|
Post by dmundt on Jul 16, 2008 17:17:44 GMT -4
The difference being that Democrats are willing to tell you that you have to pay for what you want, when Republicans seem to think that putting everything on our kids' credit cards is the way to go. All conservatives have ever done is run up our national debt. Oh, and destroy the environment. And public education. And infrastructure. And start wars we don't need to fight. And limit civil rights. And promote torture.
And some other things, too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 16, 2008 17:23:37 GMT -4
The difference being that Democrats are willing to tell you that you have to pay for what you want, Horsepucky. Obama as we speak is running on a platform that he will not raise the taxes of the middle class, whatever he means by that on a particular day. He'll get us what we want by taxing the rich, not us.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 16, 2008 17:30:13 GMT -4
So... uh.. the rich aren't US citizens...? What?
There was a time in this country when citizens were willing to pay their taxes for the good of the nation. Republicans have thoroughly poisoned the well on that subject. We didn't put World War II onto our kids' credit cards -- but that's what we're doing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 16, 2008 17:38:45 GMT -4
So... uh.. the rich aren't US citizens...? What? You see the problem with the idea. There's plenty of blame for both the parties on the subject of overspending. The difference is that Republicans did believe in smaller government at some point, or pretended that they did.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 16, 2008 22:10:33 GMT -4
The difference being that Democrats are willing to tell you that you have to pay for what you want, when Republicans seem to think that putting everything on our kids' credit cards is the way to go. All conservatives have ever done is run up our national debt. Oh, and destroy the environment. And public education. And infrastructure. And start wars we don't need to fight. And limit civil rights. And promote torture. And some other things, too. Just a little partisan aren't we? Well its a good thing McCain is running for the Reps. He is no conservative.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 16, 2008 23:05:40 GMT -4
We didn't put World War II onto our kids' credit cards -- but that's what we're doing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cumulative budget deficit from 2002 until 2011 (projected) is about 18.6% of annual GDP - take budget deficit as percentage of GDP each year, add them all up. This period includes all recent and projected future years in which the total US budget is in deficit. You could quibble with this methodology, as GDP is changing over this period, but not by a huge amount. Here is a source document - see page 24: www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdfYou could make a case for using the "on-budget" numbers instead of the total numbers, but that isn't going to change the basic story here. The comparable numbers for WW II are on the previous page, and add up to 88.7% of annual GDP for the period 1942-1945. So in this four year period, the credit card you mention was charged up with about 10.6 months of income, whereas the projections for the 10 years of deficits 2001-2011 are for about 2 months of income. So that credit card was used quite a bit more heavily for WW II than it was recently. "The Right will say any stupid thing about Obama" - well, some of them will, but leftists using made-up facts isn't exactly a rare event either...
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 17, 2008 11:02:32 GMT -4
GDP and deficits are not an indicator of how the debt is to be paid. President Bush has refused to even consider paying for these wars in any meaningful way. In World War II, there was a tax-rate of 94% on all income over $200,000. There was a time when US citizens could be asked to do such things and they would respond.
We are fighting a war in Iraq and the cost is not being dealt with by current tax payers. You do the math.
Tell me who is going to pay for it if we don't?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 17, 2008 11:25:02 GMT -4
In World War II, there was a tax-rate of 94% on all income over $200,000.
So what? Book tax rates are only a part of economic analysis. How much revenue was actually generated by this rate?
The problem with taxing the rich at exorbitant marginal rates is that there is relatively little money to be taxed compared to income earned by the nation as a whole. The majority of income is earned by the middle class and they are where the tax burden falls. The second problem is that such high rates cause a lot of waste by generating tax avoidance schemes.
Exceptionally high marginal tax rates are usually a political ploy to engender class envy as a way to gain votes. Not a way to generate substantial revenue for the treasury.
If you want to bash Republicans over the war, go ahead. There is plenty to bash but you are coming off as very partisan yourself.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 17, 2008 11:45:22 GMT -4
A lot of these discussions about national debt seem to ignore the fact that the economies of nation-states aren't really analagous to one's personal finances.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 17, 2008 12:53:29 GMT -4
I come off as partisan because I am partisan -- though I'm not a partisan protector of someone on my side doing bone-headed things. If a Democrat had taken us into Iraq the way President Bush did, I'd be just as against that Democrat and just as against the war.
My point about the tax rates in World War II was to point out that the generation of WW II largely paid for that debt and that they were willing to do so.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 17, 2008 13:42:53 GMT -4
And if a Democrat had taken us into Iraq in the same manner as President Bush I would be just as much a justifier of his (or her) original motives and just as much a defender of keeping the troops there until the job is done.
EDIT: Of course, if a Democrat had done it the press would have been much more on their side, general public support would have been greater as a result, the terrorists would have had less confidence in their ability to weaken our resolve, and the war might have ended by now.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 17, 2008 13:49:19 GMT -4
You have to be joking. The press practically cheered the war on. Give me a break. If the press had done their jobs, we never would have gone to war.
It is the job of the press to question the motives and actions of our government. It is not the job of the press to stand by and merely broadcast and print whatever the government tells them to. That is what they used to do in Russia. And what FOX News does today, of course.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 17, 2008 13:57:55 GMT -4
I'm not kidding at all. There were calls of "quagmire" before the ground invasion even began. The "shock and awe" airstrike plan was derided before it began too. Reporters constantly worried about the Republican Guard, possible chemical attacks against our troops, and a sandstorm. "Baghdad Bob's" predictions of an American bloodbath were everywhere. There was a brief recess in coverage after the images of Iraqis pulling down statues of Saddam and slapping it with their shoes, then debate about missing WMDs started up, and for years since we've had death tolls and news of attacks and next to nothing about re-established security and infrastructure. The majority of the press has been against the war since long before day one. It's only now, with things improving, that negative coverage has slacked off.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 17, 2008 14:12:01 GMT -4
Bah.
Please show this.
That is just normal reporting. That is looking at what might happen and reporting it. I might note that NONE of this is anything like questioning if the war was necessary.
Please show this.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 17, 2008 15:22:36 GMT -4
This is a CBS report just before the air assault began. This story, also from before the attack, includes the quote: This story in Slate magazine on March 26 , five days after the primary bombing began, says This story in the Guardian was also written on the 24th of March, has nothing good to say about the war or Shock and Awe. This story covers 200,000 anti-war protestors who marched into Times Square on the 21st. - this on the same day it began. I found all of those with just a few minutes of googling.
|
|