• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

100 days until largest middle-class tax hike in US history

And as we also saw from the Reagan administration, taxes can actually be cut too low and then need to be raised again.

During the Reagan years, the federal revenue doubled after he cut the tax rates. Unfortunately, the Dem-controlled congress spent $1.65 for every new dollar that came in. So what we really saw during the Reagan administration was overspending, not under collections.
 
Uh....what planet have you been on? Obama didn't have two years to do whatever he wanted, he was completely obstructed for much of that 2 years by the party of NO and a handful of bluedog democrats who were afraid of their own tail.

Dude, you weren't paying attention. Obama had it all for the first two years, and he voted "present" while Pelosi and Reid made all the decisions for him. In 2010 the voters had had enough and took back the House; this year we will finish the job and take back the Senate and the White House.
 
So yeah about the deficit, where do you think the money is going to come from to pay that off?

We're going to quit handing money to Obama's buddies.
 
During the Reagan years, the federal revenue doubled after he cut the tax rates. Unfortunately, the Dem-controlled congress spent $1.65 for every new dollar that came in. So what we really saw during the Reagan administration was overspending, not under collections.

Reagan's results look awesome because the economy came back after two recessions: one under Carter and one under Reagan. At the time taxes rates WERE too high, so lowering them did stimulate the economy and restore balance. The Great Recession was a much more difficult nut to crack, and tax rates are now too low.
 
We're going to quit handing money to Obama's buddies.

Who are these buddies with all the money? I'd like to see some numbers and sources please.

I know you won't be posting anything because this is just an empty statement that sounds good in your head.
 
Reagan's results look awesome because the economy came back after two recessions: one under Carter and one under Reagan. At the time taxes rates WERE too high, so lowering them did stimulate the economy and restore balance. The Great Recession was a much more difficult nut to crack, and tax rates are now too low.

The early Reagan years were a hangover from Carter, and the tax cuts didn't kick in until 1983. With regard to your statement that "tax rates are now too low" - that's arguable. The real problem is out of control spending that does nothing to help the economy.
 
Who are these buddies with all the money? I'd like to see some numbers and sources please.

I know you won't be posting anything because this is just an empty statement that sounds good in your head.

We can start with Solyndra, run by one Obama's big bundlers. I doubt it would accomplish anything to repeat all the others, because I don't think you would allow them to interfere with your fantasy.
 
Dude, you weren't paying attention. Obama had it all for the first two years, and he voted "present" while Pelosi and Reid made all the decisions for him. In 2010 the voters had had enough and took back the House; this year we will finish the job and take back the Senate and the White House.

LOL....you need to turn down your right-wing radio my friend.
 
We can start with Solyndra, run by one Obama's big bundlers. I doubt it would accomplish anything to repeat all the others, because I don't think you would allow them to interfere with your fantasy.

Ok, fair enough, 500 million. It was more of a bad loan than "giving" it away but it was a failure, yes. Anything else?
 
Taxes will be higher next year than they are this year. That's a tax increase.
No, just the end of a Temporary decrease engineered precisely for Temporary partisan prosperity.
But even that ploy failed.

Diogenes said:
Cuts in the tax rate do not necessarily decrease the revenue to the government and, as evidenced by the Reagan years, can drastically increase the money the government takes in. Increases in the tax rate do not necessarily increase the revenue to the government and have a history of bringing in less than expected as, for example, the Clinton tax increases of the early nineties.
Bushonmics was indeed a repeat of FAILED Reaganomics.
Both exploded the Deficit by increasing spending way More than receipts and BOTH lead stock Market CRASHES Six+ years in. October 1987 for Reagan.
How conveniently and quickly they forget.
 
No, just the end of a Temporary decrease engineered precisely for Temporary partisan prosperity.
But even that ploy failed.

Bushonmics was indeed a repeat of FAILED Reaganomics.
Both exploded the Deficit by increasing spending way More than receipts and BOTH lead stock Market CRASHES Six+ years in. October 1987 for Reagan.
How conveniently and quickly they forget.

Simple minds haven't figured out the boom / bust cycle yet. Imagine their outrage if they figured out who benefits from this both on the upside and the downside.
 
Ok, fair enough, 500 million. It was more of a bad loan than "giving" it away but it was a failure, yes. Anything else?

All "green energy" subsidies. Giving away two auto companies to the unions in exchange for their support.
 
No, just the end of a Temporary decrease engineered precisely for Temporary partisan prosperity.
But even that ploy failed.

But... but... but... The temporary tax on the luxury of a telephone that was passed to finance the Spanish American War is still with us. When did any government tax expire?

Actually the Bush cuts did work and the economy was recovering nicely. The problem this time was that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that banks make home loans to people who had no hope of repaying them, and that chicken finally came home to roost.

Bushonmics was indeed a repeat of FAILED Reaganomics.
Both exploded the Deficit by increasing spending way More than receipts and BOTH lead stock Market CRASHES Six+ years in. October 1987 for Reagan.
How conveniently and quickly they forget.

Reagonomics didn't fail, and it didn't explode the deficit. It doubled the government revenue, and the increased deficit was caused by a congress that couldn't stop spending.

Congressional Economics 101: Congress will spend every dime that comes in the door, plus as much more as they can get away with.
 
But... but... but... The temporary tax on the luxury of a telephone that was passed to finance the Spanish American War is still with us. When did any government tax expire?

Actually the Bush cuts did work and the economy was recovering nicely. The problem this time was that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that banks make home loans to people who had no hope of repaying them, and that chicken finally came home to roost.
That's deluded.
Bush Cut Income Taxes AND Cap Gains/Divs/Estate... while.... starting two Expensive Wars (a Trillion $)..., and giving away Medicare 'Part D' UNFUNDED.
Obamacare, at least, is Funded!


Diogenes said:
Reagonomics didn't fail, and it didn't explode the deficit. It doubled the government revenue, and the increased deficit was caused by a congress that couldn't stop spending.
Congressional Economics 101: Congress will spend every dime that comes in the door, plus as much more as they can get away with.
It failed the first Time and failed the second Time.
If you can't cut spending, don't cut taxes.
Balancing a budget is more important than partisanly Hacking one side and putting the country in debt.
Both Crashes.
You merely claiming otherwise is wrong And empty.
 
Last edited:
I would not opposed to further segmenting capital gains to give more types of gains more favorable treatment than others or even create a floor where only gains over a certain amount get taxed, but I really cannot argue against letting the rates go up. 40 years ago the top income bracket paid 90% in taxes and we somehow survived as a nation. In addition, CNN had a thing the other day showing that the difference between the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan on upper incomes is only about a 2% spread in the end.
 
i'm ok with a return to the 1990s brackets even though i can't really afford to pay more taxes comfortably. we can't keep borrowing, and the 1990s rates are still historically low.
 
That's deluded.
Bush Cut Income Taxes AND Cap Gains/Divs/Estate... while.... starting two Expensive Wars (a Trillion $)..., and giving away Medicare 'Part D' UNFUNDED.
Obamacare, at least, is Funded!

Bush didn't start the wars. Have you forgotten 9/11 already? The tax rate cuts did help the economy improve, and Obamacare is not funded even after it rips Medicare apart.

It failed the first Time and failed the second Time.
If you can't cut spending, don't cut taxes.
Balancing a budget is more important than partisanly Hacking one side and putting the country in debt.
Both Crashes.
You merely claiming otherwise is wrong And empty.

Reaganomics worked, and the federal revenues doubled. No one is talking about reducing taxes; we are talking about reducing the tax rates, which in the Reagan years doubled the tax revenue.

What we need to do is let people go back to work - productive, wealth-creating work, not government paper-shuffling - so they can get off food stamps, unemployment and welfare. and start paying their fair share of taxes again.
 
Back
Top Bottom