maineman
Banned
no change. clearly, to fund advisors that were a part of our standing armed force, we had no need to raise more revenues.
Liberals and One Party Rule
- Thread starter Boris The Animal
- Start date
no change. clearly, to fund advisors that were a part of our standing armed force, we had no need to raise more revenues.
Dear dimwit; in 1960 marginal tax rates were at 91%. By the end of the war in 1972, the marginal tax rate was 70%. Now I don't know what planet you're on, but in the REAL world that indicates they went down.
And yes, you really are THAT stupid and THAT uninformed.
By the way, did you know that when marginal rates are reduced Federal revenue still goes up?
Well, that depends on what data you wish to view; if we are talking revenue less spending, yes there was a surplus.
Well, you’re observations are not based on facts then.
Wrong; it was signed into law, passed by Republicans in the House and Senate.
I guess you do not know what “mobilization” means then.
Yes?
Once again; show me a war that was fought with a balanced budget.
You probably believe this because you have a distorted perception about actual spending versus revenues and the funding of wars.
OR, perhaps you believe there is such a thing as the perfect politician?
So in your mind, 9-11 never happened. Got it.
Wrong; the numbers I gave were not budget numbers, they were actual spending versus revenue.
Again, what President ever ran a balanced budget or surplus during a time of war?
Zygotes? There's not a real Santa Claus either.
cawacko
Well-known member
Now clearly the Republican House has battled Obama (and a Democratic Senate) to bring down spending. But that same Congress allowed Bush to spend at will.
•Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
•Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.
This line in the article from CATO resonated with me.
""Partisan Republicans are probably tired of fiscal conservatives and libertarians complaining about Bush’s big spending, especially when Obama has done so much damage to limited government. But Republicans are fooling themselves if they think that the overspending problem has been confined just to the other party. The sooner people understand that overspending it is a deep and chronic disease with bipartisan roots, the sooner we can start finding a lasting cure.""
http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-budget-spending-too-high-bush-was-worse
•Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
•Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.
This line in the article from CATO resonated with me.
""Partisan Republicans are probably tired of fiscal conservatives and libertarians complaining about Bush’s big spending, especially when Obama has done so much damage to limited government. But Republicans are fooling themselves if they think that the overspending problem has been confined just to the other party. The sooner people understand that overspending it is a deep and chronic disease with bipartisan roots, the sooner we can start finding a lasting cure.""
http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-budget-spending-too-high-bush-was-worse
maineman
Banned
from the day we committed anything more than a handful of advisors in Vietnam, our marginal tax rate did not go down even one percent.... unlike Iraq.
Interesting quote; but when I look at the number of years Democrats have totally controlled the congress since 1940, 50 years, versus how many years Republicans have, 13 years, I find it hard to be able to fault them with the massive overspending of the Federal Government since 1940.
If over the last 78 years the minority party has only held the reigns of total control 16.6% of the time, it is a vast stretch to argue they are to blame for BIG Government spending. Particularly when FOUR of those years Congress wasn't deficit spending, EQUAL to the four years Democrats had no deficit.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
We do. We sit in little red houses and plot your demise.
I know you want to play in the never ending circle of stupidity about what constitutes troop levels, but Vietnam was an immense undeclared war by Democratic leaders and extremely costly; so you are right, UNLIKE Iraq, which was not undelcared or nearly as costly in lives.
In addition, marginal tax rates were indeed reduced during that war contrary to your efforts to remain blissfully ignorant and wallow in DNC partisan talking points.
U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and again in 1962.
Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965.
Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973
Marginal Tax rates
1960 - 91%
1961 - 91%
1962 - 91%
1963 - 91%
1964 - 77%
1965 - 70%
1966 - 70%
1967 - 70%
1968 - 75.25%
1969 - 77%
1970 - 71.75%
1971 - 70%
1972 - 70%
No matter how you parse it, during that costly UNDECLARED war, marinal tax rates WERE REDUCED.
Now I know you want to wallow in the circle of stupidity; but this started when I asked this question:
Please find me a war where we had a balanced budget or surplus?
Your response was this:
Post #63
To which I responded: Historical marginal tax rates were unchanged through WWII, Korea and Vietnam Wars. Perhaps you have some made up data arguing otherwise?
Your next dimwitted response without sharing any facts was:
Post #65
To which the above data indicates CLEARLY that during the more costly undeclared Vietnam War, we actually had tax rate reductions and they were by a Democratic controlled congress.
Now you can continue removing any doubt you’re a complete uninformed idiot prattling off moronic talking points, or accept the FACTS I have given you that destroy your hyper partisan rhetoric.
I don’t know how ANY ignoramuses on the left like you can rant and rail about Bush’s war spending and efforts yet ignore the costly UNDECLARED war of Vietnam started by Democrats and ended by Nixon.
But you really are THAT stupid so I cannot say I find your ignorance surprising.
You don't get control often, because dems double your market returns.
Dimwit.
Their only talking point is bullshit
No wonder dems always control congress
maineman
Banned
these statistics prove my point. marginal tax rates were at 70% prior to our sending combat troops to Vietnam, and their three year bump ABOVE 70% corresponded to our large influx of combat troops during those years. We raised taxes to finance that increase, and we returned the tax rate back to 70% - but not lower - when the troop strength levels started to be reduced.
Another remarkably stupid claim from the forums pet hick dimwit.
No Desh, the efforts of Tip O'Neil and his Democrat counterpart in the Senate did. But you're a dimwit stuck on permanent stupid who has the historic memory of an ant and lack even the slightest clue about how our Government works.
You see shit-for-brains, Reagan had to work with a Democrat controlled Congress who declared ALL of his budgets DOA. Presidents cannot write spending legislation, they can only veto it, or pass it.
Now run along and let the adults debate; you're I'll equipped for it much like your dullard buddy The Dimwit..I mean Dude.
That's usually how you refute facts
Republitard Fox News dimwit
Your remarkably stupid efforts to remain a partisan dimwitted buffoon contrary to any facts have been noted.
Dismissed; rational debate with morons like you is beyond the capacity of bandwidth on the www.
Wrong again dimwit as evidenced by this thread; but you NEVER add anything beyond your dimwitted simple canards.
The reason for your special brand of stupid is simple and apparent; because you really are THAT stupid.
maineman
Banned
I noticed that you conveniently forget to include - as usual - any substantive rebuttal to the point I made. boooooring!