• 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!

John Boehner speaks of tax compromise

ptif219 said:
Problem is small business fall in this category. …
Click to expand...

During the Face the Nation interview, Rep. Boehner did not dispute that less than 3% of all small business owners would be subject to tax increases if the Bush tax cuts for incomes exceeding $250K were allowed to expire.
 
Chappy said:
During the Face the Nation interview, Rep. Boehner did not dispute that less than 3% of all small business owners would be subject to tax increases if the Bush tax cuts for incomes exceeding $250K were allowed to expire.
Click to expand...

is something not unfair if it only screws 3% of the population (even if its over 40% of the income tax base)?
 
TurtleDude said:
that scheme is guaranteed to lead to more deficit spending. As long as a majority of voters demand more government without paying for it and those who pander to them only seek to raise the taxes of the rich, the majority will never feel a need to reign in governmental out of control spending.
Click to expand...

Based on this argument, please answer the following question simply by replying yes or no:

"Do tax cuts pay for themselves?"

It really isn't about the rich even though the rich clearly pay far more than they should to a government that is far bigger than it should be--its about the fact that far too many people have representation without taxation
Click to expand...

Next question: "What new body/agency of government has President Obama initiated that is active right now?"

In your opinion, what constitutes "bigger government"? I'm asking because I hear this phrase, "bigger government," all the time now but I'm having a hard time isolating exactly what Republicans/Conservatives mean when they say it. Is it identified as a new branch of government, additional government employees, broader powers of a specific government agency or the larger amount of money the government spends overall? And how big or small should government be?

Please, define "bigger government" for us.
 
So long as the Democrats lose control of the House and Senate in November, and then they can restore equal protection under the tax laws to everyone.

Getting the Democrats away from the flight controls is the important thing. They can go back to doing what they do best, blowing up the autopilot.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So long as the Democrats lose control of the House and Senate in November, and then they can restore equal protection under the tax laws to everyone.

Getting the Democrats away from the flight controls is the important thing. They can go back to doing what they do best, blowing up the autopilot.
Click to expand...
what exactly do you consider to be 'equal protection'?
 
Objective Voice said:
Based on this argument, please answer the following question simply by replying yes or no:

"Do tax cuts pay for themselves?"



Next question: "What new body/agency of government has President Obama initiated that is active right now?"

In your opinion, what constitutes "bigger government"? I'm asking because I hear this phrase, "bigger government," all the time now but I'm having a hard time isolating exactly what Republicans/Conservatives mean when they say it. Is it identified as a new branch of government, additional government employees, broader powers of a specific government agency or the larger amount of money the government spends overall? And how big or small should government be?

Please, define "bigger government" for us.
Click to expand...

tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because tax cuts are not spending or outlays of tax moneys

bigger government=more government spending
more government employees

two plausible definitions
 
TurtleDude said:
can you prove the cause and effect?

I think you are making that up and I think your envy of the rich is pathetic
Click to expand...

Can you show were ANY president has lower taxes during war? ANY?
 
TurtleDude said:
can you prove the cause and effect?

I think you are making that up and I think your envy of the rich is pathetic
Click to expand...

Cause. lowered taxes, and increased spending means a higher deficit, as the US savings rate was negative at the time the US government had to borrow from foreign investors, of who the Chinese made the biggest gains in holdings of US government debt during that time frame
 
increased spending means a higher deficit

yep increased spending including lots of social spending

tax revenues went up after the tax cuts

why did your hero clinton raise taxes in times of peace?
 
TurtleDude said:
tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because tax cuts are not spending or outlays of tax moneys

bigger government=more government spending
more government employees

two plausible definitions
Click to expand...

Tax cuts have to either be accompanied by spending cuts or government borrowing to pay for government programs
 
TurtleDude said:
tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because tax cuts are not spending or outlays of tax moneys
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is tax cuts simply means somebody pays a lessor amount of taxes on their income. Alright, would you then agree that in reducing taxes the government has less income to pull from?

two plausible definitions

bigger government=more government spending
Click to expand...

Where is this money coming from?

more government employees
Click to expand...

How many more government employees have been hired in the 2-years President Obama has been in office compared to President GW Bush?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Tax cuts have to either be accompanied by spending cuts or government borrowing to pay for government programs
Click to expand...

you think obama is going to cut government spending?

Unless those who want the government spending start paying more taxes jacking taxes up on those who do not drive that spending is not going to result in any reduction of the deficit

dems gain votes by social spending. Why would they cut spending when it would undermine their ability to gain votes especially since their schemes involve only raising taxes on a minority to "pay" for that nonsense

in reality the dems have no desire to stop the out of control spending and obama's administration and its huge deficits have proven that
 
Objective Voice said:
So, what you're saying is tax cuts simply means somebody pays a lessor amount of taxes on their income. Alright, would you then agree that in reducing taxes the government has less income to pull from?



Where is this money coming from?



How many more government employees have been hired in the 2-years President Obama has been in office compared to President GW Bush?
Click to expand...

you assume that things are static and if you cut taxes on productive people that means less tax revenue. Using your logic you must support a 100% tax on all income over a certain level because using your view that would raise more and more revenues

I don't know how many more obama has hired compared to Bush-do you -at one time it was alot but that was the census poll takers
 
TurtleDude said:
sure any war-Civil war, war of 1812 SA war.
Click to expand...

The first personal income tax was imposed during the civil war... 3% for all incomes over $800.

So much for a top school with honors and a JD...:lamo:lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
you assume that things are static and if you cut taxes on productive people that means less tax revenue. Using your logic you must support a 100% tax on all income over a certain level because using your view that would raise more and more revenues.
Click to expand...

I think we both know full well that our tax system isn't that simple. But generally speaking, if you take in more taxes than you spend and assuming you have little to no debt, you do increase revenue. But therein lay the problem our country currently finds itself in.

I don't know how many more obama has hired compared to Bush-do you -at one time it was alot but that was the census poll takers
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but here's some information you may find interesting...

Big Government under G.W. Bush Administration

When President George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the federal government had total revenues of slightly more than $2.03 trillion and expenditures of $1.79 trillion, leaving a budget surplus of slightly less than $240 billion.

The following graph traces the growth in federal government tax receipts and expenditures and resulting surpluses or deficits over the last eight years.


Source: The 2008 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census Bureau

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

Washington has run deficits almost every year during the Bush Administration. Total federal debt has doubled and has risen from 58 percent to 66 percent of GDP, for a 14 percent increase in U.S. taxpayers’ debt burden in terms of GDP.
Click to expand...

For details, go here: Big Government Under the Bush Administration

Granted, we all know President Obama has greatly increased the deficit, but most economist would agree that given the country's economic problems, much of the spending was absolutely necessary. I believe that given more time particularly if this next round of "stimulus" spending passes Congress, the economy should start turning around.
 
hazlnut said:
The first personal income tax was imposed during the civil war... 3% for all incomes over $800.

So much for a top school with honors and a JD...:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

yeah 3%-that's lower than what we have now

the questioner should have said did any president LOWER taxes During a war but what he said was did any president have lower taxes which could easily mean compared to say Bush
 
Objective Voice said:
I think we both know full well that our tax system isn't that simple. But generally speaking, if you take in more taxes than you spend and assuming you have little to no debt, you do increase revenue. But therein lay the problem our country currently finds itself in.



Not exactly, but here's some information you may find interesting...

Big Government under G.W. Bush Administration



For details, go here: Big Government Under the Bush Administration

Granted, we all know President Obama has greatly increased the deficit, but most economist would agree that given the country's economic problems, much of the spending was absolutely necessary. I believe that given more time particularly if this next round of "stimulus" spending passes Congress, the economy should start turning around.
Click to expand...

I know you probably haven't read all my posts and you certainly do not know what I say in other forums but I have damned W for years for not cutting spending.

you aren't going to hear me praise Bush on that grounds but I find it interesting that so many people who complain about Bush's spending somehow seem so happy with Obama's far more reckless spending
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah 3%-that's lower than what we have now

the questioner should have said did any president LOWER taxes During a war but what he said was did any president have lower taxes which could easily mean compared to say Bush
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that you knew exactly what he meant, but you were trying to make a point about his phrasing of the question...??

Sure. We believe that.:roll:
 
Chappy said:
During the Face the Nation interview, Rep. Boehner did not dispute that less than 3% of all small business owners would be subject to tax increases if the Bush tax cuts for incomes exceeding $250K were allowed to expire.
Click to expand...

I would question that figure and like to see proof. I am still waiting for proof that tax increases will create jobs
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
I would question that figure and like to see proof. I am still waiting for proof that tax increases will create jobs
Click to expand...

You again!

The guy who want proof the WH is in DC.

Let me bring you up to speed on Bush Tax Cuts

Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cut

The article addresses the five myth about the Bush Tax Cuts and the proposed extension of the cuts...

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

Not really.


2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

FALSE


3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

FALSE, so far

4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Misleading, there are many causes.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

Entitlements are but one spending issue.
 
hazlnut said:
So, you're saying that you knew exactly what he meant, but you were trying to make a point about his phrasing of the question...??

Sure. We believe that.:roll:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to speculate what you believe but the fact is I saw his question as suggesting Bush had the lowest tax rates of any wartime president.

so stick that in your pipe and smoke it
 
hazlnut said:
You again!

The guy who want proof the WH is in DC.

Let me bring you up to speed on Bush Tax Cuts

Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cut

The article addresses the five myth about the Bush Tax Cuts and the proposed extension of the cuts...

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

Not really.


2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

FALSE


3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

FALSE, so far

4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Misleading, there are many causes.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

Entitlements are but one spending issue.
Click to expand...

so why don't you-a big lover of sticking it to the rich tell us five benefits that will come from say allowing everyone but the top 2% or so to retain the Bush tax cuts
 
ptif219 said:
I would question that figure and like to see proof. I am still waiting for proof that tax increases will create jobs
Click to expand...

they won't-the only jobs they will save will be of the dem politicians who pander to people like Hazlnut who think that the rich have an unlimited duty to pay for all the government he constantly craves
 
hazlnut said:
You again!

The guy who want proof the WH is in DC.

Let me bring you up to speed on Bush Tax Cuts

Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cut

The article addresses the five myth about the Bush Tax Cuts and the proposed extension of the cuts...

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

Not really.


2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

FALSE


3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

FALSE, so far

4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Misleading, there are many causes.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

Entitlements are but one spending issue.
Click to expand...

So you have nothing on how increasing taxes will create jobs. Here is a hint, If companies pay more taxes there is less for expansion and hiring new employees. Many will not hire because of the fear of the cost of the new Obama care bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom