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 specifically said that fishy financial products, tied to mortgages, played a big role. So I cannot imagine why on Earth you'd claim that I said something so stupid.
"top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for"
Bush advocated a top-down approach? Then can you explain why Bush lowered tax rates for everyone, not just for the rich (which liberals like to lie about)?
Romney wants a small-government approach. Why does that, in your view, equate to a "top-down" approach? Romney isn't proposing to eliminate anti-poverty programs. He isn't proposing to eliminate welfare, food stamps, or unemployment. He just doesn't want the feds doing things they suck at. In a sane world, liberals would happily debate the merits of a limited-government approach. Instead, as always, they demonize the other side, saying things like "that's how we got into this mess, and he wants to do it again! We can't afford that!"
Rockhound, government debt didn't cause this recession (though it will cause the next one). And let me make one more point, and try to pay attention, because this is something liberals REALLY struggle with. Let's pretend I agree with you that federal tax revenue plays a big role in recessions...President Bush cut tax
rates. Those lower tax rates were followed by the largest amount of tax
dollars ever collected by the IRS.
Thus, where do liberals get off claiming that the Bush tax cuts cost us anything? You cannot know for sure that higher tax rates would have produced more tax revenue. It's not that simple. Why? Because demand increases when you reduce price. Always.
Rockhound, do you claim that higher tax rates will always produce more tax dollars, than lower tax rates? If so, why not impose tax rates of 100%?
It is irrefutable, demonstrable fact, that it's possible to lower tax rates and increase tax revenue. It happened within the last 10 years, for God's sakes.
Now, please don't suggest that I'm saying lower tax rates will always increase tax revenue, because that's equally ridiculous. But they don't always move proportionately. Liberals hate that fact, and thus cannot accept it.