• 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!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would you please provide one of those very pretty, but often meaningless graphs, to show just how many infrastructure jobs the one term Marxist president Obama's administration has created? And just for fun would you add one to show just how many well paying government busybody jobs he has also created over the same period of time?

Request denied
 
The only thing that was shovel ready was the republicans bu**sh*t. There is plenty of that to shovel around.
 
"It would be an embarrassment for the United States of America to default on its obligations,'' Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (P) told the Reuters news agency at a meeting of the National Governors Association in Salt Lake City Saturday.

"I really think we need more statesmen and less politicians in Washington right now because it is a situation that must be solved,” Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (R) said in another Reuters interview.

I've been saying the bolded bit for weeks.

Debt ceiling crisis: another day without resolution as the clock ticks - CSMonitor.com
 
Nope. A theory must be tested. And when you reach the conclusion that there is no evidence to support it, you adjust the theory and not just hold on to it.
There's certainly a debate (as with much of economics) but most have reached the conclusion that sufficient evidence exists to hold to the theory that increasing taxes would hurt the economy, at least in the short term.
 
There's certainly a debate (as with much of economics) but most have reached the conclusion that sufficient evidence exists to hold to the theory that increasing taxes would hurt the economy, at least in the short term.

I can't speak to what convinces some and not others, but the fact remains we have seen the economy do well with a high tax rate and poorly with a low tax rate. And the reverse. There appears to be little actual evidence that taxes make any significant difference. It should never be about opinions as much as about what we can show actually happening or has happened.
 
I posted several links to people, all rightwingers, saying that tax increases prevent growth
Nope, they say they hurt growth. Again, not the same thing. To say that tax increases prevent growth is to imply that an increase will result in a recessions or at best, zero growth. Nobody is making that claim.
 
Instead of predictions, how about a look at results?

UConn report finds state income tax hasn’t hurt job growth

(snip)

“States with income taxes had job growth rates that were not statistically lower than states without income taxes. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that Connecticut’s recent economic performance has had less to do with the income tax and more to do with national and global forces that have contributed to structural changes in its economy,” Lanza wrote.

UConn report finds state income tax hasn?t hurt job growth- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut
 
I can't speak to what convinces some and not others, but the fact remains we have seen the economy do well with a high tax rate and poorly with a low tax rate. And the reverse. There appears to be little actual evidence that taxes make any significant difference.
With an analysis that simplistic, I don't know why you both analyze at all. It's like saying "we've seen smokers live very long lives and non smokers live very short lives, and we've seen smokers live short lives and non smokers live long lives, therefore there's no evidence smoking makes any difference on one's lifespan."
 
With an analysis that simplistic, I don't know why you both analyze at all. It's like saying "we've seen smokers live very long lives and non smokers live very short lives, and we've seen smokers live short lives and non smokers live long lives, therefore there's no evidence smoking makes any difference on one's lifespan."

You're misreading. There is plenty of evidence of the damages of smoking, something you do not have with taxes and the economy.
 
let the Bush tax cuts expire....for all.....simple as that....
If tax cuts are key to job creation, we should have next to no unemployment right now...
 
false, and anyone who thinks that the rights' push for cutting taxes on the rich is based on an honest belief in economic growth is ignoring the facts.

Your dismissal without any evidence is pathetic and we have seen all sorts of comments from the welfare socialists on this board proving that their main motivation is to punish the rich or to make the parasites, sloths, and slackers feel better
 
I can't speak to what convinces some and not others, but the fact remains we have seen the economy do well with a high tax rate and poorly with a low tax rate. And the reverse. There appears to be little actual evidence that taxes make any significant difference. It should never be about opinions as much as about what we can show actually happening or has happened.

that is a sound point so there really is no reason to raise taxes-especially on those who already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes
 
that is a sound point so there really is no reason to raise taxes-especially on those who already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes

Not for job creation, no. But there are reasons, like revenue increase, to raise taxes some. Back to the preBush tax cuts seems reasonable to me.
 
And, I already have said that I agree with you. I said they were wrong. Is there something else you want me to add?

But you also said that no one is arguing that tax increases prevent eco growth. My links prove you wrong

You also said that most economists agree with you. My links prove you wrong.

Yes, I want you to add that YOU were wrong also
 
There's certainly a debate (as with much of economics) but most have reached the conclusion that sufficient evidence exists to hold to the theory that increasing taxes would hurt the economy, at least in the short term.

There is no debate on what grows the economy, and it's only the economic rightwingers who believe that tax increases hurt the economy.

And I don't think I didn't notice that you changed your argument by adding the words "at least in the short term"
 
Not for job creation, no. But there are reasons, like revenue increase, to raise taxes some. Back to the preBush tax cuts seems reasonable to me.
\on everyone or just those rich people who already pay 40% of the income tax?
 
Nope, they say they hurt growth. Again, not the same thing. To say that tax increases prevent growth is to imply that an increase will result in a recessions or at best, zero growth. Nobody is making that claim.

No, they said they prevent growth. I posted a list of links to rightwingers making that claim
 
There is no debate on what grows the economy, and it's only the economic rightwingers who believe that tax increases hurt the economy.

And I don't think I didn't notice that you changed your argument by adding the words "at least in the short term"

that is silly. high taxes have never been proven to grow the economy
 
\on everyone or just those rich people who already pay 40% of the income tax?

I'm ok with everyone, but would not object to one more targeted, as those you speak of are not doing badly either way. Like me, they would hardly notice it at all.
 
With an analysis that simplistic, I don't know why you both analyze at all. It's like saying "we've seen smokers live very long lives and non smokers live very short lives, and we've seen smokers live short lives and non smokers live long lives, therefore there's no evidence smoking makes any difference on one's lifespan."

Yes, your analysis, which includes no real world data, is far more complex and sophisticated. And I think I know why you don't bother analying real world data at all.

And you do know that scientists have a lot more info about smoking than "some people who smoke live a long time, and some don't. And some who don't smoke live a long time, and some don't" don't you? If you think that's all they considered when concluding that smoking causes cancer, then your knowledge of smoking risks is comparable to your knowledge of economics
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom