• 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!

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

That is not an answer....Here I'll ask it again for you....Could you specify what cuts to the military budget you would make, and how many you foresee becoming unemployed due to your cuts?

Its not worth my time, because it will never happen until the country decides we have a debt problem.
 
"Defense spending is about to enter a steep decline that may force the Pentagon to abandon some military missions, shrink the armed forces and perhaps limit America’s role in the world" Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

The Constitutional Charge to Defend America


This is obviously a problem.

If we can't continue to be the world's policeman, then this is a dealbreaker.
 
Its not worth my time, because it will never happen until the country decides we have a debt problem.


So then you are conceding the argument, because either 1. You don't know what you would cut further than that which has already been cut, hence you just spew the line because it is on the talking point sheet you are basing argument from, or 2. You know that it will harm employment, and the country's defense to cut more, and it would kill you to admit that I am right....

Look Cat, Entitlements are the real meat and potato's to this argument, without them being in the mix, we have nothing.
 
This is obviously a problem.

If we can't continue to be the world's policeman, then this is a dealbreaker.

I don't like being the worlds policeman either, but the lone superpower has responsibilities.
 
You're history is laughably flawed

Every time taxes have been cut, (especially Capital Gains) revenue to the Treasury has increased.
It's something how these rightwing talking points, i.e. lies, refuse to die.

Taxes were cut in 1919 -- revenue fell that year (i)
Taxes were cut in 1922 -- revenue fell that year (a)

Taxes were cut in 1924 -- revenue rose that year (i)
Taxes were cut in 1925 -- revenue fell that year (i)
Taxes were cut in 1946 -- revenue fell that year (a)

Taxes were cut in 1948 -- revenue rose that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1964 -- revenue rose that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1965 -- revenue rose that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1970 -- revenue fell that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1971 -- revenue fell that year (a)

Taxes were cut in 1981 -- revenue rose that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1982 -- revenue fell that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1987 -- revenue rose that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 1988 -- revenue rose that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 2001 -- revenue fell that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 2002 -- revenue fell that year (a)
Taxes were cut in 2003 -- revenue fell that year (a)

(i) = interpolated between actual reported values
(a) = actual reported

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1910-2012 - Federal State Local Data
Docudharma:: Historical Income Tax Rates for the Top Tax Bracket -- with Charts
 
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. In the last full year of Ronald Regan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP.

So notice that the GDP increased by a whopping 82% over just 8 years under Reagan. That is a huge leap.
No, that is huge asininity. That's using nominal figures, not real figures. That's the same failed argument that everyone laughed at Conservative at for relying on because he like the results of nominal figures better than real figures. In the real world, Reagan saw a 30% gain.

Under Obama between 2008 and 2010, it increased only about 3%.
This is more idiocy as it attributes 2008, a year that Bush was president, to Obama. Furthermore, you use these dates because they encompass Bush's Great Recession, which saw a 5% drop in GDP. Again, nothing to do with Obama.

Reagan did cut taxes on “the rich” from 70% to 28%, a drop of 60%. By liberal accounting, that should have caused revenues to the government to fall by 60%. But revenues to the federal treasury went from $517 billion in 1980 to $991 billion in 1989, increasing by 91%.
This is just painful to read because it completely ignores the fact that Reagan raised taxes on 11 occasions during that period, which is what raised revenues.

They only like to point out that during Reagan’s presidency the debt increased from $909 billion in 1980 when Reagan was elected to $2.857 trillion by 1989 when Reagan left office. So they always say, “Reagan tripled the national debt because he lowered tax rates”.
Umm, that's because Reagan did triple the debt. There is no denying that, try as you might.

Technically, they can say that that is true, that he tripled the debt. But if you consider the debt increase as a percentage of the whole national wealth (GDP) went from 32.6% to 51%, that is a 59% increase relative to the whole economy, not a 300% increase (tripling) like liberals say. And still, after defeating the Soviet Union with a huge military buildup, the final debt of the Reagan years was only about half (51% of GDP) of what it is today (100% of GDP).

Yet even this 59% increase in the debt was caused mostly by the Democrats in Congress. Here is how:

Reagan cut top tax rates which set off an economic boom, causing huge inflows to the treasury. He then spent some of that money on the military to defeat the Soviet Union – certainly some of the best-spent dollars in American history.
This is just more rightwing jism. After Reagan's tax cuts, we had a recession and a drop in federal revenue. It was only after he raised taxes that the economy turned around. Also, blaming Democrats for the increased debt is beyond ludicrous as it came from Reagan's increased defense spending, which you pretend was only "some money." And it's laughable that he defeated the Soviet Union since history teaches us that perestroika finished off the USSR, as Gorbachev tried to reinvent their government and their economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom