Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

So, when the economy is bad, we need to raise taxes. Is that what you're saying? When people are having a hard time getting by on what they have, we need to take more away from them?

[sck5]

Chuckles

The Yea was to table the bill. And yes, the money was to come from reconstruction (where they havent yet spent the money anyway)

Dont you agree that the safety of our troops ought to come ahead of ANYTHING else?

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by sck5

How?

Good question - Hope we hear more in the general election.

And why should we have to wait? And why should someone support anybody that doesn't put forward their plan, instead of words?

[sck5]

"So, when the economy is bad, we need to raise taxes. Is that what you're saying?"

No. What I am saying is that the sum total of the Republican economic policy seems to have been reduced to cutting taxes. When times are good they want to cut taxes. When times are bad they want to cut taxes. No matter what happens all they seem to be able to think of is to cut taxes.

That is just knee jerk brainlessness in my book. I want somebody who gives the issue more thought than just repeating a winning slogan from the political playbook. Sure, there is a time for cutting taxes and right now would be a textbook case. But it sure is too bad they cut them so much when times were good that we ended up owing billions to the Arabs and the Communist Chinese as a result. Now we are in a very deep hole and cutting them further runs the risk that our creditors will lose faith and start dumping our paper - We really dont even want to begin to imagine what that would be like.

Cutting taxes is always a popular political move. I want somebody who will do the right thing for the country and not just what is politically popular. Bush essentially declared war and put it on a credit card. A very very dumb move. We need to do better and I havent heard better out of McCain - He really DOESNT know much about economics

[sck5]

"And why should someone support anybody that doesn't put forward their plan, instead of words?"

So vote for McCain. His plan, so far as I have heard, is "I dont know much about economics"

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

How?

Good question - Hope we hear more in the general election. More of the same is not a good plan though and McCain has said "I dont know much about economics" and also mentioned being in Iraq "for a hundred years". Obama hasnt been too specific til now as you will know if you listen to his speeches - though he was starting to get better in the last debate.

SCK,
you repeat yourself. Is that all you got?

I'll repeat the response at the time even tho I didn't make it - I'd rather more of the same - ( my insert -especially more of the same from McCain) than a return to the sixties failed social experiments.

Show one piece of empirical evidence showing a tax cut did not improve the economy in the long term - I'll show you how raising taxes has hurt the economy every single time.

Oh wait - we've already done that and you didn't get it.

Obama has no viable announced platform, and a promise of change should and needs be backed up with an explanation of change to WHAT.
You sticking to Obama despite admitting that no one knows what he is changing to is one of the causes of my beginning to lose respect for you and your opinion.

[PBzeer]

Historically, cutting taxes has resulted in increased tax revenue, job creation, and a rising economy. That isn't wishful thinking, it was demonstraed after the JFK, Regan, and Bush tax cuts.

It is consumer spending that drives the economy. When you take more from them in taxes, they spend less. Look at what the "Luxury Tax" did to the boat and small airplane businesses back in the '80's. It didn't result in more revenue, because people qut buying, and when they quit buying, it put a whole lot of companies out of business, as well as all their employees out of work.

If cutting taxes is the knee-jerk Republican answer, taxing the rich is the Democrat response. And you don't have to have a doctorate in Economics to understand which works better.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Chuckles

The Yea was to table the bill. And yes, the money was to come from reconstruction (where they havent yet spent the money anyway)

Dont you agree that the safety of our troops ought to come ahead of ANYTHING else?

YES - including ahead of the politics - The Democratic (Senator DODD, Democratic senator from Conn) party put the rider in to take the money out of reconstruction to force the bill to be tabled. It's the DODD amendment that was tabled.

I'm sounding like Ragnar - are you really that dense you can't see and understand that?

The troops got the armor - it wasn't a funding issue it was that the armor had not been procured YEARS before hand. In short, there was no armor to be had.

Troops don't wear armor bought last week - they wear armor procured and bought, and trained in many years ago.

Or - DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE WAS A WAREHOUSE SOMEWHERE WITH 130,000 SETS OF ARMOR AND SOME GREASY DUDE WITH A CLIPBOARD WAITING FOR A CHECK?

Sorry for the all caps. Stupid offends me.

[sck5]

reagan cut taxes and the deficit got huge
the dems got in and fixed it - and the economy grew faster too
bush cut taxes and the deficit got huge again - and the economy has been growing slower too

was twice enough for this experiment or is it that the third time is a charm? when you cut taxes you get bigger deficits. we have already proved that twice.

and while we are on economic programs what is McCain's? Or is he still just chanting "cut taxes"? (which by the way is a flip flop for him because he criticized bush's tax cut as "irresponsible" at the time if my memory is correct)

[sck5]

chuckles

I will admit I may not know all the details. but the need for the armor was apparent in 2003. And as late as last year they still didnt have all they needed. I certainly never thought they had a warehouse full somewhere but FOUR YEARS? Surely that was way more time than they needed.

And Dodd's amendment? Yes, they were trying to live within the PAYGO rules and trying to not increase deficit spending - So the administration and their congressional allies would rather table the bill than take money from reconstruction funds that hasnt been spent to this day anyway? Come on now, does that really sound reasonable?

I would have hoped they would be willing to reduce ANY other spending for this item. Sure, the Dems were trying to stick it to them politically. Just like the Repubs do to them. But THIS topic was one where they had to stand on the principle of painting Iraqi schools before protecting Marines and soldiers? Why did the administration decide THAT was a dealbreaker?

Or do I have it wrong? If I do, then educate me.