• 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!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

Tettsuo said:
Actually, recent history has shown us that any Republican president is bad for the country as long as they tow the Republican mantra of trickle down/supply side economics.

Until Republicans find a new way to address issued other than cut taxes and reduce regulations, I'll continue to vote Democrat. Their was is proven to not do what they claim it will.

It would certainly be better if a 3rd party was available and had viable ideas, but as of right now, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Getting sick and tired of the same tired old rhetoric about trickle down, now provide some data to support your point of view. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury post non partisan data so that is a good place to start. Not surprising from your posts that you would vote Democrat as you have been brainwashed. The data doesn't support your point of view. Reagan initiated trickle down and doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, and doubled govt. revenue. He succeeded with trickle down. Obama has been a total and complete failure yet you would give him four more eyars?
 
Conservative said:
Since when does more revenue lead to deficit reduction?
Click to expand...

That's how we paid off our WWII/Great Depression debt. Which was, by the way, a larger portion of GDP than what we owe now. So, we're batting 1000 so far.

Conservative said:
History shows it leads to more spending.
Click to expand...

When?

Conservative said:
Let's see the spending cuts and put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work before raising taxes.
Click to expand...

Cutting spending means more unemployment. That's the choice we need to make. Any option for reducing the deficit- cutting spending or increasing taxes- means more unemployment. So, you can't pursue those two goals simultaneously really.
 
teamosil said:
That's how we paid off our WWII/Great Depression debt. Which was, by the way, a larger portion of GDP than what we owe now. So, we're batting 1000 so far.

When?

Cutting spending means more unemployment. That's the choice we need to make. Any option for reducing the deficit- cutting spending or increasing taxes- means more unemployment. So, you can't pursue those two goals simultaneously really.
Click to expand...

Wasn't around then but I am sure savings bonds helped a lot.

Why do you keep asking for proof for when I provide it you ignore it. Every year the budget of the United States has increased and every year we had a deficit including every year of the Clinton Administration.

Cutting spending only means more unemployment if you believe it is the government's role to create jobs. Government's role is to increase incentive for the private sector to create jobs and to do that they need to cut spending.

I could be wrong but you seem very young but living in San Francisco could be part of the problem. Do you know that California leads the nation in terms of welfare received according to a CNBC report?
 
Tettsuo said:
Actually, recent history has shown us that any Republican president is bad for the country as long as they tow the Republican mantra of trickle down/supply side economics.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is, that is the policy of the Obama administration. The QE programs are massive trickle down programs and for some reason we have none of the regular complainers complaining. What's even worse is the QE programs are huge tax increases on the poor. Unfortuately, few correctly argue the position. Trickle down DOES NOT work when it's the government operating it. You can not take from one lower group, give it to an upper group and hope for it to trickle back down to the lower group. That is basically the governments position right now.

Now, if someone creates a real entity that creates actual jobs (not temporary, government provided, make work jobs) then things can trickle down. Bill Gates has made a lot of people a whole lot of money while making himself even more.

So, if government gets out of the way, trickle down can work. When it's managed by the government, it's never going to.

Until Republicans find a new way to address issued other than cut taxes and reduce regulations, I'll continue to vote Democrat. Their was is proven to not do what they claim it will.

It would certainly be better if a 3rd party was available and had viable ideas, but as of right now, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul has the right idea.
 
Conservative said:
FICA funds SS and Medicare, FIT is the largest tax revenue source of the Federal govt. followed by Corporate taxes, and Excise taxes. FICA shouldn't have anything to do with the funding of the Govt.
Click to expand...

FICA that is sort of truish. It is only sort of a tax, sort of a retirement program, and it doesn't flow in and out of the general federal budget. Whatever it is called though, it is regressive. But, regardless, that was only one of six federal taxes we discussed, and then state taxes are relevant too when talking about whether or not different groups are paying their fair share. I gather you conceded all those points?

Conservative said:
Still waiting for your definition of fair share that the rich should pay? Think that those income earners who aren't paying any FIT are paying their fair share? Where is your outrage?
Click to expand...

Yes they are paying their fair share. They pay a pretty significant amount of taxes. Payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc, all hit the middle class and the poor hard. And, of course, their fair share is much smaller since their income is much smaller.

There is no fixed amount that is fair for the rich to pay. It's situational. When you have a really wide rich/everybody else gap, taxation needs to become more progressive. When you have a really narrow rich/everybody else gap flatter taxation is better. When you are fighting two wars and trying to recover from a recession, you need to tax more. When you have huge deficits, you need to tax more. When you have an inadequate safety net, you need to tax more. When you are falling behind the rest of the first world you need to tax more. When your safety net is all covered and you're beating the rest of the world in education and you aren't fighting any ways and you're in an economic boom you can tax less. Etc.
 
Conservative said:
Every year the budget of the United States has increased and every year we had a deficit including every year of the Clinton Administration.
Click to expand...

That's a bald-faced lie.
 
