.E G Dionne..another dumb liberal
Posted on 12/15/2006 7:08:54 AM PST by blitzgig
Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration's highest priority. Saving its tax cuts was more important. That was once spoken of as a moral problem. Now it's a practical barrier to a successful outcome.
Until recently President Bush's refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was discussed as the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation's security? On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains.
Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration's failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war -- and to pay them -- has put it in a corner.
The president's options in Iraq are severely constrained because our military is too small for the foreign policy he is pursuing. Sending more troops would place even more excruciating burdens on members of our armed forces and their families. And the brass fears that an extended new commitment could, quite simply, break the Army.
Yet, instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I just have to wonder, would our military need to be built up if it wasn't torn down for eight years prior to W getting into office? There were no so called "tax cuts for the rich" during the Clinton years, yet the military wasn't a high priority. Bam, war hits and W is supposed to magically build up the military by raising taxes and killing the economy. The real answer and the real culprit isn't tax cuts, its the lack of spending cuts. That is what we really need.
These stupid articles from the libs remind my of the ones of how republicans wanted to throw granny down the stairs and steal hear social security checks
What is this author's issue with tax cuts? Does he/she prefer that the government revenues decline? I would think that socialists would celebrate that the government's take has increased to all time record levels.
There was a whole lot of shared sacrifice during WWII. Seems like if we really want to win this one, we ought to be able to share a little sacrifice.
Yet, instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war.Okay 'EJ'. A couple questions for you and your leftist 'raise taxes' ilk;
But, surrender & appeasement is of the highest priority for the democRATS.
No.
So what?
Would the military have needed to be built up in 1941 if it hadn't been reduced to nothing after 1932?
W has failed to build a military necessary to what must be done, and he's had 6 years WITH control of Congress to do it.
Clinton is irrelevant.
.E G Dionne..another dumb liberal
Democrats use taxes for social engineering and to curry favor by telling the poor that they are helping them and they are making the rich pay for it.
Higher taxes gives the government more control, but not necessarily more revenue, and when the economy is growing slowly, they can definitely result in lower tax revenue.
However, a bad economy while Bush is in office is good for the democrats, and they want to be able to blame the Republicans for a bad economy in order to win the White House in '08. After all they still take credit for the great economy the Clinton inherited and turned into a recession by the time he left office.
The tax rate reductions have generally caused an increase in economic activity, something that a country on war footing should be encouraging, and as a result of this increased economic activity, the gross tax revenue has greatly increased, going in large measure to assisting in financing the military expenditure.
The magic money maching WORKS. Simply raising taxes to a confiscatory level has NEVER resulted in maximizing revenue. The wonder is, that we ever got through World War II, with the level of taxation that was laid down, in terms of earned income. The harshest tax of all was for some Army conscript who went to war and got paid $12 a month, when he could have been working in some civilian job for tem times that or more. All with the most hellish working conditions on the planet, compared to the civilian who was getting by on "only" a 70-hour work week.
Today we got a buncha wusses whining because they are not paying "enough" in taxes.
One more time. Revenues increase when taxes are cut. Basic economics and historically demonstrable. But, alas, pathologically ignored and denied by Libs.
Military is too small? We have 1.4 million in the military and only 140,000 are in Iraq...this guy needs to get a grip. He also needs to retake Economics 101, tax cuts generate more revenue.
BS. Bush has failed to push for a larger army. Every pol in DC is running from the fact that the military needs to be expanded.
Sadly, there will have to be a tragedy on a massive scale beyond 9/11 to wake this country up to that fact.
Liberals will Never learn/admit that tax cuts help Everyone in the country!
I wouldn't spend a dime to defend Dionne.
"Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration's highest priority. Saving its tax cuts was more important."
Sounds more like he's fighting AGAINST raising taxes, than fighting FOR keeping tax cuts.
What's needed is a tax on liberals. They keep demanding bigger government, more entitlements, more funding for their pet projects. They should be taxed to pay for all that.;)
Liberals confuse tax rates with tax revenues. And, unfortunately, the general public doesn't know the difference. Thus they are easily fooled on the issue.
Even Bush's dad was confused. He called it "voodoo" economics and went back on his "read my lips...no new taxes" pledge that cost him the 1992 election.
It's called "supply side" economics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.