• 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!

Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

Status
Not open for further replies.
David D. said:
Conservative - Bush was Commander in Chief and because of this I say the expensive wars are on his watch, not the Democratic Congress. So are the ill-timed tax cuts. Thank God we found all those "WMDs", they were just where the Halliburton report told us where to look. Crooks, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, reliving the war which has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly deficits that Obama has generated. Bush had nothing to do with the 3 trillion in 2010-2011 as those were totally Obama.

Ill timed tax cuts? You mean the Tax cuts that actually grew govt. revenue?

Federal Income Tax revenue by year. Bush tax cuts 2001-2003

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

You do realize that Democrats controlled the Senate and voted 77-23 believing there were WMD's although what purpose does it serve to relive that now?
 
Conservative said:
Now we certainly don't want to accept the Treasury Dept. numbers for after all we just pay debt service on that number, not other sources. That is the only number that matters.
Click to expand...

The link you posted says the same thing! :D
 
AdamT said:
The link you posted says the same thing! :D
Click to expand...

So where do you get your 6 trillion figure. Apparently you are charging him with the entire 2009 numbers and I am sure that means Bush is responsible for the entire 2001 numbers as well making him President for 9 years. That isn't the way it works, like it or not. Bush is responsible for the 2001 deficit just like Obama is responsible for the 2009 deficit
 
Conservative said:
Here we go again, reliving the war which has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly deficits that Obama has generated. Bush had nothing to do with the 3 trillion in 2010-2011 as those were totally Obama.

Ill timed tax cuts? You mean the Tax cuts that actually grew govt. revenue?

Federal Income Tax revenue by year. Bush tax cuts 2001-2003

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

You do realize that Democrats controlled the Senate and voted 77-23 believing there were WMD's although what purpose does it serve to relive that now?
Click to expand...

What is it they say about figures never lying, but liars figuring?

Personal income tax revenue almost never falls unless there is a large tax cut or a major recession. It goes up year after year because the population increases and because of inflation. So it is a major deal when tax receipts fall for two years running. instead of rising. It means that you've lost hundreds of billions of dollars that you will never recover unless you raise rates again. Over time it turns into trillions. David Stockman, who was head of OMB under Reagan, has said that the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue by $300 billion per year.
 
Conservative said:
So where do you get your 6 trillion figure. Apparently you are charging him with the entire 2009 numbers and I am sure that means Bush is responsible for the entire 2001 numbers as well making him President for 9 years. That isn't the way it works, like it or not. Bush is responsible for the 2001 deficit just like Obama is responsible for the 2009 deficit
Click to expand...

It's pretty complicated. You might want to take a nap first. Okay, now subtract the 2001 number from the 2009 number. That's eight years. Got it?
 
AdamT said:
What is it they say about figures never lying, but liars figuring?

Personal income tax revenue almost never falls unless there is a large tax cut or a major recession. It goes up year after year because the population increases and because of inflation. So it is a major deal when tax receipts fall for two years running. instead of rising. It means that you've lost hundreds of billions of dollars that you will never recover unless you raise rates again. Over time it turns into trillions. David Stockman, who was head of OMB under Reagan, has said that the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue by $300 billion per year.
Click to expand...

That is because economists never consider the 17 million new taxpayers that got jobs during the Reagan years or the 6500 additional jobs created between 2003-2007 and use simple math, Human behavior doesn't exist in the liberal world.
 
Conservative said:
That is because economists never consider the 17 million new taxpayers that got jobs during the Reagan years or the 6500 additional jobs created between 2003-2007 and use simple math, Human behavior doesn't exist in the liberal world.
Click to expand...

Stockman isn't a liberal. He was head of OMB under Ronald Reagan. And in any case, it's besides the point. Tax cuts lower revenue. No one denies that anymore. Even Laffer never claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves.
 
