• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Conservative said:
Like now and during a recession and a year afterwards, unemployment increased which led to a reduction in revenue. Liberals like you simply don't have a clue how to grow an economy as evidenced by the results today. Do you think a company makes a lot of money on those Thanksgiving door busters? what is the purpose of a door buster? Equate that to tax cuts, what is the purpose of tax cuts? Figure it out and get back to me.

Little off with the math, the first installment of the Bush tax cuts, the rebate checks didn't get fully distributed until the end of fiscal year 2001. Looks like 2004 Income tax revenue exceeded 2001 revenue

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3
Click to expand...

No offense, but I'm not buying your numbers if you don't provide a source and a link. It's pretty well established that you're not very good at figuring out thsoe tables.

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1990-2013 - Federal State Local Data
 
Catawba said:
It hasn't made sense to me during the last 30 of cutting our revenues, at the same time we doubled wasteful spending on the military/industrial complex and started two unfunded wars.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion yet what you ignore is that the growth in the military has not created the 15 trillion debt we have today. I have yet to see you explain why we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget of which about 800 billion is the military or defense budget. Doesn't look like you know what the line items of the budget are
 
Zyphlin said:
Nothing. If we accept your premise, The Bush Tax Cuts reduced the amount of revenue we brought in (theoritically, as its based off the ASSUMPTION economists make that everything would've functioned exactly the same in regards to the economy whether the Bush Tax Cuts existed or not). The Bush spending added to the debt by spending more than our revenues brought in.
Click to expand...

Bush doubled the National debt by providing tax cuts to the rich at the same time he started two unfunded wars and doubled spending on the military. We need to do the reverse to reduce our debt.

Taking in less money does not directly cause debt. Debt is created when you spend more money than you have.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I just said.

If we had taken in more revenue but still spent more money than we took in, we'd still have increased debt.
Click to expand...

Correct, and if we just cut spending and did not eliminate the tax cuts for the rich, we'd still have increased debt. It is going to take the opposite of what we have done over the last 30 years of trickle down economics.


What increases or decreases debt is spending in relation to revenues, not revenues themselves. Bush definitely increased our debt, but he did it through spending more than we brought in.
Click to expand...

A budget has two components, revenue and expenses. If you cut revenues, without a corresponding cut in spending you have debt, which is what we have had with every Republican Administration for the last 30 years.

The same can be said with Obama under the Bush tax rates and the Obama tax rates (you know, the ones he signed off on in December 2010)
Click to expand...

The tax cuts that the Republicans held unemployment benefits hostage for, that a majority of Democrats voted against, is that the tax cut you mean?
 
AdamT said:
No offense, but I'm not buying your numbers if you don't provide a source and a link. It's pretty well established that you're not very good at figuring out thsoe tables.

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1990-2013 - Federal State Local Data
Click to expand...

I prefer the U.S. Treasury Dept. site that is the checkbook of the United States

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
j-mac said:
too bad it would no longer be America.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I am curious. Why are polices that favor business (using tax dollars to benefit business) are American, but any policy that favors workers is unAmerican?

America has had polices that effected both from the very begining.
 
Conservative said:
Not a dime, tax cuts grew revenue
Click to expand...

In fairy land possibly. Here in the US: "Our National Debt is up Three Trillion Dollars under George W. Bush!"

"By comparison, please note that Democratic President Bill Clinton increased the National Debt by less than $18 Billion in his ENTIRE LAST YEAR in office! At the rate that the Clinton administration was reducing the debt increases, an Al Gore administration would have almost paid off the entire National Debt by 2008! We would have had EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS OF DEBT DECREASES!!! A far cry from what Bush and the Republicans gave us.

Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act* that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich! The Republicans claimed that the Debt Reduction Act would result in HIGHER deficits and also result in an economic recession during President Clinton's term. Obviously, with hindsight they were completely wrong. Republicans don't seem to be very good at math, or economics.

Now, after 20 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS than $1 Trillion -- the day Ronald Reagan took office to ALMOST $10 TRILLION!!! The Debt has increased more than TEN TIMES what it was when Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt by 1983! We and our children and their children will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more! For what !?!? Services have been cut across America. Police and Fire Departments haven't grown nearly as fast as our population. Even the number of troops in the military has been cut while military spending has skyrocketed!"
Increases in the National Debt Chart
 
Boo Radley said:
I am curious. Why are polices that favor business (using tax dollars to benefit business) are American, but any policy that favors workers is unAmerican?

America has had polices that effected both from the very begining.
Click to expand...

Could it have anything to do with the income has been earned by the companies and they get to keep more of what they already earned? You seem to believe it is the government's money that goes to companies in subsidies.
 
Catawba said:
In fairy land possibly. Here in the US: "Our National Debt is up Three Trillion Dollars under George W. Bush!"

"By comparison, please note that Democratic President Bill Clinton increased the National Debt by less than $18 Billion in his ENTIRE LAST YEAR in office! At the rate that the Clinton administration was reducing the debt increases, an Al Gore administration would have almost paid off the entire National Debt by 2008! We would have had EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS OF DEBT DECREASES!!! A far cry from what Bush and the Republicans gave us.

Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act* that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich! The Republicans claimed that the Debt Reduction Act would result in HIGHER deficits and also result in an economic recession during President Clinton's term. Obviously, with hindsight they were completely wrong. Republicans don't seem to be very good at math, or economics.

Now, after 20 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS than $1 Trillion -- the day Ronald Reagan took office to ALMOST $10 TRILLION!!! The Debt has increased more than TEN TIMES what it was when Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt by 1983! We and our children and their children will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more! For what !?!? Services have been cut across America. Police and Fire Departments haven't grown nearly as fast as our population. Even the number of troops in the military has been cut while military spending has skyrocketed!"
Increases in the National Debt Chart
Click to expand...

Our Debt went up 1.55 trillion under Clinton so what is your point? Debt has gone up 4.4 trillion under Obama in three years.
 
j-mac said:
*Buuuuuuuuzzzzzzz* Wrong! Please read this:



j-mac
Click to expand...

A better source than your last one, and while I could pull from multiple sources to contradict yours, I 'll use the Conservative Forbes:

It’s a mainstay of conservative orthodoxy that tax cuts create jobs. In fact, the complexity of the tax code does create jobs for high-priced tax attorneys and accountants. But do tax cuts create “real” jobs?

The answer appears to be no for companies big and small. After all, U.S. public companies pay well-below the official 35% tax rate while 13.5 million American workers search unsuccessfully for jobs And start ups tell me that tax cuts don’t affect whether they’ll create new jobs. In short, the tax cut rhetoric, while effective politics, is lousy economics.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? - Forbes
 
Conservative said:
Could it have anything to do with the income has been earned by the companies and they get to keep more of what they already earned? You seem to believe it is the government's money that goes to companies in subsidies.
Click to expand...

You may not know this, but workers earn their income as well. And business is rarely run by one person. Any corporation is only as good as those who actually do the work. Both need each other.
 
Boo Radley said:
A better source than your last one, and while I could pull from multiple sources to contradict yours, I 'll use the Conservative Forbes:

It’s a mainstay of conservative orthodoxy that tax cuts create jobs. In fact, the complexity of the tax code does create jobs for high-priced tax attorneys and accountants. But do tax cuts create “real” jobs?

The answer appears to be no for companies big and small. After all, U.S. public companies pay well-below the official 35% tax rate while 13.5 million American workers search unsuccessfully for jobs And start ups tell me that tax cuts don’t affect whether they’ll create new jobs. In short, the tax cut rhetoric, while effective politics, is lousy economics.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? - Forbes
Click to expand...

Here we go again, another liberal that doesn't understand the role of economic growth on job creation. Why is it everything always remains the same in the liberal world regardless of economic policy. Do you think that cutting taxes during the Reagan years had no impact on the doubling of GDP and creation of 17 million jobs?
 
Boo Radley said:
You may not know this, but workers earn their income as well. And business is rarely run by one person. Any corporation is only as good as those who actually do the work. Both need each other.
Click to expand...

Workers have a job because of companies and if the company doesn't make money there are no jobs for workers. We are seeing a lot of that today especially the small companies.
 
Conservative said:
Workers have a job because of companies and if the company doesn't make money there are no jobs for workers. We are seeing a lot of that today especially the small companies.
Click to expand...

And if there are no workers, the job won't get done. And if workers don't make any money, there won't be anyone to buy the products, and there will be no business. As I said, both need each other.
 
Conservative said:
Let me know how Congressional approval affects your or my approval of your Congressional Representative. Since Congressional elections are local what purpose does it serve to have Congressional approval ratings. I cannot vote for your Representative and you cannot vote for mine so why does it matter what you think of mine?
Click to expand...

So you are not worried that Congress has the lowest approval rating in the last 34 years. You would only worry if people think their own representative did not deserve reelection?

Take a gander at this then: "* only 33% of voters say their own representative deserves to be re-elected.

"This last number is particularly important because it has often been the case that Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole but think their particular representative is doing a good job."

Uncharted Territory in Congressional Disapproval: The Importance of the “My Representative” Question
 
Conservative said:
Here we go again, another liberal that doesn't understand the role of economic growth on job creation. Why is it everything always remains the same in the liberal world regardless of economic policy. Do you think that cutting taxes during the Reagan years had no impact on the doubling of GDP and creation of 17 million jobs?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose that is an easier approach than to address Forbes. They are conservative, and this is in their feild of expertise. But, we know your pattern, now don't we.

:2funny:
 
Boo Radley said:
And if there are no workers, the job won't get done. And if workers don't make any money, there won't be anyone to buy the products, and there will be no business. As I said, both need each other.
Click to expand...

Right, but business is in business to make money and if they don't make any money or don't invest in the business there are no jobs.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, I suppose that is an easier approach than to address Forbes. They are conservative, and this is in their feild of expertise. But, we know your pattern, now don't we.

:2funny:
Click to expand...

Nice diversion, how did govt. revenue grow after the Reagan tax cuts? what affect do people have on the economy when they get to keep more of what they earned?
 
Conservative said:
Right, but business is in business to make money and if they don't make any money or don't invest in the business there are no jobs.
Click to expand...

Workers work to make money. And if they don't make money, they won't buy stuff. And if enough workers don't make money, they won't buy enough to encourage business to invest, and hence no jobs.

Again, they need each other. Business isn't giving away ****. They need people with enough money to buy. The only way to have that is to pay them.
 
Conservative said:
Nice diversion, how did govt. revenue grow after the Reagan tax cuts? what affect do people have on the economy when they get to keep more of what they earned?
Click to expand...

Again, there are all kinds of reasons why the economy grows and shrink. You are amking, as you always do, a causal relationship error. A friend quit shaving after 9/11. NY hasn't been attacked. He says it is because he quit shaving. You're doing the same type of silly thinking concerning tax cuts.
 
Conservative said:
Our Debt went up 1.55 trillion under Clinton so what is your point? Debt has gone up 4.4 trillion under Obama in three years.
Click to expand...

IN Clinton's last year he had the deficit down to $18 billion. If Bush had kept revenue and spending levels where Clinton had them, we could paid off the National debt by now. Instead Bush increased the debt by 3 trillion and caused Obama to have to spend a couple trillion cleaning up the Bush mess.
 
Catawba said:
IN Clinton's last year he had the deficit down to $18 billion. If Bush had kept revenue and spending levels where Clinton had them, we could paid off the National debt by now. Instead Bush increased the debt by 3 trillion and caused Obama to have to spend a couple trillion cleaning up the Bush mess.
Click to expand...
So being fiscally irresponsible is only excusable if your predecessor made the same error?
 
Conservative said:
Here we go again, another liberal that doesn't understand the role of economic growth on job creation. Why is it everything always remains the same in the liberal world regardless of economic policy. Do you think that cutting taxes during the Reagan years had no impact on the doubling of GDP and creation of 17 million jobs?
Click to expand...

Even conservative economists admit that tax cuts reduce revenue. Reagan's economics advisors have admitted. Bush's economic advisors have admitted. The ONLY people who stand by the voodoo econmics BS are poltical hacks who don't understand economics.
 
Boo Radley said:
Workers work to make money. And if they don't make money, they won't buy stuff. And if enough workers don't make money, they won't buy enough to encourage business to invest, and hence no jobs.

Again, they need each other. Business isn't giving away ****. They need people with enough money to buy. The only way to have that is to pay them.
Click to expand...

Right now we have a net job loss and that is after adding 4.4 trillion to the debt. Yours seems to be a ringing endorsement of tax cuts for taxpayers.
 
AdamT said:
Even conservative economists admit that tax cuts reduce revenue. Reagan's economics advisors have admitted. Bush's economic advisors have admitted. The ONLY people who stand by the voodoo econmics BS are poltical hacks who don't understand economics.
Click to expand...

Better tell that to the Treasury Dept. which doesn't show that. What you ignore is human behavior and the fact that people keeping more of their money makes it easier for economic growth and that creates demand for jobs.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, there are all kinds of reasons why the economy grows and shrink. You are amking, as you always do, a causal relationship error. A friend quit shaving after 9/11. NY hasn't been attacked. He says it is because he quit shaving. You're doing the same type of silly thinking concerning tax cuts.
Click to expand...

So explain to me how govt. revenue grew after the Reagan tax cuts and how 17 million jobs were created and what affect those new hires had on govt. revenue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom