|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
09-30-2016, 05:50 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
When have we seen tax cuts and big increases in military sending again...?
|
Reagan and the following economic boom. And even Bush II which worked very well until the unrelated bank failures made everything else irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 05:53 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Reagan and the following economic boom. And even Bush II which worked very well until the unrelated bank failures made everything else irrelevent.
|
Now don't go bringing inconvenient facts into this.
|
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 06:01 PM
|
#3
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,408
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Now don't go bringing inconvenient facts into this.
|
Right. Without that pesky bank failure that war would have paid for itself... 
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 06:12 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Right. Without that pesky bank failure that war would have paid for itself... 
|
The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth for most of Bush's administration and would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. Of course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we have seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.
You conveniently passed on Reagan.
|
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 06:15 PM
|
#5
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,408
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth which would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. O course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we have seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.
You conveniently passed on Reagan.
|
You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 06:23 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.
|
Yes, but war is the exception. Spending on military maintenance and improvement are constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government. The other non-constitutional social obligations that the Federal government has taken on amount to more debt than constitutional spending which includes the military.
You're right, in times of war, taxes usually go up. But, as I said, war is the exception and should not be a factor in the simple question of lowering taxes and normal military spending. And Bush's tax cuts and increased spending on improving the military would not have hurt the economic boom. Had you mentioned war, the answer might have been different.
On the other hand, the continued good economy could have eventually, and not too long, have paid for the war. The collapse of the economy changes all that.
Last edited by detbuch; 09-30-2016 at 06:29 PM..
|
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 07:24 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.
|
Tax revenues collected, hit an all time high after the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues did not decrease. Not sure you can say for sure, that higher tax rates would have resulted in higher tax revenues collected.
|
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 08:00 PM
|
#8
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,408
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Tax revenues collected, hit an all time high after the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues did not decrease. Not sure you can say for sure, that higher tax rates would have resulted in higher tax revenues collected.
|
That isn't that simple, and you know it.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...rose-after-bu/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 06:35 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth for most of Bush's administration and would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. Of course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we ahave seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.
You conveniently passed on Reagan.
|
There's so much wrong with this post. Clinton didn't gut military spending, he held it steady after a decline by Reagan and Bush 41.
The Bush tax cuts mostly just increased the deficit while economic growth was driven by a real estate bubble.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 07:16 PM
|
#10
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,125
|
So if Comey is such a straight shooter, why is he asking for immunity?
there's that word again, IMMUNITY
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
09-30-2016, 07:32 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The Bush tax cuts mostly just increased the deficit while economic growth was driven by a real estate bubble.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
So what caused the much larger deficits under Obama?
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.
|
| |