AdamT said:
Stockman isn't a liberal. He was head of OMB under Ronald Reagan. And in any case, it's besides the point. Tax cuts lower revenue. No one denies that anymore. Even Laffer never claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves.
Click to expand...

He was an economist that took the employment X the current tax rate vs. the same employment times the new tax rates and of course you are going to get less money. That isn't what happened. 17 million new taxpayers were created
 
Conservative said:
He was an economist that took the employment X the current tax rate vs. the same employment times the new tax rates and of course you are going to get less money. That isn't what happened. 17 million new taxpayers were created
Click to expand...

Yes, economists do consider the stimulative effect of tax cuts (though conservatives now maintain that stimulus doesn't create jobs). Tax cuts still don't pay for themselves. Not even close.

btw, how many of those 17 million workers were "created" by Reagans amnesty for illegal aliens?


"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1Vu207BeO

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Yes, economists do consider the stimulative effect of tax cuts (though conservatives now maintain that stimulus doesn't create jobs). Tax cuts still don't pay for themselves. Not even close.

btw, how many of those 17 million workers were "created" by Reagans amnesty for illegal aliens?
Click to expand...

The numbers show that the after the tax cuts 17 million jobs were created and the numbers show that the stimulus program didn't create jobs or the unemployment would be down instead of up from when he took office.

Your amnesty for illegal argument isn't worth the effort. Amnesty for liberals should create liberal support for Reagan
 
Conservative said:
The numbers show that the after the tax cuts 17 million jobs were created and the numbers show that the stimulus program didn't create jobs or the unemployment would be down instead of up from when he took office.

Your amnesty for illegal argument isn't worth the effort. Amnesty for liberals should create liberal support for Reagan
Click to expand...

The numbers also show a -9% GDP
 
winston53660 said:
The numbers also show a -9% GDP
Click to expand...

No they don't Reagan never had a -9% GDP Growth, pay attention

Reagan GDP Growth by year

1980 2,788.10
1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
1989 5482.10
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
The numbers show that the after the tax cuts 17 million jobs were created and the numbers show that the stimulus program didn't create jobs or the unemployment would be down instead of up from when he took office.

Your amnesty for illegal argument isn't worth the effort. Amnesty for liberals should create liberal support for Reagan
Click to expand...

Do you really not get this?

chart-020510-update.gif


There is no way anyone was going to go from losing over 700k jobs a month to gaining 700k jobs a month in the blink of an eye. It takes time to stop the bleeding, and while you're stopping the bleeding you are, of course, losing more blood.
 
AdamT said:
Do you really not get this?

chart-020510-update.gif


There is no way anyone was going to go from losing over 700k jobs a month to gaining 700k jobs a month in the blink of an eye. It takes time to stop the bleeding, and while you're stopping the bleeding you are, of course, losing more blood.
Click to expand...

Just like you cannot get it through your head that the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from Oct-Sept, you will also never understand that we have a net job loss since Obama took office and you can post all the job creation in the world but that doesn't change the facts that you ignore. Net job loss that wouldn't have happened had there been enough jobs created, there weren't
 
Conservative said:
That is on the Obama record. Don't recall you blaming Clinton for the 2001 deficit and adding that to the Clinton deficit
Click to expand...
Only in your mind. In the real world, Bush, and not Obama, is responsible for Bush's budget.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Only in your mind. In the real world, Bush, and not Obama, is responsible for Bush's budget.
Click to expand...

Bush is responsible for the Bush budget, not the supplementals added to it. Budgets don't have to be spent but Obama had not problem spending the money
 
Conservative said:
No they don't Reagan never had a -9% GDP Growth, pay attention

Reagan GDP Growth by year

1980 2,788.10
1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
1989 5482.10
Click to expand...
By those figures, GDP under Obama for this year is up 3.1% and 3.7% respectively.
 
Conservative said:
Bush is responsible for the Bush budget, not the supplementals added to it. Budgets don't have to be spent but Obama had not problem spending the money
Click to expand...
Bush is responsible for the war suppliments to fight his wars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom