Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' " "Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."
I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...
How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM |
"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"
I never said that. I specifically said that the fishy financial products played a large role. But since the de-regulation of those products was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic president, i don't see how one party is at fault.
Also, I think that the Bush tax cuts had just about nothing to do with it.
"we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone"
True. But I don't feel that government debt had much at all to do with this recesion. This recession was caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, and the rippling effectsthroughout the financial sector. Government debt will have everything to do with the next recession, however,
"Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before?"
I don't know. In the case of the bUsh tax cuts, I don't see that it matters. Because th efact is (and thgis seems to escape liberals), tax revenues increased aftre the tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts did not result in tax revenue being lower than it was before the tax rate cuts.
People, mostly liberals, do not seem to be able to grasp that. If tax revenues always decreased proportionately with tax rates, you'd have a point. But clearly they do not. What I mean is this...no one can say for sure that the feds would have collected more revenue, if Bush had not cut taxes. It's not that simple. All we know is this...after Bush cut tax rates (the percentage of one's salary that one pays) tax revenues collected by the feds (total dollars collected) hit their all-time high.
Liberals constantly claim (falsely) that the Bush tax cuts (1) onlyhelped the rich (that is demonstrably false), and (2) caused the recession (which makes no sense).
I think I have answered most, if not all, of your questions.
So can you answer one of mine? Just one...if Bush's reduction in tax
rates were followed by an increase in tax
dollars collected by the feds, how can that cause a recession?
The feds collected
more tax dollars from us after the Bush tax cuts. Not less. More. That is undisputed fact, and it annihilates the liberal theory that increasing tax rates will automatically increase tax revenue. Even though it's demonstrably false, liberals continue to beat that drum.