Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?
posted at 8/12/2011 12:45 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : How ya doin matty. I enjoy your posts as you always debate fairly and respectfully. I cannot when it comes to some of the Lefties on here,.....I apologize,....I just can`t control myself. I would agree with you on the Iraq theory you present. But,......we had years and years (back to the 1980`s) of data supporting Saddam`s WMD, ignored resolutions, and outright murder of his own citizens. The likes of Gore, Clinton, Lieberman,Kerry, ......even Ted Kennedy for Pete`s sake, ALL have speeches (easily located), stating this. Intelligence from all over the world was consistent. Yes,.....it was (and still is) mismanaged and GWB will go down in history as "owning" the debacle that was/is Iraq. On the tax cuts,.......didn`t tax revenues to the government rise? I don`t know and don`t have a bunch of time to research it today. If the Bush tax cuts expire, won`t taxes go up on everyone that got a cut? If so, doesn`t that mean that 50% of Americans (the 50% that pay all the taxes) will pay more? My big issue with "tax-cuts for the rich" is,........they really aren`t "tax cuts for the rich". They`re tax cuts for everyone. Obama says "millionaires and billionaires" but, (as CNN reported), he gets to the table and says "Top 5%". Well "Top 5%" is me and you. I would like to cut as much spending as possible before I can pay more tax right now. Just saying.
Posted by jmel[/QUOTE]
Well, if you want to go back to the 80s on Iraq, when the primary weapons in Saddam's arsenal were the ones we gave him, I'm still not sure that justifies in any real sense the '03 invasion OR its horrific aftermath.
But neither is the amount of money spent on the whole bloody affair a minor point. When defense funds are not spent in aid of, y'know, actual defense, that is a significant responsibility and one that is often forgotten on the right. This is not to mention the vast sums that went to foreign-based contractors, sovereign wealth funds (bribes) and extraneous services or monies that just up and vanished into the desert.
I should note that your "tax cuts for the rich" argument cuts both ways: a "tax hike for the rich" means that on most income the wealthy pay the same tax as everyone else up to a specified amount and ONLY the amount earned above that threshold is taxed at the higher rate.
But it's incredibly disingenuous to argue for tax reform and yet refuse to even consider certain targeted tax hikes as a way to balance the cuts which inevitably add to the deficit. Last night, every single gop candidate said they would walk away from a deal that provided 10 dollars of spending cuts for every 1 dollar of tax increase. That's borderline insane (even Bret Baier was stunned).
Look, this debate is mostly driven by the people who pay the most taxes anyway. If they don't want to pay taxes, they'll find a way not to pay them. Period. Those loopholes and escape hatches must end if we're ever to get a handle on this, but characterizing this as 'tax hikes' or demanding 'cuts only' is less-than-helpful.