Conservative said:
Since when does more revenue lead to deficit reduction? History shows it leads to more spending. Let's see the spending cuts and put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work before raising taxes. Then take SS and Medicare off budget first, submit spending cuts back to at least 2008 levels, set up a fund for the revenue to go to deficit reduction and then I will consider tax cuts. Thanks for the polls though. Wonder how those 47% of income earners that don't pay any FIT voted in the polls?
Click to expand...

As the polls this year show, without a doubt, the majority of Americans do not agree with your opinion. Obama has the backing of the majority of Americans for his proposal.
 
Conservative said:
Wasn't around then but I am sure savings bonds helped a lot.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Savings bonds are the national debt. That is people or companies loaning the federal government money. Same thing now.

Conservative said:
Why do you keep asking for proof for when I provide it you ignore it. Every year the budget of the United States has increased and every year we had a deficit including every year of the Clinton Administration.
Click to expand...

Your position, as I understand it, is that raising taxes on the rich would mean more spending. Can you give any example from our history when that happened? The only time I'm aware of that we significantly raised taxes on the rich was after WWII when we also cut spending dramatically.

Conservative said:
Cutting spending only means more unemployment if you believe it is the government's role to create jobs. Government's role is to increase incentive for the private sector to create jobs and to do that they need to cut spending.
Click to expand...

Rhetoric about the "role of government" has nothing to do with economics. Deficit spending means taking money from China and using it to hire people. That means more jobs. Period. Deficits are bad, but cutting them means either firing people (spending cuts) or reducing investment by raising taxes which means firing people. We can't simultaneously decrease unemployment and either raise taxes or cut spending. Really what we should do is wait until we get out of the recession before we either cut spending or raise taxes, but whenever we do it, we need to do both. We can't just put the entire weight of the deficit on the shoulders of the middle class by cutting programs they rely on. The rich need to chip in too.

Conservative said:
I could be wrong but you seem very young but living in San Francisco could be part of the problem. Do you know that California leads the nation in terms of welfare received according to a CNBC report?
Click to expand...

Do you know that Texas leads the country in self righteous dumbasses? Perhaps living there is part of your problem.

San Francisco, FYI, is rated #1 for IQ of any major city, #1 for median income, and #1 for post graduate degrees per capita. It led the last two major economic booms and is poised to lead the next one. So obviously whatever we're doing it working, eh?
 
Last edited:
teamosil;1059808184]FICA that is sort of truish. It is only sort of a tax, sort of a retirement program, and it doesn't flow in and out of the general federal budget. Whatever it is called though, it is regressive. But, regardless, that was only one of six federal taxes we discussed, and then state taxes are relevant too when talking about whether or not different groups are paying their fair share. I gather you conceded all those points?
Click to expand...

Sort of a tax? Sort of a retirement program? Doesn't flow in and out of the general fund? You are 0 for 3 as all those are wrong. It is a tax, it is a retirement SUPPLEMENT, and it does flow in and out of the General Fund thanks to LBJ in the 60's. You don't seem to understand what specific taxes fund. I said that FIT funds the govt. didn't say that was the only funding and listed the other taxes. FICA should never be in the discussion.

I am waiting for you to explain what happens to state tax revenue when Fed taxes are increased?

Yes they are paying their fair share. They pay a pretty significant amount of taxes. Payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc, all hit the middle class and the poor hard. And, of course, their fair share is much smaller since their income is much smaller.
Click to expand...

Again you don't have a clue, Payroll taxes come back to them in SS and Medicare, Property and sales taxes fund state and local programs so none of those fund the services they get from the Federal Govt. Their income may be lower but they get govt. services and pay zero in FIT.

There is no fixed amount that is fair for the rich to pay. It's situational. When you have a really wide rich/everybody else gap, taxation needs to become more progressive. When you have a really narrow rich/everybody else gap flatter taxation is better. When you are fighting two wars and trying to recover from a recession, you need to tax more. When you have huge deficits, you need to tax more. When you have an inadequate safety net, you need to tax more. When you are falling behind the rest of the first world you need to tax more. When your safety net is all covered and you're beating the rest of the world in education and you aren't fighting any ways and you're in an economic boom you can tax less. Etc.
Click to expand...

Sounds like typical liberalism, wild claims that aren't back up by data, logic, or common sense. Provide some data to support your position like the following:

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.
Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Sort of a tax? Sort of a retirement program? Doesn't flow in and out of the general fund? You are 0 for 3 as all those are wrong. It is a tax, it is a retirement SUPPLEMENT, and it does flow in and out of the General Fund thanks to LBJ in the 60's. You don't seem to understand what specific taxes fund. I said that FIT funds the govt. didn't say that was the only funding and listed the other taxes. FICA should never be in the discussion.

I am waiting for you to explain what happens to state tax revenue when Fed taxes are increased?

Again you don't have a clue, Payroll taxes come back to them in SS and Medicare, Property and sales taxes fund state and local programs so none of those fund the services they get from the Federal Govt. Their income may be lower but they get govt. services and pay zero in FIT.

Sounds like typical liberalism, wild claims that aren't back up by data, logic, or common sense. Provide some data to support your position like the following:
Click to expand...

