Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war.

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation). That's another thing that Obama, and liberals, don't get. If you want to raise tax revenue (dollars collected), raising tax rates isn't always the answer. Tax dollars collected aren't maximized at tax rates of 100%, because people stop working before that.

"We were "Dragged" into 1 war "

Correct.

"We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation).

If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?




I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

"If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

Of course it's not that simple. Cutting tax rates doesn't always increase revenue. But Obama keeps saying that if he raises tax rates by x%, we'll get X% more revenue. The goal (and it's challenging) should be to grow the economy, so that you can raise revenue by decreasing rates. I don't hear Obama suggesting that. All I ever hear from him, in terms of addressing debt, is hiking up rates on the wealthy. As you said, it's not that simple. I know it's not as simple as saying revenue changes with rates, but Obama doesn't seem to know that. Why is that?

"Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?"

Absolutely correct. One of those wars was to destroy Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The other was to remove someone who was repeatedly violating the terms of the UN resolution he signed. Very, very expensive (I bet it cost me more than it cost you). And one can make a compelling argument that it wasn't worth the cost or the blood.

"I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good."

Thank you...

"why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

SUBPRIME MORTGAGES. Liberals, not conservatives, put pressure on banks to give mortgages to people who had zero hope of repaying them. Then those crappy mortgages were bundled and invested in ways that almost nobody understands (derivitives, credit default swaps). Lots of blame to go around on both sides for the investment side of it.

Put it this way. The economy grew like crazy, starting in Clinton's second term. What did he do to make that happen? He balanced the budget, cut taxes, cut spending. He also (very bravely in my opinion) told millions of healthy, lazy Americans on welfare to get back to work. Do you know what they did? THEY WENT BACK TO WORK. The economy grew like crazy, unemployment was so low my dog could have gotten hired at a Fortune 500 company. Quite simply, it worked.

We need to learn from past mistakes. Not just conservative mistakes, but liberal mistakes too. The liberal states in New England are in horrible shape. Here in CT, our solution was to implement the largest tax hike in the history of our state last July (and they made the increases retroactive to January 1, so we had to be double the increase for the rest of that year!), and we increased spending. Meanwhile, we continue to give public labor unions a blank check. On the federal level, liberals refuse to accept the reality (sad reality, but still reality) that we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. There literally is no choice. The math shows we will never have enough tax revenue to fund promised benefits. I wish we could solve all our problems by tweaking tax rates on zillionaires. That accomplishes nothing. But to hear Obama, you'd think that was the answer to our prayers.

Where am I wrong or unreasonable?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Where am I wrong or unreasonable?

Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

Spence, I'm not ignoring the Internet bubble or energy prices. And similarly, the economic growth during Bush's first 7 years was largely fueled by real estate values increasing (and low interest rates). I admit those all played a part. I'm not ignoring anythiing. Unlike you, I don't ignore that which doesn't serve my agenda.

YOU ARE THE ONE ignoring the reality that the Clinton and Bush tax cuts (and the increased consumer demand that is the inevitable result) also helped fuel the economy. You must ignore that fact, because for you to admit that fact would be to admit that conservatives have some good ideas, and you cannot ever bring yourself to admit that. Earth to Spence...individuals spend their own money much more effeciently than the feds.

Spence, on the issue of taxes...can you name a large economy, based on high federal taxes, that is thriving? There is only one...Norway. And Norway does it by exploiting every drop of oil they have. Obama wants Norway's tax rates, without their oil. That's what we have here in Connecticut. It's not working out so well.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I'm not ignoring the Internet bubble or energy prices. And similarly, the economic growth during Bush's first 7 years was largely fueled by real estate values increasing (and low interest rates). I admit those all played a part. I'm not ignoring anythiing. Unlike you, I don't ignore that which doesn't serve my agenda.

Why didn't you mention it then?

YOU ARE THE ONE ignoring the reality that the Clinton and Bush tax cuts (and the increased consumer demand that is the inevitable result) also helped fuel the economy. You must ignore that fact, because for you to admit that fact would be to admit that conservatives have some good ideas, and you cannot ever bring yourself to admit that. Earth to Spence...individuals spend their own money much more effeciently than the feds.

No, I'm just appreciating the other factors. The short-term effect tax rates have on the economy is really dependent on many factors, it's not a simple up or down...that's the ideology talking. Republicans are full of all sorts of nonsense on this issue.

Spence, on the issue of taxes...can you name a large economy, based on high federal taxes, that is thriving?

Australia, Brazil, Germany etc...

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama wants Norway's tax rates, without their oil.

You sure say a lot of untrue stuff for someone who likes to ask where you are wrong all the time. Or was this quote hyperbole, too?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

"Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one."

Oh Spence? You are forgetting that the derivitives market was once sufficiently regulated to prevent what happened with subprime mortgages. The repeal of that regulation was signed by that right-wing nut Bill Clinton. If that regulation had been left in place, the subprime mortgage bust would not have been nearly so bad.

A republican congress wrote that bill, Clinton signed it. That's why I say plenty of blame for both sides. I doubt you'd ever say anything so fair. Or astute, for that matter.

You also seem to be ignoring the effect of the subprime mortgages themselves. You choose to ignore this, because you know it makes your side look stupid. If banks were allowed to enforce underwriting standards, none of this would have happened.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh Spence? You are forgetting that the derivitives market was once sufficiently regulated to prevent what happened with subprime mortgages. The repeal of that regulation was signed by that right-wing nut Bill Clinton. If that regulation had been left in place, the subprime mortgage bust would not have been nearly so bad.

I don't think derivative market regulations were designed to tolerate the MASSIVE amount of sub-prime risk that was injected into the system from 2002-2006. Regulatory changes helped grease the skids, but it was the allure of high returns that was the engine behind the meltdown.

A republican congress wrote that bill, Clinton signed it. That's why I say plenty of blame for both sides. I doubt you'd ever say anything so fair. Or astute, for that matter.

Go back and read all my old threads on the issue.

You also seem to be ignoring the effect of the subprime mortgages themselves. You choose to ignore this, because you know it makes your side look stupid. If banks were allowed to enforce underwriting standards, none of this would have happened.

As we've beaten to death, lending influenced by the CRA made up a fraction of the problem. Banks didn't want to enforce underwriting standards because they could take a profit for originating the loan then sell the risk. Given the demand for such securities there were few with any incentive to slow down the feeding frenzy.



-spence