Republican presidential nominee
Moderator: Dictators in Training
spazz wrote:They do it to thier own too. There was a guy named george bush when i was a kid. Said no new taxes then he looked at the damage his party did and had no choice but to raise em. They say tax break and i guess it is but you end up havin to pay it a few years down the mo fuckin road anyway.
Like many Americans on both sides of the political fence, you place all blame and or praise on the Presidency ignoring Congress. The federal budget is arrived at via a proposed budget by the president, review and modification by congress, and then finally executive approval, although executive approval is not necessary to go into effect. In all reality Congress can completely throw out executive recommendation and does not need executive approval for the fiscal budget. In short while the president does have a say, and Congress generally strives to work with the president on a budget, there is in the end nothing to stop Congress from doing whatever it wants. Ultimately it is congress, not the president who is responsible for the fiscal budget.
Now for the last three terms Bush Jr. has enjoyed a Congress controlled by his party so there really is no argument which party is responsible for the fiscal policies there. However to say that Bush Sr. had to raise taxes as a result of his parties failure in fiscal matters is turning a blind eye to the fact that from 1945 through Bush Sr.'s administration Democrats controlled half of congress in all but one congressional term, and had full control of congress the vast majority of the time (all but 5 terms). If you look closer at the latter half of the Regan presidency and the entire Bush Sr. Presidency the Congress, both House and Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
You do miss the fact, Leuyen, that Bush Sr. did indeed submit budgets to Congress that included tax increases. They weren't somehow foisted upon him by the evil Democrats. So yes, both sides were responsible, but he DID break his promise by calling for them.
And you know what, it doesn't bug me that taxes were higher during Clinton's era than now. Can anyone say that the economy sucked during Clinton's 2nd term especially? We actually not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus, which could be used to pay DOWN the national debt.
Now, by the combination of bull-headedly sticking to "TAX CUTS BEFORE ALL!", while at the same time increasing spending, we have completely reversed that situation, and have the worst defecits in the history of the nation. Now, I dunno about other people, but I was quite happy to have $500 less at the end of the year back when I was making good money if it meant that this country could work towards buying off all of its debt. You know how big a percentage of the budget goes just to service that debt? You know how much more money we would have to spend on things if that debt were gone, OR how much we could cut taxes at that point?
Basically, I remain convinced that Bush Jr. went back to the Reaganesque model that was attempted, but ultimately failed back in the 80s. (and people from Regan's administration are on record that this was actually a planned effort.) The intent was to completely do away with any and all social spending whatsoever. Since they couldn't just cut it out without massive political repercussions, what they wanted to do was to raise the deficit SO high, and generate so much debt, that the only money the government would have available to spend would be entirely taken up by Defense and Debt Service.
Completely asinine policy, but they tried to do it. I'm convinced Bush is attempting the same thing. It's the only way that some of his fiscal moves make ANY sense. Well, sense beyond the base veneer of catering to the ultra-wealthy by removing just about all of the miniscule tax burden they did have. No tax on dividend income, who do you think that helps? No estate tax, same thing. Capital gains tax rate slashed, a third example. Need I go on?
-Arlos
And you know what, it doesn't bug me that taxes were higher during Clinton's era than now. Can anyone say that the economy sucked during Clinton's 2nd term especially? We actually not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus, which could be used to pay DOWN the national debt.
Now, by the combination of bull-headedly sticking to "TAX CUTS BEFORE ALL!", while at the same time increasing spending, we have completely reversed that situation, and have the worst defecits in the history of the nation. Now, I dunno about other people, but I was quite happy to have $500 less at the end of the year back when I was making good money if it meant that this country could work towards buying off all of its debt. You know how big a percentage of the budget goes just to service that debt? You know how much more money we would have to spend on things if that debt were gone, OR how much we could cut taxes at that point?
Basically, I remain convinced that Bush Jr. went back to the Reaganesque model that was attempted, but ultimately failed back in the 80s. (and people from Regan's administration are on record that this was actually a planned effort.) The intent was to completely do away with any and all social spending whatsoever. Since they couldn't just cut it out without massive political repercussions, what they wanted to do was to raise the deficit SO high, and generate so much debt, that the only money the government would have available to spend would be entirely taken up by Defense and Debt Service.
Completely asinine policy, but they tried to do it. I'm convinced Bush is attempting the same thing. It's the only way that some of his fiscal moves make ANY sense. Well, sense beyond the base veneer of catering to the ultra-wealthy by removing just about all of the miniscule tax burden they did have. No tax on dividend income, who do you think that helps? No estate tax, same thing. Capital gains tax rate slashed, a third example. Need I go on?
-Arlos
Arlos read what I wrote again. I in no way attempted to defend Bush Sr. on the "no new taxes", I simply pointed out that the blame for needing to do so could not wholly be laid at the feat of one party . I also made no attempt to defend the fiscal policies of the current administration or congress. You might have an axe to grind with both those topics, however it is not with me on what I pointed out.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Lueyen wrote:I doubt McCain would get a chance, he has damaged his rep with to many Republicans warranted or not. He has a reputation as being borderline left, and saying whatever it takes to get elected.
That's exactly what the country needs... someone open minded enough to at least LISTEN to both sides before taking a stance. I'm tired of the ultra left and right crowds who's narrow minded, blind tunnel vision has caused nothing but problems.
I'm tired of the ultra left and right crowds who's narrow minded, blind tunnel vision has caused nothing but problems.
So say we all.
I'm fucking sick of listening to the democrats and republicans in Wisconsin pontificating about what us poor citizens stood up and said when we ousted so many republicans this election. Democrats say, "It's because the people want CHANGE we need to quickly create 10,000 billion social programs for poor people and fuck the middle class into submission it's what the people want obviously!!" Republicans say, "This just goes to show you that the people want ultra conservative republican represtentatives, and those that stray from the path of rightousness and dare act like middle grounders will be ousted! Thank you jesus I love you."
Fuck them all in the eye.
Molon Labe