So to summarize your points, you have conceded every point, but you're still blathering anyways. Right?
 
Conservative said:
Getting sick and tired of the same tired old rhetoric about trickle down, now provide some data to support your point of view. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury post non partisan data so that is a good place to start. Not surprising from your posts that you would vote Democrat as you have been brainwashed. The data doesn't support your point of view. Reagan initiated trickle down and doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, and doubled govt. revenue. He succeeded with trickle down. Obama has been a total and complete failure yet you would give him four more eyars?
Click to expand...
Are you saying Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 didn't have huge budget deficits? I don't want to search for info and you then decide to move the goal post as you're doing above by completely ignoring the massive deficits they've left others to foot the bill for.
 
teamosil said:
So to summarize your points, you have conceded every point, but you're still blathering anyways. Right?
Click to expand...

Is this typical of everyone in San Francisco? You cannot debate when confused with facts.
 
Tettsuo said:
Do you not understand the different between budget deficit and total debt held?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, without a deficit there wouldn't be any debt. Deficit yearly and debt cumulative. Tell me how the debt rose with a budget surplus?
 
Conservative said:
Absolutely, without a deficit there wouldn't be any debt. Deficit yearly and debt cumulative. Tell me how the debt rose with a budget surplus?
Click to expand...
If you're talking in general terms, you can have a budget surplus without applied the surplus to your principal. For example, I budget to pay all of my bills by the end of the week with my pay check, including my mortgage payment. By the end of the week, I have extra money from a bonus I received, yet I still have the full payment on my mortgage to issue payment one. I say screw that and buy a motorbike. Thus, I receive a penalty and my debt increases although I had a budget surplus.

So again I ask. Did Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 explode the budget deficit or not? If so, do you still regard Reagan's exploits as a success (and thus the success of Trickle down/supply side economics) if he created massive budget deficits in the process?
 
Conservative said:
Is this typical of everyone in San Francisco? You cannot debate when confused with facts.
Click to expand...

Confused with facts? All you're doing is making a series of claims, every single one of them is being dismantled by the people you are debating, you aren't bothering to even try to defend them, and instead you're just responding with new, different, claims... You've lost every single point in a long series of points by default, but you don't seem to be even rethinking anything or changing your views based on the realization that all these things you say are wrong. It's irritating, but not really "confusing", and it is a lazy, dishonest, evasive, intellectual style, not "facts".
 
Tettsuo said:
Do you not understand the different between budget deficit and total debt held?
Click to expand...

He should as it's been explained to him often enough. One can only surmise that he's intentionally deceptive.
 
Tettsuo said:
If you're talking in general terms, you can have a budget surplus without applied the surplus to your principal. For example, I budget to pay all of my bills by the end of the week with my pay check, including my mortgage payment. By the end of the week, I have extra money from a bonus I received, yet I still have the full payment on my mortgage to issue payment one. I say screw that and buy a motorbike. Thus, I receive a penalty and my debt increases although I had a budget surplus.

So again I ask. Did Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 explode the budget deficit or not? If so, do you still regard Reagan's exploits as a success (and thus the success of Trickle down/supply side economics) if he created massive budget deficits in the process?
Click to expand...

Explode the deficits? Reagan 1.7 trillion in 8 years, Bush 1, 1.3 trillion in 4 years, Clinton 1.3 trillion in 8 years, Bush 2, 4.9 trillion in 8 years, Obama 4 trillion in 3 years. Who has the worst deficit numbers? Deficits accumulated = debt
 
AdamT said:
He should as it's been explained to him often enough. One can only surmise that he's intentionally deceptive.
Click to expand...

Right, here are the Clinton deficits by year according to the checkbook of the United States

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

1/20/1993 4,188,092,107,183.60
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38


10/1/1993 4,406,339,573,433.47
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89


10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89
10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50

10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50
10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34

10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34
10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32


10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32
10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02


10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02
11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13


11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13
1/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
 
Conservative said:
Right, here are the Clinton deficits by year according to the checkbook of the United States
Click to expand...

No, those are the national DEBT, not the deficit. Debt is the total we owe. Deficit is the shortfall in any given year. That's why it says "debt" in the title of your link.
 
teamosil said:
No, those are the national DEBT, not the deficit. Debt is the total we owe. Deficit is the shortfall in any given year. That's why it says "debt" in the title of your link.
Click to expand...


What is the difference between the beginning of the new fiscal year and the end of the last fiscal year? I really am worried about the education you received.
 
teamosil said:
No, those are the national DEBT, not the deficit. Debt is the total we owe. Deficit is the shortfall in any given year. That's why it says "debt" in the title of your link.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He is a liar.
 
Conservative said:
What is the difference between the beginning of the new fiscal year and the end of the last fiscal year? I really am worried about the education you received.
Click to expand...

The education *I* received? You just said "here is the deficit" and posted the debt...

The difference between the debt at the start of the year and the end of the year is not really anything technically. It isn't the deficit because for example, bills can be sent in to the government late or early, people can claim expenses incurred in the next fiscal year, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom