• 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!

Debt Crisis is Worse than we Think

Forget abut the Republicans for a moment, please.

Do you feel Obama is doing a good job and deserves another four years?

When considering who to vote for, comparisons to the opposition are appropriate. Often, it is required
 
How do you figure?
The increase between 2003 (16.2) and 2007 (18.5) was 2.3% of GDP.
That's the highest 4-year increase since 65-69.

The increase was a result the recovery from the dotcom bust and the inflation of the real estate bubble. In other words, you're looking at a trough to peak.

Hell, even Bush's tax guru doesn't claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. It's quite clear that they don't unless they are narrowly targeted.
 
How do you figure?
The increase between 2003 (16.2) and 2007 (18.5) was 2.3% of GDP.
That's the highest 4-year increase since 65-69.

How do you figure that being a huge surge? Just because it was larger than small increases in earlier years does not make it huge.
 
The tax cuts clearly reduced revenue and should have been repealed. They happened a very short time before the recession and did not create many jobs.
Clearly not.
 
Anybody ever realize that if the US defaults quite possibly the price of gold will sky rocket. And if the price of gold hits roughly 5k per oz the US has no more debt because of the gold reserves. Now our credit rating would be ruined and the world would be put into a depression so I do not think it would be worth it.
 
According to the chart at the following link (there's a table you can plug date ranges into) the growth in GDP was not "impressive"

United States GDP Growth Rate
Comparing it to the years before the tax cut was put in place - we went from a very sluggish period back to business as usual.
But yes, if you're comparing it to the turnaround under Reagan, it wasn't as impressive.
 
The increase was a result the recovery from the dotcom bust and the inflation of the real estate bubble. In other words, you're looking at a trough to peak.

Hell, even Bush's tax guru doesn't claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. It's quite clear that they don't unless they are narrowly targeted.
Well, duh. Of course it was a recovery. That's what the tax cut is supposed to do - spur growth. The real estate bubble was building since the mid 90's.

No supply side economist will say that tax cuts always pay for themselves.
 
How do you figure that being a huge surge? Just because it was larger than small increases in earlier years does not make it huge.
If you don't like "huge" substitute "historical" or "extremely rare rate of growth not seen in 40 years" or "the first medium sized increase in 40 years of slow growth"

Whatever floats your boat.
 
What growth? 3mil jobs created. That was horrible not including the recession.
 
What growth? 3mil jobs created. That was horrible not including the recession.

Growth in revenue. There wasn't a lot of room for improvement on the job front, it being around 4.5% unemployment.

Now, 9.5% unemployment and negative job growth two years into a recovery -- THAT'S horrible.
 
Last edited:

Of course it is worse than we think. The debt ceiling bill basically excluded any meaningful taxation of the rich, the biggest businesses, and Wall Street. They got trillions in bail outs and now they are not even going to be a central part of the economic recovery.

If ever there were definitive proof staring us squarely in the face that businesses and their cronies are controlling congress, this is it. Our country is on the brink of total financial chaos and still the aristocracy gets to avoid austerity measures.

Socialize the risk, privatize the profits. The U.S. is already more socialist than China, it's just that we're more into corporate welfare than actually doing things that benefit the public.
 
Unemployment rose to around 6.2%. If there wasn't a lot of room for improvement why have the tax cuts promising it would create jobs?
 
Unemployment rose to around 6.2%. If there wasn't a lot of room for improvement why have the tax cuts promising it would create jobs?
Who was promising that tax cuts would create jobs during a recession? You act like people were saying that tax cuts would make the job market recession proof.
The reason you don't raise it is not to create jobs, it's to not kick the economy while it's down. You don't want to kill growth. Even Keynesians believe this.
 
If you don't like "huge" substitute "historical" or "extremely rare rate of growth not seen in 40 years" or "the first medium sized increase in 40 years of slow growth"

Whatever floats your boat.

I'm still not buying your claims. They don't add up

We had a surplus and debt was at a certain level. I don't remember the #'s off the top of my head, but after 8 years of bush*, this debt had nearly doubled. If it wasn't because of a spending spree, and it wasn't because of decreased revenues due to tax cuts, then how did the national debt nearly double?
 
Who was promising that tax cuts would create jobs during a recession? You act like people were saying that tax cuts would make the job market recession proof.
The reason you don't raise it is not to create jobs, it's to not kick the economy while it's down. You don't want to kill growth. Even Keynesians believe this.

Bush said that:
Bush Signs Tax Cut Bill, Dismissing All Criticism - NYTimes.com

I'm not talking about not raising taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom