• 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!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Fenton said:
Clinton had a Republican House and he lowered Capital Gains taxes.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Bush cut tax rates and had a GOP House and Senate. Deficits increased.

Clinton also raised marginal rates, and raised payroll taxes. Are you saying the 47% real increase in tax revenues during the Clinton years was due to tax cuts on capital gains? Or that the capital gains tax cut is what fueled the tech boom and the millions of jobs created?

We can all make random statements all day long, but I'm missing the principle you're trying to get across. There is or is not a Tax Santa Clause (i.e. tax rate cuts pay for themselves). I don't believe in a Tax Santa Clause - tax rate cuts decrease revenues, as math tells us they will.
 
JasperL said:
Where did I argue that democrats are allowed to not worry about deficit spending? Clinton raised taxes, reduced deficits every year he was POTUS, and came closer to a balanced budget than any POTUS in my lifetime. Bush came in and undid those tax increases, and tax revenues dropped to the lowest level of GDP for decades, with predictable effects on the deficit. We paid for the wars with.... tax cuts.

And if you want to quote democrats saying deficit spending will pay for itself in the future, be my guest. They could be out there, but that's not anything like an accepted "Democratic" position. Does Krugman make that argument? Name any liberal economist who argues deficit spending pays for itself - you can't. If you look at the budgets of the liberal caucus in the House, they include significant tax INCREASES to pay for the proposed spending in those same budgets. Their budgets don't pretend that we can increase spending and then wish into existence more tax revenue from multiplier effects and other magic potions.
Click to expand...

The main gripe (from the left) is that tax cuts (for the wealthy) are bad yet they thought the Obama payroll tax holiday was just peachy. You are correct that Krugman objected to that doondoggle but that did not stop Obama (et al) from using that popular trick to get votes.

President Obama Proposes Payroll Tax Holiday Nearly Equal in Size to Bush Income Tax Cuts for 2012 | Tax Justice Blog

Obama Payroll Tax Cut
 
Phys251 said:
Hello Jack. :peace

I'm sure you would probably disagree with these facts, too.
Click to expand...

Nothing like some data to spoil a good headline. Oh well.:mrgreen:

Panic! 2014 hottest year ever (Not so fast, say the satellites)

What’s almost as good as an actual record? A could-be-a-record Headline!
“2014 could become the hottest year on record” – said CBS, The Guardian, Time, Washington Post, Discover Magazine, The Japan News, Wired, and 319 other outlets.​
None of the investigative hardened editors or science reporters knew enough to ask the question, “what do the satellites say?” Which would have been interesting because the satellites say “bollocks”. h/t SPPI
On his site, Dr Roy Spencer explains that 2014 won’t be the warmest year on record. Satellites track almost all of the Earth for 24 hours a day and the data shows that we don’t need to go back to the Medieval Warm Period to find a hotter year, just back to 2010.
….

It might be the hottest year if you live in a white louvered box above a carpark, next to a concrete-heat-sink-superstructure, and not far from a runway. Though even then you might need to be homogenized and adjusted to really feel the heat. But for the rest of the surface of the Earth, 2010 is not a record, not even close.
It’s all pretty pointless anyway Roy points out — we’re arguing over a hundredth of a degree.
See Roy’s great blog
 
Aaaaannnnd here come the anti-science spam posts. I gotta hand it to you, at least you're predictable.

I'm gonna step outside for a bit. It's warm today, and that proves that global warming is real. :2razz:
 
Phys251 said:
Aaaaannnnd here come the anti-science spam posts. I gotta hand it to you, at least you're predictable.

I'm gonna step outside for a bit. It's warm today, and that proves that global warming is real. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Running from the data.
 
JasperL said:
If GOPers want to cut taxes, fine by me. Make the very difficult choices to cut spending to offset the loss in revenue from the tax cuts.

What I'm objecting to as a fairy tale is the notion that "keeping more of what you earn" (i.e. tax cuts) don't require offsetting spending cuts. Instead, GOPers tell us, and Jack quoted an article in Forbes telling us, that tax cuts pay for themselves and increase revenues, or that there is a Tax Santa Clause.
Click to expand...

Do you realize who is in the WH? Name for me the budget cuts from Obama and Democrats? Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget so tell me what he proposed to cut? Everytime the GOP proposes cuts they are attacked for starving kids, killing seniors, and polluting the air

Tax cuts always increase govt. revenue as evidenced by JFK, Reagan, and Bush due to the boom in economic activity. Liberals like you have been brainwashed into believing that the liberal elites tell you
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize who is in the WH? Name for me the budget cuts from Obama and Democrats? Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget so tell me what he proposed to cut? Everytime the GOP proposes cuts they are attacked for starving kids, killing seniors, and polluting the air
Click to expand...

We disagree on spending levels. And the GOP had control of the WH, House and Senate in the Bush years. Show me the big spending reductions....

Tax cuts always increase govt. revenue as evidenced by JFK, Reagan, and Bush due to the boom in economic activity. Liberals like you have been brainwashed into believing that the liberal elites tell you
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is no Tax Santa Clause. It's odd that you think those of us who dismiss the existence of a Tax Santa Clause are the ones who have been brainwashed. It's math and liberals embrace math, supported by evidence. I'd love to believe in magic, a free lunch, the notion that spending increases that everyone loves can be paid for with the tax cuts everyone loves, and governing requires a series of easy choices where everyone wins, but the data prevent me from doing so.
 
JasperL;1063912177]We disagree on spending levels. And the GOP had control of the WH, House and Senate in the Bush years. Show me the big spending reductions....
Click to expand...

Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit and never had the debt over 100% of GDP

Sorry, but there is no Tax Santa Clause. It's odd that you think those of us who dismiss the existence of a Tax Santa Clause are the ones who have been brainwashed. It's math and liberals embrace math, supported by evidence. I'd love to believe in magic, a free lunch, the notion that spending increases that everyone loves can be paid for with the tax cuts everyone loves, and governing requires a series of easy choices where everyone wins, but the data prevent me from doing so.
Click to expand...

Only in the liberal world is people keeping more of what they earn a gift from Santa Claus. Do you realize how foolish you sound? Only in your world is a massive central govt. that has established entitlement programs that consume over 60% of the Federal Budget. Governing does require making a choice and you have made yours, a large central govt. and a 3.9 trillion dollar budget. You must be so proud. Does debt service ever cross your mind? It is currently the 4th largest budget item and that is due only to very low interest rates.

Only in the liberal world are people not smart enough to spend their own money. Seems that people who support Obama fit that classification
 
Jack Hays said:
All bets are off in war.
Click to expand...

There's always a good excuse for GOPers to spend more money, while cutting taxes. But if you look at the record, the GOP and Bush II expanded non-defense domestic spending more than any POTUS since LBJ.
 
JasperL said:
There's always a good excuse for GOPers to spend more money, while cutting taxes. But if you look at the record, the GOP and Bush II expanded non-defense domestic spending more than any POTUS since LBJ.
Click to expand...

Yet Bush never had trillion dollar deficits nor did Bush ever have the debt at 100% of GDP. Yes, Bush and Congress spent too much but Obama put Bush spending on steroids as well as forgot to ship those shovels for shovel ready jobs to create more taxpayers. He then implemented a failed 844 billion dollar stimulus, recycled TARP money, took over Chrysler/GM, funded the Afghanistan war through supplemental expenditures, and added money to the Bush proposed budget knowing that you and others would blame Bush for the 2009 deficit. Simple facts always get in the way of that liberal rhetoric and opinions
 
Conservative said:
Only in the liberal world is people keeping more of what they earn a gift from Santa Claus. Do you realize how foolish you sound?
Click to expand...

You've nicely side stepped the point and intentionally misrepresented what I mean by Tax Santa Clause. I'll requote the actual point.

"I'd love to believe in magic, a free lunch, the notion that spending increases that everyone loves can be paid for with the tax cuts everyone loves, and governing requires a series of easy choices where everyone wins, but the data prevent me from doing so. "

Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Only in your world is a massive central govt. that has established entitlement programs that consume over 60% of the Federal Budget. Governing does require making a choice and you have made yours, a large central govt. and a 3.9 trillion dollar budget. You must be so proud. Does debt service ever cross your mind? It is currently the 4th largest budget item and that is due only to very low interest rates.

Only in the liberal world are people not smart enough to spend their own money. Seems that people who support Obama fit that classification
Click to expand...

Entitlements are supported by republicans and democrats. So is defense spending. The rest of government hasn't grown much at all under Obama.
 
JasperL said:
You've nicely side stepped the point and intentionally misrepresented what I mean by Tax Santa Clause. I'll requote the actual point.

"I'd love to believe in magic, a free lunch, the notion that spending increases that everyone loves can be paid for with the tax cuts everyone loves, and governing requires a series of easy choices where everyone wins, but the data prevent me from doing so. "

Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.



Entitlements are supported by republicans and democrats. So is defense spending. The rest of government hasn't grown much at all under Obama.
Click to expand...

Didn't side step it at all. You seem to have a problem in that you buy what the left tells you. You do not have to pay for tax cuts since all tax cuts led to stimulated activity and more tax revenue PLUS tax cuts allow people to keep more of what you earn. The U.S. Treasury Website is your friend, use it. TAX CUTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAID FOR AS THEY ARE NOT AN EXPENSE TO THE GOVT.
 
Conservative said:
Didn't side step it at all. You seem to have a problem in that you buy what the left tells you. You do not have to pay for tax cuts since all tax cuts led to stimulated activity and more tax revenue PLUS tax cuts allow people to keep more of what you earn. The U.S. Treasury Website is your friend, use it. TAX CUTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAID FOR AS THEY ARE NOT AN EXPENSE TO THE GOVT.
Click to expand...

I've used it, cited all kinds of data, to support my basic embrace of math and evidence, which tells us tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

And Cheney agreed with you about tax cuts not needing to be paid for. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms, this [more tax cuts] is our due."
 
JasperL said:
I've used it, cited all kinds of data, to support my basic embrace of math and evidence, which tells us tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

And Cheney agreed with you about tax cuts not needing to be paid for. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms, this [more tax cuts] is our due."
Click to expand...

Tax cuts often bring in MORE revenue to the coffers due to people just ponying up rather than hiding their money.
 
j-mac said:
Tax cuts often bring in MORE revenue to the coffers due to people just ponying up rather than hiding their money.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as much more than a straight forward and simplified tax code that lacks "loopholes" (deductions, credits and exclusions) would to make the taxation of income from all sources a basic, much harder to avoid, reality. The reason that our current, massively complex, tax code has these "loopholes" is to allow our congress critters to trade them for campaign cash. We have an entire industry built around playing the "loophole" game to help (mostly rich?) folks hide their income.
 
JasperL said:
It costs government more, and I see you've trying hard to avoid the point.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.
Our government spends 9% of the gdp on Medicare, Medicaid, and VA. France spends 7% to cover everyone. UHC is far cheaper than our system.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not necessarily.
Our government spends 9% of the gdp on Medicare, Medicaid, and VA. France spends 7% to cover everyone. UHC is far cheaper than our system.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with your point. Governments at all levels in the U.S. spend more than TOTAL spending (public and private) in most countries. But the ACA Federal subsidies cost a lot of additional taxpayer dollars, and we raised taxes to pay for that additional Federal spending. We didn't 'pay' for the ACA with a couple more rounds of tax cuts, believing that tax cuts are magic and raise revenue, despite math.
 
j-mac said:
Tax cuts often bring in MORE revenue to the coffers due to people just ponying up rather than hiding their money.
Click to expand...

You'll have to define 'often' and provide a few examples, with the evidence to back them up.

The evidence is mixed, but suggests that the LBJ tax cuts might have paid for themselves (those rate cuts were paired with increases in the base - closing loopholes - so it's difficult to prove definitively), but we came off 92% rates with those changes. The peak of the Laffer Curve is estimated to be around 70%. Any examples of tax cuts starting from below 70% that paid for themselves?
 
JasperL said:
I understand and agree with your point. Governments at all levels in the U.S. spend more than TOTAL spending (public and private) in most countries. But the ACA Federal subsidies cost a lot of additional taxpayer dollars, and we raised taxes to pay for that additional Federal spending. We didn't 'pay' for the ACA with a couple more rounds of tax cuts, believing that tax cuts are magic and raise revenue, despite math.
Click to expand...
Oh.

Good point. Of course, we can't pay for increased spending by cutting taxes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not nearly as much more than a straight forward and simplified tax code that lacks "loopholes" (deductions, credits and exclusions) would to make the taxation of income from all sources a basic, much harder to avoid, reality. The reason that our current, massively complex, tax code has these "loopholes" is to allow our congress critters to trade them for campaign cash. We have an entire industry built around playing the "loophole" game to help (mostly rich?) folks hide their income.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I am all for a simplified flat tax.
 
JasperL said:
You'll have to define 'often' and provide a few examples, with the evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

No, I don't have the time this morning to re hash, and re post ALL of the evidence of this that has been discussed on this forum since the day I joined and before...I am sure they are all in the archives, go look them up, that is if you are truly interested in objective analysis...I don't that that is the case, but if you are then you will use the search function on this forum to educate yourself before further partisan talking point blather.
 
j-mac said:
Agreed, I am all for a simplified flat tax.
Click to expand...

Yep - and that simplified tax code would have lower marginal rates in order to generate the same amount of revenue. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom