit woes we face today. Keeping with the party line of blaming the previous administration for all of today's problems, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quipped in a news conference on January 8 of this year: "Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end ... have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit." Of course, the Speaker would have us believe that overspending has nothing to do with our deficit.


In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue. According to economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation, The Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common sense observations that

• 1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate,
• 2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains, and
• 3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

The following figure is an illustration of the Laffer Curve. The curve postulates that two tax rates exist between the extremes of no tax and 100% tax that will collect the same amount of revenue: a high tax rate on a small tax base and a low tax rate on a large tax base. Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100% of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer curve. When tax rates are above the equilibrium point on the Laffer curve, reducing the tax rate increases revenue.



So what was the effect of the Bush tax cuts? The data reveals that tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, tax rates were beyond the point of equilibrium.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what happened. The following table from Reidl's analysis depicts these effects.




The empirical data makes it impossible to validate the liberal claims that the Bush tax cuts were "for the rich," or that they "caused the budget deficit," or that they were in any way responsible for causing this latest economic crisis. In fact, a study by economist John W. Skorburg underscores the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Skorburg's study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate. Further, the author concluded that "f President Obama raises tax burdens, trend growth in real GDP will fall."

The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history.

[i]Andrew Foy, M.D. and Brenton Stransky are authors of The Young Conservative's Field Guide and can be contacted through their website at www.aHardRight.com.

Regardless Marshall, two wrongs don't make a right. The war in Afghanistan is and was justifiable, but the war waged against Iraq is for invented reasons. There never were any WMD's and the administration knew it. Why else did they tell over 900 lies to congress and the American people in the year leading up to the "Shock and Awe"?

Olivia, what are the current and original justifications for the war in Afghanistan, and how will we know when we've won?

Regardless Marshall, two wrongs don't make a right. The war in Afghanistan is and was justifiable, but the war waged against Iraq is for invented reasons. There never were any WMD's and the administration knew it. Why else did they tell over 900 lies to congress and the American people in the year leading up to the "Shock and Awe"? Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

WE DID FIND WMD,BUT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF YELLOWCAKE, WE DID NOT FIND STOCKPILES OF WMD......DID THEY GET SHIPPED TO SYRIA??????? DON'T KNOW...........17 VIOLATIONS OF UN RESOLUTIONS AND VIOLATION OF THE CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT WERE INVENTED????????????....I THINK NOT......HAVING SAID THAT, I DID NOT SUPPORT THAT WAR OR NATION BUILDING, BUT ADMITTEDLY, THE REASONS FOR WAR AREN'T COMPLETELY MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC OR THOSE DOING THE FIGHTING.......

The problem wasn't with the Iraq war but with the Democrat's insistence that we NOT keep the oil of Iraq to pay for the war !

"To the victor goes the spoils" - Sen. William Marcy 1832, a Jacksonian Democrat !

The problem was the war. It was pointless.

It was made pointless by the anti-american lefties; with their major complaint being the war was too expensive. We should have seized the oil until we were paid back !

The problem was the war. It was pointless.

CuteOldGay, the problem was the nation building......

Olivia, what are the current and original justifications for the war in Afghanistan, and how will we know when we've won? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Now? I honestly can’t say if we should be there or not. I have no military experience, and plenty of generals are saying we will need to be there for years to come. Is that true? I have no idea. It could be the generals just want more money for their war and glory. Regardless whether we “need” to be there or not, I’d pull out. Why should we prop up a government in a country that made war with us especially since we cannot afford it? I do know that Obama promised to get out of the wars when he took office. I’d have done it Saigon style if necessary within six months of taking office, not three years later at the start of the campaign season.

How do we know we’ve won? There’s no clear-cut answer for that. When Islam moves past their “crusade” phase that Christianity went through a thousand years ago; when our empire falls; both; never? This is one of the main reasons I think we should get out.

WE DID FIND WMD,BUT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF YELLOWCAKE, WE DID NOT FIND STOCKPILES OF WMD......DID THEY GET SHIPPED TO SYRIA??????? DON'T KNOW...........17 VIOLATIONS OF UN RESOLUTIONS AND VIOLATION OF THE CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT WERE INVENTED????????????....I THINK NOT......HAVING SAID THAT, I DID NOT SUPPORT THAT WAR OR NATION BUILDING, BUT ADMITTEDLY, THE REASONS FOR WAR AREN'T COMPLETELY MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC OR THOSE DOING THE FIGHTING....... Originally Posted by Marshall

We found no WMD’s. We were promised there were stockpiles and miles of WMD’s. There weren’t any. And I really don’t care if they had them. So what. They had SCUD missiles in the ‘90’s. They even paraded them around the streets of Baghdad. We didn’t feel the need to invade them then did we? We got in the war because W has a severe Oedipus Complex nothing more / nothing less.

CuteOldGay, the problem was the nation building...... Originally Posted by Marshall

Arshhole, so you agree the war was a bad idea?